iPandora

So, the swine flu is going to kill you, right?

Let me put this into perspective. Right now there are about 160 reported deaths from the swine flu world wide. This is not the number infected, but the number killed. But what does this number really mean.

First, compare this 160 deaths world wide to the 36,000 people who die each year in the U.S. to the common flu. In other words we are more worried about a disease that is at least 225 time less likely to kill us then the common flu.

So how has this flu affected the world population of over 6 billion people? Well, run the math and you realize that only .000002% of the world population has died from this disease, as opposed to the .01% of the world population that has been killed by genocide in Sudan since 2003 (675,000).

So why is there the worry? By last numbers there is between 2600 and 2700 reported cases of this flu for which there is supposedly no natural immunity. The fear is that a single sneeze could effect hundreds of people which could lead to a pandemic.

It is time for brief lesson on disease. Most  diseases inhabit our body for at least a day before they exhibit symptoms. This is because the symptoms are usually the result of the disease attacking our body and our body using its resources to attack the disease. In fact, for many cases of the common cold, by the time you exhibit symptoms, the cold is already destroyed in your body and your body is just tired from the fight.

So, I get the swine flu and a day later I exhibit symptoms and am quarantined, etc. How many people did I interact with the day before? How many hands did I shake? How many times did I lick my finger and rub it against something?

How many people did those 2700 confirmed cases interact with before (and even after) the disease surfaced? I would estimate about 54,000 people (20 interactions per person). So why aren’t there 54,000 people infected. Why aren’t we all wiped out as our body has “no natural defenses”?

The reason is because this is a created or imagined disease. It is sort of like the monster you feared when you were younger because you believed he was in your closet. There was some minimal evidence of a monster (boards creaking, darkness), but the reality was that your mind created the monster and cause you to be afraid of him.

So we have this monster before us. There is some evidence before us as we look at the deaths and infections, but the reality is that we have allowed ourselves to be scared into a fear. The media has become our brain as they show pictures of people wiping the legs of a school desk (honestly, who will be licking the legs of a school desk?) and have traveled to Mexico to show the place this all started and have told us that buildings have been shut down for this virus.

This is the monster that we have allowed our brain to create a monster for us where, in reality, there is nothing (or almost nothing). Sure, we should be concerned about this, but worried? No way.

In fact, what this really reminds me of is the movie “Wag the Dog”. Anyone seen it? The premise is that a “war” is made up by the political administration so that people will be distracted from the real issues surrounding the administration. Our media, finding nothing to report on the administration (since the administration is doing nothing good, but the media can’t report that) needed something else to scare us with. Something to distract us from the real news. Their answer . . . Thank God for Swine Flu!

The reality is that AIDS and HIV continue to kill millions, genocide continues to be acceptable in Africa, abortions of black babies continues to exceed the number of live births of black babies, and we recently rewarded large companies dieing in a capitalist society by changing the rules for them. But no, the real news that we should all “obviously” be worried about is that a disease that pales in comparison to any other disaster we have been facing for years may be sitting at our door ready to pounce on us when we are not looking.

In a previous article, Priorities Of Preservation, I discussed the importance Christianity puts on the entirety of an person: body, mind, and spirit.

While the world, in a misguided and myopic view constrained by sin, only really cares for the preservation of the body. And through ignorance, loses the whole person.

In a report released last week which most have already heard of or commented on, it was noted that 1/4 of the US Teenage Female population is infected with one of several Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

The immediate cry was that Abstinence Education must be completely abandoned and further explanation of the ins and outs of safe sex be taught to every child.

I find those making that argument to be their own worst enemies, and I am determined to sit and watch them tear themselves apart trying to make sense of what they’ve said.

Better have a good belt to hold these sides in. The problem is, this is no laughing matter: peoples lives are at stake.
At the blog dbTechno (“Providing Science And Technology News Since 1996″) under the headline “Teens Having Sex, Getting STD’s Due To Lack Of Knowledge” (strongly caution) there is a small picture of three bikini-clad young women shaking their derrières before the camera. This was the picture Google had selected on it’s news aggregator to highlight the several articles on this topic this morning.

In our sexified culture it is considered “emancipated” for a woman to be so “comfortable” with her sexuality that she feels willing to flaunt her body either scantily clothed or free of clothes before the whole world.

I don’t think that it is a sign of a healthy self-image that women are willing and even choose to clothe themselves that way.

I am not for arbitrary requirements in clothing, but it is saddening that, younger and younger, we are compelling out daughters and sisters to choose between frumpy and scandalous.

Removing their modesty with bits of lycra and spandex.

Revealing their bodies for the eyes of all the world.

And then we worry that too many of them are having sex.

I think a healthy self image will result in true self-worth, where the woman will not feel compelled to dress “sexy” to get the approval and acceptance of others.

When a woman is dressing revealingly they are revealing their insecurity, not their assuredness.

The Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board this morning published an article titled “Abstinence-Only Education Needs To Go” (no scandalous images here) in which they completely demolish their own claims, twice.

First, early in the article they lay claim to the moral high ground:

From here, it would be easy to play the blame game. But that would be unproductive. It doesn’t matter if you’re the pro-sex education or abstinence-only type, the statistics speak for themselves, and what matters most is that something be done to make our children more sexually responsible and safe.

And then, in the very next paragraph:

Let’s start with re-tooling the failed abstinence-only approach backed by the Bush administration. Let’s teach teenagers about contraceptives and other precautions that could help protect them if they are sexually active.

Yes, lets avoid the blame game, and lets look at the facts. The Bush Administration has indeed backed and supported an abstinence-only education approach, because no one who practices abstinence contracts an STD, no one. It make sense to back a winner. But how many education programs has the Bush Administrations policy actually affected? Good question.

I would be willing to bet that with state policy, and NEA policy, and DoE policy, there is precious little abstinence-only education going on in the public schools of America.

The article then goes on to make an astounding statement. I very nearly cheered, at work, when I read this:

Abstinence teaching has its merits. It not only promotes a sure-proof defense against STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but also the idea that sexual activity requires a high level of maturity and understanding. An adolescent who engages in “protected” sex prematurely may not run the risk of physical infections, but could be exposed to long-term emotional and psychological damage.

And then gets to the…

BOTTOM LINE: Place more emphasis on contraceptives and STDs in sex-education classes.

And they reached that how?

With this simple caveat they have attempted to justify their entire tortured argument, and by extension, rationalize their continued support for the torture of young minds and bodies with illness both physical and psychological:

Like it or not, half of the teenage girls in this country are already sexually active, according to the study. Something has to be done to make them wiser in their choices, or we soon could have an even bigger public health crisis on our hands.

Do they not see the cruel irony?

Because we’re a bunch hapless, helpless dolts who’ve bought the lie that children are capable of making their own informed decisions regarding sex and mature relationships.

Because we’re a bunch of laissez-faire non-present parental units who feel no particular responsibility to counter the culture’s claims that boys are animals and girls are meat.

Because we’re a bunch of lazy do-gooders who value intentions over actions and outcomes and are willing to allow our children to do whatever they please so long as it makes them feel good.

We will complete ignore what we already know to be true: that premature involvement in adult relationships, emotional and physical, will not only harm the body but will also damage the mind.

So long as we tell enough of them to use condoms, we are perfectly willing to let them hop into bed with any yahoo or floozy who comes along.

Yea, that’s advanced society and parental love for you.

See also:

The Condom Conspiracy: Sex, Lies, STIs and Teenage Girls – the evangelical outpost

While we have Planned Parenthood and sex educators claiming that condoms can “offer effective protection against most serious sexually transmitted infections” the report finds there’s no scientific basis for that claim.

STD Data Comes As No Surprise, Area Teenagers Say – Laura Sessions Stepp and Katherine Shaver in the Washington Post

The Marrow girls offered several reasons why teenagers have sex.

“It’s to fit in, peer pressure,” Christine said, noting that virgins are often mocked. Also, “sex sells on TV.”

Khadijah chimed in that some young girls found their inspiration in the popular R&B singer Rihanna, whose latest album is titled “Good Girl Gone Bad.”

But Christina suggested something closer to home. “Write this down,” she said. “Bad parenting.”

Anybody else think the average IQ of people in the news is falling faster than the thermostat in Chicago this winter?

In case you still think they actually have anything to add to any debate anywhere, these juicy tidbits ought to rearrange your thinking:

• Healthy Lifestyle Is the Secret to Longer Life, Researchers Say
  

  Not smoking, regular exercise, maintaining normal weight, and avoiding diabetes and high blood pressure seem to be the secrets of living to age 90, researchers say.

  No! Really?

• Some with chronic illnesses function as well as healthy peers
  

  Even people who develop heart disease or diabetes late in life have a decent shot at living to 100, according to a study published Monday.

  “You don’t necessarily have to be in good health for all of your life to attain age 100,” said Dellara Terry, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine.

  It’s a choice. It is always a choice. Humans are moral directors: we decide. When faced with a challenge, true strength tries harder.

I laugh.

Obama and Clinton being children:
There’s a bold line between idealism and fantasy,
neither of them have grown enough to know the difference.

With big thanks to Sweetness & Light.

McCain is the front runner, but he’s not won yet. America’s Mayor has endorsed him after ending his own bid to become America’s President. The Governator is expected to endorse him as early as today. (Politico)

McCain will be a “hold-your-nose-and-vote” nominee because even he will be preferable to any alternative.

It is telling that, following exit polls, we know that liberals and moderates voted for McCain in Florida, while conservatives voted for Romney.

Speaking of Romney, he has some tough choices to make: Will he write the big check?

Huckabee needs to get his personal vendetta against Romney out of his eyes, drop out of the race, and endorse the one man who will support a real conservative agenda who still has a chance of winning.

Liberals Anonymous is looking for new members:

Liberals Anonymous (LibAnon) is a nationwide organization of current, former, and recovering American liberals and Democrats. Its sole mission is to establish and maintain recovery programs designed to help similar individuals overcome the plethora of congenital illnesses inherent in postmodern American liberalism with which they are embittered. Liberals Anonymous accomplishes this worthy goal by making the idiosyncratic elemental disease nature of liberalism self-evident to the afflicted individual.

(From the American Thinker)

Back to Romney, and Hugh Hewitt. Ace of Spades apologizes for not getting it right…

I can’t keep knocking Hewitt for being a bit overly enthusiastic about being, ultimately, right. If some of us had seen the lay of the land as well as Hewitt and supported Romney as the best realistic consensus conservative candidate, we might not be in the position we’re in now.

…and endorses Romney.

Jay, do you truly think the media darling candidate is your candidate? Come on, you’re better than that. I know it.

And Orson Scott Card thinks religion may play a bigger part of this than we realize:

After the Iowa caucuses, an African-American friend of mine from Los Angeles wrote to me, scoffing at the idea that Obama’s victory there meant that a black man could now be elected president.

I thought he was too pessimistic. But then came Hillary’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.

I keep hearing about how the pollsters “got it so wrong” and how Hillary’s victory came from the Democratic regulars getting out the vote for her.

And Mitt Romney’s defeat was also laid at the feet of many causes, none of which sounded particularly solid to me. Yes, McCain is something of a “favorite son” in New Hampshire now. But he also has another “virtue” that Romney and Huckabee both lacked: He’s not openly religious.

I suspect that racial and religious prejudice are both playing more of a role than anyone is willing to admit.

Read Card’s latest WorldWatch.

Riehl ponders:

Has anyone stopped to think that if McCain gets the GOP nod, there will come a time when the party has to draft a platform with an obstinate, if not defiant, McCain – an often angry man with a history of holding conservatives in disdain?

We need speeches like this more often. Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the tax rebate checks said:

“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,” said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger.”

(From Copious Dissent)

My chief argument against this package is that it is not tied to taxation. Those who pay no taxes will get as much as those who pay taxes. That is wrong.

This will tie economic stimulus and government largess together irrevocably. Government is a burden. A necessary burden, but a burden nonetheless. The way the government to affect the economy meaningfully is to lighten itself, not to quixotically throw money back to us who were compelled to surrender it to them in the first place. That is adding insult to injury.

Back to Romney. American Thinker asks why the other candidates hate Governor Romney. Some of the answers:

• He can win
• He isn’t beholden to special interest groups
• He believes America’s best days are ahead of it

And once more, from the American Thinker: What does that ACU score really mean for McCain?

So where did McCain differ from the ACU?  The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration.  There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.

Update: Bumped, Will and I have been going at it for a few days. Read the comments…

The Study:

In the UCSF study, researchers found that men in a clinic for HIV-positive patients who had a history of having sex with men were 13 times more likely than other HIV-positive patients to get a particular form of community-associated staph infection called MRSA USA300. But this does not mean that there is a new “gay” form of MRSA, the study’s authors say. USA300 has been around since 2002 and has appeared in at least 38 American states among heterosexual and homosexual patients. What is new is the rapid rate the bacteria spread among this particular population of gay men, studied between 2004-2006. Why these men are more vulnerable than the heterosexuals studied is still a question. Researchers stopped short of labeling USA300 a sexually transmitted disease, but they did note that the infections in the men they studied were commonly found on parts of the body where skin-to-skin contact occurs during sexual activity.

The Rebuttal:

Gay men’s health advocates point out that MRSA can be spread through any kind of skin-to-skin contact, either sexual or nonsexual, without regard for sexual orientation. And they have been very critical of the media for its focus on the sexual aspects of the story. “It’s very unfortunate,” says GMHC’s Stackhouse. “It’s very stigmatizing, it’s alarmist, it’s homophobic and it’s just unnecessary.”

There you have it. Just because the disease can be transmitted by other forms of skin-to-skin contact, the fact that it is 13 times more likely to occur in those who engaged in homosexual relations than in those who didn’t means it’s homophobic to consider homosexual behaviour an increased risk for MRSA.

Read it all on Newsweek.

In case you didn’t know: adult stem cells have been used for years to successfully treat a wide range of conditions successfully. Private companies have seen the success and have poured large amounts of money into programs exploring the benefits of stem cells derived from adult adipose (fat) tissue, marrow, and other sources.

So what’s all the hubbub over skin cells? And why are embryonic stem cells such a hot topic?

In a chokingly self-important article which seems to further support Dennis Prager’s assertion that liberals can go their whole lives without meeting a conservative, Time Magazine claims the recent discoveries about the ability of skin-derived stem cells to differentiate (grow into different organs, technically called pluripotency) will not benefit the GOP. Come again? What does good science have to do with politics? And do you even know the history of the issue? I thought not, the MSM conveniently does not read any medical journals unless their tipped off by some juicy tidbit they may use to further their own radical agenda.

The article’s author, Michael Kinsley, says he has Parkinsons, a disease for which stem cells hold great potential in curing. Current Parkinsons treatments using embryonic stem cells turns the patients into shaking, slobbering babes incapable of the most basic self-care. Embryonic stem cells have a more direct and immediate potential for pluripotency as that is what they do: they turn into cells for each organ and tissue in the body. Unfortunately their growth is uncontrollable right now and they end up turning effectively into tumors in the brains of those who are injected with them.

On top of this, the ethical and moral issues involving the harvesting of human embryos are staggering and I fall in with those myriad souls who fight to stop the harvesting and destruction of human life with the goal of bettering human life. How far removed are we from Nazi Germany, when diabolical doctors of death practiced upon innocents by the millions to further the happiness of the rest of humanity? Is that a worthwhile trade?

In fact, to date there has not been a single successful treatment of any condition or disease using stem cells harvested from embryos.

Private sector investment has shunned embryonic stem cell lines, which means the only group which can be coerced into paying for these death-dealers research projects is… us. The government largess is available to any who crow loud and long enough, and it comes from yours and my pocket books and paychecks.

Private sector research has all gone towards adult stem cell research which offers very potent benefits over embryonic stem cells.

• Adult stem cells suffer no chance of rejection from their host. Adult stem cells are collected from the person they will be used on, meaning the organs grown from them carry the exact biological and genetic “fingerprint” of the rest of the body, there is zero chance of rejection of these treatments.
• Adult stem cells are given voluntarily as part of treatment. There is no moral or ethical morass involved in the collection of the these cells.
• Adult stem cells can differentiate under controlled conditions. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which differentiate wildly and which we are currently unable to control, adult stem cells pluripotency can be controlled in application with greater reliability.

So we have an issue where the successful treatment and therefore all the private money has gone in one direction, but a few stubborn souls insist on using disinformation and outright lies to promote a morally reprehensible treatment system which would have been likely looked upon with distaste by most of the Nazi death doctors in hopes of getting us to pay for a treatment process with no current success and little promise.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” ~James A. Thomson

UPDATE:

Hugh Hewitt references Charles Krauthammer’s article on the issue. Bush was right, technology vindicates morality:

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made “a little bit uncomfortable” by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

Dr. Borlaugh disproved global paranoids such as Dr. Ehrlich and saved a billion lives, by most estimates. He has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal, ushering him into the noble company of only five who have been given all three. Arguably, he ought to be better known than Paris Hilton, but such is not the case in this fickle culture we live in. But what did he do?

He was an optimist. While Dr. Ehrlich spent his years arguing that, due to overcrowding and population explosion, starvation would increase proportionate to population growth, Dr. Borlaugh worked to develop new methods of agriculture and new strains of wheat which were heartier, more disease and drought resistant, with greater yield. Because of his work, scientists estimate that a billion people in India, Pakistan, and other third world nations have not starved to death. You can read more about this man who decided that instead of throwing up his hands, defeated as he surveyed the dismal future of fewer fields and far more mouths, he would make those fields grow more.

Global Warming Most Boring Topic

It’s official, the topic of global warming is more boring than Al Gore himself:

The issue of global warming far out-performed other contenders for the title, such as the production of goat cheese, the musical genius of the artist formerly known as P Diddy and media speculation over the likely outcome of the upcoming federal election.

Read all about it.

Edwards’ Wife Says He’s A Girl Where It Counts

We all knew it was true, but Presidential Power Puff Contender Edwards’ wife says Hillary is not woman enough to be President, implying, of course, that her husband is.

In Case You’ve Forgotten What Is At Stake

The Democrat Presidential aspirants are tripping over themselves trying to hand out a bigger slice of pie to more people. In this case, the pie is a bloody gruesome mess of severed limbs and contorted faces of children who will never see the light of this the sun or the beauty of this earth.

From The Pachyderms Archives, One For The Ages

Over at the Helvidius Pachyderm blog Theo pulled this jewel out of the depths of memory, a priceless, if slightly linguistically risque, rebuttal to every argument by every liberal everywhere. (apparently the Firefox dictionary does not contain “risque” by default):

That is so f’in hilarious. Who these pantywaists? Lemme shrink their heads real quick: they identify with the deer. Like the deer, they have been allowed to overpopulate because their natural predators have been hunted into extinction by the big, bad, unenlightened conservatives who fight and win wars. But here’s where they show their lack of fitness for survival: in their panicked fear of the “hunters” with guns (equivalent to the big, bad conservatives who are actually their protectors), they would rather see the return of their “natural” predators (Nazis, Communists, Fascists, crazy African warlords, and poor, misunderstood Islamofascists).

Stepping outside the metaphor for a second—does anyone know what has happened where the natural predators of deer (i.e., mountain lions and wolves) have been allowed to breed unmolested? Anyone? Anyone? Thaaaaat’s right! They’ve started attacking and mauling/killing humans in those areas, correctly identifying them as easy prey. That’s the problem with “solutions” offered by liberals—they get everyone else killed along with their dumb asses.
How’d ya like that?

You have to read where it came from.

Kudos to Amy Menefee of the Business & Media Institute for her scathing article of Michael Moores latest “documentary” commenting on the state of the American health care system.

Michael Moore is a documented liar who uses “omission, exaggeration and cinematic sleight of hand” to make his political points. But that doesn’t seem to matter to the media who cover his movies.

Now journalists are using “Sicko,” which opens June 29, to make a giddy, unabashed case for socialized health care in America – and even urging Moore to run for office.

He shows “compassion” and “generosity,” he’s a great “campaigner” and an “adroit politician,” reporters have declared.

He’s “taking on America’s deeply flawed health care system,” said Terry Moran on ABC’s “Nightline” June 13. And “… the point his movie ultimately makes: fixing health care is a moral, even a religious obligation.”

“Father Michael Moore – hard to imagine, maybe, or maybe not,” Moran said, after learning Moore once ventured to seminary. “Well, try this one: Senator Michael Moore.”

The media have been in awe of Moore’s film and Moore’s charisma, and enthusiastic about the idea of socialized medicine. Overall, coverage has glossed over Moore’s distortions in favor of keeping the snowballing policy discussion going.

Those who promote so called “single-payer” or government run health care systems cannot be willfully ignorant. There is too much information readily and publicly available regarding the obvious and horrendous failures of those systems.

The American system costs lots of money, that is true. And health care is very expensive. But how much of that is already a result of government regulation preventing the market from deciding the cost naturally. There are many problems with the system, and the solution is always the same. Mandatory insurance guarantees payments for procedures and medication. If we were budget constrained in our medical choices, additional thought would go into what procedures were really necessary, fewer frivolous procedures.

But then consider the converse side of this. America develops nearly every effective medication in the world today combating diseases our grandparents only dreamed of. The incredible costs of R&D for these miracle meds are covered by the incredible largesse controlled by the medical industry. If there weren’t money involved in making the drugs, there wouldn’t be a sufficient reason for businesses to get involved in creating them. If the government were to get involved in health care, you can rest assured that it would be only a very short time until, in what would be called an attempt to control spiraling costs (and yes, they would continue to spiral, the government cannot control itself) they would begin blaming the drug companies and would begin hostile takeovers of those companies. Government has never been good or even adequate at creativity and creation. Government controls and destroys, the more it is given the more that is lost.

Read the article

EDIT:
Additional articles:
MTV News: ‘Sicko’: Heavily Doctored

America is hardly the first nor the last nation to be gripped by socialism. I say this as a matter of fact and in a manner that should not be alarming, because while America is unique in all of history we can’t be so naive to believe it is immune to degradation and failure? No, America is not immune because nothing is free of sin and that which follows in its wake, death. America over the past hundred years and predominantly the last sixty has slowly become more socialistic. I believe taking a look back in history and observing other great nations in history will aid in helping us prevent the failure of another great nation.

I observe the historical empires such as Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the Ottoman Empire and all fundamentally fell due to a lack of morality. Morality prevents death, disease and upholds life and produces national vitality as it brings the people together under a common banner. There’s still tension in the nation, but moral anarchy is even more damaging. Just as gravity and thermodynamics are true today and tomorrow, for the workings of mankind morality is equally especial and true.

The moral fiber first breaks down with the rejection of God or an object of worship which is similar to God and secondly the rejection of the family (via abortion, divorces, illegitimate pregnancies, polygamy, pornography, homosexuality). The break down of these two slowly lead to disunity, more sin, unrest and inevitable civil war. I believe the Roman Empire is a very good example because its failure began first within via the worship of Caesar, the peoples’ moral degeneracy and civil wars which allowed the Germanic tribes to easily conquer and ruin the Roman Empire. Another historical power is that of the nation of Israel and its rise and fall is detailed very well in the Bible. Under obedience to God Israel grew and became a regional power under King David and Solomon. However, with the disregard for God by David and Solomon and the people Israel fell under the heel of other pagan nations.

Considering history I must now take a hard look at America and ask the question of whether or not we as a nation are on the path towards becoming another statistic. Now I’ve titled this writing, “Sinning Into Socialism” because an indicator of sin in a nation is directly proportional to socialism in a nation; and vise versa. I generally define socialism as the centralization of the individual’s or families’ responsibilities and power into the State government, due to the individual and family abdicating responsibilities. Now I say sin and socialism are directly proportional, in that order, because sin abdicates responsibility and power and produces a void that the State is often more than happy to fill; thus the centralization of responsibility and power. This filling of the void is also necessary as a last resort to restore relative order. One living example of socialism would be public school.

Public school is not the natural means of education, because before there was ever a State or central school children were raised by their parents into a trade or skill. For thousands of years parents have been raising and educating their children without the help of that State. I’m not saying there were never higher levels of learning like colleges and scholastic programs but that children were first taught by their parents and eventually financed onto higher learning.

In public school from the ages of 4 to 5 years unto age 18 or 19 years (~15 years) parents give up all of their responsibilities in managing the time, money and curriculum in order to educate their children, rather these are given to the State to manage. But the State does not generate wealth of its own and has to tax indiscriminately, so whether you are retired or have no children you are taxed to send children to public school. Curriculum wise the State is allowed to determine what is taught in the classroom which logically is a conflict of interest as hopefully you’d see that the State can teach exactly what will perpetuate the State’s agenda and power. While American government is a constitutional republic and in theory is to represent the people, this belief is based on the assumption that the people will be an active role within the government via voting and petitioning but when none of this happens the State becomes an entity of its own without accountability and thus more power. And the more people abdicate their responsibilities and power the more power the State will receive.

Other examples of the State filling the void of responsibility which the people should be caring for such as, social security, welfare and Medicare. Now what happens when even the states within America abdicate their responsibilities? Naturally the Federal governing body which is even more detached from the people gains power and leads to Statism. Often I hear people bemoaning the fact that public schools are not safe or the students are not getting a good education, or I hear Medicare drugs are to expensive, or I hear the question, “What is the president going to do about it,” and at the same time I hear the chains of the masses sounding. Such statements and questions imply the State and Federal government has the responsibility and power. The people have set themselves in debt to the State and thus bondage.

Now I realize I have implicily jumped over making an argument against socialism or in more general words, relying on the state to fulfill certain needs. As socialism is defined and in practice the power is centralized in fewer people in the body called the State. As history has shown the more power fewer have, the more corrupt they become because there’s no accountability. This is exactly the case for socialism, communism, totalitarianism, fascism, etc. “Absolute power, corrupts man absolutely,” as the phrase goes. Thus the more power that can be spread out over the people, assuming the people willingly take on the responsibilities, the better the health of a nation. All the empires I had listed above didn’t begin as a totalitarian government, but rather the people had more power, and it was over time that the State became absolute. So in short we all must rely on ourselves and call ourselves to be good stewards first because we are the foundation for our society.

Going back to the Garden of Eden we can see the action of Adam and Eve abdicating their responsibility and power to Satan by rejecting God and his commandment and also his blessings. After that moment where did God find Adam and Eve, in the garden hiding (abdicating) their responsibilities and thus began the story of man’s bondage. However, I have not only written this to point out the problem, but also to point out the answer.

The answer is simple! People must take responsibility for themselves and their families. People must take back what they have given up to the State whom they have come indebt to. I don’t call for radical revolutions which would honestly cause more harm to America, but slow generation by generation taking back what is rightfully ours. First we must submit ourselves to God and his revealed word in the Bible. Our attitude and worldview must be centered on God and we must stop being the judge of God and the following steps will naturally fall into place. Secondly we must take back the family which is the cornerstone to all of life and civilizations. One man and one woman is marriage and they are commissioned by God to have children in their means and to raise them in the Lord which means to be a self reliant, contributing citizen. Thirdly the Church must stop dividing over pointless doctrines and pride. Forth would be to be a productive person in the State and Federal government to ensure the people are protected from evil acts.

I realize though that no one is perfect and I can say this especially of Christians. Knowing right and wrong and not living in ignorance of Jesus Christ is not easier, it is in fact harder. It’s harder because it’s taking back responsibility for us and our families and I think that is why Christians have such a hard time. We set ourselves in a place where we can easily be called hypocrites and failures, but it is still better than living in ignorance. To deny the one true God and deny one’s calling is easy and I see many people do it. I don’t expect a revolution over night, but rather a generational progress to taking back dominion and being better stewards.

It would, however, be not wise to rapidly abolish all socialism in America because many would be left destitute and unable to care for themselves or their families. For example, removing public school would ruin families dependent on two incomes or even a single parent. They would not be able to run the home and care for their children’s education and furthermore, the state and federal government wouldn’t remove the tax used to pay for public education. Therefore, it’s a slow step by step process first beginning with the man and woman of a family making the decisions to build a family based around a single income and or income from home and then preparing the home for educating their children. Also it requires these families to rightfully vote down bonds and additional taxes for funding public school as the family is now taking on the responsibilities and costs.

I’d like to note that I am NOT talking about instituting a theocracy or any religious state. I am actually a proponent of the complete opposite, I am calling for the many, the people, to take back upon themselves their own responsibilities that they were born into and that they have chosen. This is quite close to what our Founding Fathers created and intended. Once the people take back their power the State or any other institution will fall into its proper place. This is the price of freedom, it isn’t easy and it never will be. The very nature of man calls him to be in bondage and to break free of that is daily work.

In conclusion, only the straight and narrow path of scripture is the means to any hope for America. Not socialism, post-modernism, humanism, communism, statism, relativism, nihilism, etc. I always relate morality and truth to that of the laws which are observed and govern the universe. If the universe is governed by such strict laws, how can we believe that mankind can be governed by anymore than one law? Morality is not relative and it is not us who determines it. The revolution begins with the individual and the family. If America can take this to heart and slowly remove sin within and without, there will be hope. Otherwise this great nation will come and go as all have! This is not speculation or opinion, the wages of sin is DEATH, death of self, families, and state; nothing is free of the wages of sin. The pyramid of civilization begins with the foundation of the people and if the foundation is weak and crumbling the pyramid will fall. For the sake of my family I hope we all can make wiser choices in the years and generations to come.

Following is an article by a Professor Stanislau Dundon, of California State University Sacramento. I took Business and Computer Ethics under him and found him to be thoughtful and thought-provoking. He held several principled and unpopular public opinions on campus and remained a respected and important member of that community of higher learning. I do not agree with everything he says or teaches, but his beliefs have merit if only to serve to cause us to look harder at our own beliefs. The article is long, beginning with a note specifically addressed to teachers using this article in their classrooms, and ending with quite an extensive list of endnotes and a bibliography. Professor Dundon, when I asked his permission in posting his article here, wished me to convey that he

“would be delighted to speak to any audience on why so many biologists think, without justification, that Darwin cancels God when all that evolution does is place incredible weight on the power of the non-living universe to form the background potential for biological evolution. Which is why so many prominent physicists, including Nobelists, are convinced theists.”

Read the article on the following pages. (more…)