Friday, July 16, 2010

Today on Kresta - July 16, 2010

Talking about the "things that matter most" on July 16

4:00 – Lost Souls
Lost Souls is the first novel in the second trilogy of Dean Koontz's Frankenstein series, and the fourth book overall. Koontz puts a singular twist on this classic tale of ambition and science gone wrong and forges a new legend uniquely suited to our times—a story of revenge, redemption, and the razor-thin line that separates humanity from inhumanity as we consider a new invitation to apocalypse.

4:20 – July 16, 1945 – The Nuclear Age Begins
On this day in 1945 the atomic bomb was tested at Trinity, Los Alamos where the scientists there were the first humans to witness the power of a nuclear weapon. Jon Hunner is the author of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Cold War, and the Atomic West and is here to explore the promise and peril of the Atomic Age.

4:40 – Inception and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Our resident film critic, Steven Greydanus says “A day or two after seeing Christopher Nolan's much-anticipated Inception, my head's still reeling. I don't think it will stop until I see it again. Once is not enough. One thing I'm confident of: Inception is the most audacious and multifaceted Hollywood entertainment for grown-ups I've seen in years: a brainy, bravura achievement inviting comparison to the most inspired work of Hollywood visionaries” He is here to explain!

5:00 – Authentic “Social Justice” and how it is misunderstood by the political Left AND Right


  1. Hi Mr. Kresta, I notice that you have a portion of your show today devoted to the topic of nuclear weapons and the "Nuclear Age". As a lay theologian I'm not overly qualified to make these decisions, but it's a matter of prudential judgment if I understand correctly so I thought that I would bring it up: do you think nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil? I'm not talking about nuclear technology in general, but nuclear weapons specifically. Perhaps the two can't be separated, but I'm leaning towards a "yes" answer to the question. Perhaps you and Mr. Hunner could enlighten me. Thank you.


    Matthew Wade

  2. Re: Social Justice and Subsidiarity

    Al told us that human inequality is part of God's plan. Of course inequality is necessary. Where would we be if everyone were a full time poet. Mankind flourishes when some people have an aptitude for engineering and others have an aptitude for art.

    That's not the kind of inequality Al was talking about. Al meant that God endowed Bill Gates with the talent to earn billions by selling computer software, while He endowed Juanita with the talent to clean Bill's gold plated toilets.

    That's the role God planned out for you, Juanita, so as to fulfill His divine scheme. But don't feel bad. He gave you that talent for His own glory, just like that blind guy Al mentioned. Not only that. To ameliorate the ensuing wealth inequality, He created the concept of social justice. And there's more. If you believe, and if you behave yourself, you will get to partake of the Beatific Vision.

    Feel better, Juanita? Just make sure you don't screw up, though. Be sure you don't die in the state of mortal sin. I hear it's a real bitch down there. You'll be begging to return to your toilet cleaning past.

    Al, I found your exposition on social justice and how it relates to subsidiarity to be unhelpful. Your concept of social justice is sufficiently vague and general that it will enable anyone in the political spectrum, between libertarianism and socialism, to nod their head in agreement. Libertarians hear you talk about the voluntary nature of social justice, implemented at the local level. Socialists do not hear you ruling out state intervention when local private entities fail. When you mention a just wage, they find a justification for a state mandated minimum wage. They will also point to the old state's rights Jim Crow South. You emphasize the priority of non-governmental solutions, but you leave the door open for government intervention. Your liberal opponents will definitely seize on that.

    There's a key question here, and you do your best to avoid it. Is it morally licit for government to redistribute wealth? That is, is it morally licit for government to forcibly take property away from one person and give it to another? We can't do it as individuals. Does it become OK if we get the government to do it for us?

    We hear a lot of complaining from conservatives these days about Obama's desire to redistribute wealth. But are they really serious? For instance, they've been complaining about the new head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Donald Berwick, who in 2008 said: "Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poor and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional."

    But public funding of education is also redistributional, even if we were to go to a voucher system. Yet only a handful of conservatives are willing to eliminate public funding of education.