Triskelos

Solvitur Scripto

2011-07-13T21:21:00.000-05:00

For those visitors and contributors to Triskelos, I have started a new blog on WordPress where I'll be focusing my blogging and other writing efforts. I may, from time to time, mirror-post articles here when it seems appropriate or fruitful. You can follow it at Solvitur Scripto should you wish, and I welcome visitors, readers, and followers.

The tone will likely be of a different sort than my writing history here on Triskelos, though I will from time to time still discuss (read: rant) about the same things. It seems that Triskelos may have run its course, as these things sometimes do, but my desire to articulate my thoughts in a medium outside of my head hasn't changed. Solvitur Scripto is the outcome of that decision. I supposed, at the end of the day, sometimes things are best 'solved by writing'.

A Good Ole Fashioned Godly Butt Whoopin

2011-01-11T21:03:00.002-06:00

I apologize for going MIA. Becoming a new dad and getting a new job have taken up a huge amount of my time.

I have heard enough! There are some people out there who so poorly represent who they say they are that you can't stand it. I'm not talking about your casual hypocrite, uninformed opinions, etc. What I am talking about are the ghastly actions of those who call themselves Christians and "in the name of Jesus" protest funerals of fallen soldiers and others who have met an unfortunate end.

Yes, I am talking about the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS who notoriously picket funerals. No joke, funerals!!! This pastor, Fred Phelps, an 80 year old man and his church deserve a Good Ole Fashioned Godly butt kicking. For the record, as hopefully many who know me can testify, I am an evangelical, born again Christian. Not only this, I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church but this goes well beyond simple titles.

They recently have announced the intention of picketing the victims of the recent Arizona shooting including the 9 year old girl who was tragically taken from this world.

I am appalled that these churches call themselves Christians. I am appalled that they so misrepresent and malign the precious Name of Jesus Christ. I know 99.9999% if not the full 100% of our readers would agree with me when I say this:

I would like nothing more than handing this pastor and the members of his church a nice big punch in the face, in the name of Jesus of course. ;)

*Disclaimer: I realize that Jesus does not promote such behavior, but it makes me feel better to say it.

Gravity-A Foolish Notion?

2010-07-21T14:57:00.005-05:00

For those of us interested in theoretical physics a movement of thought has re-emerged. It is a school of thought that began in the 1970's with Hawking and Bekenstein with their studies involving thermodynamics and black holes. In the mid- nineties Ted Jacobsen took this a step further by demonstrating that the equations of general relativity could be derived using thermodynamics. Today this movement is re-visted by Erik Verlinde who describes gravity as an entropic force. The implication would be a re-definition of the fundamental interactions of the universe-strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, and gravitation. That's kind of a big deal.

Here is a copy of an article from the New York Times:

It’s hard to imagine a more fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of life on the Earth than gravity, from the moment you first took a step and fell on your diapered bottom to the slow terminal sagging of flesh and dreams.

But what if it’s all an illusion, a sort of cosmic frill, or a side effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality?

So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he argued in a recent paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,” that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases.

“For me gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he can’t fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity “emerges,” the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.

Looking at gravity from this angle, they say, could shed light on some of the vexing cosmic issues of the day, like the dark energy, a kind of anti-gravity that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, or the dark matter that is supposedly needed to hold galaxies together.

Dr. Verlinde’s argument turns on something you could call the “bad hair day” theory of gravity.

It goes something like this: your hair frizzles in the heat and humidity, because there are more ways for your hair to be curled than to be straight, and nature likes options. So it takes a force to pull hair straight and eliminate nature’s options. Forget curved space or the spooky attraction at a distance described by Isaac Newton’s equations well enough to let us navigate the rings of Saturn, the force we call gravity is simply a byproduct of nature’s propensity to maximize disorder.

Some of the best physicists in the world say they don’t understand Dr. Verlinde’s paper, and many are outright skeptical. But some of those very same physicists say he has provided a fresh perspective on some of the deepest questions in science, namely why space, time and gravity exist at all — even if he has not yet answered them.

“Some people have said it can’t be right, others that it’s right and we already knew it — that it’s right and profound, right and trivial,” Andrew Strominger, a string theorist at Harvard said.

“What you have to say,” he went on, “is that it has inspired a lot of interesting discussions. It’s just a very interesting collection of ideas that touch on things we most profoundly do not understand about our universe. That’s why I liked it.”

Dr. Verlinde is not an obvious candidate to go off the deep end. He and his brother Herman, a Princeton professor, are celebrated twins known more for their mastery of the mathematics of hard-core string theory than for philosophic flights.

Born in Woudenberg, in the Netherlands, in 1962, the brothers got early inspiration from a pair of 1970s television shows about particle physics and black holes. “I was completely captured,” Dr. Verlinde recalled. He and his brother obtained Ph.D’s from the University of Utrecht together in 1988 and then went to Princeton, Erik to the Institute for Advanced Study and Herman to the university. After bouncing back and forth across the ocean, they got tenure at Princeton. And, they married and divorced sisters. Erik left Princeton for Amsterdam to be near his children.

He made his first big splash as a graduate student when he invented Verlinde Algebra and the Verlinde formula, which are important in string theory, the so-called theory of everything, which posits that the world is made of tiny wriggling strings.

You might wonder why a string theorist is interested in Newton’s equations. After all Newton was overturned a century ago by Einstein, who explained gravity as warps in the geometry of space-time, and who some theorists think could be overturned in turn by string theorists.

Over the last 30 years gravity has been “undressed,” in Dr. Verlinde’s words, as a fundamental force.

This disrobing began in the 1970s with the discovery by Jacob Bekenstein of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, among others, of a mysterious connection between black holes and thermodynamics, culminating in Dr. Hawking’s discovery in 1974 that when quantum effects are taken into account black holes would glow and eventually explode.

In a provocative calculation in 1995, Ted Jacobson, a theorist from the University of Maryland, showed that given a few of these holographic ideas, Einstein’s equations of general relativity are just a another way of stating the laws of thermodynamics.

Those exploding black holes (at least in theory — none has ever been observed) lit up a new strangeness of nature. Black holes, in effect, are holograms — like the 3-D images you see on bank cards. All the information about what has been lost inside them is encoded on their surfaces. Physicists have been wondering ever since how this “holographic principle” — that we are all maybe just shadows on a distant wall — applies to the universe and where it came from.

In one striking example of a holographic universe, Juan Maldacena of the Institute for Advanced Study constructed a mathematical model of a “soup can” universe, where what happened inside the can, including gravity, is encoded in the label on the outside of the can, where there was no gravity, as well as one less spatial dimension. If dimensions don’t matter and gravity doesn’t matter, how real can they be?

Lee Smolin, a quantum gravity theorist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, called Dr. Jacobson’s paper “one of the most important papers of the last 20 years.”

But it received little attention at first, said Thanu Padmanabhan of the Inter-University Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics in Pune, India, who has taken up the subject of “emergent gravity” in several papers over the last few years. Dr. Padmanabhan said that the connection to thermodynamics went deeper that just Einstein’s equations to other theories of gravity. “Gravity,” he said recently in a talk at the Perimeter Institute, “is the thermodynamic limit of the statistical mechanics of “atoms of space-time.”

Dr. Verlinde said he had read Dr. Jacobson’s paper many times over the years but that nobody seemed to have gotten the message. People were still talking about gravity as a fundamental force. “Clearly we have to take these analogies seriously, but somehow no one does,” he complained.

His paper, posted to the physics archive in January, resembles Dr. Jacobson’s in many ways, but Dr. Verlinde bristles when people say he has added nothing new to Dr. Jacobson’s analysis. What is new, he said, is the idea that differences in entropy can be the driving mechanism behind gravity, that gravity is, as he puts it an “entropic force.”

That inspiration came to him courtesy of a thief.

As he was about to go home from a vacation in the south of France last summer, a thief broke into his room and stole his laptop, his keys, his passport, everything. “I had to stay a week longer,” he said, “I got this idea.”

Up the beach, his brother got a series of e-mail messages first saying that he had to stay longer, then that he had a new idea and finally, on the third day, that he knew how to derive Newton’s laws from first principles, at which point Herman recalled thinking, “What’s going on here? What has he been drinking?”

When they talked the next day it all made more sense, at least to Herman. “It’s interesting,” Herman said, “how having to change plans can lead to different thoughts.”

Think of the universe as a box of scrabble letters. There is only one way to have the letters arranged to spell out the Gettysburg Address, but an astronomical number of ways to have them spell nonsense. Shake the box and it will tend toward nonsense, disorder will increase and information will be lost as the letters shuffle toward their most probable configurations. Could this be gravity?

As a metaphor for how this would work, Dr. Verlinde used the example of a polymer — a strand of DNA, say, a noodle or a hair — curling up.

“It took me two months to understand polymers,” he said.

The resulting paper, as Dr. Verlinde himself admits, is a little vague.

“This is not the basis of a theory,” Dr. Verlinde explained. “I don’t pretend this to be a theory. People should read the words I am saying opposed to the details of equations.”

Dr. Padmanabhan said that he could see little difference between Dr. Verlinde’s and Dr. Jacobson’s papers and that the new element of an entropic force lacked mathematical rigor. “I doubt whether these ideas will stand the test of time,” he wrote in an e-mail message from India. Dr. Jacobson said he couldn’t make sense of it.

John Schwarz of the California Institute of Technology, one of the fathers of string theory, said the paper was “very provocative.” Dr. Smolin called it, “very interesting and also very incomplete.”

At a workshop in Texas in the spring, Raphael Bousso of the University of California, Berkeley, was asked to lead a discussion on the paper.

“The end result was that everyone else didn’t understand it either, including people who initially thought that did make some sense to them,” he said in an e-mail message.

“In any case, Erik’s paper has drawn attention to what is genuinely a deep and important question, and that’s a good thing,” Dr. Bousso went on, “I just don’t think we know any better how this actually works after Erik’s paper. There are a lot of follow-up papers, but unlike Erik, they don’t even understand the problem.”

The Verlinde brothers are now trying to recast these ideas in more technical terms of string theory, and Erik has been on the road a bit, traveling in May to the Perimeter Institute and Stony Brook University on Long Island, stumping for the end of gravity. Michael Douglas, a professor at Stony Brook, described Dr. Verlinde’s work as “a set of ideas that resonates with the community, adding, “everyone is waiting to see if this can be made more precise.”

Until then the jury of Dr. Verlinde’s peers will still be out.

Over lunch in New York, Dr. Verlinde ruminated over his experiences of the last six months. He said he had simply surrendered to his intuition. “When this idea came to me, I was really excited and euphoric even,” Dr. Verlinde said. “It’s not often you get a chance to say something new about Newton’s laws. I don’t see immediately that I am wrong. That’s enough to go ahead.”

He said friends had encouraged him to stick his neck out and that he had no regrets. “If I am proven wrong, something has been learned anyway. Ignoring it would have been the worst thing.”

The next day Dr. Verlinde gave a more technical talk to a bunch of physicists in the city. He recalled that someone had told him the other day that the unfolding story of gravity was like the emperor’s new clothes.

“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”

Thoughts?

501(c)(3)

2010-07-15T23:37:00.005-05:00

The purpose of this post is to provide supplemental information to Aiden's most recent article. Any comments should be made to his post in order to keep this discussion organized.

According to Wikipedia:

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

The following is found on the IRS website under a heading, Exemption Requirements 501(c)(3) Organizations:

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Based on this statement one obviously must further read into Political and Lobbying Activities to clarify what is meant “restricted”:

Political activities and legislative activities (commonly referred to as lobbying) are two different things and are subject to two different sets of rules. The rules depend on several issues:
• The type of tax-exempt organization (different rules apply to private foundations than to other section 501(c)(3) organizations),
• The type of activity (political or lobbying) at issue,
• The scope or amount of the activity conducted, and
• The consequences of exceeding the given set of limitations.

Now let’s look under Political Activities:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

However, certain activities are not prohibited. Persuading citizens to participate in the voting process is allowed, but this must be done in a non-partisan manner. Any activity that favors or opposes any particular violates the prohibitions of this tax code.

Lobbying is defined differently:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation is also defined, but I will let that go. It is pretty straightforward. However, the following is not so clear. Enter the grey area:

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Furthermore, there are two tests that measure lobbying activity:

The first regime, which applies to IRC 501(c)(3) public charities, permits these
organizations to lobby so long as they do not devote a substantial part” of their activities to attempting to influence legislation. This system has two subsets, which employ different tests of substantiality. The older, enacted in 1934, applies facts and circumstances criteria to determine substantial part.” The newer was introduced in 1976, by the enactment of IRC 501(h) and IRC 4911. IRC 501(h) provides that certain public charities may make an election and have their lobbying activities governed by expenditure tests in lieu of being subject to the IRC 501(c)(3) substantial part” test. If the expenditure limits are exceeded, a tax under IRC 4911 will be imposed or, if the limits are exceeded by 150 percent over a defined period, exempt status will be lost.

One test is more qualitative while the other is more quantitative. According to the substantial part test:

Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive lobbying in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations that lose their tax-exempt status due to excessive lobbying, other than churches and private foundations, are subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of their lobbying expenditures for the year in which they cease to qualify for exemption.

Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures would likely result in the loss of tax-exempt status.

Private foundations are subject to a different set of taxes on their lobbying expenditures; churches are not subject to excise taxes on excessive lobbying.
Did you notice the last sentence? If not, back up and read it. Plainly written, churches are not subject to excise taxes. However, it does not say that churches are permitted to violate prohibitions against this code. It only implies that if they do they may not be required to pay back taxes.

The second test is an expenditure test. According to this test:

Organizations other than churches and private foundations may elect the expenditure test under section 501(h) as an alternative method for measuring lobbying activity. Under the expenditure test, the extent of an organization’s lobbying activity will not jeopardize its tax-exempt status, provided its expenditures, related to such activity, do not normally exceed an amount specified in section 4911. This limit is generally based upon the size of the organization and may not exceed $1,000,000…

In an attempt at disambiguation the IRS published a 32 page document, “A Tax Guide For Churches and Religious Organizations. In the section entitled, “Jeopardizing Tax Exempt Status” answers are provided (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf ). The following rules are outlined:

■ their net earnings may not inure to any private
shareholder or individual,

■ they must not provide a substantial benefit to private
interests,

■ they must not devote a substantial part of their
activities to attempting to influence legislation,

■ they must not participate in, or intervene in, any
political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for public office, and

■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

What if a church is engaged in “substantial lobbying activity”? Just as previously stated a church may lose its tax exempt status. Consider this:

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Remember previously when I stated that churches were exempt from excise taxes but can lose their status:

Under the , a church or religious organization that conducts excessive lobbying activity in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, a religious organization is subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of its lobbying expenditures for the year in which it ceases to qualify for exemption. Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures would likely result in loss of tax-exempt status.

It should also be mentioned that a distinction is made between churches and religious organizations. Churches are not allowed to use the expenditure test but religious organizations are. A table that explains their allowances is found at the IRS website, http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html. Consider :

Under the , a religious organization that engages in excessive lobbying activity over a four-year period may lose its tax-exempt status, making all of its income for that period subject to tax. Should the organization exceed its lobbying expenditure dollar limit in a particular year, it must pay an excise tax equal to 25 percent of the excess.

There is also a section outlining appropriate political campaigning. Several examples of inappropriate behavior are given. Here is one of those examples:

Example 4: Minister D is the minister of Church M, a section 501(c)(3) organization. During regular services of Church M shortly before the election, Minister D preached on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concluded by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Because Minister D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official church service, they constitute political campaign intervention by Church M.

If a violation is discovered:

When it participates in political campaign activity, a church or religious organization jeopardizes both its tax-exempt status under IRC section 501(c)(3) and its eligibility to receive tax-deductible contributions. In addition, it may become subject to an excise tax on its political expenditures. This excise tax may be imposed in addition to revocation, or it may be imposed instead of revocation. Also, the church or religious organization should correct the violation.

You are probably wondering about the contradiction with regard to excise taxes. The assumption I make is that it applies to a violation of political campaigning but not to a violation of lobbying.

A Greater Wall

2010-07-11T13:21:00.002-05:00

In my considered opinion, there is one monument in human history--one singular edifice--that outstrips all others. It is greater than the pyramids, or the now crumbled six other wonders of the ancient world. It is a wall greater than that of China, or that lesser cousin that attempts to run the length of America's southern border.

However, despite its strength, there are those who continue to assault it. There are those who wish to tear it apart, brick by brick, until it lies in a ruin much more final than that of Berlin.

That wall is the Separation of Church and State. And when considered carefully, it can be seen for what it is: the only serious protection you have against me, and that I have against you. "Why?" you ask. Because without it, any slim majority can tell you who you are, when no one has the right to dictate that to any of us.

But this wall is not made of hands, much like that described in Mark 14, but instead is composed of words and ideas. Fortunately, you cannot kill an idea, but there are still many who wish to erase the words. The words framed in First Amendment, and the 11th Article of the Treaty of Tripoli, and the incorporating properties of the Fourteenth Amendment--they being the bricks and mortar that forbid the government of the United States of America from establishing any religion, or from showing favor to any therein.

If you follow the news, you'll know immediately that there is an assault on this wall nearly every day. What is shameful is that it almost always comes from people who refer to themselves as Christians. It is ironic, as they have either never read their own history or elect to ignore it. Had they checked, they would have seen the Pandora's Box waiting for them.

I could go on about this forever. Of most issues I get irritated about, the cominglement of church and state is probably at or near the top. It wishes to deny us basic human rights and clothe it in the name of righteousness. However, I realize there are always those on the conservative side of this argument who think that Jesus somehow wants them to legislate morality and vote their way into establishing a Christian state on earth. Aside from the fact that no two Christians could probably give an identical description of what a Christian state would be, it is ultimately redundant to try as humanity has already lived through this and has spent the better part of 1500 years trying to undo the damage.

All that aside, I realize that for many my reasons for avoiding a Christian state are not serious consideration. As far as they may be concerned, we've always been a Christian state...it is merely those "activist judges" and socialists who have robbed it from them. Many feel that George Washington and Jesus wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights together after a rousing Southern Baptist Church service. Thomas Jefferson didn't really rewrite the Bible to exclude the miracles and he wasn't really opposed to a Christian state. They all know that the founders were really all Christians...not an amalgam of Christians, Deists, and Atheists. And if the Texas School Board has their way we'll have a generation of Texans who believe just that.

And why do they think these things? Because they've been, to be blunt, lied to.

They'll believe that Thomas Paine must have been a good Christian since Glenn Beck wrote a book in his honor, which our dear Harlequin has actually had the stomach to read. They'll never actually read Paine's Common Sense, and they'll never actually read his Age of Reason, in which he systematically tries to disprove Christianity (both which I have read, not surprisingly).

They won't believe that Paine said: "The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up." Or: "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion." And most notably not: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

And it doesn't stop with more historical figures...apparently anyone the conservative party needs to invoke to pay the intellectual capital for their ideology must also be a Christian. You know, such as the most favorite cited pro-capitalist of all American writers...Ayn Rand.

Thus it is this same lack of self-examination or historical introspection that leads those same individuals today to listen and nod when talking heads at Fox News discuss Ayn Rand in glowing terms (either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged). They mention that sales during periods of liberalism skyrocket (I can personally vouch for this). They hold their highlighted copies with broken bindings aloft and tell us about why taxation is wrong (yes, I've watched Glenn Beck and yes he does this), but they never tell us how badly Ayn Rand hated Christianity, or why there's nothing Christian whatsoever about Objectivism--her own personal ideology of social-Darwinism that she wove into the fabric of her tomes.

They don't quote Rand when she says: "And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word, ‘I’”. Or: "I have come here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life, it had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self sacrifice."

But I digress...except that I continue to be amazed at how frequently those on the right paint America as a Christian nation, and yet are disproved by every single source they cite, from the founding documents, to the founder's personal notes and letters about their beliefs, to the greatest sources of their own intellectual reasons for the creation of our nation (Paine) to the defense of their preferred method of economics (Rand). Even Jesus, when not muffled by his own followers, reminds us to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." (Mark 12:17)

At long last I have finally encountered a serious, conservative, evangelical Christian's reasons for maintaining the Wall of Separation. I word it this way because I am rarely considered a serious Christian, nor am I conservative (religiously), and in my old age I'm decidedly not evangelical. So it is nice to read a thoughtful article written by no less than a pastor (Jimi Jobin) who graduated from Liberty University (of all places), one of the most fundamentalist and anti-separationist organizations in the United States.

I quote it here in full for both your information and entertainment. You should know that his article is a response to the actions of Rev. H. Wayne Williams who has defied the IRS Law denying churches the ability to publicly support political candidates. Williams has chosen to endorse Gordon Howie for Governor of South Dakota from the pulpit. Howie has asked for pastoral support and in return has promised to assist those pastors in taking their inevitable IRS trials to the Supreme Court in an effort to end separation of church and state in America. To make it clearer, he was approached by the Alliance Defense Fund (an organization I categorically despise almost as much as the the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family) to make such a move in order to create a situation whereby they could take the case to the Supreme Court with the hopes of overturning the Constitutionality of the Separation of Church and State.

Pastor Jimi Jobin's article:

Pastor, I recognize your frustration, and I see how things have come to this. For years America has only shrugged at religion, and recently Christianity has been caught in a violent tug of war between Republicans and Democrats. We feel, as leaders, entitled to make political endorsements. Why shouldn’t we—particularly in a democracy where endorsements translate directly to power—take up our biblically-informed opinion, get behind a pulpit, and urge our people to support a candidate? Why shouldn’t we support the rulers we stand to benefit the most from, and give them a divine leg up?

For the historically minded among us, the reasons for not bringing our spiritual authority into political campaigns are blood red. For nearly 2,000 years our faith forefathers were persecuted and oppressed; not always by the irreligious, but more often by competing tribes within Christianity. Clerics would jockey for favor in the kingdoms of men, then use any clout gained to suppress the views of their theological enemies.

Over and again we stamped out those who did not fit into our au courant idea of orthodoxy and we entrenched ourselves into division, using the steel of our ruler’s swords to proclaim our theological certainty. Christians have killed and tortured more of their own than any other group in history, and this was possible solely because of the unholy union of church and state. Pastors gave rulers their blessing, and rulers returned the favor by silencing the pastor’s critics, a fantastic deal for the pastor who courts the powers, but a dangerous and painful reality for those who do not.

There isn’t a Christian denomination in existence that has not been slaughtered by its theological opponents. The Pope used his political power in Spain to launch the Inquisition. Bloody Mary earned her moniker by burning 300 dissenters of Roman Catholicism at the stake. The Calvinists and Lutherans used their influence over the German princes to commit near genocide of Catholics all over Europe during the 30 Years War. Catholics in the third Crusade almost exterminated the Orthodox church in Constantinople. Anabaptists have been drowned, burned, and exiled under each of the other major sects.

For almost 1500 years, Christians wielded political power to slay one another; until the founding of America. America was the first country without a designated faith, here was the only place in the world where Catholics and Protestants, Radical Reformationists and Orthodox (not to mention Jews, Muslims, non-believers and others) could live as neighbors. An accomplishment not won by better theology nor a love of peace, but because each lacked the ability to oppress one another by controlling the government.

We have created a land where church and state are separated to protect them from one another, not to diminish the role of either. The integrity of the church is jeopardized when politicians can appeal to spiritual leaders and gain their endorsement because the opportunities for abuse and ambition are too rampant. The same quid pro quo corruption that taints those tempted by lobbyists will await pastors when their support can yield inexhaustible American power. This is why America has passed laws to preserve the dignity and purity of the pastoral office, exchanging tax exemption (a unique phenomenon in the world) with the trust that the nation’s charitable goodwill can't be used as a political force.

Christianity has flourished in America, due in large to the inability of any one religious sect to silence the others by electing one of their own. Consider how different things would be if all along pastors had the ability to endorse candidates, if the elected then changed the social landscape to keep the favor of the pastors—like Mr. Howie is promising to do today. What if JFK had been endorsed by the Pope, what might he have done to protestants? What if Billy Graham had used his crusades to call for the reelection of his close friend, Richard Nixon?

Pastors needn’t remain neutral when it comes to social change. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. championed civil rights, Rev. Charles Finney fought to abolish slavery, and many more contributed to all the progressive reforms of the 19th century, from Women’s Suffrage to Child Labor Laws. But we stir change by stinging the national conscience, by being a prophetic witness for biblical values and obedience to Christ from the pulpit, not by taking the dangerous short cut of merely electing somebody to make a sweeping change in our favor.

Pastors are here to bring the optimism of a better world, a Kingdom of God where it can be on Earth as it is in Heaven. We aren’t here to arbitrate the national discussion, or to be some sort of referee who awards polling points to one side while punishing the other using our immense spiritual clout. Are we willing to compromise our ability to provide hope for the chance to pronounce judgment? Will we use the cross as Caesar did, to dominate political foes, or as Jesus did, to liberate the unseen?

It desecrates our pulpit to yield it to politics. We are called to something higher than to meddle in the affairs of ambitious men. We are not so Holy that we can merely baptize a candidate, and never drink the poison of his words. We do not stump for senators, we do not campaign for congressman, we do not preach for presidents, because the name of Christ is too precious to risk on a common election, no matter how important the issues at stake may seem. We cannot allow Jesus to become a political puppet, a sock on the arm of the statesman. Our role is to translate the values of scripture into the hearts and minds of every American, not to rule those Americans or force our values on them by manipulating the vote. The humble witness of Jesus is weakened when it is communicated through the edicts of rulers rather than the powerful persuasion of changed lives, hearts, and minds. The Kingdom of God cannot be voted into existence.

Pastor H. Wayne Williams, I beg you to take your opinion to the poll and not the pulpit. Encourage your church to lobby their convictions, but don’t let a lobbyist lead your church. Your vote belongs to a candidate, but your pulpit belongs to Christ, so “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give unto God what is God’s.”

I have one word Pastor Jobin. Amen.

Social Determinants of Health and Unequal Access to Care

2010-04-06T16:56:00.014-05:00

I realize there is already a recent article surrounding the recently passed health care legislation, but I want to post this article for multiple reasons. Like all the articles here at Triskelos, this one is interactive in that every member can participate in the discussion. But this article is different in that it is a quiz that tests your knowledge and understanding of multiple concepts the legislation attempts to address. Another reason for the post is that I'm currently rotating with the Dean for External and Governmental Affairs at the University of Florida. Her office is tasked with developing outreach projects in concert with local community leaders and activists, obtaining grant money from both private sector donors as well as state and federal grants. And finally, I thought it would be enlightening and entertaining.

Some questions are drawn from texts on social determinants of health, but the vast majority of the questions come from a PBS series called Unnatural Causes and deal with issues such as race relations, poverty, infant and childhood mortality, and the United States Health Care System. Some questions are fairly straight forward and are there for you to cringe at what you already know to be true. Some questions are to make us realize that in spite of our status as "Leader of the Free World" there is much we can learn other countries and systems in the world.

I will post the questions in the article. Please place your answers in the comment section. After 7-10 days I will post the answers. Feel free to contact me sooner if your curiosity is killing you.

1. How does U.S. life expectancy rank compared to other industrialized countries?
A. #1
B. in the top 10
C. 29th place

2. How much does the U.S. spend per person on health care compared to other industrialized countries?

A. Three quarters (75%) of the average
B. The same
C. Four times as much

3. How do U.S. smoking rates compare to those of other wealthy countries?

A. #1 (highest smoking rates)
B. top 5
C. top 10
D. 11-20th place
E. below 25 (lowest smoking rates)

4. Children living in poverty are more likely to have poor health, compared with children living in high-income households. Given this fact, children in New York City’s poorest neighborhoods are how many times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma compared to their counterparts in high income households?

A. 2.5 times
B. 5 times
C. 10 times
D. 20 times

5. African American men in Harlem have a shorter life expectancy from age five than their male counterparts in which of the following countries?
A. Angola
B. Bangladesh
C. The Democratic Republic of Congo
D. None of the above

6. How much does chronic illness cost the U.S. each year in lost work productivity?

A. $105 million
B. $2.2 billion
C. $1.1 trillion

7. On average, how many more supermarkets are there in predominantly white neighborhoods compared to predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods?

A. half the amount
B. same
C. 4 times as many

8. Generally speaking, which group has the best overall health in the U.S.?

A. Recent Latino immigrants
B. Non-Hispanic whites
C. Native-born Latinos
D. Native-born Asian Americans

9. On average, which of the following is the best predictor of one’s health?

A. whether or not you smoke
B. what you eat
C. whether or not you are wealthy
D. whether or not you have health insurance
E. how often you exercise

10. During the 20th century, U.S. life expectancy increased 30 years. Which of the following was the most important factor behind the increase?

A. Social reforms (like wage and labor laws, housing codes, etc.) and increased prosperity
B. New drugs (like penicillin)
C. The development of the modern hospital system
D. Migration from rural areas to cities
E. More exercise and smoking cessation

11. The top 1% of American families owns more wealth than the bottom:

A. 30% combined
B. 60% combined
C. 90% combined

12. Ireland, Sweden, France, Spain, Portugal and the other western European nations all mandate by law paid holidays and vacations of four to six weeks. How many weeks of paid vacation are mandated by law in the United States?

A. None
B. 1 week
C. 2 weeks
D. 3 weeks

13. True or False: The gap between white and African American infant mortality rates is greater today than it was in 1950.

14. True or False: As of 2004, 7.8 million Americans were classified as “the working poor” in that the wages they earned were insufficient to move them above the poverty line.

15. 82% of known perpetrators of child abuse are parents of the victim. Which of the following best describes the situation in which such abuse occurs?

A. mother acting alone
B. father acting alone
C. mother and father acting together
D. one parent acting with a non family member

16. True or False: Food stamp participation has markedly increased since the establishment as a full fledged assistance program under President Johnson in 1975.

17. The predominantly white neighborhoods in west Los Angeles contain approximately 31.8 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. How many acres of park space exist per 1,000 residents in the predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods of south central Los Angeles?

A. 28.7 acres
B. 17.2 acres
C. 14.6 acres
D. 5.8 acres
E. 1.7 acres

18. The child poverty rate in Norway is 3.4%, France 7.5%, Hungary 8.8% and Greece 12.4%. What is it in the U.S?

A. 4.1%
B. 8.6%
C. 12.8%
D. 21.9%
E. 32.4%

“Tax the Man Behind the Tree:” The Folly of the U.S. National Debt and Income Tax Policies

2010-03-26T16:11:00.024-05:00

I was recently inspired to write this article by two efforts. The first was enduring that yearly chore of ‘doing’ my taxes. The other was picking up J.S. Gordon’s Hamilton’s Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Our National Debt. His writing for American Heritage and being a commentator for NPR’s “Marketplace” program recommended him as someone who might know a little more than I do—which was virtually nil—of the history and rationale behind those forms or internet questionnaires that all of us—well, at least the law-abiding ones—complete each February to April.

What I discovered was a reasoned and relatively centrist discussion of the history of the national debt, evolution of the corporate and personal income tax structure, and the debilitating effects of how both have been mismanaged in recent generations. Whether or not you paid out or are still waiting for that deposit into your account from Uncle Sam, this directly concerns each one of us in our vocational, economic, and personal decisions. As things currently stand, this influence seems to be increasingly negative.

The following are Gordon’s central points; my comments follow. Feel free to respond to all or specific points.

1. A national debt does not have to be a curse but can actually be a blessing.

The United States periodically ran up large amounts of debt during its first two hundred years of existence. However, there were several trends that ameliorated this. As the government was primarily composed of the wealthier part of society, it was basically spending its own money. It didn’t hurt that the majority of the tax burden was borne by industries and agriculture through tariffs, taxes that arguably hit the rich harder than his poorer counterparts. This made Congress a bit more careful than recent eager generations to spend someone else’s money. Second, Congress only ran up large debt during wars and a few financial panics of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Third, it always either tried to pay it off completely or pay it down over time. (In an apparently extraordinary aside, the U.S. actually paid off its debt completely in 1834 under Andrew Jackson, the first and only nation-state in modern times to do so.) Finally, the ever-increasing economic growth of the U.S. made the national debt an ever-decreasing percentage of GNP regardless of the payment schedule. For instance, in the decades leading up to WWI, the percentage of the debt to GNP went from 8.5% in 1890 to 2.54% in 1916 even though it was allowed to remain at approximately one billion dollars.

2. There wouldn’t have been a United States without a U.S. national debt.

Gordon argues that the fledgling U.S. would not have survived much past the War of Independence, especially against the specter of the Napoleonic Wars and impending War of 1812, if it had not been able to achieve an effective credit rating necessary for financing military outlays. This was accomplished essentially through indebting the nation to domestic and European creditors. He notes with prosaic relish how Hamilton navigated the shoals between his Federalist supporters and Jeffersonian detractors to establish the Bank of the United States (BUS). Its initial bonds/debt subscription was received so well that the U.S. was judged an excellent investment risk and received a higher rating than any contemporary European state. Gordon goes on to chronicle the apparent catastrophe that occurred with the disestablishment of the BUS under the Jeffersonian-minded Madison in 1811 just in the knick of time for the War of 1812. Apparently, the U.S. had to rely on the good nerves of certain bankers in Philadelphia and New York to personally finance the government’s debt in militarization. Apparently the Jeffersonian Democrats gave in for a time and allowed a second BUS to be established, only to be taken down again by Jackson in the early 1830’s. Interestingly, a combination of his administration’s financial policies and the lack of a central regulating force caused the Panic of 1837 (the first nation’s first major economic downturn) in both East and West and the end of the temporary pay-off of the debt.

2. The national debt has only become a problem in the last half century with the combination of two factors—the evaporation of the moral imperative to pay it down and the ever increasing mutual desire of politicians and constituencies to avail themselves of public coffers.

The first factor is due to the trumping of Adam Smith by John Maynard Keynes. Like each of the personages that characterize each of the nation’s financial eras, Keynes’ story is told by Gordon with an eye for how it affected the national debt. Since Keynes, each succeeding generation of economists and politicians have excused themselves from the historic impetus to ‘pay as you go’ and rationalized ever-larger expenditures with the call for the federal government to micro-regulate the economic and banking system. While I have read little of Keynes, it seems that his ideas neatly fit the pressures of a post-WWII world needing huge financial outlays for rebuilding. The problem, as we later see, is that any constituency, nursed on public coffers, does not easily give up those moneys, a fact that politicians quickly capitalized upon. The idea of scientifically-intervening through infusions and withdrawals of capital in banks and the market was understandably attractive but proved to be relatively ineffective and impossible. Our current preoccupation with what “Bernanke will say next” and the instability that it drives is directly related to the Federal Reserve’s inability to effectively forecast and manage an ever-increasingly complicated system.

Furthermore, Keynes ultimately excused the build-up of national debt as acceptable in the sense of lots of people owing each other money. The national debt is obviously owned by domestic and international creditors (including other governments) who, in turn, owe money to others, and so on and so forth. Too big to fall, right? Well, this system has worked to an extent in the past and there are apparently fairly strong disincentives (I’ll let the experts give the details if you want them) for major problems stemming from having a large national debt. However, there does seem to be an informal acceptable limit ceiling to creditors of a country’s debt obligations historically. We see this today in the current Greek fiasco (admittedly strained due to years of juggling books and overspending). We also see it with countries that have been spending far more than their GDP’s for years and whose accumulated debt is much higher than their annual GDP (the U.K. stands at approximately 200%; tiny Luxembourg at over 5,500%).

A much-touted benchmark has been when a country annually spends more than it brings in revenue, the budget deficit. The U.S.’s annual budget deficit in 2009 stood at 9.9% (spent that much more than its revenues). For a comparison, Greece and the U.K.’s are both approximately 12%. For more comparisons, the 2008-09 fiscal year’s budget deficit was 1.42 trillion, more than triple the record set in fiscal year 2007-2008. Good times ahead.

We have seen the national debt increase nearly exponentially over the last decade as a combination of economic downturns, wars, and ever-increasing payouts to constituencies have drained national coffers. The first two of these factors, while arguably avoidable, have many historic precedents in this country. The last factor (and overwhelmingly the largest consumer of public moneys) is a modern creature. As of my writing this sentence, our national debt stood at over 12 trillion dollars (12,691,271, 829, 488.6). That equals an additional 40 billion per day since September 28, 2007. At that moment, each citizen’s share stood at $41,138.70 with that number increasing approximately a penny a minute per person, more than $3,000,000 total every minute, and the speed obviously only increasing with each passing second. That is one of the scariest statistics I’ve ever read. (Forget global warming--these are real numbers and while Florida might not flood because of them, they have as much or more potential to harm life there and everywhere else in this country.)

What kind of harm? Well, besides the possible immoral example that it sets for all of U.S. citizens and the world as a whole (Why pay our debt if the feds can get away with it?), several possibilities lurk in the near future. Some experts argue that creditors may refuse to buy U.S. national debt (as is imminent in Greece), causing the government to default (as Argentina has done multiple times in the last century and the Russian Federation did a decade ago). Of course, a developed nation-state declaring bankruptcy has fairly strong consequences, perhaps the most basic being the raising of interest rates of loans from creditors domestic and international. This can lead to inflation, higher prices, less production, and lots of other fun effects. That combined with our current economic woes could be a real economic ride.

3. The income tax as we know it is essentially an outdated tool of social engineering at its best and class warfare at its worst that produces opposite effects of its purported good intentions.

Our income tax system, beginning in the Civil War an emergency measure and enshrined in 1913 in the Constitution, is an interesting look at the evolution of social expectations and goals. Gordon effectively charts how progressives in the late 19th century picked up the nearly-moribund (having apparently outlived its usefulness as an income stream) income tax as a means of social engineering—forcing the bad old rich man to give up some of his to everybody else. I’m being simplistic here, but Gordon shows how the proposed policies, once implemented, had the opposite affect. As a revenue stream, it had to be progressively broadened and expanded to include an increasing number of taxpayers. However, as the ultimate goal was social engineering, not government income, the income tax continued to be pushed as a viable alternative to tariffs and other traditional ways for the government to make money.

This was seen most clearly in the see-saw between income tax policies of the last century. When the income tax was instituted permanently into national debt through the 16th Constitutional Amendment in 1913, the tax burden was shifted ever increasingly to the highest income brackets of earners. As the U.S. prepared for and subsequently entered WWI, the Feds logically turned to the income tax to generate revenue quickly. The exemption was dropped (from $3,000 to $1,000 personal yearly salary), rates were increased (up to 77% for top earners by 1918), bringing ever more payers. And rightfully so—there were apparently few complaints about that in war-time.

Although rates and exemptions would be relaxed in the post-war era, the federal government’s revenue stream had permanently shifted. From then on, it would rely primarily on income tax revenues instead of through tariffs, thus shifting the tax base’s dramatically as it heavily affected the higher income brackets much more. Shouldn’t be a problem, right? They can afford to pay more… That was the ‘common’ wisdom then and now, but an interesting thing began to happen. In 1920—following nearly a decade of interventionist-minded Democrat control of the Federal government—the 5.5 million returns actually filed represented only 13% of the total labor force. Of that 5.5 million, only 1% of that group earned over $20,000, and that highest 1% bracket bore an astounding 70% of the income taxes. Going from being virtually untaxed in 1909 to bearing the major revenue burden of the entire country precipitated action, forcing or at least encouraging the wealthiest and wealthier to shift their assets to corporations (more on that later) and to simply try to earn less.

Elections of Republican majorities in the 1920s broadened the tax burden by lowering tax rates three times until the top rate was only 25% (instead of the previous 77%). This led to a very curious result. Although in 1921 those earning less than $10,000 had paid $155 million in taxes (21% of personal income tax revenues), in 1926—after Republican initiatives—they paid only $33 million (5% of personal tax income revenues). Simultaneously, the highest bracket earning more than $100,000, saw their portion of income taxes rise from 29% to 51%, paying $194 million in 1921 and $362 million in 1926.

Simply put, a leveling out of the income tax system created more revenue for the government, not less, and dramatically reduced both the total revenue burden and percentage of the middle class (the lower classes didn’t pay anything anyway). To the liberals of the day, this didn’t make much difference, as the goal was not primarily revenue generation but social-engineering. [“Stick it to the man; he can pay it.” The problem was (and is) that sticking it to the man actually means less money for you, him, and all of us.]

4. The conscious creation of two income tax systems—the corporate and personal income—allows wealthy individuals to decisively limit or eliminate their tax burdens altogether.

When income taxes were passed, corporate income taxes were allowed to remain, creating, Gordon argues, a two-tiered income tax system. The beauty or travesty of this was that it allowed wealthier income earners to virtually eliminate their personal income tax burden altogether. While this constituency had already gained in the 1920’s by having its overall tax burdens dropped, apparently politicians remained willing to go extra miles to build in a labyrinth of deductions, exemptions, and loopholes that allowed higher earners to shelter most of their income. Over time, of course, this has been broadened to include lower strata of earners (e.g. the 1040 deductions). However, this philosophy of artificially promoting certain economic actions (like writing-off an expense for purchasing a business-related vehicle even if you really didn’t need it or one of those lovely $8,000 home purchase tax credits) over other ones (like simply saving money) which produces some fairly big discrepancies when compounded across the nation. (Did all of those people really need to purchase houses? What about those people who bought their home a few months before the program began but who could really have benefitted from this—like me?)

When exemptions and subsidies are written into law to benefit just a handful or even a single payer, the nation as a whole suffers. Over time, this has left the middle class increasingly more responsible for the tax burden as the lower classes pay nothing in (and often receive quite a bit in return simply by merely existing) and the rich have built-in protections. Unless this trend reverses any time soon (and will very likely only be accentuated under the current administration), we will soon see more people actually receiving some kind of aid from the government (e.g. social security, Medicare/Medicaid, subsidies, tax refunds, child deductions, etc) than who are actually paying in. When that watershed event happens, it has the potential of being an economic and socially dangerous bellwether for decades to come.

6. The solution for both problems is to actually have a fiscal policy, not simply a scheme for borrowing from the next generation to fund current largesse.

Gordon reserves the book’s invective for politicians here, named and nameless, who have essentially sold off the nation’s potential and future under an increasing burden of debt for historically novel purposes. We live in the flowering of the welfare state, true, and this week’s passage of the federal health care bill attests to that. Another story, another article. However, Gordon’s isn’t your typical rightist rant, as he points out that many programs propping up inefficient or undeserving industrial/ agricultural concerns through subsidies and protectionist policies have both outlived their usefulness and strangle our future flexibility and ability to compete. (As this book is over fifteen years old, I wonder what he would have said about the billions expended in the recent bailouts and stimulus bills…) He is candid here, blaming the citizenry as much as their elected officials. If the man on the street and corporate tycoons alike didn’t demand certain aids, Gordon argues, politicians probably wouldn’t pass the bills. On the other hand, he details certain government protocols (like the paucity of oversight of Medicare and other annual expenditures that apparently don’t require an actual vote) that allow Congressional representatives to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for funding these ever-increasing outlays.

7. Gordon’s recommendations are fairly simple, painful and necessary.
A. Have everybody pay something in if they expect to get something out of it. Pass a flat tax or greatly simplify the income tax code to limit deductions and exemptions while lowering the base rates. This would lessen the incentives to cheat and make economic and financial decisions less desirable for the long-term. He also strongly counsels the removal of the two-tiered tax system of the personal/corporate income tax. Don’t soak the rich, but do make them pay their share. Make everyone pay their share. We can debate on what exactly that means, but I don’t see how anyone could effectively defend our current Byzantine tax structure that. In the words of the late Jack Kemp, “If you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. In America, we tax work, growth, investment, savings, and productivity. We subsidize nonworking, consumption, welfare, and debt.”

B. Stop raiding tomorrow’s closet for today’s feast. Corporations, government-mandated programs, non-profits, cotton growers, homeowners, day-care operators (and the list goes on nearly ad infinitum) all receive some measure of government support. How much are we personally willing to depend on other people’s money to live? How much are we willing to give to others who are unable, much less unwilling¸ to give themselves? These are questions that will we will be asking more and more as we, the U.S. taxpayer, becomes a rarer breed.

C. Resist the “Madison Effect.” Gordon winsomely coined this from James Madison’s dictum, “Men love Power.” It has benefitted several generations of economists to advocate an increasing debt and ever-complex tax code. It benefits politicians who use their ability to spend for personal constituencies and offers a negative incentive to either save, pay off the debt, or—heaven forbid—restrict payouts. It benefits constituencies (especially those who bear less, little, or none of the overall tax burden) as it distributes other people’s income indirectly to them through an impersonal agent (the government bureaucracies, who, of course, get their lion’s share-sized cut).

This wouldn’t be that big a deal, I suppose, if this whole system affected people equally. However, it doesn’t. It hurts those people who actually want to make a difference the most. Entrepreneurs, those men and women willing and able to invest a combination of time, resources, and risk to succeed, have traditionally been the economic and social engines in this nation. Not perfect in their perspectives and choices, obviously, but they afforded the most consensual and broadest distribution of resources based on public and private desires, talent, and actual success. Not perfect, but the best we have. These people are the first and the greatest to suffer in our long-standing and current debacle, and their loss affects everyone else.

A few quotes to consider:

"Since the war two guiding principles have dominated the financial policy of the Government. One is the balancing of the budget, and the other is the payment of the public debt. Both are in line with the fundamental policy of the government since its beginning." Andrew Mellon (1925), treasury secretary under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover

"It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained at lower rates…The Government…can and should be run on business principles." Arthur Laffer, economist (1970’s)

"It is ironic that in the most un-Marxist country on earth, so central an issue as taxation should have to be fought out using a basically Marxist vision of society." Gordon, author of Hamilton’s Blessing (1996)

"In 1916, the richest man in the country, J.D. Rockefeller, could have paid off the American national debt all by himself. In 1997 William Gates and Warren Buffet together could not pay two months’ interest on it—about $50 billion—without going broke." Ibid

"Don’t tax you and don’t tax me. Tax the man behind the tree." Sen. Russell Long, Louisiana

Some solid links to stories and information related to national debt and income tax
Story on record 2009 deficit:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/620000005/1
U.S. National Debt Clock:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Times Square's National Debt clock refurbished in 2008 in anticipation of quadrillion (1000 trillion)-sized debt:
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/new-money/2008/10/09/maxing-out-the-national-debt-clock.html
Great article from the Cato Institute on the hidden costs of consumer taxes:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html
Nuanced Forbes article on flat tax and problems with current projections and plans with Obama tax proposals (soaking the rich won't work--just ultimately poorer.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/flat-tax-plan-obama-opinions-columnists-taxes.html
NYT article on connections between debt and spending:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1
Bloomberg article on Pres. Obama's 2009 discussion of how to cut national debt (and pro/con arguments):
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aei7Fn0ISrwo&refer=news
Greece deals with affects of higher consumer taxes within their own national debt crisis:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-03-15/business/18831579_1_austerity-greece-tax-hike
http://www.newsday.com/business/tax-rises-hit-greece-as-eu-to-discuss-debt-crisis-1.1811733
Collateral damage by Greek debt crisis:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/08/greece-debt-crisis-single-currency-eurozone
http://www.salon.com/wires/techbiz/2010/03/03/D9E7978G0_eu_greece_finding_the_money/index.html

Just in case you want to make a personal contribution to pay the debt, you can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at http://www.pay.gov/. You can also write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtMakeup

Healthcare Bill Concerns

2010-03-24T23:43:00.005-05:00

[This article has been submitted by guest contributor Jake LaRue]

To begin with, last time I checked the primary idea behind this is to force everyone to have some type of healthcare. The problem with this is you have to pay for it. You are now being forced to have healthcare whether you wish to pay for it or not (or can afford it or not).

That’s not a fair decision to be made for us by the government, nor do I believe the cost of the healthcare will be worth the treatment received. All of this seems like a way for the government to generate more money to make up for its completely wasteful spending and irresponsible use of tax payer money.

Obama doubled the national debt and has done nothing to stimulate the economy. So now there's this program which is highly similar to taxation that has just been established. Only they are smart enough to realize that they can’t tax everyone more because people will get mad about it and they will lose votes. This way some people don’t understand the situation and think "Yay more cheap/free stuff from the government!" Even if not, it’s likely going to end up being another failure of a program much the way Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Social Security are. How ironic social security is both socialist in idea and very insecure.

On the subject of Medicare, Medicaid, etc, why are we making new programs without fixing the already horribly broken ones? Medicare and Medicaid are supposed to be setup for people who can’t afford regular healthcare and yet we are creating a secondary program that does the same thing? This alone shows the lack of responsibility of our government. Not to mention, part of the new bill passed bans healthcare corporations from denying current members insurance based upon pre-existing conditions. Basically, this means that new customers are going to be turned down instead of offered a different healthcare package based upon their condition. So now, as more people get turned down, they will be forced to choose the government healthcare. This is a sly way of taking over the healthcare industry.

We have already seen this with the auto industry and partially the banking/housing industry. This mass government intervention/take-over is parallel to socialism. Also, doctors are now getting screwed over. So much making lots of money for those 15 years of school you went through. I hope the government pays your malpractice insurance too or you’re going to be broke. This evening of income is akin to communism/socialism’s equality for all in everything.

But hey wait…aren’t rich people the ones who buy expensive cars, houses, clothes, and food and help stimulate the economy? Without wealthy people, won’t the economy suffer? Guess it doesn’t matter to the representatives in congress and our government because they don’t live under the same laws we do obviously.

Just Something About The Girl

2010-03-19T21:01:00.001-05:00

Did you know that in Sweden there is a statute of limitations on murder? I didn't, and time may be running out. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (originally Män som hatar kvinnor), by Stieg Larsson, is unlike anything you've ever read. In part, it is a classic locked-room murder mystery worthy of Agatha Christie. Turn a page, and you have a multi-generational dysfunctional family with as many dark secrets as in any V.C. Andrews yarn. And still again Larsson finds room to talk conversationally about international business corruption, socialist society, and investigative journalism as though they were the next door neighbor's scandalous gossip. Throw in a dash of sordid Nazi history and a calculating serial killer, and you've got one of the most original thrillers you've ever read. This is a must read, both for newcomers and those jaded by the genre. To put it frankly, it was one of the two best books I read in 2009 (the other being The Gargoyle by Andrew Davidson).

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the first volume in a trilogy (which he called the Millenium Trilogy) written by this recently deceased Swedish author. All three have become runaway bestsellers in Europe, and the first two installments are available in the Unites States (though the titles were changed for an English-speaking audience). The third and final installment, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest is due out in May, though it is available through sellers in the UK (but you should support your local independent bookstore).

Naturally, and right on schedule, the film adaptation of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is soon to be out in theatres in the US. There are several trailers online now, some of which are in Swedish. I have added the official US trailer below. It, blessedly, does not give anything away which is fortunate. There are lots of delicious plot twists and character developments in this one, and the trailer does a good job of enticing without giving anything away.

Essentially, the opening volume of this trilogy introduces one of the most original, intelligent, and fresh female voices I've read in...well, probably ever. Her name is Lisbeth Salander, and she is somewhere between heroine and anti-heroine. This is no Jane Austen, that is for sure.

The plot weaves its way between Salander and a man who at first appears to be the main character, Mikael Blomkvist. Blomkvist is a magazine editor who is perched on the edge of ruin for running an editorial against a powerful Swedish industrialist who sues him for libel. Salander is a troubled, probably autistic, punk girl who is a talented hacker and researcher who works for a firm specializing in security and private investigations.

The two eventually cross paths thanks to an aging Henrik Vanger, retired industrialist and former CEO of Vanger Corporation. Vanger has been mourning the disapperance/murder of his then sixteen-year-old neice Harriet some forty years previously. Feeling he has fewer days before him than behind him, and unable to sleuth the case himself after forty years of research and limitless funding, he draws Blomkvist with an appealing offer. Come to the island he and his extended family reside upon (where his neice disappeared), and solve the cold case of her murder...and in return he will give Blomkvist the evidence he needs to destroy the corrupt Swedish industrialist who nearly ruined him.

But the case is indeed cold. Forty years prior, on a day when the family had gathered on the island, an oil tanker crashed on the only bridge connecting Hedeby Island to the mainland. During those few hours when the island was cut off from everything, while the family members fought the fire and tried to free the driver, Harriet went missing. The island was searched many times, the boats were accounted for and divers dispatched, but she was never found. Vangar is convinced one of the members of his odd, deeply secretive family has killed the one family member he treasured above all, and hidden her broken body somewhere. And he's convinced the killer is a relative still living with him on the island.

As the trailer asks, how close can you get to the truth before you become the target?

RECONCILING THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT THAT IS CHRISTIANITY

2010-03-09T17:25:00.006-06:00

It’s good to be back in Triskelos. Hopefully, you guys will share that sentiment. I want my first post-hiatus article to be one that really touches a nerve in all of us. I have chosen a topic that we all have a personal stake in, and that we are all well-versed in. Also, I write it for selfish reasons, because this is a topic that I am ever fencing with. The impetus for this involves an encounter with a book, a particularly dangerous book. It took me almost three weeks to read it. Keep in mind that this is coming from a person that read the first six Harry Potter novels in under a week’s time. Not an incredible feat, but just an example to drive the point home that this particular book was only of average length. The time to read it was a result of needing time away from it to contemplate the ideas within it, and the time it took to muster the courage to delve back into it. I am going to go ahead and disappoint you, and tell you that I will not mention the name of this book or discuss its contents in great detail. My understanding is that Aiden has something prepared that will cover this book’s contents and purpose thoroughly.

My intention is to write an article to get everyone in the appropriate mind set with which to discuss it. Fortunately, as I have mentioned the topic I have chosen is one we all know well, but to your chagrin it is one that I think makes most of you uncomfortable. We will be discussing the “Infallibility of Scripture”. To do so I will be referencing a book, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, Phd. This is not the book that bothered me so much, but it is of the same ilk and by the same author. This little work (barely over 200 pages) has been on my shelf for a couple of years. It provided me with the first insight into how our scripture came to be. It’s not at all comprehensive on the topic, because the main purpose in writing it is to show that changes have been made in scripture over time. This idea was not very shocking to me. I suspected as much anyway given that we have as many versions of our own Holy Writ as we have Christian denominations that follow them. What amazed me was our best manuscripts are not as old as I would prefer them to be. What I mean is that we don’t have the originals or even copies of the originals. To be honest the originals may not even be the originals given that they were recorded much later than the actual events they describe.

WHICH CAME FIRST INFALLIBITY OR FAITH?

Dwelling on the idea of what truth is in light of my own faith (I call it Christianity, but I am sure that if many other self-professed Christians knew my heart on what being a Christian consists of they would surely disagree with that designation) and the particular brand of truth that Christianity has to offer led me to one inescapable question-what is the essence of Christianity’s truth?

At first I thought faith, but then not much later did I realize I was putting the cart before the horse as we are not born with faith. Our experience is post a priori rather than a priori-meaning that we were not born with the Kool-Aid in our veins but rather we drank it somewhere along the way. If not an innate sense of faith then when did it happen and why? Was it in Sunday school coloring in the Jesus coloring book? Was it bible drills at VBS? Not exactly, somewhere along the way the idea was introduced (maybe not explicitly) that the cornerstone of our faith was that our Holy Writ is infallible. For a child that is not that big of a deal. I once believed tooth fairy and Santa Claus-this really wasn’t a stretch. May be they didn’t use the word infallible, because the attention span of most children is best limited to two syllables words or less. It was most likely the song, “Jesus Loves Me”, and line, “…for the Bible tells me so.”

WHERE DOES OUR BIBLE COME FROM?

The truth is that prior to establishing the modern canon there were many letters like Paul’s and many gospels other than our four. There were so many books available that Athanius, in 367 CE, in his annual message to the Egyptian churches told them which books we wanted them to follow. Ehrman included excerpts from the writings of other early church leaders as well. Consider this from Origen:

Differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.

Another from Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth:

When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reversed. Small wonder then if some of them have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.

Now consider the writing of Celsus, an anti-Christian pagan. He likens the pandemic of altering scripture to a drunken escapade:

Some believer, as though from drinking about, go so far as to oppose themselves and to alter the original text of the gospel three or four times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism.

Consider this example that is found with Codex Vaticanus, one of the oldest MSS available. This is actually the manuscript in the image:

“Christ bears [Greek: PHERŌN] all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3)”

“Christ manifests[Greek: PHANERŌN] all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3)”

And the reaction by the scribe’s superior:

“Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don’t change it!”

Basically an original text was copied so that another church could have a copy and then both were copied and so on and so forth. Today these surviving copies have either very fancy names like Codex Sinaiticus a fourth century manuscript for example, or they have a designation like P forty-six (actually the forty-six is superscripted). So we have manuscripts and we have scribes, and some of these scribes weren’t even literate. Some of them were just good at copying what was in front of them. Many of them were copied locally, and some scholars believe that differences in local traditions arise from differences between their texts. Consider P46, it is the oldest surviving copy of Galatians. It was written in 200 CE, 150 years after Paul wrote it. Let’s put that into perspective. That would be like trying to piece the Declaration of Independence in the 1920’s from oral tradition. What a cluster that would be. We could play the manuscript game all day. There are about 5700 in existence today, and according to Ehrman there are more variations between them than words in the New Testament.

Ehrman is what those in his field refer to as a textual critic. This is a field that analyzes vocabulary, writing style, and other elements of manuscripts to evaluate their authenticity. It’s not uncommon to use this approach it if you were a historian. My concern is that this approach has been used to examine biblical manuscripts for some time now and having gone to a conservative Christian liberal arts school I have never heard of this. When I learned more about it I was a little disappointed, because it seems so important for the formulation of our canon. The idea is that when an entire book is read in Greek there are certain aspects of the style that don’t mesh well that we don’t always see because they are lost in translation. I would liken it to reading poetry that was written in another language, but you are reading it English. It may not sound like poetry anymore. An example of this is seen in John. The beginning of John that is famous for the metaphor of the Word is considered by many textual critics to be a poor fit for the rest of the book. Other issues for scholars are the difference in style of discourse and the content when compared to the other gospels. One passage in particular, John 7:53-8:12, is considered to not have been in part of John or the other gospels at all, but added later by scribes. In fact this passage is not in some of the oldest and best manuscripts for the Gospel of John. Why do we have it? Another example of this sort of thing is the last twelve verses of Mark.

When Latin texts became prominent copying increased and so did the number of variations. Pope Damasus then commissioned Jerome to create an official Latin version of scripture-the Vulgate. Another break through for preventing further alterations was the Guttenburg Press, but that didn’t appear on the scene until the 1400’s. Also in the 1400’s was a massive undertaken, the Complutensian Polyglot, which was a multivolume edition of the Bible that laid out scripture to be able to compare the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Old Testament . Consider that there was a time when the Greek texts were only used by the Greek Orthodox Church, which were considered to be outsiders y the Western Church. How did the compilers of this multi-volume work know which Greek version to use when they were unfamiliar with the many versions available? This was not the first Greek New Testament in print however, the Dutch scholar Erasmus new about the Polyglot and wanted to steal that honor. Erasmus rushed to publish his version. He said it was praecipitum verius quam editun, meaning, “rushed out rather than edited (Ehrman 79). If you see a scholars notes you may notice TR, textus recepticus-or received by all. This indicates that a version based on the MSS that Erasmus used, which is not considered to have been the best available. I find it almost comical, because that is the Greek text that was used to create the King James Bible.

Consider the difference between this well known passage, one from the Latin and the other from the Greek versions.

The Latin:

There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three who bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.

The Greek:

There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.

It looks a lot less like the Trinity now, doesn’t it? Ehrman doesn’t say it, but some scholars believe that parts of John exhibit a particular pagan influence that existed during the time in which this book was written-just food for thought.

Around the 1700s scholars of theology became aware of the problems with the texts and felt compelled to find a solution. Here is a list of the scholars mentioned in case anyone wants to look them up:

Brian Walton and John Fell
John Mill, Fellow of Queen’s College, Oxford-he actually believed that textual criticism was a Papist plot to undermine the notion of Sola Scriptura and promote the Papacy as the only needed authority.
Richard Simon
Anthony Collins and John Locke
Richard Bentley
Johann Albrecht Bengal
Johann J. Wettstein
Karl Lachman
Lobegott Friedrich Constantine Von Tischendorf
Brooks Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort- their work, the New Testament in Original Greek, 1881 is considered by many to be the classic text in the field.

Wescott and Hart were of scholars that believed that manuscripts could be grouped by families. They described four families:

Syrian texts, also called Byzantine texts, are those of the late medieval ages, and are considered to be not very close to the originals.

Western texts consist of large number texts described as being wildly copied prior to the establishment of the scribe profession.

Alexandrian texts were made trained scribed but believed to have been altered occasionally.

Neutral texts were those were believed to have not undergone serious changes-the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were in the opinion of Hart and Wescott to be neutral.

MODERN METHODS

External evidence is a way of making arguments about a reading that receives support from other manuscripts. In addition to external evidence there are two types of internal evidence. One is intrinsic probability, this is where probabilities are based on what an author most likely would have written. In other words, would John be more likely to use the phrase Son of God or Son of Man? The other kind of internal evidence is transcriptional probability. This isn’t concerned with which text an author has written but with which reading a scribe was likely to have created. Sometimes textual problems occur because texts are at odds with each other. Mark 1:41 is a good example of this. In this passage Christ reached out his hand in compassion and healed a leper. The word for passion is SPLANGNISTHES, however, in other texts the word ORGISTHEIS is used which means becoming angry (Ehrman 133). The latter is supported by Codex Bezae, which is one of the oldest manuscripts available and which is supported by three Latin texts. Using transcriptional probability one would conclude that it is more likely that a change was made from angry to compassion and not the other way around. This is based on the idea that compassion is consistent with other passages about Jesus, and it is highly unlikely that a Christian scribe would change the wording from compassion to anger.

Something else that bothered me that I bet most you already knew was that scholars believe that Mark was written first, and that it was used to write Luke and Matthew. I am not bothered by the idea of it, but I am bothered that I never heard it before. Why couldn’t a preacher or Sunday school teacher or New Testament survey professor mention it?

DIFFERENCES IN THE CANON

In Mark 2 Jesus is citing 1 Sam. 21:1-6 and is making a reference to David’s actions, “when Abiathar was the high priest”, but in actuality this was when Ahimelech was high priest. I know what you guys are thinking, why does it matter? Theologically it matters very little, however, historically it is a little important. It shows a discrepancy that was either an error of the original author or a scribe that followed the original author. (Ehrman 9)

Go to your bible and look in the gospels to answer the following questions:

What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?

Was he crucified before or after the Passover meal?

After Jesus’ birth did Mary and Joseph go to Nazareth or Egypt?

Why does Mark describe an angry Jesus while Luke describes a relaxed Jesus?

I find this quote from Ehrman to be of interest:

“In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that is precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself; in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John that is practically the only reason he does miracles.” (Ehrman 10)

Consider Hebrews 2:8-9:

For when [God] subjects to him all things, he leaves nothing that is not subjected to him. But we do see Jesus, who, having been made for a little while lower than the angels, was crowned with glory and honor on the account of his suffering death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Now consider that, “by the grace of God” is in many versions, “apart from God…” In fact this can be referenced in the writings of Origen. Why change it? This concerns scholars because the word grace (CHARIS) isn’t used in the epistle to refer to Jesus’ death or to salvation obtained through his death.

This one I didn’t get from Ehrman but from Wikipedia. I don’t recall the original source but it is in the article on the Great Commission:

“Textual critics note that the portion of Mark 16 which records the commission is not found in two of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and the Codex Sinaiticus.”-Wikipedia, “Great Commission”

Ehrman attributes some of the changes in manuscripts be reflective of theological differences among different Christian groups of the time and those who opposed them. He mentions the following: Adoptionists, Docetists, Separationists. He also believes that other changes were made based on different social perspectives regarding: women, Jews, and pagans. Lastly, given that Christians weren’t making a lot of friends with populations that were predominantly pagan, anti-Chrisitan writings appeared. In response to these writings Ehrman lists changes that were made to texts that reflect Apolagetics. Today many scholars have given up on finding the original meaning but are mostly concerned with finding the best source from what is available. Ehrman also points out another really important point. When we read scripture we put in our own words, and the scribes were no different except that their changes often stuck around.

HARLEQUIN’S HERESY

It is undeniable that the gospels, while very similar, are also very different. One might point out that the time of the crucifixion and Jesus’ last words are of little importance in the grand scheme, but I think the reason that Ehrman pointed them out is because those are details that should easily have been consistent. An apologist might say that this doesn’t render the texts “un-infallible”, because what makes them such is that they are different for a reason. This reason is that the Holy Spirit inspired all of scripture so that we have the Bible as G-d intended with similarities and discrepancies alike. I have never liked this argument. Why didn’t the Holy Spirit just inspire them to be consistent with each other? Why are there so many versions, and can we really argue that the word of G-d has been preserved for us with all of these variations? What I really have an issue with the idea that inspiration from the Holy Spirit guarantees the inerrancy of our text from a logical perspective not a theological perspective. Here is my personal maxim with regard to this issue:

INSPIRED IS NOT INERRANT, TO BELIEVE SO IS TO CONFUSE G-D’S PURPOSE FOR MAN WITH MAN’S PURPOSE FOR G-D.

My reasoning is as follows:

The notion of inerrancy rests upon a monumental assumption. That is, that the end result of the Holy Spirit guiding a believer is an inerrant action. If this were true then we should be able to find these same results in other instances where the Holy Spirit guides us into inerrancy. I think that it is logical to use results that have been reproducible time and time again. When is it that we as Christians have all witnessed and experienced others being inspired by the Holy Spirit? Some of us have been moved to accept Christ as our savior, that is to say that we have experienced and witnessed a baptism in the Holy Spirit. I tell you with absolute certainty that the millions who have been inspired in this way have not produced inerrant actions. It follows logically that this assumption does not withstand reason.

I can only imagine the various rejoinders to this argument. I welcome them, because this concerns me greatly.

So far I have only justified the first half of my maxim. The reasoning behind the latter half of the maxim involves the source of our gospels. Our texts have come from the best information we have available to us, and contrary to what most Christians want to believe these manuscripts are far from perfect sources. In many cases there are mistakes, and most of them are accidental or insignificant. However, in other instances changes have been made to reflect theological differences or social opinions.

WHY NOT PREPARE BELIEVERS?

How do we reconcile infallibility with our faith? I have heard the same answer many times before-faith. The problem is that faith begins somewhere. The seed must be planted. Most Christians believe that faith begins as a result of inspiration through the word of G-d. The issue is that there is never a process in which the acceptance of scripture as the foundation of our faith is ever scrutinized prior to making a decision, thus the circular argument of Christianity. Yes, I know that is why it is faith. Once a believer reaches an age where they can understand the theological arguments and see discrepancies for themselves, what do they do? I think it is fair to say that as a general rule most people are ill-equipped to formulate a response to these issues. This leads to one of two responses: 1) A believer is left with doubt or 2) they attribute this to heresy or some devil-inspired attack on their faith and they shut down to any form of dialogue. I THINK THAT THIS FAILURE TO HELP PREPARE PEOPLE IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST FAILURE OF ORGANIZED CHRISTIANITY. The problem is that seminary graduates rarely go into detail about viewing the Bible in a historical context worthy of academic scrutiny, and they do not ever explain how our modern Bible came into existence.

DEFINING CHRISTIANITY

Ehrman believes that the notion of Infallibility is an American idea that is only found abroad where Christian missionaries from America have gone. It is his opinion that it is not a prerequisite for being a Christian. For most American Christians, especially Protestants, that is the theological equivalent of calling your mother a whore to your face. Why does it have to be this way?

QUESTIONS

First, I want to know from our members who have been theologically trained if they are familiar with these ideas of textual criticism and the use of historical methods to analyze texts?

Second, is accepting infallibility a prerequisite for being a Christian?

CONCLUDING REMARKS

What I hope that everyone takes from this discussion in order to think about our next discussion is that if we scrutinize the evolution of our own scripture using the same historical academic methods that we would use to verify secular manuscripts that we may be left wanting. The other thing is that I wanted everyone to be thinking theologically with relevant arguments cocked and locked. Furthermore, I want to add that I appreciate the work of Bart Ehrman. It is the first work that I have seen to challenge Infallibility in a respectful and academic manner. To be more to the point, it made me think-I like that most of all, and the cost of his books was much less than the tuition of private, liberal arts schools.

Hocus Pocus

2010-03-08T20:09:00.001-06:00

This painting may be familiar to you. It is entitled "Examination of a Witch" and was painted in 1853 by Thompkins H. Matteson. Much has changed since the days when an accusation of witchcraft could lead one to the stake or the gallows (depending on whether you were in Europe or North America, respectively). Much has not.

I've always been one that maintained the need to understand the faith of someone else. My reasons for this varies. If one's inspiration is to attempt to convert someone, it is exceptionally important to know what they believe, and precious few who attempt to do so have any desire to learn anything about other faiths. I think this is, in part, because most Christians are permitted a certain spritual arrogance or superiority that is necessarily endemic in any faith that has acheived a certain geographical and numerical (if not moral) upper hand.

The other reason (which is more important for me personally) is that in understanding another's faith, it makes it possible to see one's own more clearly and with a better understanding of the evolution of religions and the ecologies that give rise to one over another. Of course, many do not really see their own faith as evolving, in spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary. Christianity, for example, has a significant number of doctrines that are not actually grounded in the Bible but in church tradition. Judaism, for another, gets its understanding of good and evil largely from borrowing from the Zoroastrian faith. We could make analogies for virtually any faith, save perhaps the ancient Egyptians.

Apropos of this, there's a recent minor headline coming out of Des Moines, Iowa in which the ignorance of comparative religions--as well as the usual bag of secular versus sacrosanct--again drags us into the tried and true pissing contest about whose G-d is better than whose. Before I summarize, let me first say both parties in this story are (in my opinion) in the wrong.

It seems that Dale Halferty, a shop teacher at Guthrie Center High School, has been suspended for five days without pay. It started when a unnamed senior told Halferty that the table he was making was actually a Wiccan altar. Halferty told him he could continue to make it, as long as he didn't bring his Wiccan book to class to do it. The student continued to bring the book to class anyway, at which point Halferty told him he couldn't make it anymore.

Halferty, a Christian, had originally denied all students from making religious items in shop class (i.e. crosses). That was probably the ruling he should have stuck with. Or perhaps he could have let any student make religious icons (my preference), so long as they weren't required to make any one particular thing. When this issue was brought to the attention of school officials, they told Halferty that students were allowed to make projects that allowed "personal expressions of faith". Of course this would have permitted students to make crosses, etc., too.

In any case, Halferty went a bridge too far for the administration. When told he would have to allow the senior to continue his altar project he said, "personally, I think it's offensive to worship rocks and trees. I am just trying to be moral. I don't know how we can profess to be Christians and let this go on." Further, Halferty said of his suspension that he still doesn't understand why school officials are forcing him to "act against his own beliefs as a Christian and allow the student to disrupt his class with a project based on a religion he believes is wrong and bad for youth". And incidentally, nearly 70 students signed a petition saying they didn't want witchcraft practiced at the school.

Let's forget for a moment that Wiccans don't worship rocks and trees (there's that comparative religion ignorance I alluded to). Or that Wiccans are not immoral because they are Wiccans. Or that he as a Chrisitian has any special ruling as to whether someone else is allowed their Constitutional rights to worship (or not) as they chose. Or that a student's rights to their own faith cannot be voted on by referendum.

Forgetting all that, I don't think there is a winner here. You could say that the student could have left his book at home as he was asked, or that he could have kept it to himself that the table was in fact an altar. Should he have to do that? Is this a religious form of don't ask, don't tell? Perhaps. Had he done so, the school board might never have had occasion to let the teacher know that all students had a right to express their faith in this sort of medium, which would serve to allow Christians and anyone else a freer hand in expressing themselves in a way which many Christians feel is sorely curtailed sans school prayer.

Also, you could say that the teacher is completely at fault. That he is the one, not the student, responsible to know the rules under which he can operate. You can say that it is his job, in part, to set the tone for a class which does not infringe on the rights of any of his students. You could say that if allowing a Wiccan his faith and his right to express himself is so troubling to him, then perhaps he should teach shop at a private Christian school where the issue would be moot.

So clearly, there are a lot of things you could say. Maybe the easiest thing to say would be that if we all understood a little more about what we each believe, and the fundamental right we each have to believe what we wish, then it would be much easier to allow our fellows to have the dignity and respect to do so.

Shifting Into Overshare?

2010-03-03T20:58:00.002-06:00

Many of you may have heard about the recent firestorm on YouTube and Twitter involving a woman named Angie Jackson who decided to post her experience aborting her pregnancy using the medication RU-486 (Mifepristone) during the first few weeks of her first trimester.

To be fair, she tweets and uploads videos all the time, as she is a prolific mixed-media blogger. This just happened to be something she decided to tweet about. Her tweets included statements such as, "cramps are getting a bit more persistent" and "definitely bleeding now."

What happened next was the unexpected part. Jackson has been deluged with reply-tweets, emails, and YouTube comment posts by both people in favor of her decision to be public, as well as those who are very upset with her for not only having an abortion but also for being so unapologetic about it.

This is in large part because Jackson's Twitter, YouTube and Blog are major vehicles for her to espouse atheism and promote it quite heavily. Her blog is rife with anti-religious sentiments of all sorts. In the spirit of being even-handed, it is worth mentioning that she claims to have been part of what she describes as a "fundamentalist cult" which was run by her grandmother during her youth. It seems much of her resentment (deserved or otherwise) for religion in general is derived from that experience. Also worth mentioning is that she was in an at-risk situation and was not advised to continue the pregnancy.

Here is one of the YouTube posts that has garnered over one-hundred thousand hits during the last week.

For more, you can peruse her video uploads on YouTube, follow her on Twitter, or read her blog.

Counterpoint to this is another recent event driven by the argument between pro-life/pro-choice camps. It isn't news to anyone that CBS aired an ad created by Focus on the Family featuring Tim Tebow and his mother which detailed her decision to carry her pregnancy to term even though her physician recommended terminating due to health complications.

Part of the controversy was of course the fact that it was a pro-life ad, when this sort of ad material has been rejected by CBS in the past. Two commercials in particular have been discussed in the news regarding this. One, refused for the Super Bowl, was a gay dating site ad that they rejected for somewhat vague reasons. Less recently was an ad for the United Church of Christ (there were a few). They essentially show churches turning away people for various reasons (minorities, handicapped, homeless, homosexuals, etc.), ending with the phrase that "Jesus didn't turn people away and neither do they".

A few questions:

When viewing these circumstances together, it is fairly clear all parites have agendas (Jackson and Focus on the Family/Tebow). Do any of them go too far?
By these families sharing their personal decisions and struggles--by putting human faces on both the pro-life and pro-choice circumstances--do they help or hinder their causes?
Is the backlash against either Jackson or CBS/Focus on the Family/Tebow fair? What about their First Amendment rights? When one elects to "go public" with one's personal life, regardless of the reasons, does one not open oneself up to both congratulations and ridicule?
Clearly, blogging, YouTube-ing, and tweeting are fairly open and uncensored methods for publishing an opinion and there are relatively few if any costs (in terms of pay-for-service) for anyone to express themselves in this fashion. As it relates to placing ads on major networks such as CBS, however, is there a double-standard at work here? Clearly most news networks are terribly skewed to one political perspective or another, but as it relates to paying for advertisement, is it appropriate for CBS or others to accept one ad which tailors to one opinion while not affording other paying customers the same opportunity to present their product/views?

Singing Praises to Obama

2009-09-24T09:13:00.005-05:00

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

2009-04-21T17:43:00.008-05:00

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

2009-01-20T19:57:00.003-06:00

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