Haunting

Silent world from Lucie & Simon on Vimeo.

Silent World in the making1 from Lucie & Simon on Vimeo.

These two videos capture artists' images of a "Silent World"--one without or with very little humanity. I thought the images were haunting. As a Christian, I couldn't help but think of this as an end of the world image, and as such, reflect on the vain things of this world: the giant buildings built as moments to humanity all left to nothingness and the comparison of this to the eternal weight of glory in our heavenly homes (2 Corinthians 5:1-5).

Even though I don't take a "rapture" view of eschatology, the thinking has become so engrained in the Christian culture, that it was difficult to see the images otherwise. As such, I expected that people would be commenting (in the comments below the article) about the Apocalyptic nature of these photos. I was surprised to read the comments, which I found much more haunting than the images themselves. I won't comment, but let the ones I've selected speak for themselves:

I for one welcome and encourage the quietness of apocalypse.
- Sean patriot, TEXAS, 30/3/2012 15:45

Xizhimen ring road appears quite smoggy - no surprise as long as there is heavy traffic and industry. So once "humanity" has ceased to exist, what generates the smog that continues to appear in the picture?
- Ross Tulman, Columbus, OH USA, 30/3/2012

Looks like heaven to me, I would be delighted to see 99% of the world population disapear, but I would settle for waking up one morning and finding the south east of England had sunk under the sea overnight.
- Parent, Co Durham , 30/3/2012 15:05

What these pictures don't show is if we did get wiped out, how quite quickly nature would begin to reclaim the mess we have made of the world.
- ER, London, 30/3/2012 13:52

Term Limits

I've heard limited gov't folks (probably from both the conservative and libertarian camps) raise the idea of establishing term limits on congress, for example, as a way to curb power from the State. Admittedly, the idea sounds valid on the surface, but also admittedly, I'm not exactly clear on the logic behind this. I assume the idea is that this would eliminate the "career politician." Presumably, this would eliminate the individual who is simply hungry for power and who establishes strong ties to lobby groups or particular political or social groups, and thus, reduce corruption. In addition, having someone that works in the real world--outside of gov't, that is--would make that individual more in touch with the nature of the real world. As such, they might be less inclined towards regulations, etc.

While there is some logic to this, there are, at least, two reasons that term limits are not the solution, but may, in fact, either do little good or may hurt the cause of liberty.

First, we will call this the Ron Paul argument because this is something I've heard him make. RP argues that term limits are only as good as who is replacing the out-going politician. To the extent that the successor holds the same philosophy of gov't, we shouldn't expect any change. One doesn't need to indulge in a significant analysis of (even) the last two presidencies as an example to recognize that little has fundamentally changed directions. Both the (W.) Bush and Obama administrations have overseen extensive spending, nation-building and policing the world, a reduction in civil and economic liberties. I know this annoys many party-loyalists for Libertarians to describe Republicans and Democrats as "the same," but I have no compelling reason to believe otherwise. Different rhetoric? A slightly different priority list? Perhaps. Beyond this, we have no fundamental differences in the role of government between these two parties. If the parties do not differ, then we would have no reason to believe a candidate replacing a termed-out politician to change direction; as such, term limits do not alter the philosophy and role the gov't is taking.

The second reason is illustrated well in a Drudge Report headline that was posted earlier this week (see below).


It was reported that President Obama told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that "this is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." President Obama's administration officials tried to explained this away, and to be fair, what he means about flexibility could mean a number of things when put in context. However, let's consider the statement--albeit isolated--as it stands. What Pres. Obama may be acknowledging is the simple fact that he has nothing to lose if he wins the next election. Public opinion and job performance ratings mean nothing because there is no consequence for an unhappy public. In short, Chris Rock's analysis that Pres. Obama's second term will be much more radical was (albeit crudely stated) quite astute, as I see it.

This later point doesn't mean that having the pressure of public opinion weighing on a politician reduces political power. Nor does it mean that the majority of public opinion should entitle political power. It simply acknowledges that to the extent that elections matter and democracy is a valid system of government, term limits may actually reduce that effectiveness.

Tucker

"A friend loves at all times..." (Proverbs 17:17a)

Several years ago, my mom came home to tell me and my brothers and sister about a lady she met at the salon. This lady was upset because she needed to sale her dog's puppies, but she really didn't want to get rid of them. She was one of those people who treat her animals like children. Our family never understood that very well. (I didn't, anyway). Maybe that was because my parents had been blessed with lots (5) of children, or maybe that was a personal 'defect' in me. Despite how we (or I) had thought about pets before, my mom was taken by the cute puppies and said we should get one.

We did. We named him Tucker, and it wasn't too long before we thought of Tucker as more than just a pet too. Certainly, he was more to us than the way we had thought about pets before. Tucker was a member of the family--a family mascot so to speak.

Even though we had never been good at training pets, Tucker quickly learned to sit, speak, shake, and fetch (sort of), and he was a vigilant watch-dog...against squirrels. When we would arrive at home, he would sweep the yard, sending the squirrels scrambling for safety, before greeting us with his tail wagging. Of course, people anthropomorphize their pets so much, but we were certain that this was a sign of his loyalty and protection. Indeed, he was a loyal dog.

Our affection for Tucker eventually led us to acquire another puppy from Tucker's "mom's" next litter. Our fear at the time was that Tucker might not welcome this new dog to our home, but he did. Tucker never once became aggressive or seemed upset by this new pup. In fact, our new puppy--Dale--(Tucker's half-brother, so to speak) would bark and chase Tucker. Even though he was bigger and stronger, Tucker just backed away. Tucker's humble approach wasn't just a sweet demeanor, but a sign of his loyalty. He accepted Dale because we accepted Dale. In fact, our neighbor got a puppy from Dale's litter at the same time. When she brought it over, we expected that Tucker would be as gentle with this puppy. Despite that these two pups looked very similar to the human eye, Tucker knew the difference and pounced on the new puppy, growling and barking in a rare display of aggression. This moment has always stuck in my mind as this amazing display of Tucker's loyalty. He distinguished between Dale (our puppy) and our neighbor's puppy, accepting one as associated with us and rejecting the other.

I'm not much of a pet-lover these days, but Tucker and I were good friends. (I guess Tucker could bring out the best in all of us --even me). I could rest-assured that when I sat on the porch, Tucker would stick his head under my arm and lay across my lap for me to pet him, that he would greet me coming and going out the door, and that he would (try to) play football with us--usually by taking the ball in his mouth, giving a friendly growl, and then trying to run away with it.

When I got older and moved away, I didn't see Tucker much, but I'm glad that my children got to meet him. When we came to visit, he treated them with the same affection and loyalty as he did Dale. They were accepted because they were accepted by those he was so fiercely loyal to. He loved their attention, and they loved that he gave it to them.

We lost this loyal friend last week, but like any family member, there will always be a part of us that is Tucker. He will now rest where he lived out his days: in my parent's yard. I suspect the squirrels will roam with a little less fear.

What thanks we owe God for the good gifts and relationships he gives us in this life and how, even in a dog, he can show us what a loyal friend is.

Rest in peace, Tucker.

Left & Right Political Inconsistency

The State vs. Economics

Can the government save us from high gas prices (without consequences)?

Ron Paul Should Run as a 3rd Party Candidate (if necessary)

I'm not counting Ron Paul out of the GOP nomination before the proverbial chickens are hatched. RP seems confident that he has some political maneuvering that he can do and will do to win the nomination by winning the actual delegate votes. He seems very unconcerned by these state caucuses that amount to straw polls. However, I'd like to see RP run as an independent candidate in the general election if he doesn't get the GOP nomination. Here's some reasons why:

1. It is the anti-establishment move: I hear from the likes of Sean Hannity on the right and pundits and supporters of Obama on the left that their real hope is that X doesn't win the general election. (For Hannity et al., that's Obama; for the left, that's the Republicans). In both cases, the point of the election is to see their side in power and to have the others lose. Hannity, for example, consistently makes the case that whoever wins the GOP nomination, all conservatives must get behind that candidate because if they don't, Obama wins. It is shocking how party-loyal the establishment (and supporters too) are. There is very little thinking about principles, policies, what is right and wrong, over politics. It is simply a battle over party-loyalty.
   
2. The timing is right. Despite the party-loyalists, there is a sense that things just aren't right. Romney is being ushered in as the GOP candidate to, at best, a lukewarm reception. He is exciting no one. No one--even some of my liberal friends--have said that they don't see Romney being that different from Obama. Likewise, Obama supporters have certainly lost the star-in-the-eyes-trance they had for him in 2008. He continues to fight wars, extend provisions in the PATRIOT act, execute U.S. citizens without a trial, keeps Gitmo open, etc. No doubt, he's failed his base in many ways. RP could pick up many conservative voters for his fiscal stance and many liberal voters for his anti-war stance.
3. It would serve his larger purpose. Clearly, winning the nomination is a purpose, but it is not the purpose for RP. With his gain in popularity from his 2008 run, he launched Campaign for Liberty to promote his philosophy and like-minded candidates. His place on the stage in a national election would continue to do this. As he appeals to the conservative base with his free-market ideas, he appeals to his liberal base with his free-world (no policing the world) and civil liberties. What he can do on a larger stage is to show both sides that these issues are not unrelated. The reason to promote liberty in the market is the same reason to promote liberty in civil affairs and foreign policy. In short, he would have a continued opportunity to spread his philosophy that is making a real impact in the national discourse. (Before RP, did you ever hear a politician discuss the Federal Reserve?)
   
4. A philosophical win is great, and it is really the hope for political and civil liberty; however, this doesn't mean that RP would be a non-factor. He's well-liked and does reasonably well in national polls.

Hopefully, this won't be an issue. Hopefully, RP will pull an ace from his sleeve and take the GOP nomination. But my greater hope in this election cycle is that we will continue to hear RP and his dialogue in the national discussion. One way to do that is to have him in the general election, even if he's not the GOP's nominee.

Textbooks: Past & Present

Below is a book that I am currently using for my Social Psychology course. It is a great textbook, written by two very well-respected social psychologists. It is well-researched, thorough, and engaging. In short, there is nothing wrong with the text.

Inside the textbook, you can see the layout. It is not uncommon to find (in this text or others) cartoons, graphics, and color photos.

The reason I am showing pictures of my textbook is because this semester, a student brought me an old textbook from her relative that attended LVC in the 70s (I believe). (See the photo below). The picture of the copyright page (not shown here) was blurry, but I think it read 1971.

Open the book up, and you see there are no pictures, graphics, or cartoons; there's just straight text. The only picture that I found was at the beginning of every chapter, there was an "artsy" picture similar to the cover.For some reason, I have a romanticized view of higher ed in the past, where it was more rigorous and the expectations were higher. There was less emphasis on entertainment, but on rigorous and thorough lectures.

This glimpse into the past does nothing to quell that perception in me, even if it is not true and even if education may be better today.

Remembering The Sabbath...

... is an excellent way to think about Lent (and beyond):

When most of us think of Lent, we immediately think about giving something up—sugar, TV, radio, you name it. Although this season is marked by abstinence, it also can be the busiest time in the church calendar. In many traditions, Lent is packed with special services and religious practices to help us focus on the life of Christ—more prayer, more devotional reading, more church services. But for what purpose?

One obvious answer: These activities help deepen our devotion to Jesus Christ. But if we're honest, we also do these things in part because we believe that they contribute to our sanctification. After all, in order to become more like Christ, you have to imitate him, right?

Amid all the devotion, however, the last thing we think of adding to our Lenten disciplines is observing the Sabbath. This is surprising, since the Bible seems to teach that rest may be the most significant and transformative activity of all.

Read the rest of this great article here.

Politics & Religion : Public & Private

Russ Roberts over at Cafe Hayek has some wise words as faith and politics has become such a relevant topic in this election season:

...it is not the job of the President of the United States or in in the skill set of the President of the United States to lead the nation back to or toward God.

What's interesting is that his argument is largely based on the distinctive roles of the private and voluntary sphere and the public sphere. This is a distinction that J. Gresham Machen made in his thought about religion and politics. That is, Machen's arguments between church and state issues seemed to be based on, in part (anyway), what should and could happen in private, voluntary institutions and that of public institutions and spheres.

It's interesting that this distinction is lost on many conservatives that want to see the President take on a greater role in the spiritual life of the nation, especially given their emphasis on limited government. It would be wise, then, to consider this point as an additional reason to keep the public sphere separate from the religious sphere, for to hand the reins of spiritual and religious influence to the State is to hand over additional power.

Santorum: "Vote for Ron Paul"

Elsewhere in the Blogosphere...

I've been incredibly busy, but itching to post. I just simply don't have time, but want to address a couple of important points in the near future.

For now... I was invited to comment on my friend (Chris Aloia)'s blog post. Chris is a really smart and very interesting guy. He worked with me in my graduate school days on some of my research and is now an expert in health and health care. We've had some friendly and engaging disagreements over the years. In this post, he attacks RP's answer in an early GOP debate. The question was on health care. I respond to his criticisms in the comments section of his post.

-- -- -- -- --
Related to my comments in his post, see "What it means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist".

Another Great Plea for Peace by Ron Paul

In the video below, Ron Paul tries to make the case to Secretary Clinton that the real, underlying reason for the recent Afghan protests is not just because of the Koran burning, but the occupation of their country. Glenn Greenwald agrees:

It’s comforting to believe that these violent protests and the obviously intense anti-American rage driving them is primarily about anger over the inadvertent burning of some religious books: that way, we can dismiss the rage as primitive and irrational and see the American targets as victims. But the Afghans themselves are making clear that this latest episode is but the trigger for — the latest symbol of — a pile of long-standing, underlying grievances about a decade-old, extremely violent foreign military presence in their country. It’s much more difficult to dismiss those grievances as the by-product of primitive religious fanaticism, so — as usual — they just get ignored.

(HT2: Lew Rockwell for the video)