Distribution of Power and Resources

1) Federal governments excel in some areas where local governments do not and warfighting, dictating foreign policy, and regulating interstate commerce are among the issues occupying this category. Some problems, however, are best left to local authorities or the private sector. These include education, enforcing penal codes and civil codes, trash collecting, etc.

Unfortunately, not all issues are easily sorted into federal, local and private areas of expertise. One of the trickier issues is health care. Certainly it is not beneficial for the federal branches to be involved in day to day oversight of doctors offices. Yet, when staring down the barrel of Avian Flu, we may find it in our hearts, and in the interstate commerce clause, to let big brother help us effectively transport and distribute medical supplies. Before embracing this idea wholly, we must ask if Canadian-style socialized medicine is best.


2) If rapid transportation and distribution are the assets of social health care, than what are it's liabilities?

The environment most conducive to productivity will allow maximum freedom without sacrificing safety and security. I am a firm believer in free men working in free markets with minimally invasive laws enforcing ethics and safety that bolster liberty, rather than detract from it.

Socialized health care would rid the industry of competition, effectively weakening the product and taking away the basic check and balance that the capitalist open market provides. This means longer lines, higher prices, worse service, and more people dead or suffering from disease. In short, we become France. (If visiting France, do yourself a favor and don't get hurt.) The inevitable increase in death and disease would present a scourge on the entire nation far greater even than the financial burden that would destroy our economy with little gained.

"How the structure of higher education empowers the elite"

Recent conversations with philosophy students have led me to question the relevance of graduate level academic philosophy. They have responded by saying that the ideas of academia do affect the common man, but that this process is slow. The following is my amateur hypothesis explaining how this trickle-down occurs:

First, the academic elite decide on a vocabulary of terms and a set of acceptable ideas which they record in esoteric books and teach in philosophy classes. These classes are a mandatory part of undergraduate collegiate education, which means that any person desiring their union card to the middle class is required to talk to the proverbial "philosophy boss" for his dose of wisdom during his first few years out of the house. This young mind must first run the gauntlet of the prevailing worldview of the elite before he can take his diploma to the marketplace.

This explains how high-brow philosophy comes to middle-managers, but it does not explain how Derrida comes to kindergarten.

To do this, I will examine the tools used to control access to our society's children. Anyone wishing to teach primary or secondary school must be accredited by the state in which they wish to teach. State accreditation requires one to have a college degree in their concentrated subject. Additionally, this degree must be from an accredited institution of higher learning and this accreditation cannot be gained without a Gen. Ed. curriculum that includes -BINGO!- "Intro to Philosophy." This course's syllabus is subject to approval from a state inspector who will have a degree from a philosophical graduate program in good standing with the ruling authorities.

Thus the system by which we regulate our education structure, particularly, though not exclusively in government schools, aids the academic and philosophical elite in their control of education at the kindergarten level. This would be perfectly fine if the people controlling the levels of power in these institutions were benevolent and trustworthy, but as a bible-thumping monotheist who is resistant to naturalism, I have no faith in the academy to safeguard the minds of my children.

Friends of mine posit home-schooling as a way to short-circuit this system and reassert natural autonomy, but this is simply impossible at the collegiate level. A wholesale break from the scholastic system is something we can’t do, but I am not without hope. What we can do is read good books. Then we can read them to our children so that when it comes time for high-school English, (which at my school was just post-modern philosophy in the place of grammar) they will not soak up the most dominant world view like a sponge before a fire hose, but rather they will thoughtfully and prayerfully consider what the believe, and why.

I am currently in Berkeley CA, and I'm loving every minute. It's a wonderful town, but a mysterious paradox.

Specifically, It is a place of political slogan yelling where the bumper sticker outmaneuvers the treatise, but where books are ubiquitous. While the selection may be one-sided, the sheer volume of literature here gives one pause to ask, "Don't they own televisions?"

This month's bestsellers occupy the positions of honor, just as at my usual bookstores back home, but Berkeley is also unrivaled in the ready availability of the classics. For the next few days, I will asking what makes people who read books so old stray so far from their culture's traditions. Keep reading as I continue my new series:
"Berkeley, Berkeley, Wherefore art thou Berkeley?"

Tomorrow's post:
"How the structure of higher education empowers the elite"

Today, the republican faction of the senate shot itself in the foot and it's the final step to utterly alienating their constituencies. After the release of the language of this bill, I think I can speak for all of grassroots America when I say,
WE'RE MAD AS HELL, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!

Call our republican senators today:

Alexander, Lamar- (TN) (202) 224-4944 alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact. Home

Allard, Wayne- (CO) (202) 224-5941 Allard.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT) (202) 224-5444 bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html

Bond, Christopher S.- (MO) (202) 224-5721 bond.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

Brownback, Sam- (KS) (202) 224-6521 brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm
Bunning, Jim- (KY) (202) 224-4343 bunning.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email
Burr, Richard- (NC) (202) 224-3154 burr.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home  

Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA) (202) 224-3521 chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactU...

Coburn, Tom- (OK) (202) 224-5754 coburn.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home 

Cochran, Thad- (MS) (202) 224-5054 cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm

Coleman, Norm- (MN) (202) 224-5641 coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm 

Collins, Susan M.- (ME) (202) 224-2523 collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...

Corker, Bob- (TN) (202) 224-3344 corker.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm 

Cornyn, John- (TX) (202) 224-2934 cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Craig, Larry E.- (ID) (202) 224-2752 craig.senate.gov/email/ 

Crapo, Mike- (ID) (202) 224-6142 crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm 

DeMint, Jim- (SC) (202) 224-6121 demint.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Dole, Elizabeth- (NC) (202) 224-6342 dole.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.C... 

Domenici, Pete V.- (NM) (202) 224-6621 domenici.senate.gov/contact/contactform.cfm

Ensign, John- (NV) (202) 224-6244 ensign.senate.gov/forms/email_form.cfm 

Enzi, Michael B.- (WY) (202) 224-3424 enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInform...

Graham, Lindsey- (SC) (202) 224-5972 lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contact 

Grassley, Chuck- (IA) (202) 224-3744 grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Gregg, Judd- (NH) (202) 224-3324 gregg.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.cfm 

Hagel, Chuck- (NE) (202) 224-4224 hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Hatch, Orrin G.- (UT) (202) 224-5251 hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact 

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (TX) (202) 224-5922 hutchison.senate.gov/contact.html

Inhofe, James M.- (OK) (202) 224-4721 inhofe.senate.gov/contactus.htm 

Isakson, Johnny- (GA) (202) 224-3643 isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Kyl, Jon- (AZ) (202) 224-4521 kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm 

Lott, Trent- (MS) (202) 224-6253 lott.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email

Lugar, Richard G.- (IN) (202) 224-4814 senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov 

Martinez, Mel- (FL) (202) 224-3041 martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactIn...

McCain, John- (AZ) (202) 224-2235 mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home 

McConnell, Mitch- (KY) (202) 224-2541 mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm

Murkowski, Lisa- (AK) (202) 224-6665 murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm 

Roberts, Pat- (KS) (202) 224-4774 roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInf...

Sessions, Jeff- (AL) (202) 224-4124 sessions.senate.gov/email/contact.cfm 

Shelby, Richard C.- (AL) (202) 224-5744 senator@shelby.senate.gov

Smith, Gordon H.- (OR) (202) 224-3753 gsmith.senate.gov/webform.htm 

Snowe, Olympia J.- (ME) (202) 224-5344 snowe.senate.gov/contact.htm

Specter, Arlen- (PA) (202) 224-4254 specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home 

Stevens, Ted- (AK) (202) 224-3004 stevens.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Em...

Sununu, John E.- (NH) (202) 224-2841 www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html 

Thomas, Craig- (WY) (202) 224-6441 thomas.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Thune, John- (SD) (202) 224-2321 thune.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home 

Vitter, David- (LA) (202) 224-4623 vitter.senate.gov/?module=webformIQV1

Voinovich, George V.- (OH) (202) 224-3353 voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact....

Warner, John- (VA) (202) 224-2023 Web Form: warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

Dualism is the belief that the physical realm and the spiritual realm exist separately and are not intertwined. This sort of understanding comes into Christianity from time to time and understandably so. If we are going to die and be in heaven, while our bodies rot on earth, how can the physical world not be separate and less important than the spiritual world?

It is seems to me that the main problem here is one of stewardship. People know that they will be forgiven and that their earthly bodies will not exist in heaven as they do now. They neglect the idea that God has entrusted us with them for this time and that we will be held accountable for how we used them. In the modern church dualism is manifest differently than it was in ages past. In the early days of the church, and even in modernity in places outside Europe and North America, the gospel was spread by means of physical manifestations of spiritual power. In other words: miracles. The average church may pray for the healing of the sick privately, but not with the expectation of results. If a child is ill, the urgent response is to take them to a doctor, with a possible visit from a priest as an afterthought.

It seems that the hope of the physical intervention of the Holy Spirit is virtually non-existent in the Evangelical Church of America. Where dualism used to manifest itself in the neglect of right action on earth, it now manifests itself in the functional disbelief in any physical work done by the Holy Spirit. As J.P. Moreland is fond of asking, ‘Christians are driving out demons in Asia. Christians are performing miraculous healings in Africa; but not here, and not now. Have we no sickness? Have we no demons?’

Perhaps what we lack is not spiritual beings, but rather human acknowledgement of them. The great dualists today are not the Manicheans; they are the methodological naturalists sitting in the pews holding on to no hope of the manifestation of the power of God.

Here is a Video Link for Kerry's faux pax.

Kerry Slanders the Troops.

John Kerry flew way off the middle ground today at Pasadena City College and exposed his real feelings about the United States Military. The audio file can be found here.

In the words of a T.V. show I like, "Nothing can compare to the hate the right has for the left or the tonnage of disrespect the left has for the right." It would be nice if this were limited to his opinion of politicians. It is not.

Senator Kerry’s disgusting attitude toward these men, who act with unparalleled courage and discipline, is inexcusable. Let us not forget that many of the men in Iraq are Marines; A class of warriors who, in addition to bravely carrying out their ugly, but necessary duties, regularly outperform their civilian counterparts after they leave the fleet.

John F. Kerry displayed disrespect for our warriors, unfaithfulness to his comrades and a tactlessness that should make the educators at his Alma Mater flush pink with embarrassment at their inability to produce an authentic gentleman.

Daniel K. Asaka, James N. Inhofe, Edward Kennedy, John McCain, Bill Nelson, Pat Roberts and Jeff Sessions.

These men all have two things in common:
#1: They all served in the United States Military.
#2: They are all serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Let me do some quick math for you. Their are are twenty-two senators on the Senate armed services committee, which means that there are twice as many non-veterans as veterans. Of the twenty-two committee members, only two (Daniel Asaka and John McCain) have seen combat. When a four-star general tells the committee that he needs X billion dollars to finance X weapons system, how many committee members have the military experience and insight to ask the right questions and make an informed decision? Few. Too few.

One of the major problems with our country is the ever-widening gap of the liberal civilian elite and the conservative military. The blindness that ambitious, elite Americans have to their duty of national defense will have long reaching consequnces. If the problem is not solved, the number of veterans in government will decrease, even as veterans in the population increase.

The time has come for bright, patriotic Americans of this generation, liberal and conservative, to understand what it means to serve a country in a time of war. Only then can our leaders lead; and only then will their country follow.

James Bond is precisely the type of cultural icon that the west does NOT need right now. I just saw a preview for the new James Bond film, "007: Casino Royale." In the film, the latest Bond girl observes that Bond has put his 'armour' back on. Bond replies,

I have no armour left.
You’ve stripped it from me.
Whatever is left of me;
Whatever I am;
I’m yours.

Romantic as this may be, it is precisely not what it means to be a hero. The hero of Troy, Hector, stood apart from his peers by keeping his helmet on in the prescience of Helen. Where all others were unmanned, Hector stood his ground dressed for battle, confident in the knowledge that he acted not for himself, but out of duty.

The preview preceded the recent debut, "Flags of our Fathers." In it, director Clint Eastwood portrays the importance of images to a nation at war. The image of a morally incontinent hero motivated by his own pride and passion is out of place in a civilization fighting for its way of life. We need less James Bond and more Jack Bauer; less Martin Sheen and more Clint Eastwood; less hippie, more Marine. 

I am not Roman Catholic.
I do not go to a Roman Catholic Church.
I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is supreme and authoritative over my church.

But boy-howdy, Benedict XVI is an amazing leader and if their were an election for "Cultural Leader of Western Civilization," then he would get my vote.

The battle to win hearts and minds for Christendom in the cultural war with Islam will require us to bring to light this fact: Christianity is reasonable and Islam is not. In fact, Islam is not even interested in being questioned and tested in order to ascertain whether or not it is reasonable. In a rather Screwtape-like way, all Christianity needs to do is ask the world to logically substantiate the claims of the Quran, and the intellectual battle is over. Radical Islam, by which I merely mean 'Islam which corresponds accurately to a straightforward reading of the Quran,' cannot engage in academic discourse about theology in any meaningful way.

His Holiness has invited Muslim leaders to a summit, of sorts, to clear up any misunderstandings about his remarks regarding the practice of spreading Islam "by the sword." Let us be clear. The Pope verbally attacked Islam based on his interpretation of the Quran. It is time for an intelligent Muslim cleric to rise up and academically exegete the Quran in a rebuttal to the Pope. Instead, the leaders of Islam have childishly demanded that Benedict "take back" his remarks.

It's time for serious discussion, it's time for Islam to take a seat at the university, and it's high time Mecca stopped demanding and started arguing.

In closing, I love the Holy Father and I am proud to see a leader who will invite all comers to the table, and attempt to teach the world "that religion and violence do not go together but religion and reason do."