2009 April archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for April, 2009

Healthy Practices

Published by cchrisr April 30, 2009 in Politics and Philosophy. 3 Comments

Now that I’ve outlined three ethical situations that unconsciously affect the discussion of healthcare, I’d like to investigate some of the practical issue. The point here is not to make a judgment as to which system is better, but to compare them in a neutral light. I want to look at some of the common criticisms aimed at particular systems (primarily socialized medicine and private medicine) and examine them across the board. I will follow this part with a third that looks at the implementations of each system (finally).

The Problem of Waiting
In Michael Moore’s Sicko, the picture is painted that people in Canada, France, and the UK get VIP treatment when it comes to medical attention. This is partially true when it comes to seeing a GP/PCP. For instance, I can schedule a foreseeable, regular appointment (e.g. a regular checkup) with my GP and should be able to get an appointment two days out; I can also schedule an emergency, same-day appointment if I am unwell. The wait for appointments is minimal (5-10 minutes). However, this is really no different in the US.

In addition to these two types of appointments, most GPs in the UK offer phone consultations daily where doctors advise patients if there should be some concern or not and a daily open clinic where it is a first-come, first-serve basis (mine happens to be for one hour in the afternoon). Oftentimes, GPs in the UK still offer house calls as well for those who are physically unable to get to the clinic. These three are less common in the US primarily because they have very limited use benefits where access to personal transportation is the norm (e.g. since more people use public transportation, it may be very difficult for an ill elderly person to get to the clinic, so house calls are useful for that).

The situation is largely the same when it comes to emergency care. Ambulance response can be horrific in rural areas in both countries. However, the normative time for an ambulance when one calls 9-1-1 (9-9-9 in the UK) is very similar in both countries. Additionally, the ER (A&E in the UK) is prioritized for extremely urgent care and a non-urgent case can suffer a long wait time; however, this is because there are walk-in clinics for these non-urgent cases, usually right next to an ER. In these cases, the time for waiting isn’t much different in either country.

When it comes to special situations, there is less of a country-wide norm. Seeing a specialist in the UK requires a referral (like most in the US) and can take time if that specialist is overbooked. A six-month wait is not uncommon (but also not the norm!) in the UK, but this is also true in the US. I know of at least three different “specialist” practices in the US (two OB/GYNs and one urologist) had a wait time of 5-6 months because of overbooking. Similarly, I have heard numerous accounts of people in the UK saying that they only waited a week to see a specialist.

So, let’s face it, people will be waiting, regardless of how the system operates because waiting is linked to something other than the healthcare system, be it population size, number of specialists in an area, whatever. Even when it comes to operations, there are wait times. When I had a nasal surgery in Denver, I had to wait 3 months for an opening in the surgery schedule. We must be able to separate the practicality of scheduling a surgery with the ethos of how a problem is handled. In the UK, that ethos is one of “wait and see” and arguments for it stem from verifying that the action in question is the best one for that situation. This is a different ethos than that of the US which prefers (ideally) to prescribe an action right away (e.g. surgery, medication, etc). Taking into account the approval process on both sides of the pond, there really isn’t much difference in waiting for anything.
Continue reading ‘Healthy Practices’

Health for Profit

Published by cchrisr April 27, 2009 in Politics and Philosophy. 3 Comments

Let me begin by being very honest. I’m probably the closest thing to a left-wing socialist this site has. I’ve been thinking about the philosophical underpinnings to this subject for quite a while, first as an American living in the UK and secondly (most recently) as I watched Michael Moore’s film Sicko. Before getting into the “practical” side of this (that’s part 2), I wanted to look at the ethical situations various healthcare systems create. I would like to look at three different situations:

the role of the medical doctor
the role of the patient
the role of whatever controls the healthcare

Corporate Mindsets
The nature of every for-profit corporation is to make a profit, typically by spending the least amount of money possible. This means that a for-profit medical company, whether it is a hospital, insurance provider, or medical expert, aims to make money on the majority of its transactions. An unjust strategy would be to deny as many services as possible by any means necessary (i.e. pocket as much money as possible). An idealist strategy would be to approve all services at whatever cost (i.e. run into bankruptcy). When the goal of healthcare is a profit margin, the system moves towards the “unjust strategy” because the primary objective is money instead of healthcare.

Michael Moore’s film is great at emphasizing this as the common situation in the US healthcare industry . Sicko is also great at empasizing the idealist strategy as the common situation in other countries’ healthcare (e.g. Canada, UK, France, and Cuba). I am not interested right now in debating the extent to which the film is accurate (it definitely isn’t, but when is a documentary entirely so?) but creating two extreme poles of healthcare. The first ethical situation which a good discussion about healthcare needs to resolve is this: where is the acceptable “middle ground” (if any) between the two poles of healthcare-for-profit and healthcare-as-ideal.

Prescriptive Care
Related to the first ethical situation is one revolving around the role of the doctor. In a for-profit industry, a doctor has a second ethical issue to resolve that is his/her own variation of above: profit versus care. Medical doctors take an oath to save and preserve life (or to that effect). However, when they are faced also with the role of a business owner in a for-profit, competitive market, they must find how to resolve the two poles listed above.

When the healthcare industry tends towards the idealist pole (which I will later argue is part of universal healthcare in European countries), doctors need not worry about such things. However, doctors are then given a different ethical situation revolving around fairness and equality. In universal healthcare industries, the limitation of resources is based on need and population size rather than need and finances. A person diagnosed with cancer is ranked against all cancer patients across the healthcare market. In a private, for-profit system, this means within the insurance company and tends to mean a shorter list of people competing for treatments. It is the insurance company that weighs each situation, ranks the priority of the patients, etc. In a universal system, there is only one company handling the entire population. As a result, there is a greater responsibility on the GP/PCP to investigate the need and submit the recommendation to the healthcare system. Additionally, there are fewer specialists because there is no competition for profits, which results in a greater workload for the specialist.

The second ethical situation, then, is how the practitioner resolves the results of the first situation (limitations of resources) with the principles of the oath he takes as a practitioner. These can be situated within the framework of a medical association which can provide ethical guidelines for the practitioner to dance between these two ideals.

Patiently Waiting
The final ethical situation I want to highlight follows from the previous ones as well: what is the role of the individual as patient in all of this? This one was less obvious to me until I began to experience the UK’s healthcare system. What role does the patient take in his/her own well-being? In other words, how should the professionals treat a patient’s opinion?

There are limitations to this (e.g. patient’s understanding), but to what extent should an individual not utilize the doctor’s office? This is the one aspect which Sicko does not discuss about healthcare in the UK. There is a greater emphasis in the UK to try to heal on one’s own without a prescription. This doesn’t mean one is supposed to wait until one is dying of pneumonia but that a normally healthy person should be able to recover from a cold without seeing the doctor in addition to knowing when one should see the doctor. Michael Moore never gets to this situation because his emphasis on healthcare-as-ideal and doctor’s responsibility seeks to largely remove the individual responsibility.

Links: Who is Really Your Pastor?

Published by Colin April 24, 2009 in Current Events. 3 Comments

Porn and paper pastors. Who is really your pastor?

“Now, some professed Christians sin outright, by never physically attending an actual, in-person church. We’ve talked about that, and they aren’t our focus. But others do attend a church — physically. They come in, they sit down. They sing, they may give financially. They may look at you, Pastor, as you preach.

“But you know their heart belongs to another.

“Their real pastor isn’t you. It’s Dave Hunt. Or it’s John Piper. Or it’s John MacArthur, or Ligon Duncan, or Mark Dever, or David Cloud, or Joel Osteen. Or it’s Charles Spurgeon, or D. M. Lloyd-Jones, or J. C. Ryle. Or Calvin, or Luther, or Bahnsen, or de Mar, or R. B. Thieme, or J. Vernon McGee.”

Poly/Econ
On his first visit to the Vatican since his divorce with Diana, Prince Charles will be receiving facsimile copies of petitions to annul Henry VIII’s marriage. For those who are not familiar with that story, it was the point in religious history where Henry VIII separated the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation era.

Is war ever just?

Since we talked about it at one point, this professor at Brigham Young University thinks brick-and-mortar universities will be obsolete and replaced by pre-made, recorded content (such as podcasts).The Quiet Coup: Former IMF chief economist discusses the US economy:

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.

More Police
Tempe pastor: Border Patrol beat him at checkpointNo Cause for Arrest

The Sham of Fair Trade

Published by Colin April 22, 2009 in Essays, Politics and Current Events. 22 Comments

I saw an ad for Fairtrade products in the supermarket the other week. It told a little story, something like:

Miguel works on a citrus farm in the Dominican Republic. Thanks to you buying Fairtrade, he gets a good wage and decent working conditions. Fairtrade guarantees a better deal for third world producers.

Let me first state that I have no disagreement with the motives of Fairtrade. It’s a moral and decent thing to want to see humanity lifted out of poverty, quality goods produced and sustainable practices developed. The question, however, is whether Fairtrade actually is a reasonable means to achieve these motives.

Let’s look at Miguel - and not in the limited way that the ad portrayed him. Why is Miguel working on that citrus farm? Why isn’t he working a desk job in the US in an air-conditioned office and making $40,000/yr instead of, say, $2,000/yr? Well, Miguel doesn’t have the skills, education and abilities to justify an employer investing thousands of dollars in capital to make his job easier. If Miguel’s current boss built him an air-conditioned break room, increased his pay arbitrarily by $1,000 a year and changed his methods to be more environmental, then his profits would evaporate, his business would go under and Miguel would be worse off.

But also, apart from charity, Miguel’s best option is the citrus farm. If he isn’t working his job on the citrus farm, then he is making less money doing harder work. He might be begging, working in a sweatshop or selling drugs. His current job is sustainable because his skills and education have earned it - it was not given to him unmerited by a benefactor. He is producing real wealth for himself, a profit for his employer and a product for consumers. This is how wealth is created - albeit at the slowest rate for Miguel.

Preferring Miguel - Hurting Others
Actually, Miguel is not getting a raw deal working on the citrus farm. Miguel’s alternatives are not as good as what he gets in monetary and non-monetary compensation. By making Miguel’s deal more “fair” - we are effectively tying up more scarce resources in supporting Miguel and forgetting completely about Dawa, Marcus and Hugo on the margins.

When Fairtrade producers get a higher distribution of wealth for the same essential product (less the pseudo-moral feelgoodery of the Fairtrade logo) as non-Fairtraders, then those less-connected producers on the margins get less and slide closer to poverty. In other words, for every Fairtrade product bought for a higher price than the actual product deserves - that is extra wealth diverted from those producers most on the margins.

Fairtrade doesn’t guarantee a better deal for all Third World producers - it guarantees a better deal for some, richer and specially connected Third World producers and, in fact, a very unfair deal for others - again those even poorer than the ones being helped by Fairtrade.

Fairtrade benefits go only to those producers large enough and rich enough to pay the nearly one thousand dollar a year certification fee, as well as a premium per unit of product and also must be able to afford the expenses of Western labour standards. They also just have to be plain physically large enough to justify the attention of Germany’s Fair Labelling Organization (FLO)- which certifies some Fairtrade products. The FLO and certifiers like it just aren’t interested in smaller producers.

You Bought Fairtrade? Give Yourself a Pat on the Back!
Why, then, do people buy Fairtrade? A few people might argue that it tastes better, looks better or is otherwise of a higher quality than non-Fairtrade. However, this is subjective, and there is no quantifiable way to demonstrate that this is the case.

What we need to admit is that we like attention. We like to look moral. We like to be gracious benefactors. We like to be owed something. Look at Fairtrade’s marketing efforts - they don’t say it tastes better or focus on the quality of the product itself. Rather - they are selling the feeling of being a benefactor. By paying an extra 5% for your coffee, you - YES YOU! - can be a righteous and moral person - a footsoldier in the crusade for human justice and fairness.

We see the same thing with Global Warming products. By paying KLM Airlines an extra £15 when you purchase a ticket, you can have your emissions offset. This, despite the fact that there is no proof that the cost of your flight is doing £15 of damage to the environment, or that KLM will use this £15 in such a way that gives, quantifiably, the same return to the environment. Can’t we just write the check to “the environment”(ala “Santa Clause”) and bury it in the garden?

The only benefit that is created by going Fairtrade, is the same benefit some of us get from giving change to the homeless or running laps for cancer - we feel just a little better about ourselves and the world we live in.

But we shouldn’t feel better about buying Fairtrade. All we’re helping are the better-off Third World producers - and we’re actually setting up serious financial obstacles for smaller, poorer farmers.

Links: Busted Laptop Monday Edition

Published by Colin April 20, 2009 in Current Events. 5 Comments

Economy and Politics
China Slows Purchases of U.S. and Other Bonds

U.S. sovereignty for sale?

The King of America

When dealerships run away, Ford is left with the taxes.

22 year-old sperm still works!

The US’s latest attempt at catching up to Europe’s rail network.

Bleep Tha Police
Royal Canadian Mounted Police killed a man with a taser at the Vancouver airport and then lied about what happened - until a cell phone video of the incident showed up.

Pirate Bay people found guilty of aiding piracy.

Women fight back (politically) in AfghanistanDHS warns of right-wing extremism.

Boston College Campus Police: “Using Prompt Commands” May Be a Sign of Criminal Activity

Here’s an argument against vigilante justice. You know Melissa Huckaby, the 28-year-old California Sunday school teacher who is a mother of a five-year-old, and who is accused of raping and murdering an eight-year-old girl? Well, there is another Melissa Huckaby who is also 28, has a five-year-old daughter, and teaches Sunday school. She lives a few miles from the accused Melissa Huckaby but has nothing to do with her. The Melissa Huckaby who isn’t accused has been receiving death threats, and she fears for her safety.

More Links
The internet is forever

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

“Today there is much focus on our rights.. Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.” “I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities? …Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?”

The Traditions of Men and the Spirit of Antichrist

Published by Chris A April 16, 2009 in Religion, Apologetics and Theology. 40 Comments

Classifying the Jewish faith is complicated. Because Judaism is considered an ethno-religious group, it is easy (and sometimes conveniently so) to confuse any criticism of Judaic theology with hatemongering. So before I incur the wrath of the Anti-Defamation League, let me be clear: the intent of this article is not to express hatred to those who consider themselves to be Jews by birth. Any person guilty of such a thing should not bear the name of Christ, who himself is a son of David, from the tribe of Judah.

Also let me say that the criticisms I will put forth in this article may not be representative of all adherents to Judaic faith. This article will, however, demonstrate quite clearly the incompatibility of Judaism with Christian faith on the basis of New Testament scripture and the Talmud.

Defining Judaism
Judaism has its roots in the Old Testament, or Tanakh. However, to say that Judaism is a religion instituted by God for the children of Israel would not be correct; Judaism itself does not even make that claim. The Law given to Moses is completely unenforceable today. While Judaic religious customs certainly existed in the time of Jesus when the Law was being practiced, it has continued beyond that time and has taken form among diverse sects of Jewish thought, being modified throughout centuries of the influence of rabbinic literature and tradition.

One of the rabbinic texts, considered among many Jews to be the central text of Judaism. The Talmud is a book of rabbinic law and literature, and also is a collection of rabbinic commentaries on the Old Testament. The traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees are a partial basis for many of the Talmudic teachings; whatever the extent of their influence over the course of centuries of religious practice, these historic religious societies cannot be removed from the traditions that followed them.

The Brood of Vipers
Jesus, the Son of God who spoke the words of his Father, and who is the sole embodiment of truth, did not mince words in his confrontations with Sadducees, Pharisees, and Scribes. Despite the fact that many prominent Jewish religious figures were no doubt convinced that Jesus is who He said He was, on the whole they rejected Him because of pressure from the Pharisees (John 12:42). This outright rejection of Christ is what John referred to as “the spirit of antichrist” (1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). Here are some choice verses from Jesus’ rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:

⁵“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacterieswide and the tassels on their garments long; ⁶they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; ⁷they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’¹⁵“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.²⁵“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. ²⁶Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. ²⁷“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. ²⁸In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

I can scarcely think of a rebuke harsher than that. Jesus literally called them wicked children of hell. Now compare this rebuke to what Jesus said to John in his vision on the Isle of Patmos regarding the church at Smyrna.

^“I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.¹⁰Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days…” (Revelation 2:9, 10)

There seems to be a connection here between the church’s afflictions and their persecutors – the ones Jesus calls a “synagogue of Satan”.

The Hebrew of Hebrews
The Apostle Paul spoke at great length about his ethno-religious heritage. This is what he wrote in Philippians 3:

^{“ 4} …If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: ⁵circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; ⁶as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.”

Again in Galatians 1 he writes,

“¹³For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. ¹⁴I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.”

Aside from Paul’s own testimony of his religious life prior to coming to faith in Christ, we have the accounts Luke recorded in the book of Acts. In chapters 7, 8, and 9 of this book we see Paul involved in the murder of one Christian and the persecution and imprisonment of other Christians. Paul associated these violent acts against Christians, and therefore Christ, with the religious traditions of his forefathers. These are the actions that Paul was referring to in Philippians 3 and Galatians 1 when he spoke of his zealous “way of life in Judaism.”

Despite all of Paul’s ethno-religious ties to Judaism, he spent considerable time reasoning in synagogues, trying to convince his Jewish brothers that Jesus was the Messiah spoken of in the Tanakh. It is clear that his opinions about Judaism had changed after his receiving the grace of Jesus Christ. This statement from Romans 10 demonstrates his view of Judaism in light of the Gospel:

^{“ 1}Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. ²For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. ³Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”

Paul identified Judaism, as it existed during that period, as a religious system of self-righteousness born out of rebellion against God, characterized by zealous ignorance.

Antichrist Sentiment in the Talmud
It is my personal belief that the Talmud specifically speaks about Jesus in a very negative light. Some Judaic apologists refute that by saying that “Yeshu” in the Talmud is not the Jesus of the New Testament; they say that the details of the Talmudic story of him are inconsistent with the historic accounts in the Gospels. However, the problem with that argument is that adherents to Judaism do not recognize the authority of New Testament. In fact, I was personally told by one rabbi that he believes the New Testament was contrived by Jesus’ followers after his death and is basically a collection of fairytales based on pagan traditions. At any rate, here is one passage from the Talmud about Yeshu; the reader can make his own judgments as to whether this refers to Jesus of Nazareth or someone else.

“On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not an “enticer,” concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him? With Yeshu, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government.” ( Sanhedrin 43a)

According to some this passage refers to Mary, the mother of Jesus:

“She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” (Sandhedrin 106a)

Can Christianity Stand Against Norse Paganism?

Published by Bryan April 13, 2009 in Essays, Religion, Philosophy and Theology. 38 Comments

I’m sure this title has some people scratching their head. “Of course it can,” you say to yourself “no one believes in Odin and Thor anymore.” Well that is not totally true, but yes, the majority of people have rejected Norse mythology as fact. They do not worship the Asgard or trim their nails before going into battle in an attempt to slow the coming of the end of the world (See Naglfar). But rejection of the literal truth of Norse Paganism (I use Norse Paganism as an example here since I am interested in it, I am sure similar theme(s) can be found in many other pagan beliefs) is not what this entry is about, I wish here to speak for a moment on the mindset and values of Norse mythology.

Norse mythology embodies strength. The warrior is at the center of the myth. It revolves around him and the strength he has to overcome evil, and receive glory and honour. These are themes that appeal to everyone. Everyone wants to be the hero, wants to overcome enemies on their own, everyone wants to have their praises sung. Christianity directly opposes these themes. It glories in weakness, and it tells people that they have no strength and deserve no glory.

What I mean here when I say Christianity glorifies weakness, I mean as a virtue. I mean what Peter Leithart says in Against Christianity “Few Christians have been as astute readers of Paul as Nietzsche [See The Geneology of Morality]. Pagan that he was, he could see what Paul was up to. He could see that Paul was slyly going about the business of ‘transvaluating all values,’ at least pagan ones, giving new names and encouraging as virtue behavior once considered disgraceful.”

Against Pagan virtues and values Christians have lifted up: Humbleness, humility, meekness, submission, and charity. We have denounced pride, strength, glory, and power. We relate to the servant and reject being the master. This is what I mean when I say Christians “glorify in weakness”

The Christian is still weak after they become a Christian. The gospel is a gospel of weakness (In that it is antithetical to pagan thought), it’s admitting that we can not do what we need to do on our own and that we need to give ourselves up to Christ. This does not only happen when one becomes a Christian, but is the continual pattern of the Christian life.

Look at what Paul says about the weakness of the Christian:

1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. … (Read More)

2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

And when Paul does speak of power, it is not his own, but God’s power, which comes in his weakness:

2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

The scriptures take what was virtue, and changes it. What was the virtues that pagans strove for are now considered “bad” by Christians, and what was considered weak by pagans are now “good” for Christians. Christianity therefore embraces weakness and glorifies in it. The Christian savior died in the most humiliating way possible at the hands of those had strength. Yes, power comes out in the end, but that power comes through weakness.

When these two views clash why then would anyone choose the Christian values? Why would someone stand up and choose weakness over strength?

There can be only one answer; those who choose Christianity over Norse paganism have come to understand that they have no strength. One who is sure of his own strength will never choose Christianity. This is what is meant when Christian speak of brokenness. Unless one has tried to live like a Norse warrior and failed they will always reject the Christian worldview. Until one sees their own strength as an illusion they will continue to embrace it. In this Christianity is a religion of failures.

This is not to say that there is no glory and strength in Christianity, but that as opposed to Norse mythology, it is directed away from the individual and towards God. Not only is it direct towards God, but it comes out of our own weakness. It is, quite literally, the pagan world turned upside down.

What then is the answer to the opening question? If men can succeed on their own strength then Christianity has nothing on Norse Paganism. If however, the strength that is lifted up as virtue in Norse Paganism is unattainable in reality, then Christianity is there for all who fail.

Links: Tech, Money, Community Action and Morality De-Legislated

Published by Colin April 10, 2009 in General. 22 Comments

Tech and Internet
Bill in senate will allow president to shut down the internet:

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 introduced in the Senate would allow the president to shut down private Internet networks. The legislation also calls for the government to have the authority to demand security data from private networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.

ICANN (they’re the folks in charge of website names) is mulling a big change: instead of the standard top-level domains of .com, .org, and .net, what about allowing any top-level domains? Let companies register whatever they want, instead of just limiting it to the existing list.

Upgrade costs for broadband in Japan and the US. Oh, and that 150 Mb/s line in Japan costs only $60/month while the 50 Mb/s line in the US costs $90/month. The main reason for the disparity: distance.

Community Action
Privately funded proposal to fix Chicago’s potholes rejected by government.

Private citizens in Hawaii build their own road after government refuses to do its job.Communities print own currencies to keep cash flowing

Pat Buchanan: Should We Kill the Fed?

Show Us the Ball:

The bill implements a fee on carbon-intensive imports, as well, to press China to follow suit. Larson would use most of the income to reduce people’s payroll taxes: We tax your carbon sins and un-tax your payroll wins.
People get that — and simplicity matters. They are much less likely to support a firm in London trading offsets from an electric bill in Boston with a derivatives firm in New York in order to help fund an aluminum smelter in Beijing, which is what cap-and-trade is all about. People won’t support what they can’t explain.

Decriminalisation of Lifestyle Choices
Iowa legalizes same-sex marriage.

Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage, the first via legislature.

Texas Christian University has designated a section of its on-campus housing for gay students. TCU is affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

And Then Some
More footage of questionable police actions likely connected to another death, this time from London during the G20 conference. Some may remember questionable police activity in San Francisco this past New Year’s as well.

11% of the general population and 19% of white Evangelicals believe Obama to be a Muslim.

Ontario man found guilty in HIV murder trial

Now you can play Quidditch too!

FoxNews.com columnist in hot water after reviewing the leaked copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which is not hitting theatres until 1st May). Update: he’s fired.

Our Broken American Dream

Published by Colin April 8, 2009 in General and Essays. 12 Comments

At least part of our recent economic turbulence can be blamed on what has become known as “The American Dream” - but which is, in fact, a gross distortion of this term’s former definition.

The current lifestyle goals of many Americans are to own their own home, own a couple new/newer cars and have children grow up to attend a university. For men, this often includes a white collar job (or at least a job with sufficient status - preferably “managing”, “supervisory” or “executive” something or other in the title) and for women, this also tends to mean a career in addition to motherhood. These two incomes keep enough money in the bank to stay a month ahead of the mortgage, bills and other debt payments.

Contrast this with the ideals that used to encompass this term: “The American Dream.” Originally, the associated with immigrants - who left places where they were less free to pursue their own goals in life and for their family. The American Dream first requires freedom. The primary mechanism of the modern American Dream, however, is unsecured debt, which is a contracted suspension of freedom. It is the modern equivalent of bond-service and, especially with consumer and lower-order goods, the very definition of short-termism.

Let me be clear that I am not speaking poorly of debt - especially debt that is wisely and responsibly used as a prudent financial tool. I am, however, asking how it is that values which were so fundamental to the growth of this country (especially from the 1860’s through the 1930’s) have been replaced by the trappings of a middle-class lifestyle without actual “lifestyle-capital” to back it up? Going into debt to get a house is not wrong (though it can be unwise), nor is debt for school or a small auto loan or something similar. But going into debt solely to obtain something now without regard for future returns or losses is not wise.

The original dreamers had to embrace practical realities in order to sustain and build towards their goals - which often took several generations to achieve. Namely: thrift, savings, ethics, closeness of family, hard work with little initial rewards and a vision to create and produce.

In many ways this is the exact opposite of the kind of virtues which are now embraced under the same term: excess, spending, expediency, broken families, rewards before work and an emphasis on recognition before achievement. Today’s American Dreamers want the dream first - no, they expect it first - and are content to push forward the creative efforts that make that dream to some obscure point in the future.

This has led to lifestyles that are exposed to even minor market corrections and poor investment decisions. Those who actually built their American Dreams rather than simply inherited them or presumed them, know that they can do so again. They have done it. But this modern Dream expects results to come first - and when they don’t come, are delayed in coming or are taken away due to a lack of capital - the modern American Dreamer finds himself dependent on others. In many cases, the Dreamer becomes a ward of the state or foreign producers.

This is why the New Deal, among many other reasons, was a so destructive. It taught people to depend on the hand of the state to secure their economic livelihood - rather than on those God and nature has ordained: ourselves, our family, our church. When we lose the understanding that wealth comes from work (and not from the benevolence of the state), then production no longer becomes valued - and hence, the society becomes poorer.

While there are, of course, many Americans who have gone through the required toil to achieve their goals - there are also many who, along with their possessions, own a mountain of debt (with interest). There are also some who are consuming the dream that their parents or grandparents worked for via an inheritance, gifts or just place financial dependency. But the American Dream was about producing something - adding to the material and spiritual wealth of one’s self, family and community (in that order).

In that sense, the American Dream is really about attitude. What are we pursuing and why are we going after it? Are we chasing vanity - material posessions or status for their own sake? Or are we utilising God’s great gift of freedom to wisely better our lives and the opportunities of our progeny.

The American Dream is not an entitlement we all have because we are born in a certain geography. The American Dream is a character trait which, when nurtured and allowed room to grow, brings out the best in each of us and articulates our future potential.

Why Government Programs Typically Don’t Work

Published by Atanamis April 6, 2009 in General and Politics. 2 Comments

As I have state previously, government is nothing but a corporation which utilizes physical force for causes it considers “just” [a] [b]. As such, there is no reason why a government should be any better or worse at competing in a market than any other player. Those who pay into a government (through taxes or service fees) are the customers, those who control the government (through elections) are the owners.

That said, why do I so often take the position that government run services are generally inefficient and ineffective? It is (only) partly due to the source of the funding. In most government services, the funding is not provided primarily by those benefiting from the service. This means that a government service can offer an equivalent service for an equivalent price to a “for profit” business without being as efficient. This is because the gap in costs is paid from other sources (such as taxes). This problem isn’t exclusive to government, but is shared by all charitable (often non-profit) businesses that take donations in exchange for providing a service to third parties. In the case of charitable businesses, those providing the funding are expected to keep an eye on the cost differential between what the charity they are funding requires to provide a service, and what that same service would cost from an equivalent non-charitable business.

Some level of increase is acceptable since some costs are incurred to ensure that the recipients of the service meet the criteria set by the charity, and more is spent collecting additional donations. If this overhead becomes too high though, competing charities will normally rise up which will offer the same subsidized service to the target audience for lower donation sizes. Once such options become available, donors will begin to migrate to the new charity forcing the original to tighten expenses or lose support. Unfortunately, government funded charitable operations often are not exposed to this competition of charities, and continue to see their overhead costs rise until they are extremely inefficient at providing charitable service. An improvement to this system would be to take out bids for providing the desired service, which would include penalties if the service was provided to people who do not fit the criteria or refused to those who do.

The other major issue with government funded charities is that government often abuses its ability to use force to prevent competition. An example of this would be the Post Office. The government prevents by force any organization providing first class mail service other than the US Postal Service. This means that even if there existed a company capable of providing universal mail delivery services for a price far lower than the US postal service, they would be prevented by the force of the US Government from doing so. Morally, I believe the use of force is justified to protect the life, liberty, and property of another person from misuse against their permission by another person. This criteria cannot include prohibiting the delivery of envelopes by a company in competition to the US government. There may exist a legitimate need for a government run delivery service to process government business related deliveries. If such a delivery service wishes to process the delivery of private envelopes though, it ought to compete on the free market against other providers of such services. Perhaps there exist one or more companies that can be contracted to provide the security, reliability, and universality demanded by the US government for its own business. If so, there may be no need for a government run delivery service.

This second separation from the market is the more worrisome of the two. In the case of services like universal healthcare, separation of payer and beneficiary is actually the point. Those supporting such a measure WANT to finance the care of others, even if the total costs increase as a result. There is danger in costs skyrocketing out of control, but as some validly point out US costs are already far higher than they should be due to lack of preventative care. Allowing such care to be obtained for no cost to the recipient could well drive down costs. The scary part comes from the use of force to prevent seeking private care. If the government provided service does not have to compete with services provided by other services for quality, there is no competitive pressure to maintain high quality. While there is no inherent reason why a monopoly imposed by force CANNOT provide consistently high quality, there is also no alternative if it fails to do so. Since all services tend to have poor spots in areas, there is no way of knowing whether your service is lagging because a certain area cannot be done better or because there is no competition showing how it can be done better.

So long as a government obtains its resources in a moral manner (though payments by taxpayers service fee payers who intentionally request the services it is providing), there is no moral reason why it cannot provide any type of service its owners (voting citizens) choose to provide. The voters should demand that overhead costs of providing a charitable service are kept to a minimal level while still providing the quality of service for the target group desired, and get clear updates regarding the overhead amount paid. Government should NEVER use force to impose anticompetitive restrictions that are not based on its own property rights, or the rights of others to life, liberty, and property.

Zeal For Truth