The Gummint Gravy Train

Scientists Have Sold Their Soul

Michael Polanyi, one of the greatest physical chemists of the twentieth century, ultimately changed his career to being a professional philosopher of science, after he was exposed to the development of "official science" in the Soviet Union.

At Easter in 1935 I visited N. I. Bukharin in Moscow. Though he was heading for his fall and execution three years later, he was still a leading theoretician of the Communist party. He explained to me that the distinction between pure and applied science, made in capitalist countries, was due to the inner conflict of this type of society which deprived scientists of the consciousness of their social functions, thus creating in them the illusion of pure science. Accordingly, Bukharin said, the distinction between pure and applied science was inapplicable in the Soviet Union. This implied no limitation on the freedom of research; scientists would follow their interests freely in the USSR, but, owing to the internal harmony of socialist society, they would inevitably be led to lines of research which would benefit the current Five Year Plan. Michael Polanyi, Science Faith and Society, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 8)

Did Bukharin really believe that scientists would follow free inquiry, but would always end up doing the "kind" of science which supported the government view and government policy? We believe so, for the capacity for human self-deception is boundless. Nevertheless the magnitude of the blindness is breathtaking. The willing suspension of disbelief in the Soviet Union had become such an entrenched lifestyle that it was unconsciously done.

Scientists can become corrupted. The more involved government is in science and science policy the more corrupt they become. Official consensus defines reality and directs "free" inquiry. In the West, in our modern world, Bukharin's vision has become reality; scientists now discover only what is consistent with official government policy. And scientists, as a whole, are as unconscious of their suborning as Bukharin asserted was the case in the Soviet Union. And it has all to do with state funding and grants. The "internal harmony of socialist society" has been replaced with dollops of taxpayer's money and social prestige and tenure and career advancement, but the effect is precisely what Bukharin so presciently described. One imagines that, had he survived Stalin, he would have been amazed at the New Model Scientist that has popped up in the West.

Writing just before the US mid-term elections, Dr Roy Spencer, a lionised scientist of the "old school", reflects on the suborning of science and hopes for a brighter day ahead.

Global Warming Elitism, Tomorrow’s Election, and The Future
November 1st, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.


The NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium I attended last week in New Orleans was in some sense a celebration of the wide variety of global satellite observations we are now collecting from Earth orbit.

This really is the Golden Age in satellite data collection of the global climate system. While a few A-Train satellites are still to be launched, other older satellite assets in the A-Train are now operating well past their planned lifetimes. 

There are no plans to replace many of these one-of-a-kind instruments, so much of what we will learn in the coming years will have to come from the analysis of previously collected data.

Unfortunately — at least in my opinion — the existence of this superb national resource depended upon convincing congress almost 2 decades ago that manmade global warming was a clear and present danger to the world.

Manmade Global Warming as the Justification

Since I believe the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system, I argued from the outset that NASA should be also selling “Mission to Planet Earth” as a way to better prepare ourselves for natural climate change — something that history tells us has indeed occurred, and we can be assured will occur again.

But behind the scenes there was a strong push for policy changes that even most of the scientists involved supported — ultimately culminating in the governmental control over how much and the kinds of energy sources humanity would be allowed to use in the future.

Cap and Trade, as well as potential regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA, are the fruits of the labor of politicians, governmental representatives, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.

Of course, most who speak out on this issue continue to point to the supposed “scientific consensus” on global warming as the justification, but those of us who knew the players also knew of these other motives.

I am often asked, “So, are you saying there is a conspiracy here?”

No, because the ultimate goals were not a secret. Just a bunch of elitists carrying out plans that the politicians supported — with continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1 of government — to stay needed by the people. Many of the scientists involved are just along for a ride on the gravy train. Even I ride that train.

The elitism clearly shows through in the behavior of those who speak out publically on the need for humanity to change its Earth-destroying ways: Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, RFK, Jr. These people apparently believe they are God’s gift to humanity. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior? . . . .


The Times They Are A-Changin’

How is it that government agencies long ago decided to put all their eggs in the manmade global warming basket? Why have the movers and shakers around the world ignored natural climate change — even going so far as to claim it does not exist?

The only reason I can think of again goes back to their elitist beliefs and desired policy outcomes. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.

Tomorrow’s election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government.

Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs. 
And global warming legislation is now quite possibly the best opportunity the governments of the world have to increase the role of government in people’s lives.

The Basic Economics of Individual Freedom

Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country. This is a laudable goal on the face of it.  Unfortunately, history has taught us that trying to impose equality of outcomes only serves to make people equally miserable. . . . 

One of the reasons I am willing to stick my neck out and inform people of the uncertain nature of government-approved global warming science is because the basic economics behind any governmental (or environmental extremist) attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.

In fact, it already has.

The biggest threat to humanity is poverty. Wealthier is healthier. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die. Those already living on the edge are pushed over the edge. Energy is required for everything we do, and artificially raising the price of energy cannot help but destroy wealth generation.

If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity.

Worried about population growth? Then encourage the generation of wealth. It is the poor of the world that cause global population growth. The wealthy countries of the world have close to zero population growth.

Of course the main argument against this view is “sustainability”. Can the Earth sustain even more people consuming natural resources?  . . . . But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.

Now THAT would lead to a pollution problem.

What ensures sustainability is free markets. As natural resources of one type become more scarce, their price goes up, which makes alternatives more attractive. People are incentivized to develop new answers to old technological problems. This is why fossil fuels will never be used up. At some point, they simply will become too expensive to extract.

Mass production by factories and corporations should be embraced, rather than derided. It represents the most efficient way of providing goods and services. Waste is minimized because it hurts competitiveness.

But What About Equality?

Equality of outcomes is an illusion. It can never be achieved…unless we totally destroy the people’s motivation to make a better life for themselves. A vibrant economy is what maximizes the tax revenue collected by the government. The two largest periods of growth in tax revenue collected by the government occurred after two major tax-CUTTING initiatives: JFK’s in the early 1960’s, and Reagan’s in the early 1980’s.

If you really want to help the poor, then help the country grow economically. Want to make sure the poor are taken care of? Then encourage businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs. Economic activity is what is needed, and since the tax revenue the government receives is a “piece of the action”, more action means more money for government programs.

And whether we like it or not, the only way to ensure this growth happens is to give business owners and entrepreneurs some hope that their risk-taking and creativity will pay off for them personally in the future.

Yes, in the process, some people will get rich. A few will get obscenely rich. But this only occurs because so many consumers want the goods and services those rich few can offer them. 
Call it a necessary evil, if you must. But it is, indeed, necessary. The end result will be more money for the poor, not less.

A New Fight Begins Tomorrow

The basic economics and desire to help the poor that have motivated me to speak out in the last 20 years on global warming policy will, starting tomorrow, be the subject of a national debate regarding the proper role of government in helping its people.  Tomorrow’s election is only the start. From then on, education about the practical importance of economic freedom will be central to that debate. 

And reducing government expenditures must, of course, be part of the debate.

But increasing tax revenue to help support those programs is ALSO part of the solution. And since the only demonstrated (and sustainable)way to accomplish this is to grow the economy, it requires personal economic freedom.

So, what is the primary role of government in all this? In my opinion, it is two-fold: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way.

We conclude by reminding ourselves that the protagonists of the Theory argue that supporting government policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is a riskless strategy. Even if the theoretical foundations of the Theory were to be subsequently proven wrong, no harm will have been done, we have been told ad nauseum. Spencer correctly points out that this artifice is catastrophically wrong. The damage that such policies will do is incalculable--particularly to the poor and the vulnerable.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

The 2010 Chainsaw Massacre

Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, November 02, 2010

One of the hardest things for me to take in the election of Obama was the smug congratulatory blessing of the Europeans. Well, I think we have fixed all that now.

I have mentioned before P.J. O'Rourke's great line that this was not so much an election as it was a restraining order. It is now appearing to be not so much a restraining order as it is a chainsaw massacre. I mean, yikes.

In the "don't hold your breath department" I would like to ask if our emergent church types, who are all about missional contextualization, so that the faith can be made more relevant to the natives, will encourage their people to start buying cowboy boots, large, silver belt buckles, and Palin 2012 bumper stickers for their recently acquired pick-up trucks. No?

In the spirit of reaching out, and encouraging other conservatives not to gloat, I would like to mention that I did vote for a Democrat today. True, he was unopposed, and it was for the office of coroner, but still, I did it.

When all the pieces fall out of the sky, I will publish a few updates here, including perhaps a few comments on our local races here. In the meantime, the main thing we need to remember in all this -- and we need to remind ourselves of this every day -- is that the Republicans, who now have a strong hand in the House, are still, well, Republicans. We, in order to advance a biblical agenda, now have to work with the Republicans, who still have those black little hearts.

Hedgehogs and Foxes

Sweeping Visions Confront Reality

This is a reminder that simple visions, however powerful, do not hold up as reliable predictors of particular developments. Visions are vital for clarifying thinking about the forces that drive international relations, the main directions to expect events to take, and one's basic faith in matters of politics, but they cannot account for many specifics in the actual complexity of political life. The biggest ideas may also yield the least accurate estimates. The psychologist Philip Tetlock, in Expert Political Judgment, compiled detailed scorecards for the predictions of political experts and found that ones known for overarching grand theories ("hedgehogs," in Isaiah Berlin's classification) did worse on average than those with more complicated and contingent analyses ("foxes") -- and that the forecasting records of any sorts of experts turn out to be very weak.

Readers looking for an excuse to ignore dire predictions might also take comfort from evidence that forecasting is altogether hopeless. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of The Black Swan, argues that most world-changing developments turn out to be predicted by no one, the result of highly improbable events outside analysts' equations. The overwhelming randomness of what causes things in economic and political life is inescapable, Taleb argues; big ideas are only big illusions. Richard K. Betts, Conflict or Cooperation? Three Visions Revisited, Foreign Affairs.

The Rebels Have a Worthy Cause . . .

But Not the One They Think

So we now know that there are 225 primary schools whose Boards of Trustees have decided that they will not comply with government policy to introduce national testing in reading, writing and arithmetic. Great. What next?

Now this is a hoot. Firstly, and contrary to much of the commentary on this bold move by the Boards, we respect what they are doing. For a moment, let's lay aside the fact that it was clearly orchestrated. We know are not dealing here with a spontaneous uprising by diverse Boards of Trustees all over the country, but a carefully planned "solidarity" move, with official spokesmen already appointed, to front the rebel group. It was political act.

But it is illustrative nonetheless. We want to congratulate the rebel group for making the extremely valuable point. They have reminded us that schools do not belong to the government, nor to society in general, although both have an indirect interest. Schools belong to parents. (We gratuitously assume here that the respective Boards of rebel Trustees have consulted long and hard with the parents of the children at their schools and are reflecting their wish that National Standards not be introduced. And so, good on them for standing on principle.)

We want to thank publicly the various spokesmen for highlighting their belief in, and support for, something we have long held to be of vital importance: that parents, not government are responsible for the education of their children. So, OK, we know that one of the lead spokesmen, Simon Mitchell is a Labour Party activist. We also know that the teachers union, the NZEI, is keenly behind the move by the rebel schools. But, hey, these are but small peccadilloes in the larger landscape.

We hear that the government has planned an escalating series of punitive moves, culminating eventually in the dismissal of Boards of Trustees if they continue their recalcitrance. We scorn this approach. It is wrong because it asserts something inherently perverse--the primacy of the government over parents and families when it comes to education. So, we propose a far more enlightened response.

We submit that the Minister of Education should publicly acknowledge the prior rights of Boards of Trustees, who have a fiduciary duty to parents and their children, to settle these matters for themselves. But, lest any rebel Board of Trustees might (on the off-chance) have failed to consult widely and carefully with the parents whose children they are responsible to educate, the Minister should announce an end to zoning restrictions for the rebel primary schools, so that parents would be free to remove their children from such schools, should they wish, and enrol them in a compliant primary school of their choice.

The rebel Boards of Trustees would of course have no choice but to heartily endorse this move, since their sensitivity to parents wishes can be assumed as a given, non?  And after all, such a government policy change would be entirely consistent with the principle they have already indirectly espoused--the prior rights of parents and their schools to set and determine the education of their own children ahead of governmental rules and regulations.

And to aid parents in their decision making, the list of rebel schools has already been published widely. So, it is a safe bet that any local primary school not on that list is going to be supporting and implementing the application of national standards testing in reading, writing, and mathematics. We noticed immediately our local primary school is a rebel school. A short distance away is a compliant primary school. We know what we have to do. It's now over to you, Minister to change the zoning system and let us do it.

We cannot leave without referring to a citation found in a fellow-blog, Keeping Stock.

And we'll leave the final word for this post to a supporter of National Standards who has posted this on his Facebook page:

The reason I already love National Standards in primary schools: Lucy's first report listed her as just below the national average in reading. I was a little shocked. The teacher said it might be because she had some time off with the final leukemia treatments but ... Daddy put some major effort in (& so did Lucy). Today, teacher says she's on Level 16 & in top 3 in class. Thank you Anne Tolley.

Speaks volumes, really.

Mmmmm . . .

Not A Great Advert for Western Education Systems

This vid is a hoot. Apparently poorly educated folk are found on both sides of the political divide, contrary to the prevailing narrative that ignorance is the sole preserve of the right.

Baghdad Massacre of Christians

Do Not Fear the One Who Can Kill the Body

Over at NZ Conservative, Maria has an updated summary of news account of the massacre of Christians worshipping in Baghdad.

When one member of the Body suffers, we all suffer.

A Cause Too Far

Maori Sovereignty On the Rise

Sometimes controversy is useful in that it pulls back the veil, exposing what people really think. The controversy within the Maori Party over the Marine Bill is an apt example. Maoridom is in deep trouble.

Firstly, we believe it increasingly likely the Maori Party will not survive as a stand-alone political party. It may end up merging with the Greens or Labour, but Maori politics is clearly riven. It appears possible, if not likely, that Humpty Dumpty will not be put back together again. Party leader, Tariana Turia complains that too many Maori do not understand Parliamentary democracies. She means by this that an influential and articulate group of Maori have reached the point of becoming zealots for a cause. The cause is Maori sovereignty. Any support, for any programme or law which does not deliver now is regarded as a feckless compromise of principle.

Turia, however, is a gradualist. She too is a Maori sovereigntist, but she takes a long term view. She believes the battle must be fought and won inter-generationally. She sees Maori coming back to the cherry for repeated bites until they secure their goal of being co-rulers in New Zealand--which, as she sees it, is nothing more nor less then Maori's rightful place. She revealed her perspective in an impromptu speech at the party's recent meeting.

And I think that what we have got now (in the Marine Bill) is not the greatest deal in town but I will tell you that it wouldn't matter who the Government was. The fact of it is that National and Labour, their voting public is what we call middle New Zealand and they are the ones who actually rule the Government.

Those Governments go out and they poll every week to see what middle New Zealand is saying and do you really think from your experience out there at home that they are on our side.

That's why it is so difficult. It doesn't matter what our take [issue] is, be it tr (sic) reo, be it whatever, it is always going to be an uphill battle. But hey, watch this space because over the next 40 years Aotearoa is browning up and it will be at that time that our mokopuna will come back and they will take their rightful place as leaders in this land and they are the ones who will take us forward.

Turia believes that Maori birth rates will mean within a generation they will command enough votes to ensure the constitutional changes they seek. Maori will achieve its rightful place as leaders of New Zealand. Co-sovereignty, if not outright sovereignty, is the goal. She, however, advocates a non-revolutionary gradualism in achieving it. She is playing within the rules, as it were.

But the radical sovereigntists are not only absolute in their convictions. Like all ideologues they are also impatient. Hone Harawira is their poster boy. Hone has two mantras: "no compromise" and "now". Hone is one of those benighted chaps who believes that if he does not secure everything he would prefer to secure nothing, otherwise he would be guilty of a tawdry capitulation to principle. He is joined in this by a younger (now middle aged) educated Maori elite who have swallowed the historical revisionism perpetrated upon the Treaty of Waitangi, and who really do believe that the Treaty gave the Maori co-sovereignty rights over New Zealand. This belief, to them, is so fundamental, no compromise is possible. They believe that nothing good will come to Maori until their mana is restored.

So Hone is constantly cheered on; he seems to be arriving at the point where he believes that within the Maori Party he alone speaks genuinely for Maori.

Mr Harawira said last week that when Dr Sharples and Mrs Turia spoke they represented the interests of the party. "When I speak I represent the interests of the electorate, I represent the interests of a sector of our community that does not accept this bill."

Note the slur upon his colleagues. They have become compromised. They no longer really represent Maori. I alone speak what they really believe inside, but are too compromised to say out loud.

"The division isn't there at all. All I'm doing is voting the way all of my colleagues feel and voting the way a lot of Maori people feel about this second piece of legislation.

Now the rumour is swirling that Hone is going to make a bid for leadership of the party. According to one of his cheerleaders, David Rankin,

"Over the past several weeks, I have been informed by two people close to the Maori Party hierarchy that Hone Harawira is planning a coup against the party's co-leaders, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples," Mr Rankin said yesterday. . . . Mr Rankin said Mr Harawira was to challenge his leadership over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, which replaces the foreshore and seabed legislation and passed its first reading on Wednesday. . . .

Mr Rankin said: "Maoridom themselves do want (sic) the foreshore and seabed returned to them with total ownership and total control and Hone's preaching this and what's happening is he's getting a massive groundswell of support from the people. "It is clear that Hone does not have the numbers in the parliamentary party for a successful leadership bid but among the party membership, his support is substantial, and party officials are looking at that support base and wondering whether they can afford to squander it."

This is a revealing quotation. According to Rankin, Maori stand with Harawira--with the ideology of no-compromise co-sovereignty. They have bought the bill of goods. This is understandable, of course. For generations Maori have been indoctrinated in the politics of envy and victimhood. The co-sovereignty narrative fits perfectly into that paradigm. But envy is rarely patient and never reasonable. Envy, coupled with the inevitable attendant sense of grievance and injustice, would rather see everything destroyed for everyone than the present inequity to continue. Hence, Harawira's "now or nothing" approach to the foreshore issue.

Secondly, Rankin reveals the operating paradigm of co-sovereignty. "Maoridom themselves do want (sic) the foreshore and seabed returned to them with total ownership and total control." Ooops. The cat is out of the bag. Total ownership and total control. Only fools and blind horses would not face up to this with intellectual integrity. Yet it is the dirty secret which no-one wants to talk about publicly--certainly not in the mainstream media. Prevailing white liberal guilt prohibits it.

Imagine the (legitimate) furore if Brian Tamaki declared, "Destiny wants the foreshore and seabed returned to its members, with total ownership and total control." The rumblings of outrage and malcontent would deafen even the most hardened Christchurch quake survivor. But, with Rankin and the Maori co-sovereigntists (or outright sovereigntists)--not a murmur registering anywhere on the Richter scale.

What will the outcome be for Maori? One scenario is to be thoroughly post-modern and argue that in our pomo world, the paradigm of Harawira and Rankin is not only valid, it is legitimate. They may well succeed in overthrowing (by means violent or peaceful, it matters not) the current constitutional arrangements and indeed Maori sovereignty will come to pass. Who knows? Who cares? It is all a mess of pomo pottage to which our culture well and truly sold its birthright long ago.

Another scenario would be the triumph of Turia's gradualism. The Maori Party will continue to forge a very successful and powerful alliance with the white liberal middle classes which fondly cheers on Turia and her colleagues as a way of assuaging their feelings of guilt and pity. This coupled with the "browning" of the population will mean that the two main political parties will both cede more and more national sovereignty up to Maori elites. (After all, this has been the actual reality for over two decades now.)

A third scenario is that the Maori Party will split and evaporate as a viable political force. But the ideology of Maori sovereignty will not go away. At least not in the foreseeable future. Grievance politics do not die, they continue to fester until they break out once again in suppurating sores.

The sad part is that none of this will really help Maori. It all represents false diagnoses and false cures. Maori must repent and return to the Lord Jesus Christ. Once, when the Gospel of our Lord first came to their fathers, Maori responded out of their deep degradation and great need. But within two generations their hearts grew first cold to Christ, then hard, and yet porous like Rangitoto scoria. Into that porous rock has flowed every kind of false gospel, from socialism to Mormonism to animism. Degradation and re-enslavement has been the outcome. The current popular false gospel of co-sovereignty, breathtaking in its hubris and arrogance, will, if successful, prove to be the most destructive yet.

When it comes to rebellion against God, beware of what you wish. He who sows to the wind, reaps the whirlwind.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Lusts and Labels

Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Saturday, October 30, 2010

One of the characteristics of lust is that it hates to be constrained. This applies as much to political lusts as to sexual desire, and it explains a great deal about the dishonesty of the progressive mentality. How many times, when you have asked someone a specific question about some important issue, have you been told by that person that he "hates labels." I dare say. Labels interfere with getting what you want. People remind you tomorrow of what you said yesterday, and this restricts your freedom of movement.

Augustine wrote wisely of the libido dominandi, the lust for power, characteristic of so many progs on the campaign trail, and even more characteristic of them when they get hold of the levers of power.

Those who are in favor of smaller government are, when this is translated, in favor of a smaller capacity for coercion. Those who are in favor of bigger government are in favor of increased opportunities for coercion. The libido dominandi is therefore characteristic of those who want more access to coercive policies, and it is not characteristic of those who don't want that. So if someone says, using labels, that he is pro-life, pro-free-market, anti-big-government, he is saying that he believes we must reject the temptations of libido dominandi, just as someone who says he is quitting smoking is saying, as a natural consequence, that he wants to stop buying cigarettes. But someone who has cartons of cigarettes stacked up in his basement has no intention of quitting. So suppose we saw those stacks of cartons and commented, "So you're a smoker, then?", and then we were told that he "really hates labels." What he really hates is being caught. He hates being called on what he is doing.

Now in passing, I should acknowledge that there are conservative types who don't hate labels, but who use them in the most clunkity fashion imaginable. I have personal experience with this; I speak as a close observer of some conservatives whose worldview is made out of cinder blocks and cheap cement. Okay, that happens. In the theological sphere, with confessions and creeds, and in the political sphere with platforms and campaign slogans, and so on, there are those who cannot handle some of the subtleties of the world God made. That is a problem, sure enough, but in our age, it is not a huge one. The intellectual life of our age is characterized by a squishy goulash of subtleties all the way to the bottom of the pot, a farrago of pomothot, and the purveyors of this pomothot are often quite clever -- they don't hate labels because they can't follow arguments. They hate labels because they can follow them, and those arguments get in the way of their lusts. Remember that the devil is a dialectician.

This means that in today's political climate, any credible opposition to the all-pervasive libido dominandi will result that loyal opposer being accused of selling out to the Tea Party, the libertarians, the conservatives, the racists, not to mention those who hate children and the poor. Among Christians, there will even be those who make this kind of accusation in the name of Trinitarian compassion. But, if you can take my analogy three steps at a time, they are doing so with a basement full of Camels.

Good Riddance

A Long Time Coming

Estate duty (or the death tax) was abolished in New Zealand in 1992. Estate duty was and remains an horrendous extension of raw state power against citizens. The very idea that upon death, the government would arrogate to itself the power and right to confiscate the capital and private property of a citizen ought to make every person's blood boil with hot indignation. The idea is both implicitly and explicitly socialist. Its egalitarian arrogance is breathtaking.

Estate tax undermines the institution of the family, and subjugates families, as families, under Leviathan. The Bible commands that parents leave an inheritance unto their children's children. Estate taxes interdict this. The result is a general weakening of the family institution and consequently results in a greater reliance by families upon the State. Socialists, of course, are approving of this trend.

Populism, however, demanded that estate taxes be restricted to those whom an ignominious former Finance Minister artlessly called "rich pricks"--by which he presumably meant anyone who was more wealthy than himself. But as average standards of living increased, the death tax had to be constantly modified and adjusted, lest it catch "ordinary blokes". In the end, too may loopholes, adjustments, and consequent compliance costs made the tax counter-productive. It was abolished in 1992, and not before time.

But vestiges lingered on. Gift duty has been one. In New Zealand, any aggregate giving of more than $27,000 per annum (to anyone) is taxed. Gift duty was instituted to prevent people giving away their assets before death to avoid, you guessed it, estate duty. Now, nearly twenty years after the abolishment of death duties, the government has announced that gift duty will be abolished as well. Twenty years! How the machinations and imposts of government can haunt us for a long, long time even when they are well passed their use-by date. But, credit where it is due. Full marks to the Revenue Minister, Peter Dunne for abolishing this ante-diluvian relic.

But it seems that it takes an awful lot of compelling idiocy and irrational consequences to roll back oppressive taxation laws. Dunne confirmed that in the past seven years an average of only $2.2 million per year has been paid in gift taxes. But to avoid the tax legally has cost $70 million per year (one could avoid the tax if gifting was kept beneath $27,000 per year, and there were a number of legal and accounting artifices to achieve this).

"We began a review early this year, initially of the threshold which had not changed since 1984. It became clear the rationale for retaining gift duty no longer applied," Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said. NZ Herald

You don't say, Minister Dunne who is a master of ironic understatement. Well, we are thankful even for small mercies.

But it raises a wider issue. There are legions of dead weight government interventions that are relics of a long gone past for which "the rationale" no longer applies. It would be wonderful if the government would become first order abolitionists. The good it would do to our overall economy would be startling.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

The Cafeteria at Democracy Junior High 

Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, October 26, 2010

We are one week out from an important election, and from all appearances, it looks to be a rambunctious one. By rambunctious, I mean that the airspace of the cafeteria here at Democracy Junior High will be full of rolls, pats of butter, jello cups, and the occasional green bean. With that in mind, here are some thoughts on our democratic process and the heavenly city.

1. C.S. Lewis said there were two basic approaches to democracy. One is idolatrous, and the other reflects a more biblical view of man. The first is the assumption that every last man's opinion is so valuable that we should do our level best to get his input before we do anything. This is the idolatrous option. The other acknowledges the sinfulness of man, such that it is unwise to concentrate too much power in any one spot. Democracy is, in this view, part of a system of checks and balances, where the power is spread as thinly as possible in order to keep an entrenched ruling class from having its unbridled way. If that were a design feature, then this next election would appear to be a successful example of the design working. But the thing to keep in mind is that corrective elections, even corrective wave elections, are not solution elections. "Throw the bums out" may often be just what's demanded, the need of the moment, and no argument there. Who could not but agree that a Pelosiless hour of evening news would be a real spot of sunshine in an otherwise drab and dreary chain of news stories? But what then? What do we do next? For those who are regular visitors to this space, our very next political move needs to be calling on Jesus. The reason we need to throw the bums out first is that they get in the way of calling on Jesus, and repentance precedes faith.

2. There are significant earthly consequences to what we do, and in how we vote, but we have to be shrewd in understanding what those consequences are. If I owe you a thousand bucks, you've got me. The borrower becomes the lender's slave. But there is a point at which that reality breaks down. If I owe you a bazillion bucks, I've got you. There actually is a point where the lender becomes the borrower's slave. And this is why we should all agree with the bumper sticker, "Please, nobody tell Obama what comes after a trillion."

This election is therefore something of an intervention. The powers that be, the lenders, the bankers, the regulators, the congressmen, the smartest guys in the room, are all of them out of control. They are selling themselves into slavery. Back in the old days, when the people were borrowing a thousand bucks, the lenders were able to maintain their position of control. But now, when they have lent half the assets of America to all the winos in America, and those winos have peed it all away, a moment arises when the responsible adults in the room look at each other, nod, and say, "It's time." But these guys don't want to go to rehab any more than did Amy Winehouse, no, no, no, but always keep in mind the fact that drying out in rehab, however salutary in itself, is not the same thing as fixing the problem. In this case, going into the voting booth, and voting for "It's time," sends both the wino and the guy giving him cash to a place where they have to stop it. One guy goes to wino rehab and the other one to banker rehab. In both cases, it is just to clear the head so that they can figure out they need to call on Jesus.

3. The late Sen. Eugene McCarthy said that being a senator was a lot like being a football coach -- you had to be smart enough to understand the game and dumb enough to think it was important. This leads naturally to the reflection by Augustine in The City of God, when he said that in the kingdoms of men, the dead are replaced by the dying. In short, the story that God is telling with His sprawling narrative of a world is not the same story that many of His characters are trying to tell. It is the responsibility of sane Christians to try to line up the story they are telling themselves about their lives with the story that God is telling about their lives. Does this seem cryptic? Bring it down to the voting booth. When I go in there, what am I trying to accomplish? Ultimately, I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling, the same thing I am trying to do when I fry an egg, or type a phrase, or drive down the road to an appointment. I am not trying to save America, unless saving America is a proximate means to the larger end of glorifying God through the salvation of His people through the gospel. This is not quietism; this is not activism. This is perspective.

No matter what happens in the election, God is on His throne, and we should still be in the process of gathering before it.

Why Are We Not Surprised?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Environmentalism is Deadly

The Duck Won

It is beyond dispute that coal mines can be deadly places. But it is also apparent that mines hobbled by the religion of environmentalism are likely to have a far higher mortality quotient. This is what is now emerging in the aftermath of the Pike River mine disaster.  Here is a quotation from MacDoctor: 

Finally, I have to agree with Mark Hubbard (also cross-posted to NotPC) who is of the opinion that environmentalism has a large part to play in the deaths of these men. Much of the coal at Pike River is superficial enough to remove by open cast mine, a far safer proposition for methane-rich coal like this. It is only the fact that this was conservation land that lead to Pike River being an underground mine (although I expect the owners of Pike River to be coy about this, because it does not reflect particularly well on them, either). DOC even scotched the insertion of a second ventilation shaft in order to preserve the habitat of a duck. Yes, a duck.

Should we arrest the duck and execute it for criminal negligence or manslaughter?  How about the responsible bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation?  Well, execution may be a bit extreme--but imprisonment must surely be on the cards.  Ok--so they were just carrying out government policy, and, as we know, greenism is an essential oil of the established religion of the age--a religion established by government and foisted upon us by laws and hosts of regulations innumerable. 

But it gets worse. 

But it is more than mere environmentalism that is going on here. As I commented at NotPC:

“Unfortunately, Mark, it is much worse than you portray. While an open-cast mine is undoubtably uglier than a side-shaft mine, it does not require a great deal of extra effort to restore the damaged environment. The cost difference between the two mines would have been more than enough to cover the extra cost involved. Most modern open-cast mines have a detailed plan to restore the environment and the eventual impact is minimal.
“I therefore come to the sad conclusion that 29 miners have just died, not for the sake of the environment, but because of aesthetics”

There was nothing unique in that environment that could not have been either transferred somewhere else or restored when the mine was decommissioned. Therefore one must conclude that a sensible open cast mine was not approved because it was ugly, not because of irreversible environmental damage.

And that is beyond sad…

Nail on the head, bro.

That Castle Church Door

Reformation Day

Luther’s 95 Theses: An Interview with Carl Trueman

Justin Taylor

This Sunday is Halloween. But more importantly, it’s Reformation Day—when the church celebrates and commemorates October 31, 1517. It was on this day (a Saturday) that a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. In God’s providence and unbeknownst to anyone else that day, it would become a key event in igniting the Reformation.

I thought it might be helpful to ask a few questions of Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History, and Academic Dean, at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Dr. Trueman wrote his dissertation on Luther’s Legacy, teaches on Luther’s life and theology, and is writing the volume on Luther for the Theologians on the Christian Life series, forthcoming from Crossway, edited by Steve Nichols and me.

Had Luther ever done this before—nail a set of theses to the Wittenberg door? If so, did previous attempts have any impact?

I am not sure if he had ever nailed up theses before, but he had certainly proposed sets of such for academic debate, which was all he was really doing on October 31, 1517. In fact, in September of that same year, he had led a debate on scholastic theology where he said far more radical things than were in the Ninety-Five Theses. Ironically, this earlier debate, now often considered the first major public adumbration of his later theology, caused no real stir in the church at all.

What was the point of nailing something to the Wittenberg door? Was this a common practice?

It was simply a convenient public place to advertise a debate, and not an unusual or uncommon practice. In itself, it was no more radical than putting up an announcement on a public notice board.

What precisely is a “thesis” in this context?

A thesis is simply a statement being brought forward for debate.

What was an “indulgence”?

An indulgence was a piece of paper, a certificate, which guaranteed the purchaser (or the person for whom the indulgence was purchased) that a certain amount of time in purgatory would be remitted as a result of the financial transaction.

At this point did Luther have a problem with indulgences per se, or was he merely critiquing the abuse of indulgences?

This is actually quite a complicated question to answer.

First, Luther was definitely critiquing what he believes to be an abuse of indulgences. For him, an indulgence could have a positive function; the problem with those being sold by Johann Tetzel in 1517 is that remission of sin’s penalty has been radically separated from the actual repentance and humility of the individual receiving the same.

Second, it would appear that the Church herself was not clear on where the boundaries were relative to indulgences, and so Luther’s protest actually provoked the Church into having to reflect upon her practices, to establish what was and was not legitimate practice.

Was Luther trying to start a major debate by nailing these to the door?

The matter was certainly one of pressing pastoral concern for him. Tetzel was not actually allowed to sell his indulgences in Electoral Saxony (the territory where Wittenberg was located) because Frederick the Wise, Luther’s later protector, had his own trade in relics. Many of his parishioners, however, were crossing over into the neighboring territory of Ducal Saxony, where Tetzel was plying his trade.

Luther had been concerned about the matter of indulgences for some time. Thus, earlier in 1517, he had preached on the matter and consulted others for their opinions on the issue. By October, he was forced by the pastoral situation to act.

Having said all that, Luther was certainly not intending to split the church at this point or precipitate the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy into conflict and crisis. He was simply trying to address a deep pastoral concern.

Was Luther a “Protestant” at this point? Was he a “Lutheran”?

No, on both counts. He himself tells us in 1545 that, in 1517, he was a committed Catholic who would have murdered—or at least been willing to see murder committed—in the name of the Pope. There is some typical Luther hyperbole there, but the theology of the Ninety-Five Theses is not particularly radical, and key Lutheran doctrines, such as justification by grace through faith alone, are not yet present. He was an angry Catholic, hoping that, when the Pope heard about Teztel, he would intervene to stop the abuse.

How did that act of nailing these theses to the door ignite the Reformation?

On one level, I am inclined to say “Goodness only knows.” As a pamphlet of popular revolution, it is, with the exception of the occasional rhetorical flourish, a remarkably dull piece of work which requires a reasonably sound knowledge of late medieval Catholic theology and practice even to understand many of its statements. Nevertheless, it seems to have struck a popular chord, being rapidly translated into German and becoming a bestseller within weeks. The easy answer is, therefore, “By the providence of God”; but, as a historian, I always like to try to tie things down to some set of secondary or more material causes.


Certainly, it was used in a way that appealed to popular anti-clericalism, resentment of the Roman curia, and a desire to stop money flowing out of German speaking territories to Rome. Yet, even so, the revolutionary power of such a technical composition is, in retrospect, still quite surprising.

For those today who want to read the 95 Theses, what would you recommend?

The place to start is probably Stephen Nichols’s edition (with an introduction and notes).

Nevertheless, if you really want to understand Luther’s theology, and why it is important, you will need to look beyond the Ninety-Five Theses. Probably the best place to start would be Robert Kolb and Charles P. Arand, The Genius of Luther’s Theology.

For younger readers, we recommend Paul Maier’s excellent book, Martin Luther: A Man Who Changed the World.

Separation of Church and State

Anti-Establishmentarianism and the Klan

We in the British constitutional tradition are used to having an established church. The head of State in the United Kingdom is also the head of the Church of England. However, with the decline in power of the British monarch and the assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty, it has meant little. The headship may be dual, but the head has shrunken inexorably. Moreover, the fortunes of state established churches are not good. Historically, when government establishes a church it is usually a kiss of death. So, the Church of England has withered on the vine.

But in the United Kingdom it is very clear that what exists is the establishment of a particular national church--just one ecclesiastical denomination amongst many. In the United States, the issue has been subject to a breathtaking historical revisionist by the secularists. The secularists claim that the US Constitution forbids any religious establishment in the public sphere: not just of a particular church, but of religion in general. Thus, under secular revisionism, the State must either bestow equal favours upon all religions or none at all. Hence the attacks upon the public celebration of Christian festivals such as Christmas.

A more intelligent and less ideological reading the US Constitution establishes in rapid order that the US Constitution forbids any establishment of a church (not a religion) by the Federal Government. At the time of the signing of the US Constitution most states actually had some form of religious establishment--proving that the Constitution's prescriptions had to do with limiting the Federal Government's power to establish a national church, thereby preventing its overriding the authority of States in the matter.

The American colonies-turned-states viewed religious freedom differently. They offered different answers to questions of establishment of religion, non-preferential support of religions, punishment of blasphemy, Sabbath observance, and other religious matters. . . . Both traditionalists and voluntarists agreed that a religious foundation was critical to the health of the social order.
Hunter Baker, The End of Secularism, p. 82

Aaron Worthing recently republished some additional historical clarifications on the matter of the so-called separation of "church and state".

6. The phrase “Separation of Church and State,” as Philip Hamburger establishes in his classic book on the subject, is not in the language of the first amendment, was not favored by any influential framer at the time of the first amendment, and was not its purpose.

7. The first mainstream figures to favor separation after the first amendment was adopted were Jefferson supporters in the 1800 election, who were trying to silence Northern clergy critical of the immoral Jeffersonian slaveholders in the South.

8. After the Civil War, liberal Republicans proposed a constitutional amendment to add separation of church and state to the US Constitution by amendment, since it was not already there. After that effort failed, influential people began arguing that it was (magically) in the first amendment.

9. In the last part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, nativists (including the KKK) popularized separation as an American constitutional principle, eventually leading to a near consensus supporting some form of separation.

10. Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed (or was it the Klansman’s Kreed?). Before he joined the Court, Justice Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.” In 1947, Black was the author of Everson, the first Supreme Court case to hold that the first amendment’s establishment clause requires separation of church & state. The suit in Everson was brought by an organization that at various times had ties to the KKK.

11. Until this term, the justices were moving away from the separation metaphor, often failing to mention it except in the titles of cited law review articles, but in the last term of the Court they fell back to using it again

So as Lindgren says more recently, in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, “the KKK got its way.”

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Timeshare Servants
The Good of Affluence

Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, October 27, 2010

As Rodney Stark has shown, one of the great contributions of the first Christendom was the development of free markets. And I would want to maintain that one of the great results of the next Christendom will be the restoration and preservation of them. Free markets are the economic expression of the apostolic teaching that we are to serve one another in love.

Wealth is the ability to summon the labor of another, and to enjoy the fruit of that labor. Back in the olden time, the opulent could do this by owning a bunch of slaves, or servants with no options, which meant that one man's wealth meant another man's lack of it. In such settings, wealth and poverty really were a zero sum game -- if one person got a larger piece of pie, then somebody else got a smaller piece.

But in a system of free markets, God has given us the gift of being timeshare servants, and the privilege of being timeshare bosses. A young woman can save up her tips waiting tables, and go out with her friends to another restaurant and be waited on. We can do this because of division of labor. One guy makes roast beef sandwiches for 8 hours a day, and I can rent his service for 45 seconds of that time. Again, back in another time, getting a roast beef sandwich would have taken half the day. "In 1900, the average American spent $76 of every $100 on food, clothing and shelter. Today he spends $37" (The Rational Optimist, p. 34).

Many whiners spend a lot of time complaining about this state of affairs for some reason, and unfortunately many Christians have accepted the idea that we should express our ingratitude with a similar attitude, but in the name of Jesus. They like to use the words sustainable and Jesus in the same sentences. But Jesus Himself pointed out how easy it was for us to miss the need to give thanks (Luke 17:17-18). All political and economic wisdom must begin with true gratitude.

Noisome Rot in the State of Denmark

It's OK. We're the Good Guys

We have long noticed that the political left wing seems prone to corruption--by which we mean the abuse of office and power to further their own ends. Now, don't get us wrong here. We do not mean to imply that the right are, therefore, more holy or ethical. Power does tend to corrupt, after all. Every long-tenured official or politician is tempted to believe in their own entitlement to rule. Most political corruption sprouts in precisely that kind of manure.

But the left seems particularly prone to it. We believe this is due to certain principles deeply embedded in left-wing ideology. Firstly, there is the axiom that lack of  material wealth (aka money) is the root of all social sins, and, indeed all human action. Lack of money results in social problems (crime, poverty, ignorance, for example), whilst plenty of money solves all social problems. Consequently, for the Left it is always about money and access to it.

Consequently, when left-wing political causes and parties are failing at the polls, the culprit immediately identified at hand is a lack of money.
"If we had more donors, or our party were better capitalised, we would have been able to spend more on our campaigns. Ergo, good things would have resulted--namely, folk would have voted for us." When right of centre political parties do well, the Left explains to themselves by arguing that the Right is favoured by "Big Money"; therefore, they paid for their polling success. They bought their way into office.

Thus, the Left always assumes that political power grows out of the trunk of a money tree. If they are to gain political power, they must buy it; if they are to maintain power, they must use their power to ensure that they have more money than their opponents to spend. In the Leftist world-view, then, money is the key to acquiring and maintaining power.

Secondly, the Left believes that the Right's use of money is evil, whereas the Left's is righteous. The Right conspires with Big Business and Big Money to favour the captains of industry and the wealthy, so that the wealthy get more wealthy, whereas the Left believe they look after the little guy. Thus, the Left believes that although it uses money to acquire and maintain power, it uses it righteously because it, in turn, disseminates money and wealth to the underclasses. The Right wing then is always corrupted by Big Money, whereas the Left see themselves as being uncorrupted and pure when it comes to filthy lucre.

These two principles combine together to make the Left susceptible to persistent and abidingly corrupt practices. They are far more likely to engage in corrupt electoral processes, illegal voting rorts, stacking the ballot boxes, intimidating behaviour at polling booths, vote buying and so forth because the righteous end of taking care of the "little guy" justifies cutting corners on electoral law. Moreover, the Left tends to add another justification to this kind of corrupt practice: we need to do these things because the deck is so stacked against the Left. The Right has all the money, so we need to "level up" the electoral playing field with sharp practice.

Once in power, the Left will have no compunction in aligning Big Business with its own monetary appetites. Big Business, for its part, will always gravitate to the centre of power. It cares not whether the Right or the Left is in the seat of government. It will want to do business with either. Big Business hates competition. Government rules and regulations are a sure fire way to get the playing field tilted in one's favour. Sidling up to government to protect one's own interest and, hopefully, ensuring that competitors are spiked at the same breath is a time-honoured strategy, albeit utterly and abidingly corrupt.

Big Business and Left-wing governments tend to get on really well. The Left is ambitious to get access to its financial resources and is far more prepared to trade favours. Big Business finds it can "do business" with the Left relatively easily. The Left justifies cosying up to Big Business by arguing that this is what their political opponents do; and, securing financial favours from Big Business is critical to maintain the Left's hold on the seat of government; and, the natural constituency of the Left are the underclasses which do not have money, so the Left political establishment need to get it from somewhere; and, finally, it is only the Left which will take care of the underclasses, giving them the money they need to solve their problems and bring them to a better and higher state of being.

Here are a couple of examples. Firstly, the recent sweetheart deal between the Bank of America and the Democratic Party, as exposed by Pajamas Media.

Shortly after Labor Day, as polls continued to sink, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) realized it needed a cash infusion for the upcoming midterm elections. Its chairman, former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, turned to the Bank of America to secure a $15 million revolving credit line. Then, in the middle of this month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) got another loan from BofA for an additional $17 million.

What was their collateral? It turns out, not much. The DNC claims their collateral was an intangible piece of property — its donor mailing list. The DCCC only cites unnamed “assets.” Neither party organization possesses real estate even close to cover the $32 million. The DNC’s headquarters is owned by another entity. Even it was put up as collateral, its market value was last estimated at only $13.7 million.

Were the Bank of America deals legitimate, arms-length transactions, or were they cozy sweetheart deals in which nothing was really put up to secure a $32 million loan?

And if it was the latter, could it be considered an illegal campaign contribution from the largest bank holding company in America?

There also is troubling evidence that two days before closing on the loan transaction, the DNC changed its own privacy provisions to allow the selling or sharing of private donor data. BofA has been a longtime friend of Democrats. In the 2008 election cycle, BofA gave its largest single campaign contribution to then-Senator Barack Obama. According to Bloomberg News, BofA’s new CEO, Brian Moynihan, is considered Obama’s top political ally on Wall Street.

Bank of America gives money to Obama's campaign; the Obama administration ensures that BofA gets a huge taxpayer bailout in the credit crisis; the BofA then extends credit to the Democratic Party on what appears to be more a political contribution than a business deal.

The history between BofA and Democrats goes back years. One highly publicized political scandal linked the bank and Democrats to the subprime mortgage giant Countrywide Financial, which BofA acquired more than two years ago. Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo gave preferential below market mortgages to leading Democrats like Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. After the disclosure of the mortgage favors, both Dodd and Senator Kent Conrad (D-SD) decided not to run for re-election.

Dodd and other Washington Democrats belonged to a group of VIP loan recipients known in company documents and emails as “FOAs” — Friends of Angelo, a reference to Angelo Mozilo.

“This (type of loan) isn’t something that’s generally offered to the general public, but it looks like it is something of a sweetheart deal,” observes Boehm about the new BofA credit line to the DNC. “Usually when you see this it is banks with a relationship with candidates and we see that all over the place. We saw that with Countrywide,” he told Pajamas Media.

And, then there is the case of Representative Barney Frank, who has been actively involved in the regulation of banks, now exposed as taking political donations from those same banks, according to the Boston Herald.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, in an intensifying clash with GOP upstart Sean Bielat, has pledged not to take campaign cash from lenders that got federal bailouts — yet has raked in more than $40,000 from bank execs and special interests connected to the staggering government loans, a Herald review found.

Frank vowed in February 2009 that he wouldn’t accept campaign donations from banks that received money under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or political action committees tied to such institutions.

But Frank has hauled in thousands from top execs at Bank of America, Citizens Bank, Wainwright Bank, JP Morgan Chase and other institutions that received billions in TARP money.

Just yesterday, Frank made new campaign finance disclosures showing he received $17,000 from top executives of Bank of America — including $2,000 from CEO Brian Moynihan. B of A received $45 billion in bailout money. In all, Frank has hauled in at least $27,000 since 2009 from bank execs — and $13,000 from PACs — connected to banks that received TARP funding ....

No doubt Barney and the Democratic establishment are telling themselves, "Hey, but it's OK. We are the good guys. Because we look after the 'little guy' we are morally superior and are incorruptible. The glorious end for which we fight surely justifies any tawdry means we need to employ along the way to maintain our positions of power."

The Left makes a pretty good showing as the Great Harlot.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Seven Reason Why "The Deep Things of God" Is an Important Book

Money, Love, Desire - Violence and the Trinity
Written by Douglas Wilson
Sunday, October 24, 2010

This evening a group of men from Christ Church are meeting at our home to discuss our reading of The Deep Things of God, by Fred Sanders. A month or so ago, when I started reading this book, I wrote to a friend at Crossway to thank him for publishing such an important book. Here are seven reasons why I think it is important.

1. Sanders knows the principle of clearing away debris in order to build on the old foundations. When he sees superficialities in evangelicalism, and he does, he does not leap to the easy but misguided conclusion, He shows that evangelicals have wandered away from their Trinitarian roots, not that they have no Trinitarian roots.

"When evangelicals are being true to the underlying realities that brought the movement into being, they are the advocates of a particularly intense variety of Trinitarian knowledge and experience. When they are not self-forgetful, they know that participation in the life of the triune God is 'the distinctive teaching of Evangelical Christianity'" (p. 21).

2. Sanders clearly understands the distinction between embodied Trinitarian practice and high level Trinitarian theory. The whole point of the book is to argue for both, but he plainly sees that if you had to choose one or the other, it would be better to come in repentance to the Father through the Spirit in the name of Jesus than to know what perichoretic means.

"Most evangelical Christians don't need to talked into the Trinitarian theory; they need to be show that they are immersed in Trinitarian reality" (p. 34).

3. Moreover, Sanders understands the right order of theology.Theology is good at explaining things, but surely there should be something present first that calls for explanation?


"Reality comes first, and understanding follows it" (p. 27).

4. Sanders shows a wholesome loyalty to the evangelical wing of the Christian Church, without falling into petty forms of sectarianism.

"The doctrine of the Trinity is no place for small-mindedness" (p. 23).

5. Sanders makes the same point that Piper does in his fine book God is the Gospel. The point is not to arrange your thoughts in orthodox patterns, like so many dead butterflies pinned to the poster board. The point is to come to the experienced knowledge of God. The point is to experience Christ.

"The gospel is Trinitarian, and the Trinity is the gospel" (p. 10).

6. Sanders is very clear that to be a biblicist is to be someone who functions, necessarily, within the shape of the gospel, which is Trinitarian in shape. This is not high theology instead of Scripture, but is rather heavy doses of Bible.

"There is one place in Scripture where the sheer greatness of the gospel is most profusely described" the blessing with which Paul opens the epistle to the Ephesians" (p. 99).

7. Sanders knows that negotiating the balance between objective truth "out there," and subjective truth "in here" is quite tricky.

"That makes Trinitarianism the natural home for the doctrine of assurance" (p. 190).

I commend this book highly. Just one criticism in conclusion. With the knowledge that within the limits of a 239 page book, it is not possible to say everything, especially on a subject like this one, the only criticism I would offer is that I wish there had been more about the issues surrounding the filioque clause in the Nicean Creed.

Still, an important book. There are more than seven reasons why, but since I am done typing, to discover the other reasons you will have to read it yourself.

Not So Fast . . .

Warner's Law of Privilege

Even those of us with the merest smidgen of compassion find ourselves metaphorically weeping over John Minto's angst. Poor guy. (For our non-Kiwi readers, Minto is what we call here in NZ a "veteran activist" which means that he has spent all his life protesting publicly for any cause as long as it is on the radical fringe of the left-wing.)

Reflecting on the imbroglio over The Hobbit soon-to-be-made movies, Mr Minto confesses to being embarrassed by his country--not the first time, we are certain, and not the last, to be sure. But embarrassment nevertheless. He has been quoted as saying:

I can't remember another time I've felt so embarrassed to be a New Zealander. Crowds of people fawning before Warner Brothers. Solidarity to these people means siding unreservedly with big business against workers. They seem to be unaware that Jackson and Taylor stand to make much more money from these movies than all the New Zealand actors and technicians put together.

If this dispute damages the New Zealand film industry or the careers of the actors who have been s*at on from a great height then Jackson and Taylor must carry the lion's share of the blame. If we could export these two across the ditch in exchange for just a bit of Australia's bolshy union attitude we could begin clawing back some of the 40 per cent wage advantage they have on us.

Of course Mints is afflicted with acute cognitive dissonance, even at the best of times. Never let the facts get in the way of an extreme ideological position, we always say. So, here. Mints, in yet another of those "moments", has conveniently overlooked that the fawning crowds, allegedly siding with Big Business, were actually film workers and actors. No doubt traitors all, in John's hoodwinked eyes.

Like most people in this country, we are pleased that The Hobbit movies are going to be made in NZ. We are not pleased with the process. But, the end justifies the means, right? Actually, if we would actually take our heads out of the sand for a moment what it lights up on a big screen is something which we have yet to face. A genuine Balrog. Movies are a globalised business. New Zealand has some tenuous competitive advantages (experience, technology, highly skilled labour force, Matamata, and, arguably, a global movie making brand of sorts. And Peter Jackson. Let's not forget him). But in the end, money counted. And not just any kind of money. Government money--which is to say, our own property.

Although New Zealand (in the film sector) is a high-tech, globally competitive business, once gummint was overlaid with its high taxation charges, we could not compete with low-tax jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. We were beaten. We were blown off the park. So, Warner Brothers would only agree to do the movies here if the gummint lowered its fixed, dead-weight taxation costs.

If not, Warner would have packed everything up and moved to, say, Ireland or Czechoslovakia. Movies are a fungible business. They can be made anywhere in the world, after all. Skilled labour is mobile. Intellectual property is extremely mobile. We know Peter Jackson operates in a global village. He has a private jet, non?

But what we have seen played out in microcosm in the movie business is true for every New Zealand business. Talk about building up clusters of high tech excellence in New Zealand is myopic. It is as ideologically blinkered in its own way as Mints himself. The fact is we cannot compete globally. Our workers are overpaid for what they are able to produce. Our dead-weight of gummint rules, regulations, and taxes (all to sustain the "great" but increasingly ephemeral Kiwi lifestyle) makes the real cost of doing business in and with New Zealand Inc. far, far too high.

Class war mongers, like Mints, rail against "Big Business" and the huge influence of the evil galactic Warner Brothers Empire. And they have a point. The fact is that Warner is big enough; The Hobbit project is so big it hits the national screen, if you would excuse the pun, and focuses the attention of the gummint. Warner is big enough to force negotiations with our Prime Minister. And once again we are left in the invidious position of the gummint picking winners and bestowing privilege on those deemed worthy.

But the fact remains that the Warner Brothers "clause" would be grabbed by every business and every employer in this country, if they were big enough to have negotiating traction. So, our call is this: we have no objections to Warner's deal. We have vociferous objections to it being a Warner's only privilege. The same terms, deals, conditions must apply to all. If not, the gummint will have acted unjustly. It will have extended the bribe, on behalf of us all. But if the deal were extended to all business, it would be neither unjust nor a bribe. It would be a just case of the nation meeting the global marketplace--as it must, to survive economically.

A similar point could be made with respect to a special change in the labour laws to be done for Warner Bros--carving out the movie industry as requiring an urgent piece of legislation to be rushed through Parliament in one day--a concession--or, more accurately, a reform that justice requires for all employees and employers.

But now the film sector is going to have its rights of contract restored. Great. How about the rest of the independent workers in this country who prefer to operate under contract law than employee laws? Unless the government moves with celerity to address this now-glaring anomaly, the unintended consequences of Warner's Law will be very high indeed, not the least of which will be even more cynicism towards the rule of law itself.

Do we see a pattern emerging here? The Prime Minister running the country as if it were a business, and that issues of justice are inconsequential? But The Deal, ah yes, The Deal is everything.

Civilised Middle Kingdom?

Wretched, Shameful, and Beneath Contempt

Yahoo News carries a report of a forced abortion in China (the tip of the iceberg, we expect). The Chinese government is stands indicted of being a man-flesh eating demon from the ancient world, rather than the civilized Middle Kingdom.

Chinese woman forced to abort 8-month-old fetus
By ALEXA OLESEN, Associated Press Writer Alexa Olesen, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 21, 6:45 am ET

BEIJING – A pregnant woman in south China was detained, beaten and forced to have an abortion just a month before her due date because the baby would have violated the country's one-child limit, her husband said Thursday.

Construction worker Luo Yanquan said his wife was taken kicking and screaming from their home by more than a dozen people on Oct. 10 and detained in a clinic for three days by family planning officials, then taken to a hospital and injected with a drug that killed her baby.

Family planning officials told the couple they weren't allowed to have the child because they already have a 9-year-old daughter, Luo said.

For the last 30 years, China has limited most urban couples to just one child in a bid to curb population growth and conserve its limited resources. China has the world's largest population, with more than 1.3 billion people. Couples that flout the rules face hefty fines, seizure of their property and loss of their jobs.

The case is an extreme example of the coercive measures Chinese officials sometimes use to comply with the strict family planning regulations. Though illegal, police and judicial authorities often look the other way when forced abortion cases are reported and the heavily censored state media shy away from such news.

But in recent years, victims have begun to speak out about their ordeals with the help of the Internet and text messaging. Aiding them are social campaigners and lawyers who have documented cases of forced late-term abortions. Similar abuses have been reported in Hebei and Shandong provinces and in the Guangxi region.

An official with the Siming district family planning commission, which oversees Luo's neighborhood, confirmed there was a record of Luo's wife, Xiao Aiying, undergoing an abortion recently but said the procedure was voluntary and that she was about six months instead of eight months pregnant at the time. Like many Chinese bureaucrats, he refused to give his name.

China bans forced abortions, but doesn't prohibit or clearly define late-term abortion.

The Siming official said Xiao's husband had approved the abortion, a claim Luo denied.

"I never signed anything. No one in our family did," he said by telephone from Xiamen. "I called the police but they said family planning issues weren't their responsibility. I want to sue, but lawyers I've asked here say they can't help me and the media won't report on our case."

Luo set up a blog last week to let people know what had happened to his wife, and satellite broadcaster Al-Jazeera posted a report about the couple's case on its website Wednesday.

Photos on the blog show a pained-looking, and clearly pregnant, Xiao sitting on a hospital bed after the injection but before the baby was stillborn 40 hours later. Other images show a large purple bruise on her arm and scratches on her leg, which Luo said were caused when family planning officials hit and kicked her as she struggled to get away.

Ordinary Chinese reacted with anger and disgust to Luo's online account, posting comments that called the family planning officials cruel and inhuman.

Xiao delivered the dead baby on Oct. 14 but remains hospitalized and may require emergency surgery to remove pieces of placenta still in her uterus, Luo said. The couple, both 36, were not informed of the sex of the aborted baby, Luo said.

A man who answered the phone at the obstetrics ward of the Siming No. 1 Hospital confirmed that Xiao was still a patient there. He refused to provide more details or give his name.

Telephone calls to the press office of the National Population and Family Planning Commission in Beijing rang unanswered Thursday.

Welcome to Your Future

Secular Multi-Culturalism Will Always Drive Christianity Underground

Multi-culturalism sounds like a neat idea. Reasonable people appreciate its implicit tolerance, acceptance, welcoming facade. Respecting, celebrating, and appreciating differences seems like a refined human attitude. And this is great--up to a point.

But if we live in a fallen world, where evil is intrinsic to life itself, indiscriminate multi-culturalism would rapidly becomes an oppressive disaster. We do, and it is. It destroys society itself--for there is nothing around which society can cohere. In the end the only force which can keep society from disintegrating when multi-culturalism is the regnant value is the oppression of the state.

Christians live under the rule of zero-tolerance of evil--within one's own heart and life first and foremost, but also in one's family and community and society. But Christians also live under the rule of the utter impotence of laws and regulation to remove evil. Therefore, Christianity alone holds a zero tolerance towards evil, on the one hand, and a belief in a very limited state and coercive power, on the other. Rules and regulations do not the righteous make. Christ alone can deliver mankind from evil, for He alone died for sin and to sin and rose again to newness of life totally lived for God (Romans 6: 1--11). When individuals and families are baptized into Christ, they are baptized into His death to sin and His life to God. For Christians rules and regulations are always servants of Christ and not His master.

Christians therefore live under the obligation of maximal lawkeeping (we speak of the law of Christ), but Christians also recognize the inability of non-Christians to reverence, let alone keep, Christ's law. This means that Christians, on one level, tolerate an awful lot of evil in society, whilst at the same time they earnestly direct the attention to society-at-large to Christ alone as the One who can deliver from sin's corruption and grasp.

Secular multi-culturalism, however, does not recognize evil within cultures. Therefore it sets itself up to tolerate every culture and defend its equal place and expression in society. Every culture has equal bragging rights. Every culture is to be affirmed. The one thing that will absolutely not be tolerated is any form of discrimination or criticism of a culture or cultural practice. So, Islam practises polygamy and the forced marriage of children. The multi-culturalist says, "That's cute". Islam practises honour killings. Multi-culturalism says, "How interesting". The West kills off its unborn children. The multi-culturalism intones, "I believe in a woman's right to choose".

The Christian, however, not only must discriminate between evil and righteous cultural practises whether in Timbuktoo or Topeko, but is obligated to mould the culture of his own life around the commands of Christ. And this affects everything. Everything. Even down to how he eats and drinks (I Corinthians 10:31). It affects how he lives and with whom he will live. It affects how he worships and with whom he will worship.

Multi-culturalism, however, insists that you will either accept and tolerate all, or you will be punished. This is to say that multi-culturalism will tolerate only a certain kind of Christian religion--one that would dethrone the Christ and replace multi-culturalism as His overlord. This situation is a ground-hog day repetition of Roman multi-culturalism. Everything was tolerated so long as Caesar was recognized as the over-lord.

Here is a classic example of secular humanism's multi-culturalism at work. It illustrates how it will always turn upon and oppress the Christian faith and Christians. The next step will be active persecution, if it is allowed to continue.

Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate

Published October 22, 2010


A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

"It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that." Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling. "It's really difficult to say at this point what could potentially happen," he told the newspaper, noting that there are exemptions in the law for gender when there is a shared living space.

But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as "outrageous. Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with," he said.  "Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church -- an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity."

Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization. The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. Had the ad not included the word "Christian," Haynes said, it would not have been illegal. "If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?" Haynes asked.

Oster said he hopes the case will eventually be dropped and that he's sent a letter to the state asking the authorities to dismiss the case as groundless. "The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion," he said. "And we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint."

But Haynes said officials plan on pursuing the matter. "We want to make sure it doesn't happen again," she said.

Hat Tip: Andrei at NZ Conservative

The Death of the "European Model"

Peter Schweizer Proclaims a Death

France is ablaze with violent protests, Greece is broke, and the British government is going to lay off half a million workers. Missed from the headlines is the biggest casualty in all of this: the death of the “European model.” For at least two generations now, ”progressives” and liberals in the U.S. have looked at Europe with fluttering hearts and envy, convinced that if we could only see things clearly we would abandon the American model and become MORE LIKE THEM. The German social safety net, the Scandinavian sense of tolerance, and the French commitment to long paid holidays. How great our lives would be if we just did it their way.

Fortunately the common sense of the American people led them to resist most of these socialistic overtures. The pure and clean American idea “you can’t get somethin’ for nothin’” saved the day. And now we see the results. Europe is in chaos, struggling to step back from the abyss. In Germany, the Chancellor has rightfully declared that multiculturalism has failed. The government is rightfully moving away from big government and toward austerity. (How far the unions will let them go is another story.) In Great Britain, there are massive layoffs which will probably be a down payment on further reform.

France is burning. America is not. The European model is officially dead. (Breitbart: Pig Peace)

We believe these rumours of the demise of the "European model" are greatly exaggerated. We see in Europe no changing of deities, no repentance of the current regnant humanist and Enlightenment idolatries. Rather, we see a slight rebalancing to right the ship for a brief time, before it is full-steam-ahead into the maelstrom once again. The same indictment stands against the US and the West in general. We are all sailing "right behind".