This addresses a number of posts I’ve made, most recently in The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost, and should, I think address Allen’s point in his comment on that post.

It boils down to this, when one removes the pillars or the glue that hold a particular society together, make sure that you replace it with something specific, otherwise a mess will ensue.

hat tip to: Roberto Rivera @ The Point

…most Christians do not understand what they believe, why they believe it, and why it matters. How can a Christianity that is not understood be practiced?

Unity in Diversity

Chuck Colson, no matter how you may feel about him and his past, has made an excellent point here. This goes directly toward the heart of much of my concern regarding the “emerging church” movement, and, frankly, the recognizable decline of the “mainstream” denominations. If you do not understand the basics of the faith, how can you discern the lies and the misdirection that can lead you away from God?

Of course, being obsessed with theology can also lead one astray.

These punks are a direct result of a bunch of people who didn’t respect history or authority teaching them. Why are they surprised? The generation that is entering and leaving colleges now is filled with higher percentage of “entitlement” mentality people than probably has ever existed before at one time. They have the mentality of the old aristocracy, and all too often lack of responsibility.

I wish I could say that I’m surprised that those like Dan Barry are surprised, but I’m not. Nor am I, obviously, surprised at the behavior of these punks. People such as myself, Bible-believing Christians, are often ridiculed, even by our friends, for our concerns about trying (although we often—even usually—fail) to align with a Biblically based life. If people were honest, how could a Biblically (read: New Testament, and not forced conversion) be worse than this?

Marriage Could Save Your Life
hattip to:The Point

Marriage is also good for the environment

However, there are a few downsides.

Mercifully, God has granted me a wonderful marriage to a wonderful wife, so I’m not concerned about the downsides personally. With all the upheaval and lances aimed at (traditional) marriage, society had better start paying attention.
]]> http://starlyth.info/20071205/211/feed 0 http://starlyth.info/20071114/205 http://starlyth.info/20071114/205#comments Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:59:48 +0000 Starlyth http://starlyth.info/20071114/205 I freely acknowledge that for a certain branch of the family, I am the red sheep (not the black sheep) of the family. I also suspect that my faith in Jesus Christ plays a greater roll in my life than the lives of others in my family (this is neither red nor blue). That being said, I don’t try to proselytize my family, either in politics or religion.

Politics have taken a very destructive turn in the United States. I was wondering if that means we are going to make a breakthrough of some sort towards some gilded age, or if everything is going to come crashing down around our ears (Oddly enough, there are probably even numbers on the blue and red sides saying the crash is coming. Oh, dear, they agree on something.)

It has gotten to a point that constructive dialog is almost impossible. We are no longer red, white, and blue, but red or blue, or at least people keep trying to shove everyone into the little cubbyholes. It is truly something to think that someone as polarizing as Newt Gingrich was as Speaker, can be the voice of moderation now. I just shake my head in disbelief.

This all brings me to a commentary by Nancy Morgan, My Mother is a Feminist ( archived copy ). This commentary is a snapshot of the discord and disconnect going on right now. While I can offer no advice to Nancy or her mother, I can ask of everyone, is this really what we want to be? Because this is where we are headed.

However, in 800 Dollar Gold in Plain English ( archived copy ), Jerry Bowyer adds a little more to the discussion. His primary point is that the theories being pushed in support of returning to a gold (or silver or whatever) are not nearly as robust as they seem, especially in light of recent history. Some of his comments echo mine in Me and Ron Paul, but mine were more gut feel than anything else.

Of course, the problem with Jerry Bowyer’s commentary is that begs the question, what to do? Who knows? However, I think the major point is that we cannot blindly assume that what seems to have worked in the past actually did, and that it will work for the future.

That all being said, the U.S. trade deficit is definitely an issue. We can’t keep sending money out (whether to China for our manufactured goods, or Mexico, Venezuela, or the Middle East for our oil). A lot of countries have been putting money back into the U.S., because we have historically had a stable currency. That is not the case now.

On the other hand, maybe this is a good thing for domestic manufacturing, especially with all the toy recalls recently. Perhaps companies will finally look at the U.S. as a valid source. The U.S. must continue to excel in changing things for the better. As long as we do, it will all work out in the end.

Mr. Breton’s point that banks would have to have tangible (read gold or whatever standard) assets to exchange for paper currency, means that banks would be less likely to loan money to any one (including me). Of course, such a path, would send the tax and spend politicians (please note that this is regardless of party affiliation) into a tizzy. Also, companies such as MasterCard, Visa, Sears, BancAmerica, and so on would no longer be quite so willing to give credit cards to pets or dead people.

This is sounding better and better.

And I’m quite serious about it.

Nevermind…everyone should just see Gattaca.

Hat Tip to: NewsBusters.org

While I agree with Ron Paul’s sentiments regarding limited government, I would strongly urge anyone to think very carefully about not legislating morality. That’s what legislation is: enforced (or coerced) morality. Who pays what taxes, for example, is morality, hence so many arguments about estate taxes and marriage penalties. I am not saying the government has not overstepped its intended boundaries, but such hyperbole without thought has consequences. Questions such as income redistribution are a morality issue, as is marriage.

When he first gets booed in his speech is when he talks about how gold and silver should be the currency of the land, and I’ve had this discussion before. Here is what I came up with then:

U.S. paper currency, along with the Federal Reserve Bank was created during the Civil War (or The War Between the States) to allow for a better interaction between locals on a financial level. Paper currency existed before that, too (including Colonial times). Each bank (which could the one down the block, a different one at the edge of town, or the State (not Federal Bank) issued it’s OWN money, which was actually a certificate for gold or silver stored at the bank. However, one bank would often (especially if across governmental lines, whether city, county, and definitely state) not recognize the legitimacy of the certificate from the other bank.

This created roadblocks to prosperity, especially if one had to buy stuff from a non-local source. The Federal Reserve system created a consistent methodology to allow currency to change hands with greater ease. The Central Bank only printed and issued money to a bank for a maximum of 60% of its gold, establishing a baseline of both gold value, and paper currency value. This system of reserves (gold, but later, silver) was in place until the 1960′s.

The founder’s did have concerns, very great concerns, that multiple currencies would inhibit commerce (and it did), but were unable to convince the states to go along with a common system.

Now as to the value of gold versus paper, it’s a straw man to me. I don’t value gold as a currency. I see its value, these days, as being a great electrical conductor. What has made it valuable in the human psyche is that we can decorate ourselves with it. And that is what made it valuable in the past, and still. It is what you can do with it. ALL currency is a simplified barter system. If I think that my product is worth 1oz of gold, but you think its worth .5oz, that is no different than my thinking that its worth $500, and you thinking it’s worth $250.

It is all based upon perceived value.

Many that believe themselves in the same camp as Ron Paul state that the federal government has no say right to make money, while Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now all that being said, perhaps he meant returning to a gold/silver based backed system of paper and coins. Honestly, no matter what the currency is, no matter by what it is backed, it is all a matter of perceived value. The value of our currency is perception as well, hence his annoyance at the falling dollar. However, depending on the industry, that can be a good thing, except when you’ve outsourced everything, which is a another result of freedom.

Continuing past this, he makes valid (an in my opinion correct) point that there is a habit of looking to Washington,D.C. to fix the problem, and that habit has to be broken. However, the current batch of Republicans will not support that. How does he think they get elected?

He then attacks, rightly, the U.N., and for liberals (whether R’s or D’s) who look to the U.N. to justify (the U.S. gives too much money to actually look for real help from the U.N.) their more “progressive” desires. I also believe that there is validity to his implied point that we obey laws (or someone tries) that the U.N. has passed, without having any granted (by its members nations) power to it to do so.

However, we agreed to the WTO independently of the U.N., as a treaty I believe, obligating ourselves to it as a matter of trade. Now, Ron Paul could say let’s withdrawal from it, but the President (other than signing the bill) has no authority to do so. I am also not sure that the WTO has been effective, whether against or for the U.S., so this could just be another windmill to tilt at (please correct me if I’m wrong). I could probably be persuaded to get out of it purely on reducing government bureaucracy.

If he would stick to freedom (yes, I understand that he views the U.N. and the WTO as anathemas to freedom), where he shines, he would do much better. He is absolutely correct that far too many people rely more on the government than themselves. It will take at least 3 faithful and stalwart generations to break one generation’s failure (see Amit Shlaes abridged speech at Hillsdale)

He then goes on to the “Just War” theory, about which no one should speak, unless they speak of which “Just War” theory. The “Just War” theory has evolved from righteous war to no war at all. Depending on which version of the “Just War” theory you are using, and what you use as a rationale, any war could be just. It always boils down to which is a worse evil, the status quo, or a war (and its aftermath, which is the trust test anyways, not the war itself). As to WMDs (which he referred to as nonexistent), I believe we have a long way to go before we realize the (in)validity of multiple “intelligence” agencies (UK, French, German, Russian, and US all thought Iraq had them). However, I do think we rushed into that one. Maybe. Saddam was a very smart nut case (bad combo), and thus very unpredictable. Kim Il Sung, on the other hand, just throws a temper tantrum, gets his quiet money (or whatever vice he wants to fulfill), and goes and hides for a while, although perhaps the same “intelligence” that guided the Israeli Air Force to attack a site in Syria, and which guided the thoughts of WMDs in Iraq, made the same mistake again (although bureaucrats rarely take risks of repeating the same mistake, they prefer doing nothing) in regards to North Korean nuclear material in Syria.

Now his “declaring war” is kind of weird. Congress declared war by passing the resolution authorizing it. So his reasoning that we either wouldn’t be at war (so no troops lost), or we wouldn’t be arguing about it is off. Regardless of what our history books now say, we have declared war many times, and have still had plenty of protest anyways, especially in regards to continuing it. That is part of the process.

The last booing was at this point, and booing does not add to the discussion, nor do Ron Paul’s comments, frankly. The question before us is which is more evil, abandoning those in Iraq (the justification, or lack thereof, of the war is no longer relevant), or finishing the job (which, granted, still needs to be completely defined, which is part of the problem as well).

Now all THAT being said, I hope he stays in the race, in hopes that the Republican party will repent of their Democrat tendencies.

Sorry about going on so long. I think I’m done now.

However, one thing isn’t addressed in Jim Lobe’s article is that there are two countries currently that are trying to fill the vacuum left by the deconstruction of the U.S.S.R., the Russian Federation, and the P.R.C. (China). If the U.S. doesn’t arm the “allied” “moderate” Arab states, the Russians or Chinese will, and much of the leverage of the U.S. disappears (argue whether that’s good or bad at Another March Towards Independence).

I believe that there is probably some hope in the Administration (especially with articles such as, A War We Just Might Win – New York Times) that by bolstering the Arab states militarily, they may be able and willing (if just to get weapons) to aid in the stabilization of Iraq. I hope they are looking at this with their eyes open (no, I don’t have much hope of that), not with the thought that it will be different this time (such as the Israeli/Palestinian “peace” “agreements”).

If there is one word, I would use to sum up the atmosphere in Iraq — on the streets, in the countryside, in the neighborhoods and at the national level — that word would be fear.

The longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discreet, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation.

The media and the politicians are always quick to discuss the failures of the military, but as former President Bill Clinton said (quoted, derogatorily, by NewsMax), there is no military victory possible here. He’s right (sorry, NewsMax). Both the Ambassador and former President Clinton (not the president-elect one) have it right. This must be “won” by the Iraqi people.

However, what the Ambassador has right, and future-first-something Clinton has WAY wrong, is that, currently, the only possibility (other than letting Al-Quaida or Iran run things) for that to occur is with Coalition troops doing what they can to provide it. However, at some point the Iraqi people will have to take it upon themselves to do so. Although, I have to say, every time some politician calls for withdrawal (which I’m sure Al-Jazeera trumpets quite loudly), the Iraqi people have an incentive NOT to step up, because if we leave, THEY’RE DEAD!

Then there’s Senator Kerry stepping into it, trying to build a case that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will happen to all those people who stood up for freedom, if we should abandon them.

Look, I want my friends to come home, and my family not be redeployed. However, do people like Kerry and Clinton remember (or even care) what was said of Vietnam Vets when they came back? I, and others, have noticed an increased number of vehicles sporting the Vietnam Service Ribbon. I don’t think that’s coincidence. These vets who served (and 99.99+% served well) are supporting those troops that are serving now, by displaying a ribbon that used to engender scorn (still does, but those same people scorn anything military). They see, probably unconsciously, history repeating itself. Let’s finish our task in Iraq, and bring them home in victory.

(*whine*) But it’s taking too long!

Brief history lesson. Hitler took power in 1933. The Marshall Plan was over in 1951 (I think). That puts an entire World War (from build-up to somewhat recovered) in a span under 20 years. The Germans populace had had democracy before Hitler, and thus a history of it. The people of Iraq had Saddam from 1979 to 2003, and military government before (and during) him, and a monarchy before that. Add to that the lunatics (mostly from outside of Iraq) that keep destroying that which is built back up (like power plant, oil production, factories, etcetera). What do you expect? People that do not have a history of Western thought aren’t going to start thinking like us! They have to find their own way.

They have to stop fearing. They have to find their own way, as did the U.S.. Quick question, was the first union of the states a success or a failure? A failure! That’s why the Constitution was written, because the Articles of Confederation didn’t work! I am so confused about politicians. I don’t know if they say the things they do because they don’t grasp history or societal inertia, or because they believe they can say it and it will be true. Of course, much of the body politic works the same way.

Which brings me, in a very round about way, my homage to Senator Clinton’s (crowned-president-elect) book, when she was still First Lady, It Takes A Village To Raise A Child. It will take the Western world, working together, to build a new jewel of hope in the Middle East, because there are too many who feel threatened by the freedom it represents.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The first piece is an interview with James Shikwati, a Kenyan economics expert.

The second piece is a more in depth review, which is, frankly, quite depressing.

So where does this leave us? As much as we want to, and we should want to, help others, this should give us pause in how we help others. I am not advocating abolishing compassionate assistance, but this is no different than welfare here in the States. I will have to say that much of the same criticism that has been leveled at welfare, should also be leveled here.

It is not whether we should help them, because that is not in question at all, but how they who are being helped may be best enabled to no longer need assistance. For by freeing them from that need, the chains will fall from their feet and arms, and they will be able to go forth with heads held high with hope

I am a professor of human biology at Baruch College, City University of New York. I sometimes get involved in discussions with ‘gay’ students on issues of biology and homosexuality, but such discussions have always been respectful and educational. For example, a young ‘gay’ man told me he was opposed to all the hatred directed against ‘gay marriage’; why couldn’t the government recognize the equality of ‘gay’ unions? I asked him about the lifespan of nations, compared to the lifespan of individuals. He acknowledged that nations span many generations. I added that, in fact, one of the few real responsibilities of the national government is to ensure that there will be future generations of citizens. Therefore, I said, is it not really the responsibility of the federal government to provide special protection to the very institution that guarantees future generations of citizens, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman? His reply: ‘That sounds fair.’ And he walked out of class satisfied. We all know that youth tend to be possessed of idealism, which is these days so often confused with, and perverted into utopianism. But youthful idealism is really the love of truth, and nothing makes it shine like truth!

A letter to the editor of the Patriot Post (The Brief, Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 16 | 16 April 2007)

As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it into pieces.

I was reading Daniel 7:19-27, and it struck me that the United States of America may very well be the fourth beast. The first response of some will be that the USA is not a beast, of course their opposites on the political spectrum will say that it is. The Book of Daniel is very much a prophetical and vision based. It is not literal.

“…shall be different from all the other kingdoms…”. The United States of America is different from any other country.

“It will devour the whole earth…” From a political standpoint, and sadly much in a cultural viewpoint, this is reality as well.

As much as I love my country, the current divide between the lovers and loathers (American Citizens all), tells me that the USA is on its way out. It won’t go down easily, or soon. What ten kingdoms, then will it devolve to?

We call the USA a “Christian” nation. It was. It is no longer, and hasn’t been for a great many decades (which decade in the 20^th century is up for debate). As sad as this makes me feel, the kingdom to which is owed my greatest loyalty is not of this earth, and that kingdom shall not pass away.

millionsoulsaware.org is a not for profit project started in march 2007 that has the mission to raise awareness by featuring an article on an important topic that needs attention. Millionsoulsaware.org doesn’t ask for donations, but asks you to spread the word. The millionsoulsaware.org goal is to get one million souls aware on the current subject. This goal is measured by the project counter on the mainpage. Our goal will be reached by asking people on the internet to spread the awareness by promoting millionsoulsaware.org. We believe the internet is the perfect way to reach a wide audience worldwide. Awareness is the starting point for a better world!

The current issue is refugee camps, and while there will probably be some disagreements on the cause, effect, and resolution of the issue that MillionSoulsAware.org will bring up. At this point, I’m not going to argue that at least their first issue is definitely worth learning about.

Also, please note that I have added a text box at the top of the left-most column, as I want more people to learn about these issues.

Disconcerting as it is, I am almost in agreement with Gaddafi.  The stock and futures markets are based on rumors and fear.

As much as everyone wanted to blame the oil companies for the high price of gas, it was the fears of the futures traders that was truly, and remains, the real reason behind the oil prices remaining at their high level.  Oil production remains at high levels, but oil prices continue to rise (and fall).

I’m not sure that I agree with him in the entirety that the entire global financial “market” is based on fear.  However, the World Bank and the IMF certainly have plenty of critics on their basis for loaning money.

While Gaddafi is correct that fear in many ways rules finances, it also rules most other things in life.  Most people operate on some basis of fear.

Whatever we may now think of the old visions of creation, we can remain sure of one thing: without the speaking of the Word—without language—we would have no science today with its striking power to illuminate the world.

Read the orginal commentary in its entirety at The New Atlantis website.