Lilies that Fester

The Dark Knight is one of the great movies of the early 21st Century. Phenomenal acting and eternal themes are woven throughout the dark tale. These themes can touch any discerning viewer and cause them to pause and reflect. Although there was a phenomenal performance from Heath Ledger in the role of the Joker, the most impacting character on me would be Harvey Dent. For me, the most powerful undercurrent is the corruption of the good person and their decline into a moral abyss. The promise and purpose to bring justice to the world is so appealing, especially for someone who has interest in the political sphere. Dent was a phenomenal man who turned into a corrupt villain. A fallen moral hero.

The landscape of life is strewn with fallen heroes. Great moral leaders are stripped of admiration, taken down by their own faults. There used to be a time in America where people venerated presidents, pastors and powerful people. Now, these groups are viewed with outright or subtle disdain. Trust has evaporated because of negligence on the part of these leaders. Only the "true believers" find themselves following personalities with reckless abandon. Our skepticism has only been reinforced with the postmodernist philosophy that destroys all truth and teaches a generation to disregard all principles behind a flawed leader. Often times, the stupidity of a leader is the cause of the decline in leadership and trust within society. The larger a lion he or she might be, the more spectacular the fall.

As William Shakespeare once said, "lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds." A good man who chooses to forsake the right path for the path of darkness are by far the worst of creatures. As C.S. Lewis once noted, "of all bad men religious bad men are the worst. Of all created beings the wickedest is one who originally stood in the immediate presence of God." Even before time, Lucifer was the most beautiful of angels, powerful beyond compare. It tore creation away from its true purpose and cast the realm into constant warfare. The most beautiful angel perverted life and helped provoke rebellion.

Lewis was right, religious bad men are by far the worst of all men. Wickedness must be restrained as much as possible. That is why the American system has been devised so ingeniously to constrain the ability of man's ambition. Although it is deeply flawed, it does a tremendous job to slow abject corruption. Of course my cynical friends would say otherwise, but the Constitutional framework has been organized in such a manner that it ushered in an era of political stability, even when opposite ideologies took power from each other (with a minor exception in the 1860's...). May the tale of Dent remind us all how precious integrity is and how it must be zealously guarded against corruption. We all have a role to play in life, may it be one marked by integrity.

The Life of Benjamin Button

It's never too late, or in my case too early, to be whoever you want to be.
There's no time limit.
Start whenever you want.
You can change or stay the same.
There are no rules to this thing.
We can make the best or the worst of it.
I hope you make the best of it.
I hope you see things that startle you.
I hope you feel things you never felt before.
I hope you meet people who have a different point of view.
I hope you live a life you're proud of, and if you're not, I hope you have the courage to start it all over again.

- Eric Roth screenplay
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Like most Americans, I love a good movie. Stories that are driven by dialogue, characters and timeless themes are usually my favorite, films that offer something much more than shallow messages. To say the least, when I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button I was not moved. I found that tale to be merely a tale like Forest Gump, a good story with nothing to take away. While others in my party gleaned much more and found a deeper, more profound meaning, I was left in the dust of popcorn and sticky floors. It took me several days until the message finally settled into my mind. Talking it over with loved ones, I finally discovered the power of the film. As Roth wrote in the above quote, Benjamin Button is about so much more than a novel story. It is about life, death and living well, things people have sought since the beginning of time. Living life.

Oftentimes when I encounter older people, they ask me what I want to do with my life. When I tell them my dreams and goals they look at my quizzically. I receive questions like, "Why don't you become a lawyer, engineer or businessman?" While money and a steady job is alluring, I would rather live my life in pursuit of a passion. "Better is a dish of vegetables where love is Than a fattened ox served with hatred." This Proverb could equally apply to vocational desires, for I believe it is better to live meagerly yet complete than to live in wealth with bitterness. Although it can be very nice, money is not the thing that should be a goal in life. Living a lifestyle of mass consumption of infotainment and purposeful purposelessness should be far from us. The central message the movie conveys is that at the end our life, we should be able to look back on our lives and know that it was lived well.

While we live in a culture that is obsessed with youth and adamantly shuns old age, I must take a different position. Benjamin Button shows how growing younger is not an ideal process. It is OK to grow old and to age gracefully, to obtain wisdom and embrace the natural cycle of life. Ponce de León's fountain of youth is not obtainable. While everlasting youth is not feasible, living life well is always within reach. As Roth reminds us, it is never too late to change your life's trajectory and become a different person. Of course it is harder as one ages, it is certainly not impossible. As we are told in Revelation, "whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." Now is the day to change. Now is the time to live well and to live life to the fullest capacity.

Bipartisanship

What is bipartisanship? This questions came to the forefront of my mind during the recent House debate of the stimulus package. Is it really being partisan if the proposed legislation is the antithesis of one's beliefs? Is the spirit of bipartisanship the equivalent of rolling over for the majority party or is it being cordial and agreeing to disagree? I would say that it is the latter. Working together is important, but if the intended goals of party A is not in the interest of the intended goals of party B, why should party B acquiesce? Opposition members are not being obstructionists by not voting for legislation that can be overwhelmingly passed. Pres. Obama reaching out to the GOP conference is wonderful, but the outreach can be embraced while the party simultaneously votes against Obama's plan.

The spirit of bipartisanship that Pres. Obama is trying to usher in is admirable, but if the definition of bipartisanship is to merely roll over than call me partisan. Why can't we agree to disagree? That is the spirit that we need in the country, not hotheaded anger against opposite ideology. Working together to accomplish a better future while simultaneously realizing that there are some issues that will never bear witness to both sides coming together.

A Conservative Perspective on Pres. Obama

As I sit here on the dawn of the Obama administration, I must clarify one important issue for my conservative friends. The inauguration of Barack Obama is not the end of conservatism, far from it! Conservatism as a political movement will regroup and march forward into the annals of time and ideas. Conservatism, as a traditional philosophy, has been underlined and emphasized by the election of Pres. Obama. Now please let me explain.

Traditional conservatism meant that the adherent ought to hold onto something, a conserving of the past if you will. It is a philosophically rooted within the writings of Edmund Burke and furthered through people like William Buckley and other contemporaries. Although many view it with a vague notion as "anti-progress" (which is certainly the case with many nostalgia laden individuals), conservatism seeks to stop people in their tracks and think about this "progress" that people proclaim. Drawing from the past, they institute a core system of beliefs into current policies, this system is called First Principles. These principles are ideals and should be lived up to and we should strive for them every generation. For Americans, the unique declaration that boldly proclaimed that "all men are created equal" speaks resoundingly in the face of injustice and hatred. Although the nation did not live up to its ideals, the unjust nature of the government needed to be aligned with the first principles.

America has had a mixed history, mired by the blatant ignorance of the truth laid down through natural law. The truth that were self evident needed to be rediscovered and obeyed through the trials of bloodstained lands of Antietam and Atlanta. The truths needed to be proclaimed through the teaching of preachers and the example of civilly disobedient citizens. As St. Augustine reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all, many parts of our history had perversions of the truth that all men are created equal. We are fashioned in the image of God and that similar nature warrants equality. To be opposed to this is to be in flagrant violation of natural and fundamental law. Without this sure foundation, the notion of equality is left in a precarious state, left to the whims of the majority.

President Obama, in a way, captures this ideal. He is a strong symbol that clearly shows the ideals of the founding are true. All men can become presidents and leaders. All women can make a difference in this great nation, even amidst bigotry, whether soft or institutionalized. Pres. Obama's story is uniquely American. Throughhardwork , persistence and personal application, anyone can make it, that is the fruit of traditional conservatism. Perfect equality will never be realized in a fallen world, but that should not stop us from trying. Together, we can rise up and make this a better place. Come, we have much work to do.

Talents

In Matthew 25, Jesus gave a parable in regards to talents. The story is told that there was a master who had three servants. The master gave five, two and one talent to three different servants expecting a wise investment. While the first two individuals took their money and doubled the amount, the last one simply buried it. He did not capitalize on the blessing that he received, instead he played it safe.

The master returned from his trip and inquired about the outcome of the three potential investments. The first servant doubled his investment to ten and was rewarded with a handsome prize. The second servant accumulated six talents and was rewarded the same amount as the first, with "many things." The third person merely dug a hole and stuck the talent in the ground, not investing it and earning a return. The master took away the talent from the third servant and cast him away, upset that the servant did not invest his amount wisely. While the master expected proportional gain for the investments, his servant chose the easy way of merely existing. He did not take advantage of what was given to him, instead he sought to a role of merely 'being.'

The master understood that each person is only given so much and is capable of a finite possibility. He gave disproportionate ability to each servant but would reward them equally if they used their investment wisely. He expects more from the person who is given much than the person who is given the least. Nevertheless, the master would reward them equally, "You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things." The overwhelming rationale behind this story is that each person must live their lives to the fullest. We only have one chance on this planet and the talents that have been entrusted to us for a short time should be used wisely. God will reward all people the same for that faithfulness, as long as we give the fullest of our ability and potential. He wants us to live, not merely exist. I hope that we all take advantage of this challenge, starting with you and me.

Israel v. Gaza

It seems like the Israel v. Middle East conflict occurs every few years. Rockets are fired, tanks inevitably roll in and civilian casualties are left in their wake. Lather, rinse, repeat. In this particular instance,Hamas picked a fight with Israel and Israel was more than able to unleash its superior forces in the Gaza strip. Quite honestly, Israel will probably never have their version of peace until they impose a post-WWII style occupation and completely dismantle the territory like in Japan or Germany. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will never have peace until Israel is either destroyed (check the translations of Arabic media at these websites for more http://www.memri.org/ or http://www.memritv.org/ ) or effectively handcuffed. Frankly, both of these realities are neither feasible nor just. I do not know if anybody can bring peace between the two sides., even President-Elect Obama. I do believe that there needs to be a significant moral and cultural change within the camps. As Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald pointed out, Israel must ask itself whether military incursions create more enemies than they destroy. Hamas and other groups must turn towards coexistence with the State of Israel and the reality that there must be a two state solution. I have witnessed Middle Eastern opinion firsthand and it is rather startling.

Hamas caused the invasion by firing rockets from civilian areas and Israel has killed many civilians by returning fire. While there is fault on both sides, in my opinion, one side is more guilty than the other. In order for peace to happen there must be a seismic cultural shift. Mark Steyn wittingly outlines this concept in his recent column below.

Gaza has its version of rocket scientists
Westerners seem to expect more civilized behavior from Israel than from its adversaries.

So how was your holiday season? Over in Gaza, whether or not they're putting the Christ back in Christmas, they're certainly putting the crucifixion back in Easter. According to the London-based Arabic newspaperal Hayat, on Dec. 23 Hamas legislators voted to introduce Sharia – Islamic law – to the Palestinian territories, including crucifixion. So next time you're visiting what my childhood books still quaintly called "the Holy Land" the re-enactments might be especially lifelike.

The following day, Christmas Eve, Samuel Huntington died at his home at Martha's Vineyard. A decade and a half ago, in his most famous book "The Clash Of Civilizations," professor Huntington argued that Western elites' view of man as homo economicus was reductive and misleading – that cultural identity is a more profound behavioral indicator than lazy assumptions about the universal appeal of Western-style economic liberty and the benefits it brings.

Very few of us want to believe this thesis.

"The great majority of Palestinian people," Condi Rice, the secretary of state, said to commentator Cal Thomas a couple of years back, "they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do."

Thomas asked a sharp follow-up: "Do you think this or do you know this?"

"Well, I think I know it," said Secretary Rice.

"You think you know it?"

"I think I know it."

I think she knows she doesn't know it. But in the modern world there is no diplomatic vocabulary for the kind of cultural fault line represented by the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, so even a smart thinker like Dr. Rice can only frame it as an issue of economic and educational opportunity. Of course, there are plenty of Palestinians like the ones the secretary of state described: You meet them living as doctors and lawyers in Los Angeles and Montreal and Geneva … but not, on the whole, in Gaza.

In Gaza, they don't vote for Hamas because they want access to university education. Or, if they do, it's to get Junior into the Saudi-funded, Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza, where majoring in rocket science involves making one and firing it at the Zionist Entity. In 2007, as part of their attempt to recover Gaza fromHamas, Fatah seized 1,000 Qassam rockets at the university, as well as seven Iranian military trainers.

At a certain unspoken level, we understand that the Huntington thesis is right, and the Rice view is wishful thinking. After all, when French PresidentSarkozy and other European critics bemoan Israel's "disproportionate" response, what really are they saying? That they expect better from the despised Jews than fromHamas . That they regard Israel as a Western society bound by civilized norms, whereas any old barbarism issuing forth from Gaza is to be excused on grounds of "desperation."

Hence, this slightly surreal headline from The New York Times: "Israel Rejects Cease-Fire, But Offers Gaza Aid." For whatever that's worth.Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, a young Palestinian woman who received considerate and exemplary treatment at an Israeli hospital in Beersheba , returned to that same hospital packed with explosives in order to blow herself up and kill the doctors and nurses who restored her to health. Well, what do you expect? It's "desperation" born of "poverty" and "occupation."

If it was, it would be easy to fix. But what if it's not? What if it's about something more primal than land borders and economic aid?

A couple of days after Hamas voted to restore crucifixion to the Holy Land, their patron in Tehran (and their primary source of "aid") put in an appearance on British TV. As multicultural "balance" to Her Majesty The Queen's traditional Christmas message, the TV network Channel 4 invited PresidentAhmadinejad to give an alternative Yuletide address on the grounds that it was a valuable public service to let viewers hear him "speak for himself, which people in the West don't often get the chance to see."

In fact, as Caroline Glick pointed out in The Jerusalem Post, the great man "speaks for himself" all the time – when he's at the United Nations, calling on all countries to submit to Islam; when he's presiding over his international conference of Holocaust deniers; when he's calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" – or (in his more "moderate" moments) relocated to a couple of provinces of Germany and Austria. CarolineGlick forbore to mention that, according to President Ahmadinejad's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi , his geopolitical strategy is based on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" – the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states, Canada and New Zealand, all the malign progeny of the British Empire. "We have established a department that will take care of England," Mr.Abbassi said in 2005. "England's demise is on our agenda."

So when Britain's Channel 4 says that we don't get the chance to see these fellows speak for themselves, it would be more accurate to say that they speak for themselves incessantly but the louder they speak the more we put our hands over our ears and go "Nya nya, can't hear you." We do this in part because, if you're as invested as most Western elites are in the idea that all anyone wants is to go to university, get a steady job and settle down in a nice house in the suburbs, a statement such as "England's demise is on our agenda" becomes almost literally untranslatable. When PresidentAhmadinejad threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map, we deplore him as a genocidal fantasist. But maybe he's a genocidal realist, and we're the fantasists.

The civilizational clashes of professor Huntington's book are not inevitable. Culture is not immutable. But changing culture is tough and thankless and something the West no longer has the stomach for. Unfortunately, the Saudis do, and so do the Iranians. And not just in Gaza but elsewhere the trend is away from "moderation" and toward something fiercer and ever more implacable.

To be fair to President Ahmadinejad's hosts at Channel 4, the "department that will take care of England" probably doesn't get the lion's share of the funding in Tehran. On the other hand, whenHashemi Rafsanjani describes the Zionist Entity as "the most hideous occurrence in history," which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" with "a single atomic bomb," that sounds rather more specific, if not teetering alarmingly on the "disproportionate." Unlike its international critics in North America and Europe, Israel has no margin for error.

©MARK STEYN

Reflections on Christmas

Christmas is a wondrous and joyful time. It provides hope and happiness for all people, even in the darkest time of the calendar year, lights shine triumphantly throughout all of the streets. While it is an amazing time of the year, this holiday can leave people with a tremendous sense of sadness. The end of the season means the silencing of carols, the extinguishing of lights and the diminishing of holiday greetings. Soon, Christmas will end and the New Year will begin. While the joyous time of the year ends, nothing but a cold winter takes its place.

This emotional ending is interesting, considering that the ending of the seasonal Christmas holiday also ushers in the theological celebration of the birth of Christ. The coming of Christ also signifies the end of the material holiday season and all that it entails. I am not making an entry that heaps scorn upon the Dickensian traditions. It is not like that at all, instead it is merely an observation of the realities of the season. While Christians celebrate the Advent (arrival) of the Christ, we are called to quiet our hearts in eager expectation. This is incredibly tough, for the coming of Christ is simultaneously triumphed boldly throughout American stores and homes with song, both secular and sacred. How can one ponder the mysteries of the Incarnation when festivities abound?

While the question certainly leads to tension, the belief in the implications of the First Noel continue to exist. As Scrooge realized, we must strive to keep Christmas all the year. Basking in the knowledge of the incarnate deity, contributing love and charity to the world. Emmanuel, God with us.

O magnum mysterium,

et admirabile sacramentum,

ut animalia viderent Dominum natum,

jacentem in praesepio!

Beata Virgo, cujus viscera

meruerunt portare

Dominum Christum.

Alleluia.

O great mystery,

and wonderful sacrament,

that animals should see the new-born Lord,

lying in a manger!

Blessed is the Virgin whose womb

was worthy to bear

Christ the Lord.

Alleluia!

O Come, O Come Emmanuel

O come, O come, Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan's tyranny
From depths of Hell Thy people save
And give them victory o'er the grave
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Day-Spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death's dark shadows put to flight.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

Newsweek and Religion

Newsweek recently published a cover story that sought to outline the disagreements between proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage. However, Newsweek's story hardly was the bastion of journalistic objectivity. Instead, the magazine created an opinion piece that sought to disguise itself as a news story seeking to discredit "fundamentalists." I am not upset that the weekly became an opinion paper, I am upset that the weekly did not accurately represent their opponent's views. Their description of the views of evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons and others were not even remotely accurate. While there certainly were bad arguments on the side of Prop 8, Newsweek disregarded the clear statements of Natural Law thinking and the traditional thought of the Church. The writer selectively picked and twisted words in order to discredit the proponents of Prop 8. This was a blatant attempt to discredit an opponent by mocking them and not defeating them through rational debate.

Newsweek did not delineate clearly, they ignored thoughtful arguments and promoted murky philosophy. The author and Religion section editor Lisa Miller wrote from a position of pure emotion and unfounded accusations. Of course, what they might lacked in rationale surely was amplified in slogans and protest. Christianity Today proposed three possible interpretations about Newsweek's creative essay,

[The article] could mean that Meacham and Miller (the editor and author, respectively) are simply ignorant of the nuanced and careful biblical arguments that religious conservatives have made. But this is doubtful, since as journalists of the topic, they have surely been immersed in the literature.

It could suggest they simply don't understand the subtleties of the biblical arguments. But this can't be, because they are clearly bright people in other respects.

Or it means they have found themselves hamstrung by the richer, nuanced, and thoughtful biblical defense of traditional marriage. And they find themselves utterly incapable of responding to it on its own terms.

In a society such as ours, it is incredibly important to have clarity. I have an obligation to not misrepresent a differing view with the dubious intention of mocking that side. While humor and satire is powerful, seemingly ignorant claims must be refuted by both sides and accuracy must be the aim of all the citizens. Labeling someone as hateful because of an argument does not bring clarity. Good people could have honest disagreements. It is a shame that if one disagrees they will be immediately labeled as hateful or bigoted. Our society thrives on debate and disagreements, that is what makes this nation great. Despite our differences, we remain as a single nation. We must have clarity, labeling people as hateful people because of differences does not help society. We, as a society, must be willing to sit down and have a deep conversation about issues. We cannot live in a intellectual ghetto, instead we must immerse ourselves in competing ideas. Americans must pursue honesty and intellectual honesty, sadly Newsweek did not pursue those goals.

Mumbai Clarification

Something that I have become passionate about is the concept of language and the importance of ideas. With the horrendous actions in Mumbai and their immediate implications for the region, I feel that it is important to stress the need for clarifications. As I wrote in a previous post, "we must call cowardly acts like these what it is, murderous evil." The current trend within media outlets is to call the perpetrators by every name other than Muslim fundamentalists. The cowardly murderers are portrayed as "militants," "gunmen" or "practitioners." The evil that civilization (Western, Far-Eastern, Near-Eastern) faces is the threat from Radicalized Islam.

While American foreign policy does play a role in the tension between the clash, it is not the sole reason. While Deepak Chopra and others might blame America, these attacks were not solely based on American policy. Bali hardly was an extension of American Imperialism when it was bombed several years ago. Turkey stood up against America in the prelude to the 2003 Iraq War, yet it was hit by bombings in Istanbul. This threat touches moderate Islamic states and secular democracies alike, it is a global force that needs to be reckoned with. It is important to also note that this threat is not an easy puzzle that many of my fellow conservatives paint. The government of Iran, the finances of Saudi Arabia and the youth of Central Asia are not mobilized with similar goals or objectives, bonded together in a unified plot. Instead it is going to be a Long War and this war needs differing solutions for different problems. The implementation of Soft and Hard Power will be key.

The murderers in Mumbai attacked civilians and a Jewish center. They targeted a Rabbi purposefully. One of my favorite columnist wrote a brilliant piece that speaks to this issue powerfully. Mark Steyn wrote,

"In a well-planned attack on iconic Mumbai landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the "militants" nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city's poor in a nondescript building. If they were just "teenage gunmen" or "militants" in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Mumbai? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: 'Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.'"

Quite frankly, the populace of the West must be honest. We must be able to properly identify who the enemy is and what is their ideology. If we remain dishonest and merely call the perpetrators "teenage gunmen" we will forget the gravity of the situation. Clarification of the issue needs to be also met with restraint in our language as well. All Muslims are not terrorists and the "silent majority" must stand with the rest of the world. The problem is that these murderous thugs use the guise of Islam for their cowardice, thus implicating peace-loving Muslims. As Keith Pavlischek writes in First Things, "They do not appeal to Hindu or Buddhist texts, they do not justify their actions by appealing to Catholic encyclicals and papal pronouncements, they do not appeal to Protestant confessional creeds or to Jewish literature. They justify their resort to terrorist violence, rightly or wrongly, to Islamic canonical sources in the Koran and the Hadith." Moderate Muslims must remember that silence is acceptance. A reformation will only come from within Islamic society, it cannot be forced upon them. Peace loving Muslims must stand against the perverse terrorists, that is when true victory will occur. All that Westerners can do is stand with those vocal people and fight to eradicate the evil, through both word and deed.

Reemergence of Evil

In the past few months I have been focused on US politics. Debating Iraqi withdrawal strategies, economic plans and social issues have been hot topics in political circles and have preoccupied my mind. These topics, however, have shifted focus from one of the most important issues of our time- evil. There is evil in the world and it attacks defenseless people for the sole purpose of destruction. This evil has a face, and it is the face of twisted ideology. This ideology takes the words of a religion and uses it to enact destruction. These terrorists use the name of Islam to combat the infidels, and by that very definition every non-Muslim is a target. However, that narrow description has broadened, even fellow Muslims have become acceptable targets. Islamic fundamentalism is an anathema to the world, including the Muslim civilization. This anathema must be universally confronted.

The terrorists in Mumbai sought to destroy as many lives as possible, killing tourists and workers at random. These murderous beings also sought to target a Jewish cultural center. In a place that has an incredibly small Jewish population, these terrorists murdered a rabbi and his wife. Of course, we do not have to discuss the ancient belief in Jew hating (we can save that discussion for another day), but we should discuss the evil in the world. There are theories that these acts have been prompted by American foreign policy (which I agree, in part). However, US foreign policy can only provide so much room for excuse. Bali, Turkey, India, Jordan and other traditional non-Western nations have been targeted for retribution. As Fareed Zakaria said on CNN recently, we must place the blame first on the terrorists. Regardless if there were ties from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, the perpetrators deserve our full wrath. They are the ones who attacked defenseless tourists and civilians. They are the cowards and they are the root source of this evil.

In the remembrance of the murderous acts in Mumbai, we must regain vigilance against this evil. The Western, Muslim, Hindu and Far Eastern nations must stand against this evil and work to eradicate it. This will have to be a blend of military, economic and diplomatic solution. Hard Power must be joined with Soft Power to create a lasting solution. Our military might must be used with caution and our culturally based Soft Power should be deployed to its fullest extent. The first step that we must take is the realization that it exists and then work to counteract it. We must call cowardly acts like these what it is, murderous evil. If we do not achieve intellectual and moral clarity than we will never win.

The Power of Words

Words are incredibly powerful. Clear articulation of ideas can inspire revolution, free the enslaved, rally a dejected army or challenge others to greatness. The English language has many colorful and important words that paints a picture and, if mastered, can move legitimate mountains. Unfortunately, political campaigns choose words that best suit their particular interests and activist groups use loaded terms to slur their opponents. It is important that people be cautious in their choice of words and bring powerful ideas to the table instead of loaded rhetoric. It also important to have these powerful ideas grounded in reality. As Wilfred McClay wrote in his article "The Danger of Abstract Words" in First Things:

That caution is especially appropriate in a modern democratic culture, and so it is not surprising that Tocqueville had a keen awareness of it. “Men living in democratic countries, then, are apt to entertain unsettled ideas, and they require loose expressions to convey them. As they never know whether the idea they express today will be appropriate to the new position they may occupy tomorrow, they naturally acquire a liking for abstract terms.” The chief virtue of an abstraction, he observed, is that it is “like a box with a false bottom; you may put in it what ideas you please, and take them out again without being observed.”

It is important to note that the Obama campaign was not the only culprit of using generic terms. While the Obama campaign used the generic words of 'hope' and 'change' to argue for their victory, the McCain campaign used words that boast populist sentiments, 'elitist' and 'socialist' are just two out of many words. It is incredibly expedient to use broad words than to advocate for a clear worldview. When the word Nazi is constantly used, one loses the sense of evil that the ideology embodied. When the powerful nature of love is devalued through 'free love,' the word is diffused.

When we devalue a terms meaning by using them inappropriately the speaker merely alienates their opponents and adds a layer of unneeded complexity to the dialogue. The term 'Nazi' is thrown around so often and is applied so broadly that it stifles legitimate conversations. When talking about words, we must look to the incredible orators of the past to gain a better understanding about dialogue and statements. Martin Luther King was able to articulate ideas and used words with power, clarity, and meaning. As Dr. King said in his famous I Have a Dream Speech:

In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Dr. King used words to advance a cause. He drew upon the principles of the past and progressed forward with them (conservatism at its most basic philosophical form). He could have inflamed his opponents by using loaded terms. Instead Dr. King brought people together with a cohesive argument. That is what our postmodern society must regain. Words are powerful and they should be used with respect.

Post-Election Thoughts

Religion and politics are two things that people should not talk about with strangers. I do not have that option, because politics is something that I do and religion is something that I love. Although I do not have the luxury of remaining in an aloof state, it is important for anyone who dabbles in either area to learn to compartmentalize certain aspects of those passionate subjects. In an environment that is filled with partisanship and rampant opinions, it is important to not become consumed by something, especially politics. Political junkies must live a balanced, whole life. Even when your particular team loses an election you have to make yourself not feel distraught. Of course you should not bury the emotion completely, but you should not let it drive your life. A balanced life is something that every political activist and thinker must develop, and is something that I constantly must remember.

Dennis Prager, an intellectual mentor of mine, mentioned a quote that has greatly impacted his life. The rabbinic statement goes: "It's not up to you to complete the task, but you're not free to desist of trying." It is not up to an individual to make the world a perfect place, but that excuse does not give us the right to stop trying. In every instance, Utopians always make the world an evil one, because it is not up to us to make things possible and to obtain a just society. Whether in Revolutionary France or in communist countries throughout the world, the desires for imposing economic equality always have turned foul. Even within religious circles, we must realize that perfection will not come about in this age, because our nature will not change. The three monotheistic religions all believe in coming perfection. Jews believe in a coming Messiah, Christians believe in the Second Coming of their Christ and Muslims believe in the fulfillment of their scriptures. The broken nature of mankind will always be present and it is important for every person to realize that. Moses did not get into the "promised land" and neither shall we.

Utopia literally means nowhere. Those who want to make the promised land reality on earth inadvertently create hell on earth. We must remember that we cannot transform earth, but that does not mean that we must stop trying. We cannot foster a mentality that does not help the weak simply because "the poor will be with you always." We cannot live for the present, instead we must try within reason to make things better on earth. In a theological perspective, we must work for the Kingdom of God with the comprehension that perfection will never occur. In short, we should always work towards a better world.

We also must realize that "this too shall pass." A certain political party or ideology will not obtain power and perpetually keep it. You accept the loss and you continue to fight for your values. The Republican Party was resoundingly rejected at the ballot boxes and that rejection should prompt people within the party to think about what that means for them. It is important for a minority party to ask the powerful question of "where did we go wrong?" Was it in your tone, the denouncing of everyone else as elitist or un-American? Was it the concept of limited government turned expansive government that propelled the GOP into an abyss? The party must then direct their course towards becoming a purer conservative party, move towards the center as a Progressive Republican Party or take a dramatically different course. (Simply resurrecting Ronald Reagan will not solve the problem, as I said in a previous post) Ideas have consequences and they should be measured and debated.

Aristotle was correct when he once noted that man by nature is a political animal. That same political drive, however, should not destroy our broader being. Enjoy life! There's more to life than politics. We need to compartmentalize our political frustrations and not allow it to overflow into our other interests. It goes with the broader maxim that we should not be held hostage to emotion, instead we need to learn to be content. We need to learn to be happy and practice that ability. Learning to live with passion and purpose is essential; after all, politics is only one piece of that life. We must become whole people and learn to act accordingly. We must redeem the time and work to bring justice to the world.

Why Proposition 8 Matters

Proposition 8 has provoked extreme emotions on both sides of the issue. It is generally shaped as being about tolerance and equality on one side or about morality and tradition on the other. While they are polar opposites, it is important to realize that both sides have boasted faulty arguments. There are agents of intolerance within both camps, whether intolerant of free speech or hateful of a different lifestyle. The most important thing within a pluralistic society is the ability to construct sound arguments and not get caught up in overwhelming emotions. Please hear me out and let me explain why I endorse Proposition 8.

It is very important to outline what is marriage and what is the role that it plays in society. Marriage is typically outlined by society and it is shaped by the culture, whether through religious or legal customs. Historically, cultures have outlined that marriage is between people of the opposite sex- regardless of an Eastern or Western philosophy. However now, this is seen as both hateful and bigoted. The archaic understanding of marriage should be modified, after all racial matters were decided through government intervention. Although the racial legacy of the USA has been tainted with slavery and hostile welcoming of immigrant groups, the California court's decision in the beginning of this year cannot be equated with the rejection of interracial marriage. The racial tension and restrictions were morally deplorable and were against legitimate moral teachings. The current debate cannot be honestly tied to the past struggles on moral grounds for clarity's sake. Although marriage between two people of different faiths have been banned periodically throughout history, that ban has not been on racial grounds. Since people of different ethnic groups could convert, interracial marriage was not condemned within religious texts. Certainly the question of American bans on interracial dating and marriage within ultra-conservative groups is often raised as a parallel. In order to rebut this erroneous claim I will turn to a quote from columnist and thinker Dennis Prager,

"American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side."

Certainly my libertarian friends will object with the limited concept of imposing morality on other people. I want to be perfectly clear that it is really impossible to not impose your worldview on other people. Even the belief that all beliefs should be tolerated and debated is imposing one's belief on someone else. In other words, there is no such thing as objectivity or universal acceptance. Some compassionate people might say that the rejection of this proposition would be a reinstatement of human rights. After all, Thomas Jefferson once penned, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Human rights are applicable to all people, and through the vigilance of the state, people should be protected. Although perfect equality will not happen due to the natural condition of humanity, it does not mean that we should not strive for legal equality. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should receive and continue to receive equal legal rights. The legal benefits between my wife and I should be granted for two partners through civil unions. There are rights that can be given but do not call it marriage. Prejudice should be fought against and tolerance of other lifestyles should be sought, but an abandonment of all societal ties for the sake of 'progress' must not be attempted.

One of the classic arguments in support of same-sex marriage that must be addressed is that we must support same-sex marriage because a heterosexual marriage will not be impacted by a homosexual marriage. Congratulations on making a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the debate, no one ever said that it would. Even in my conversations with the most conservative of Evangelicals this topic does not come up. We are not discussing individual marriages, instead we are talking about foundations of society. The elimination of the mores that bind us to our foundation is precarious and that is what this debate is about. Of course, advocating for marriage between a man and a woman is now the equivalent of being a sexist or racist. And soon, I am certain, it will be a hate crime. Even though one might have all the love and respect for someone of a different sexual orientation, the sentiments that only a man and a woman should marry is hateful. The playing of the hate card is intellectually dishonest and blackmail. If everyone else is labeled hateful by you if they oppose a measure, than you are promulgating hate.

Marriage is at the very foundation of civilization. Society lives and dies through the ability to sustain its culture and grow as a people by reproducing. Three traditional views on marriage is that marriage a social contract, sacrament and/or a legal binding. According to my Protestant worldview (with a bit of Catholic influences), the issue leans more towards all of the above. Marriage redeems society and should be a blessing unto it, through the dynamic of two different people coming together-- building society through stability and furthering society in childbearing. This (potential) ability is what sets marriage apart from other relationships. If it is a purely legal matter, than allow the society to legitimately decide the definition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Marriage has been chosen from within society and is bestowed on whom it chooses.

Words are incredibly important. The description of a piece of legislation as either a bailout or an economic stabilization plan could cause significantly different public reaction. With this constitutional amendment the phrasing could make all the difference. The proposition originally read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The changed wording should melt even the hardest of hearts. Attorney General Brown changed the phrasing to manipulate popular sentiment, framing those who oppose gay marriage (even those who have no animosity towards gays) as bigots. Just as O'Brien would famously ask Winston in George Orwell's 1984, many now ask "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" Even if you reply four they will force you to say five. Why? Because up is down and down is up. There is no Truth, morality is dead. After all, we are simply a nation of sheep.


Marriage has always been defined by society, secular or sacred. If society chooses to allow same-sex marriage, then so be it. It should be defined through the ballot box, not through judicial and dishonest actions.


-----------------------------
For more, please see:

Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love

by Dennis Prager

California's Decision will radically change society
by Dennis Prager

The Meaning of Marriage
by John Witte, Jr. in First Things

Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage

by R. Scott Clark

The Rise of the Rest

I was introduced to the writings of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman several years ago. His masterpiece The World is Flat altered my outlook on life for many years. Friedman forcefully argued that the world was becoming more competitive through the spread of information and the proliferation of technology. Small businesses and developing countries can close the distance with larger rivals. It is a phenomenon known as the "Rise of the Rest."

The past 500 years witnessed the dramatic and dominating growth of Western Europe. Once mired in the "Dark Ages" it grew into a powerful region. A rebirth of Classical philosophy led to the pursuit of knowledge, the Reformation led to the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment. The Rise of the West was phenomenal and allowed Europe and its offspring (the United States, Canada, etc.) to dominate the globe. Within the Twenty-First Century we are not necessarily seeing a precipitous decline of the West but the Rise of the Rest. This flattening of the world, in my opinion, can be traced to two events in the Twentieth Century.

1. The two World Wars led to the exhaustion of Western resources. The will of Europe to wage war was spent and much of the colonies they once had was gradually released. Those who lived under the imperialist nations witnessed how Japan could fight against European powers and become successful. Decolonization and the principles of self determination led to the rise of non-Western powers.
2. The information age and rise of IT helped to further flatten the world. China, India and Brazil are rapidly growing in economic and international power. Brazil's economic growth has been astounding, flourishing into a regional power (US News and World Report examined this growth more intensively). Thomas Friedman was right, The World is Flat.

As I wrote in a previous post, the American Republic will fall eventually. Every empire and nation has an expiration date, they will be replaced by another world power. America is not necessarily collapsing on its own, but is rapidly being replaced by the rest of the world. Fareed Zakaria would point out in his book The Post American World (for an excerpt, visit this site) that the world is moving beyond America. The world is catching up to the Superpower. They are not surpassing it in military might or leadership, but the developing nations are rapidly becoming part of the strata of elite nations.

The developing nations are taking distinct advantage of the Pax Americana, much like the United States took advantage of the Pax Britannica. A large nation can stabilize the world or region and allow other groups to simultaneously flourish. Global peace and prosperity will usher in the era of Brazil, India and China- the Rise of the Rest. This is not as disconcerting or pessimistic as my previous post asserted, instead the world is growing incredibly interconnected. The demise of a great power will lead to the decline of other great powers. The Rise of the Rest is still linked to the West and the demise of the West still leads to the decline of the Rest because the world is incredibly flat.

The Decline and Fall of an Empire

Amidst turbulent times and troubles, one can only fall back onto the recesses of the past to look forward. I look back to the heroes and villains of history, seeking to learn from both their triumphs and disasters. Things will rebound and times will get better, they always have. Things might change, new leaders might emerge, but the sun will still rise from the east.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
– John Adams (1814)

Ever since I discovered this quote from my friend it has challenged me to think about the future. Empires rise and fall. St. Augustine wrote "The City of God" during the decline of the Roman Empire as Visigoths, Vandals and Persians raided the land. What caused the great and powerful empire of Rome to fall into decay? Economic, martial and political chaos led to the fall, yet while the demise occurred Augustine chose to remind the people about the hopes of an eternal land- the City of God.

The Bishop of Hippo contended in his treatise that there were two rival factions, the earthly and heavenly. While the former was beautiful and tempting it was entirely temporal. The City of God was magnificent, the very foundations would never be shaken. St. Augustine desired to invoke to his fellow Romans that temporal pleasures pale in comparison to the everlasting joy that they shall receive. Sin and selfishness were finally beaten, true peace would reign forever.

When the American Republic will fall, the Believer must not doubt about God or their faith. It is an entirely natural course, the rise and fall of powers are not based upon God. As the sun sets each evening, surely each government has its appointed day of expiration. Our faith is rooted in the City of God, our pilgrimage will only last so long. Eternity must be written on our hearts.

As a sojourner, it is comforting to think that the City of God shall stand against the ebb and flow of time. Things may falter, but the Kingdom of God remains ever strong. I am reminded of Martin Luther and how he stood while evils and corruption abounded. He reminded us all that a "Mighty Fortress is our God"! Might we remember that still.

Because Wall Street affects Main Street (Part 3)

Final entry in the "Wall Street impacts Main Street" series.

It is a somber day for the American economy.

Plan Will Save Free Market, Not Destroy It

By REP. JOHN CAMPBELL

This free-market, Milton Friedman devotee, conservative Republican congressman will be voting strongly in favor of the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street. What, you ask? Has the California sun fried my last brain cell?

No. I will vote for this bill because it will likely not cost anything, is not a bailout of anybody and will help every American with a bank account, a job or a retirement plan. It also will save the free market, not weaken it.

Allow me to explain.

The $700 billion figure so often mentioned will not be spent, but actually entirely invested with three different mechanisms to ensure that the taxpayers get all their money back.

First, these "troubled assets" will be purchased at less than the expected net present value of their cash flow. That means taxpayers should make a profit by holding them to maturity.

Second, taxpayers will get warrants to purchase stock in the companies from whom these assets are bought. That is more profit potential if the companies recover.

Third, whoever is president five years from now is required to offer to Congress a proposal to recover from these same companies any net loss incurred by the taxpayers to that point. No investment's return is certain, but this one looks pretty good. It for sure will not cost anything close to $700 billion over time.

Furthermore, you are not bailing out companies when you buy assets from them at 30%-60% of what they paid for the asset. That's a bath, not a bailout.

And they should take a bath. They made an investment decision, and it turned out to be a bad one, so they lose money. The purpose of the purchase plan is to create a market where one does not now exist and allow these companies to move that capital back into productive use in the economy. It is not giving them any kind of deal.

If this bill does not pass and Congress does nothing, Wall Street will suffer for sure. But so will everyone with a retirement plan as those values drop precipitously and their nest egg disappears.

Just imagine a whole week of days like Monday. People with bank accounts or money market funds may find their money inaccessible as the debt markets freeze over. And nonfinancial businesses that rely on short-term borrowing to meet payrolls and finance inventory spikes may be unable to get that credit, resulting in layoffs. In short, we all lose, whether we live in Manhattan or Peoria.

So has the free market failed us and that's why we need the government to take it over in this way?

No again. Free markets work. They are still working. They are rational. But on both sides of any free market transaction are two human beings who are subject to emotional behavior. The market cannot correct for overwhelmingly irrational behavior, whether that behavior is fear and panic or risk-ignoring exuberance.

When the short-term debt of some of the world's most profitable companies has no buyers, that is evidence of widespread fear bordering on panic. The objective of this bill is to remove the object of that fear, the bad mortgage-backed securities, from the market so that rational behavior will return.

In some ways, this bill is more of a free-market solution than other actions that have been taken. The government will not take over any companies here. Even the warrants will be nonvoting. No one will be compelled to sell the government their assets if they don't want to.

Even the "reverse auction" process of establishing pricing for the assets, where sellers submit bids to one buyer rather than the other way around, is a market-based pricing method.

Other ideas are out there to correct this problem. I have seen most of them. None has a better chance than this one to stabilize the credit and equity markets. Furthermore, no other plan has the broad base of political support that this plan has from leaders in both parties.

The credit markets in particular are too fragile. We cannot afford the time delay of starting over.

If we do not pass anything, I shudder to think of how bad things might get as that fear turns to full-fledged panic.

If we pass this plan, some banks and other companies will still fail. The world economy will still struggle and have problems for months if not years to come.

But markets will function again, and we will likely avoid the abyss. That will save our free-market economy, not jeopardize it. I hope and pray that at least 217 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives will see it that way on Friday.

Because Wall Street affects Main Street (Part 2)

I cannot say it any clearer than David Brooks. Unfortunately, much of the GOP is stuck in this perpetual time warp. Wake up! To do nothing is unacceptable and to tout populist ideals is dishonest. If Wall St. fails, it will impact every single person in the US- regardless of class or occupation.

-----------------------------

Revolt of the Nihilists
By DAVID BROOKS

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis. He understood that his first job was to restore confidence, to give people a sense that somebody was in charge, that something was going to be done.

This generation of political leaders is confronting a similar situation, and, so far, they have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed. Instead, by rejecting the rescue package on Monday, they have made the psychological climate much worse.

George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.

We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.

What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.

The Congressional plan was nobody’s darling, but it was an effort to assert some authority. It was an effort to alter the psychology of the markets. People don’t trust the banks; the bankers don’t trust each other. It was an effort to address the crisis of authority in Washington. At least it might have stabilized the situation so fundamental reforms of the world’s financial architecture could be undertaken later.

But the 228 House members who voted no have exacerbated the global psychological free fall, and now we have a crisis of political authority on top of the crisis of financial authority.

The only thing now is to try again — to rescue the rescue. There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects. Leaders need to add provisions that would shore up housing prices and directly help mortgage holders. Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Lindsey both have good proposals of the sort that could lead to a plausible majority coalition. Loosening deposit insurance rules would also be nice.

If that doesn’t happen, the world could be in for some tough economic times (the Europeans, apparently, have not even begun to acknowledge their toxic debt) — but also tough political times.

The American century was created by American leadership, which is scarcer than credit just about now.

Because Wall Street affects Main Street

Call it the bailout bill, Paulson plan or socialism on steroids, the US Treasury plan is all over the papers. Liberals yell that this is throwing free money at the CEO's of failing corporations and Conservatives cite that no government intervention is required. Many high-profile Republicans are standing firm against any solution, because principles must stay when financial hell has risen. As we sit on the brink of a grave situation, there are handfuls of congressman who actually get the situation. There is no good answer right now, but no answer would be the worst solution to it all.

Doing nothing is not a valid option. Conservatives do not realize how close we are to the brink of an economic catastrophe. The markets must be stabilized. We must restore trust to the banking industry. The shrinking of credit will affect every person in the United States, regardless if you have direct contact with Wall Street. The implosion of the financial structure will freeze all of your assets, hurt every business and will touch every American.

In the 1930s, a lot of people who had nothing to do with Wall Street were deeply impacted by the crash. Today, we are incredibly entangled with the financial sector. The bad choices of a few will dramatically impact the many. Irresponsible people should and will be punished. CEO's should not obtain the "golden parachutes" and oversight should be created for the implementation of the plan. These and other issues should be discussed and included in the legislation. Bad lending and greed will be reckoned with, but the crisis has gone by too far to stand back and do nothing out of principle.

Is this plan anti-markets? Hardly. The market is not this mystical force with no players, instead it is made up of people and these people engage in transactions and investments. Human beings can act completely irrational, stoking fear into outright panic. People do not realize how close we were to financial panic last week in regards to money market accounts and the ongoing exodus from these accounts. The trust has dissipated between financial institutions, banks and consumers. Markets cannot correct itself if fear remains within the system. Take the fear out of the system (through the removal of bad assets) and the market will correct. And besides, the assets that the government will acquire are less than what they were worth. The government stands to make a profit on these purchases and loans.

If action is not taken everything that you and I own financially will be cut dramatically. The savings account that we have will not yield the original amount. Retirement accounts will be hammered. I cannot stress this clearer that the financial system is in grave danger. A point can be made that one's ideology should trump all circumstances. A quote from a respected thinker says it best, "My ideology guides my thinking, but it does not replace my thinking." Ideology must not get in the way of logical decisions. There is no good solution, but out of all of those solutions lie the controlled crash solution. Quick, consistent government intervention is necessary to the health of the economy. Otherwise, the ramifications will be unconscionable.

Freedom and Responsibility

Freedom is a very dangerous thing. Freedom grants the ability for anyone to follow their own desires and motives. However, is complete freedom ever truly free? I wrote in a previous post that,

Mankind can never be truly free. Even as a Lockean Liberal, I am bound to the philosophy of personal freedom. This belief drives me to follow those ideals, for better or for worse. We are all ensnared in our ideologies, and only change into some other concept that drives us to walk in that newfound belief.

In other words, our beliefs are never fully free. My personal political philosophy is chained to the notion of liberty. Anarchy is not true freedom and relativism is false liberty.

The greatest historical example I can give comes from the pivotal era of the Protestant Reformation. Among other things, Martin Luther believed that every person should be able to read the Bible for themselves. This understanding allowed the untrained person to read and think for themselves. Yet, with this freedom came the option for incredible abuse. The Bible could be interpreted erroneously and abused by every reader. The various Protestant denominations splintered more and more, Biblical passages could be interpreted in a variety of ways. With this freedom, came a significant risk of unorthodoxy and incorrect thinking. Nevertheless, this freedom was worth it.

As the below video from the Acton Institute explains, freedom is more than just doing whatever one wants. Freedom is not choosing things arbitrarily, but choosing what makes us better as human beings. Freedom is much more than merely hurling a dart randomly at the wall. Freedom requires us to make correct decisions. A player has the ability and right to press piano keys haphazardly, but is that really the best thing to do? True liberty is doing what is right.