Pay-Offs and Government Power

Many have been outraged with the government bail-outs of AIG, as government has tried to "use" thier bail-out as a means of increasing government's power to tax (at 90%). This seems to be the case with the recent suggestion about government lending private investors money to hold toxic assests.

Whether these investors win or loose, the government gains power over the individual. If the investor overpays the government in "buying" these toxic assests, then the government can gain over the public's preception in clearing the toxic debt off its "books", while touting the "increase" of private sector "profits". But, even if the "plan" looses, the private investor looses nothing, as the government holds the "loan", and then, the government has the "opportunity" to tax the "common man" for the "public good", thus increasing government's power by increasing its coffers of private monies. So, it seems that this 'plan" is a "cover" for governmnt enlargement and power, while using the private sector as a scapegoat. These private sector "scapegoats" have a vested interest, in my opinion, in profiting from their "role". Their function is to be useful for the adminstration's goals of an "insider" political elite, that lives off of the public.

This was the very way in which, as I understand it, that A.C.O.R.N. funnelled money into the pockets of a few. The "common good" of altruistic concern over the poor and thier housing, led to a whoesale use of our government's public institutions as a means to money laundrying...

Our nation was founded on the principle of limited government. This is not the vision or goal of this adminstration. The Secretary of the Treasury is the "sole" arbitrator of trillons of dollars of tax dollars, while 17 political appointed positions under him lie vacant. What kind of power can be weilded without a "cabinet" to fight or be accountable to?

Business Interests, Tneure Track, and Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is part of our Bill of Rights. The protection of freedom of speech is a necessity in a free society. This was understood to be protected in the university by tenure track. Tenure track assured the professor of a job. Tenure is a vote of confidence that the professor will be responsible and faithful in continuing to maintain an attitude of learning in a learning environment. Tenure allows the professor to speak of challenging subjects for the sake of education and the development of "knowledge". The Academy should be about the business of being stewards of God's gift of reason.

Tenure means that others with lesser knowledge affirm and respect knowledge and the professor in their choice of vocation. This environment breeds an openness to their educational understanding and input. This culture also breeds a humility because it affirms that God is too great to be confined within our own specific discipline or limited views, even in regards to one's specialty in disciplinary knowledge.

But, what happens if business interests interfere with accademic freedom? How can this be? Suppose there was an invention that was based upon Newton's understanding of gravity, and business interests were invested in this invention being protected. Wouldn't it limit the Academy in education, if the business interests would feel threatened by the new information of Quantum theory? At what costs, then, are the business interests? Is it only the costs of the moment's educational "loss" of Quantum theory? Or is it much more? And, is tenure track a way for business interest to over-ride their interests over the interests of education?

People have been endowed by their Creator with reason. Reason is a gift which must be developed within the Academy. The individual's development is at stake when business interests collide with the educational interests of the individual. Which is most important? The investment and monies that will be attained at the costs of the individual? Or is the individual more important than the business investment?

As a Christian, I would believe that the individual is more important than the investment, because the individual is not a commodity to be bought and sold, but a human being whose development must be nutured. We must re-assess our values as a "Christian society". Although I think it is right and good that an individual can pursue his own interests (investments), I don't believe that American culture should affirm the market to the extent it does. Academic freedom and tenure track is a value to be upheld!