Zoo Station

Time to try something new

2009-03-16T17:09:00.003-06:00

I'm going to try to start blogging again on a regular basis. To help jumpstart my creativity, I thought I would use a change of scenery, so I moved over to http://sadastronaut.wordpress.com.

I'm also going to try to post on a wider variety of topics, where it is not just politics all the time. Then again, the mood may hit me to post on politics, so you never know.

Even though government may have a philosophical right to do something, that doesn't mean it should

2009-02-10T08:47:00.005-07:00

First of all, if anyone still reads this blog, I sincerely apologize for my very infrequent blogging. Part of the reason is just being busy at work. More importantly, however, is the birth of my baby girl Abigail. My wife and I no longer outnumber our kids; we have a family of 4 now.

Onto other stuff. I am a free market advocate, but I didn't have an immediate problem with the idea of capping CEO pay for banks that take bailout money. After all, if the government pays the bill, shouldn't it have some say in how the money is spent? From a philosophical standpoint, yes. (I should note that I completely oppose any current bailout or typically any financial assistance from government, though I could probably make an exception for events beyond control, i.e. airlines after 9/11) However, I started to think about it. Ideally, the government, and the people, would want the companies to get back on their feet. If paying a CEO a high salary is the way to do it, shouldn't we let the company do so?

This blog sums it up nicely.

Companies that take government assistance do so because they fear going bankrupt. Sometimes that is because they were badly managed by the CEOs and other executives in charge. What many of these companies need are new executives who can take a fresh look at their problems. Unfortunately, pay caps that leave total pay considerably below what able executives receive in other companies make it more difficult to attract these executives to companies in distress because they can earn more, and work with considerably less government interference, in companies that do not take or need aid. Moreover, severe limits on severance pay help to lock in incompetent executives who then might refuse to leave voluntarily because they would not receive any significant financial incentives to leave.

With high risk should come high reward. Why would a brilliant, qualified CEO take a position at a failing bank; where stability AND pay are low?

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog.

Unity may mean hanging out with people who disagree with you

2008-12-26T15:39:00.002-07:00

Conservatives and liberals alike are not fond of Obama's decision to have Rick Warren do whatever he is doing at Obama's inauguration. I can understand the concerns from both sides, but I'll choose to pick on the liberals because all this time they have talked about the importance of unity. When Obama supporters talk throughout the entire campaign about how important unity is for this country, then protest when he chooses someone to pray at his inauguration who shares views different from their own, it makes me think one of two things, both of them cynical. Either unity isn't that important, or, unity is important when it means getting conservatives to find common ground with liberals, but not vice versa. People of any political persuasion are free to say whatever they want about Obama's choice, but people have to show how "unity" is important, not just say it is. Believing in unity means, maybe from time to time, you hang out with somebody with whom you disagree.

Free markets and freedom of conscience go hand in hand

2008-12-04T11:56:00.003-07:00

I was looking at the Auburn University newspaper online to see what they thought of Tommy Tuberville's firing from the head football coach position (correction, it appears that Tuberville stepped down to the surprise of the AD) and a I found an opinion piece concerning "right of conscience" rules, which allow medical workers to opt out of performing procedures they find morally objectionable.

Of course, the editorial staff thought these rules were a bad idea, and they use the following example:

Here is a hypothetical situation for you. You arrive at Outback Steakhouse with a desire for, you guessed it, a steak! You sit down, and as you tell the waiter you would like a 6 oz. ribeye, he interrupts you.

“I’m sorry, sir,” he says. “Our cook, Geoff, is a vegan, and he will not be cooking anything involving animal products tonight.”

You’re stunned, but you have to understand what you have just heard, so you inquire further.

“But you’re Outback STEAKhouse,” you say. “Steak is in your name. Well, could you at least tell us where we could get a decent steak around town?”

“No, sir,” he says. “Geoff is also acting as the manager tonight, and he has instructed the wait staff to only point our guests toward restaurants that also serve vegan items. Can I start you off with a Bloomin’ Onion, tonight? Nevermind, the batter uses eggs…”

To which I responded,

Your Outback scenario shows that you are completely missing one half of the argument. Outback would never hire a vegan cook. In the same way, hospitals and doctor's offices won't hire people whose beliefs get in the way of performing their job. Of course, for that to work, employers would need a little flexibility in who they hire, and that probably sounds a little too "free market" for you guys.

The editorial staff even allude to a free market solution, when they close with

If this rule becomes a reality, patients will have to do some major research before they select a doctor or pharmacist. But then again, the more open-minded doctors and pharmacists will make a killing.

Yes, a reality of the free market is that sometimes individuals may have to do a little bit more research to make an informed choice, an unfortunate side effect of having "choice" in the first place. And yes, some people will make more money than others, that's what happens when people provide something people want, that others don't. Granted, things get a little more complicated when it gets to the issue of medical emergencies and saving lives, so that's where legal action and medical boards get involved.

But again, I want to reiterate that for the free market to work, choice must be allowed in the customer/provider relationship AND the employer/employee relationship. Doug Bandow writes in the Foundation for Economic Education

According to the newspapers, pharmacists throughout the United States are refusing to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pill and other contraceptives because of religious objections. Fortunately,we can resolve this problem without getting into the birth-control or abortion controversies. In a free society, human relationships, including commercial relationships, must grow out of the consent of all the people involved. A forced sale is theft; forced service is slavery.
The owner of a drugstore, by virtue of the nature of private property, sets the rules. If customers don’t like them, they are free to go elsewhere.They can even shop
on the Internet. Similarly, if a pharmacist-employee with convictions opposed to the morning-after pill works for someone who thinks differently, he will have to find another job if he can’t work things out with his
boss.

No one talks to our President-Elect like that!

2008-11-19T10:23:00.004-07:00

Like Lee, I am not a member of the Obama fan club. However, something about Al-Qaeda demeaning our President-Elect makes me want to rally around him. I feel like with some issues - like protecting America - we are all in it together. We all have a common enemy. Who knew Al-Qaeda could promote such a sense of unity?

Obama wants college football playoff system

2008-11-17T13:35:00.003-07:00

Like most Americans, Obama wants a college football playoff system.

However, hopefully Obama will rely on his status and influence as a private individual and will not use government power to accomplish this. The government has no business dictating the rules of a sports association, provided that the association breaks no criminal laws. Let's hope the President and/or Congress don't see fit to be the governing body of sports.

My fear about the next four years

2008-11-13T08:30:00.003-07:00

Despite the person I didn't vote for being elected, on the bright side, we've shown that a minority can be elected President. Not only that, but the Cato Blog notes that

all 42 of our presidents have been of British, Irish, or Germanic descent. We’ve never had a president of southern or eastern European ancestry.

So, not only is he the first black President, but he is the first one not of British, Irish, or Germanic descent.

So, on Inauguration Day many people will be celebrating, but not everyday will be happy about it. I fear that those people will look like "the bad guys" for not celebrating during a historic moment.

Also, I fear that when Obama is in power, dissent will suddenly go out of style. I haven't seen anything yet to support this, and I don't want to blame liberals for something they haven't done yet. At the same time, this blog is where I share my thoughts, and hopefully I'll be proved wrong. Throughout the whole election we have heard this theme of unity, how we need to work together, etc. These are all important things (actually working together is overrated, I'm happier when government does less), but I fear that dissent against the President will be tolerated less in the name of "unity." Granted, there are constructive and divisive ways to criticize the President, and there are divisive people in politics. I just don't want people who dissent to be labeled as people trying to tear America apart. I have this idea that people see Obama as the guy who is going to fix and save America and dissenters are those who are standing in the way of his mission. And to be fair, I suppose some liberals felt the same way the last 8 years. Unfortunately, in both camps, the respectful dissenters and the not-so-respectful dissenters get lumped together.

Some post election thoughts

2008-11-05T07:25:00.005-07:00

Many conservative Christians, or simply Christians who didn't vote for Obama, find themselves in a different situation than the past eight years. I think certain duties of the Christian, primarily praying for the President and showing a certain amount of respect for the President, have come easy during this administration, but we must remember to do the same for the next four. Also, we need to find the line between dissent and disrespect.

As I said before the election, hopefully the GOP can gain their bearings. They have only stood for slightly less government than the Democrats. Of course, no one talks about limited government anymore, it is all about what the government can do for us. Nevertheless, it will still be interesting how the party changes the next two to four years.

I voted

2008-11-04T12:54:00.003-07:00

I placed my vote this morning in Colorado. I arrived at the polling place around 7:40 and left about 9:40. My experience took about 10 minutes longer because there was a jam in the ballot box. My wife voted around 11:45 or so and did not wait in a line at all.

Even though this election will likely turn out how I don't want it to, Election Day is still exciting.

Living in a swing state (Colorado) has its advantages and disadvantages. My experience in Colorado leaves me hating campaign commercials even more. When I lived in Oklahoma and Texas, I never saw a Presidential commercial; I have seen them all the time in these past two months or so. However, I have a lot more power than the voter living in a solid red or blue state. And that is what is wrong with the Electoral College. I'm not even saying that we need to abolish the Electoral College, but have states split votes like they do in Nebraska (I think that's the one that does it). By still having some sort of Electoral College, people will still believe their vote matters, as each single electoral vote can be decided by a few votes. If we did a strict popular vote, this would be less likely to happen.

A more exciting part of voting is getting to vote on the numerous amendments, as opposed to voting on candidates. Honestly, my voting on candidates tends to be more party line. But I like voting on amendments and referendums because I do not feel like the issues are so cut and dry along party lines. Sure, the parties each have their own recommendations on certain issues (although I never did find the Republican stances for the ballot issues), but I feel like I vote more independently of the parties on these issues and my limited government ideals can come into play more. (Case in point: Republicans back Amendment 47, a right to work law, but I opposed it based on libertarian economic ideals).

Anyway, we are blessed in this country to be able to vote. If a couple hour long wait is the worst we experience, we are in good shape.

The thing about low taxes

2008-10-16T11:31:00.003-06:00

McCain and the Republican party have talked about taxes and spending, but I don't think they have been framing the debate very well. McCain has talked about how Obama will raise taxes and how McCain will lower taxes, and of course the former thing is evil and the latter is good. I think what he and many Republicans have failed to do is to really get to the essence of why this is a good thing.

Democrats and swing voters are well aware that no one really likes to pay higher taxes, Biden's comments to the contrary.

First of all, I like the idea of lower taxes for other people making more money than myself because I think higher taxes for others affect me indirectly. I don't want to go too much into detail into the theory what more liberal people dismiss as "trickle-down" economics, but I sincerely believe that higher taxes on the rich can affect productivity, and therefore job creation for myself and for my children. Now, this argument can be taken to the extreme. Of course if we tax the rich .5%, we won't get very much tax revenue, but the same goes when we tax at 99.5%, simply because productivity would grind to a halt. So, there is an optimal point somewhere in between, and I tend to think it may be in the teens.

Secondly, though, is that I believe that the tax rate and amount of spending is a representation of how we view the role of government. If we believe in lower taxes and less spending, both in overall amount and where it goes, of course we believe that government should have a limited role.

Unfortunately, McCain and Republicans running for office in Colorado focus on the lower taxes and less spending, but they don't focus on why this is so important. As far as average voter knows, they are in the pockets of the rich people. They have focused on my first point, the productivity argument, but not so much on the idea of why limited government is a good thing. McCain did touch a little bit on this in the final debate concerning health care, but he hasn't focused on the overall principles of limited government that resonate with more voters than we realize. It seemed like Reagan did focus on this. Even though Reagan supported a sizable military, he still talked about the idea of the government leaving people alone and believing in the sweat and ingenuity of the average American person. McCain, however, is just focusing on the possible results of this, which are lower taxes and less spending, not the higher principles behind them.

Hopefully, this likely election loss for the Republican Party will help them rediscover and effectively communicate the ideals of a government that does less. Instead of pushing for lite government, they are currently pushing for Obama-lite government.

My wife

2008-10-02T11:57:00.003-06:00

I thought I would talk about my wife.

We have been married for 5 years, and I have grown to love her all the more over time. She has not only proved to be a great wife, but a great person as well. My wife has a huge heart, and she is full of love and compassion for me and for others. She has also been very loyal to me, and although there were many times I deeply hurt her and been a crummy husband, she stuck right by my side. She is someone who loves God very much and wants to raise godly children. She is a very good mom to our son. She not only makes sure that he is fed and healthy, but takes time to say little prayers with him and teach him little things. He is very blessed to have a mom who loves him so much. She is no doubt very beautiful on the outside, but also on the inside as well. While no one is perfect, I know that God is very happy with the person she has become, as I am. I don't know that many people who are as pure in heart as my wife. Sure, we all get mad and upset with people, but there is very little in her that holds animosity toward anyone.

It is said that when we meet God in heaven, that we are accountable to Him for how we treat our spouse (as well as other people). If our spouse is difficult, we get rewarded all the more if we are still loving to that person. I can't see myself getting that many rewards because I have it pretty easy. So many times I feel that I don't deserve her, but I know we were meant to be together since she is perfect for me. I do feel like she is my other half, that she brings sunshine into parts of my life that would otherwise be dark.

Anyway, I don't talk about my personal life very often, but I do want people to know what a wonderful wife I have. I can only hope that I remain thankful for the blessing God has given me and come close to treating her how she should be treated.

On the precipice of political punditry

2008-09-17T12:55:00.005-06:00

I've been somewhat hesitant to comment on the current political election, simply because there are so many things that I do not like about political punditry. Typically it is about spin, damage control, and scoring points against the opposition. They take their usual sides on the latest news in the election with predictable responses. Nevertheless, it is the stuff going on, and it's the stuff I want to talk about; I will just try to be as fair and even-handed as possible.

The Conventions (yes, I'm a few weeks late, but here it goes)

I only heard bits and pieces of the DNC. I thought Michelle Obama did well in her speech, tying in Barack the man and Barack the leader.

Concerning Barack Obama's speech, he has great delivery, but I don't feel like he offers anything new. His ideas pretty much amount to more government spending and trying to do the impossible. I know my opinion may be no surprise from a conservative, but if a liberal wants to point out how his ideas differ from the general Democratic party, I'd be willing to hear them.

Concerning the RNC, to me, the highlight was McCain's speech. The first two nights of the convention were what I feared, which was a focus on keeping America safe. While that is no doubt important, the general American populace seems to be concerned about the economy. I was more satisfied when McCain addressed these issues. I don't know if he did so convincingly, but at least he touched on them. I think Palin did a good job pointing out the lack of experience for Obama. They spent too much time exploiting McCain's POW experience. Also, low taxes are not enough to sway swing voters leaning to the left. We all know Republicans like low taxes and they provide a benefit to the individual, but explain how low taxes and smaller government benefit the country as a whole. As far as average voter knows, low taxes have no benefit beyond the individual taxpayer.

On Unity and Getting Things Done:

I don't understand why being "United" is such a big deal. Unity is a nice ideal, but the reality is that Americans hold drastically different values from each other. With respect to the general populace, I don't see the concrete benefits. I suppose being a unifier is important if we want a leader who "gets things done." But as a limited government conservative, I am actually happier when government does less. Why is government passing more rules for our daily lives and spending more of our money a good thing? And besides, I get the impression that McCain has gone across the aisle more than Obama anyway, but that may not be true.

Palin:
I like Palin, and I think McCain's choice was brilliant from a political campaign perspective, and in general. To combat Obama's celebrity, McCain picked someone who is a rising star in her own right (well, she is now anyway).

McCain:
Concerning McCain in general, he has a record of agreeing with Bush, but I believe him to be a much more competent person. I was not excited about McCain during the primaries, but I like him more and more. I hold fewer reservations about McCain than many fellow conservatives. My complaints against McCain are more of a libertarian nature (his Campaign Finance Reform Act, wanting government to get involved in alternative fuels), as oppose to conservative.

Why I will ultimately vote they way I will:
When it comes down to myself, I vote based on issues, the reason I have aligned myself much more with the Republican Party than the Democratic. I am pro-life, anti-gun control, pro-free market, etc... Obama's stance on the abortion issue is nothing short of frightening. (Sorry, using Roe vs. Wade to argue against BAIPA does no favors to Roe vs. Wade. You are telling me to support abortion rights even though with them you can't distinguish from baby already born to baby in womb) So yeah, people can talk about the experience a leader has or does not have, and they can talk about how I can financial benefit, but for me, it has always been about the issues. The disturbing thing about the Colorado local elections (and the major election to some extent), is that it focuses so squarely on how much I pay at the pump, which I feel is a self-centered way at looking at the elections. Yes, gas prices can be indicative of a larger problem, and I'm fine with people looking at those issues, but many people look at it much more in a black-box fashion. Gas prices are high, I'll vote for whoever lowers them. The offices at stake are so much more important than that.

To the guy who thinks everyone should ride their bike to work, regardless of their situation

2008-08-21T09:39:00.004-06:00

Just a quick note: I think if you can ride your bike to work, that's great. You get exercise, you reduce pollution, it cost less money, there are numerous benefits. Dan, I believe, rides his bike to work, and I think that's great. Especially if you happen to like the environment ( I get along with the environment okay, we are occasionally on speaking terms, every once in a while, I say hello).

So I'm at work and this lady is complaining about the radio stations she has to endure while she drives to work (i.e. crappy morning shows). A guy who rides his bike to work states "if you ride your bike to work you wouldn't have that problem." Did I mention the lady lives 35 miles away from work? Look, if you are dumbfounded why someone who lives 35 miles away from work doesn't ride their bike, you have a problem. We think it's great you ride your bike, we just think it's annoying when it gives you a superiority complex. I'm trying to decide if this guy just wants to insert the fact that he rides his bike to work into everyday conversation, or if he actually thinks this lady's life would be improved if she rode her bike to work. Let's see, 40 minute commute to work vs. 2 hours ( assuming average speed 20mph). You are asking her to sacrifice an extra 2.5 hours a day, for what? Not to mention, this is on an interstate highway. I'm not saying we have to take the fastest way to work, but if you triple your commute time, I'm going to give you a pass. Again, if you want to ride your bike to work, more power to you. Just don't try to randomly insert it into conversation. Also, if you happen to be one of the green types, I know protecting the environment, conservation, and the like are all about sacrifice. But you have to understand that sometimes people don't want to sacrifice 2.5 hours a day with their family.

It's not that we hate the poor...

2008-08-07T12:50:00.002-06:00

Economic conservatives are criticized because of seemingly heartless opinions, for instance, the stance on the minimum wage. But I don't oppose the minimum wage simply because I hate poor people, or I don't care about the least of these... just the opposite.

The Political Calculations Blog writes

This chart confirms that for teenagers, those between the ages of 16 and 19 years old, all of the jobs that disappeared in 2007 were minimum wage jobs. In essence, a total of 94,000 hourly jobs disappeared for this age group overall. This figure is the net change of this age group losing some 118,000 minimum wage earning jobs and gaining some 24,000 jobs paying above this level.

This represents what we believe to be the effect of the higher minimum wage level increasing the barriers to entry for young people into the U.S. workforce. Since the minimum wage jobs that once were held by individuals in each age group have disappeared, total employment levels have declined as those who held them have been forced to pursue other activities.

Now consider this: The minimum wage was just reset on 24 July 2008 to $6.55 per hour, a 27.2% increase from where it was in early July 2007. Our best guess is that a lot of additional teenagers will be pursuing those other activities.

Meanwhile, the lack of employment opportunities for the least educated, least skilled and least experienced segment of the U.S. workforce will likely have costs far beyond the benefits gained by those who earn the higher minimum wage. The government might be able to make the minimum wage earning teenage worker disappear, but they didn't do anything to make the teenagers themselves disappear.

Now, with any economic research there are tons of variables, but the conclusions presented are intuitive, simply because of supply and demand. If something is not truly worth the price at which it is offered, we don't buy it. Why would an hourly worker be any different? Companies with inferior products price them lower to increase demand. Why wouldn't an unskilled laborer be the same? Why should an unskilled laborer not have the option to negotiate their wage without government interference? Is a job with a low wage worse than no job at all?

Many politicians realize that raising the minimum wage does no good, yet they support it to pay lip service to their constituents. Others think they have the companies in a bind. They know Safeway needs workers, so they think Safeway has no choice but to pay them the mandated wage. But Safeway can hire fewer workers, create more self checkout lines, or raise the prices of their goods, which has the most dramatic effect on the poor anyway.

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog.

The role of incentives

2008-08-07T12:38:00.003-06:00

OSNews links to a blog entry titled "Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it". Even if you are not a software developer, the article is interesting because it explores the roles of incentives in the overall quality of a product. Open Source software is developed mainly by volunteers, as opposed to Microsoft or Apple products that are developed by paid programmers and cost money.

Open source software is a noble idea, and there are many useful tools out there. However, getting paid motivates programmers to focus on aspects of software that make it more usable for the average person. Now, Microsoft is not a great example of this, simply because it does have many features of a monopoly. It is the software that everybody has and every hates. I think if distributors of Linux would focus more on the commercial market - and even keep the software open source - the computing world overall would be better off. Even if you aren't into software development and tools, one could probably see how the overall quality of a product could improve if someone has financial incentive.

Caring for the unborn after they are born.

2008-08-05T11:14:00.002-06:00

I had talked about the topic of Conservatives supposedly not caring about babies after they are born, and Neil has this topic as well.

There is another thought about this argument, and I wonder what the point of it is. Let's say that I realize the liberals are right, that I should support more government programs, that I should vote Democrat, etc.... At the very best, these arguments would convince me to be pro-big government AND pro-life. So what's the point?

Cynicism and limited government

2008-07-29T20:47:00.006-06:00

I was watching a Simpson's episode from the Season 2 DVD where Marge successfully bans violence from the Itchy and Scratchy cartoons. Her protests influence others to prevent Michelangelo's David from visiting Springfield. Marge regrets her actions and concedes "I guess one person can make a difference, but most of the time, they probably shouldn't." This statement resonated with me somewhat, and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

As someone who generally favors limited government, I actually prefer it when politicians do less. When people talk about how they want to change the world and make the world a better place, part of me cringes, because usually what they mean is that they want to pass more laws, raise taxes, and spend more government money.

When I think about the people I went to college with, I think of those who got involved in a lot of activities such as student council and the like, and those who simply went to class, did their homework, and tried to have a little fun along the way.

I know that it is better to be involved with things and try to impact other people's lives, as opposed to being more self-absorbed and simply worrying about one's grades. However, the "involved" people are the ones more likely to get involved in politics and do the aforementioned things. The ones that are less involved are more likely to mind their own business and leave me alone.

I guess it all depends on how someone gets involved. It seems that government is typically the first route people take when trying to change society. But I think if people put the same amount of effort in non-governmental avenues, it could make more of an impact while keeping the average person's life free of rules and regulations. Also, when people talk about "changing society" and the like, I tend to associate it with liberal politics. And for some people, that's not a bad thing, but for those on the other side of the political spectrum, it is. I don't mean to bash Democrats or liberals, I am just saying how I feel. The idea of being compassionate and doing good is becoming less romanticized, as it is commonly associated with huge taxes and inefficient government programs. Doing good is losing its cool. Jesus has been replaced by a faceless bureaucrat. To explain how I feel to more liberal readers, think of how some self-righteous conservatives can turn people off from ideas such as "family values".

When it comes to changing society, I do believe there are times that government should be involved, but even then it should not be the only focus. Look at racism. Passing laws will not change people's heart, and it takes institutions such as the church to address the heart issue (unfortunately some of the church held people back). But just because it takes more than government doesn't mean government shouldn't be involved at all. People of all races should be treated equally by the government. The same thing with the abortion issue. Christians and others passionate about the issue should get involved in ministries that help out expecting mothers and help them to choose life. At the same time, I believe born and unborn people should be treated equally under the law.

Thoughts on capital punishment

2008-07-17T12:37:00.003-06:00

Capital punishment is really an issue I'm not that passionate about, for whatever reason. Out of the things that keep me up at night, the thought that convicted killers get sentenced to death is not one of them. Maybe that makes me a bad person, at least in the eyes of those who are against capital punishment.

Probably the best argument against capital punishment is the fact that people are wrongly convicted. Libertarians for Life has the argument

If we imprison someone unjustly, we can repay our debt to that person to some extent and beg forgiveness. But how do we compensate the innocent dead? Given the fallibility of human beings, this is a fundamental ethical problem for capital punishment.

However, the Bible addresses this issue as pointed out at Neil's blog.

The Bible requires that accused criminals be justly convicted, and our system doesn’t take perjury very seriously. God loves justice. Here’s just one of many verses one could point to: Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Keep in mind that when I say He loves justice that doesn’t just mean he loves it when the innocent aren’t punished. He also loves it when the guilty are held accountable. This can help rehabilitate the criminal, protect others from the criminal and deter others from becoming criminals.)

The Bible required two or more witnesses for the death penalty: Numbers 35:30 Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

So, if implemented correctly, this problem would be addressed, at least somewhat.

Neil addresses other possible Biblical arguments against capital punishment in the post.

The main issue I want to address, however, is the method of arguing by opponents of capital punishment, which views the death penalty as equivalent to murder. The saying goes "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

There are a couple issues with this rhetorical question.

1) The government has authority that the individual does not. After all, many people support the right of the government to tax us and take our money, but that doesn't mean we support stealing. The government has the right to hold us against our will should we commit a crime, yet that doesn't give individuals the right to kidnap.

We see this distinction in the Bible. God said "thou shalt not murder", yet God commanded the death penalty for certain crimes, and he supported war against other nations. To my recollection, God never commanded an individual to act separately from their government in taking life, or to be a vigilante and get revenge. Now granted, I don't want us stoning people for worshiping other gods or committing adultery, or wiping out entire nations. The point I am making, however, is God obviously saw a distinction between one individual murdering another individual, vs. the government imposing the death penalty or going to war against another government. I am not advocating the extent of Israel's power in domestic/foreign policy; Israel was a theocracy run by God through Moses. My point is that just because murder is wrong, doesn't automatically mean the death penalty is.

2) There is a difference between killing an innocent person and a guilty person. Or, to say it another way, opponents of capital punishment need to work on establishing their argument that there is no difference. Again, opponents just take this as a given and run with it. Now, I will say the burden of proof is on those who are for capital punishment in this area. Like the abortion issue, the burden is on those who support death.

The point is, "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" is not an effective argument because it presumes a moral equivalence to murder and the death penalty, a presumption proponents of the death penalty do not share.

Balancing various ideals when it comes to Christianity and economics

2008-07-06T15:02:00.003-06:00

At times, it seems like liberalism coincides more closely with Christianity than say, conservatism, because of caring for the least of these, feeding the poor and hungry, don't judge, etc... For a while, I myself was veering towards this idea, especially in my college years. However, when I saw how this ideal manifested itself in liberal politics, I got turned off of this. Basically, the idea that you wanted to help the poor automatically meant higher taxes and more government. If you even dared think that the top tax rate should be cut from 38% to 35%, then obviously you hated the poor. That, and my firm pro-life stance. I just couldn't buy a philosophy that was all about helping the "least of these", except when it came to abortion. It would be nice to adopt a philosophy that at least butted heads with the world's values every once in a while. If I was to become a liberal, it would be more of the Catholic type, yes, big government, but they would support the Catholic doctrine even when it clashed with the world's values.

The major obstacle for me embracing liberalism, Christian or any other, is that of the 10th commandment. "17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."" Now, when I talk to liberals, they say that they do not envy, they do not want to be rich, etc... and I believe them. But, the income redistribution system as a whole is envy, even if not everyone who supports the system is, in fact, coveting their neighbors stuff. The whole idea of progressivism/socialism is taking from the rich to give to the poor. Politicians appeal to the notion of class warfare, where he or she promises to tax the rich more and give more stuff to the poor. Folks, I cannot think of a more obvious instance of something that contradicts the 10th commandment.

So what does this mean? Have no welfare? Have no taxes? I realize the need for these programs. And I had the longest time trying to separate a system that has basic welfare vs. the system that we have now. I believe the the key to having an envy free society is a flat tax, a low income tax for everyone. By having a flax tax, there is no class warfare. There is no people voting to tax another group at no cost to themselves. By having a flat tax, we can still have democracy, where we choose how much to give, but we are all in it together. No more voting to raise our neighbors taxes and not our own.

I'm sure this idea sounds abhorrent to many, especially to those whose ideal government is much bigger than mine. But government spending needs some kind of check, and currently there is not much. There is no limit to how much government can spend when the majority choose what to do with the pockets of the minority.

So, when looking at Christianity and how it applies to economics and politics, I try to look at the entire Bible. Jesus advocated caring for the poor, but he never brought government into it (apparently Jesus' silence only counts when it comes to abortion and (supposedly) homosexuality). Paul discussed methods to take care of the poor, and he told churches to focus on those who truly needed it. The 10th commandment said don't try to take your neighbors' stuff. Even with the Mosaic law and Israel, that society looked very little like what is advocated now among the Christian Left, with tax rates much lower than what we have today, among other things that I'd like to get into later. In other words, I don't see a strong correlation between liberalism and what is taught in the Bible.

Should government protect us from ourselves?

2008-05-31T15:53:00.003-06:00

Randy Barnett has a good post on payday Loan centers. His opinion is that we would be better off if they were closed down. I'm not a fan of payday loan places myself, but I'm hesitant to say that they should be outlawed.

Randy implies the comparison between crack cocaine and payday loans, and while that may seem dramatic, I think that's a fair comparison. And even if he didn't intend the comparison, I will. It made me realize that both topics are really part of a larger question. Should government protect us from ourselves? And to what degree?

It's many of the same issues with drugs as it is payday loans. Is it the proper role of government to prevent someone from doing something harmful to themselves? If that thing is outlawed, would the results be worse? For instance, is a black market of drugs more dangerous than the accessibility of legal drugs? Is somebody getting a loan from a sketchy character under the table worse than having Pay Day loans on every corner?

I posted on the issue of the Drug War in the past. While I still wrestle with the same issues, I'm inclined to not support the prohibition of payday loan centers, if for simply for the reason that it is hard to outlaw such a transaction. Giving a loan to a friend or casual acquaintance is quite easy. Yes, there is less contract work involved, but it is hard to monitor something as easy as loaning money. And yes, I do believe that if payday centers are outlawed, people may resort to worse measures, whether it is some shady character or somebody running up credit card debt. (There was a post on Market Power about this, but I can't find it at the moment)

Anyway, I don't know the answer to the question to what degree government should protect us from ourselves, but in this issue of payday loans, I don't think outlawing them is the way to go.

The new judgmentalism

2008-05-31T00:03:00.005-06:00

For some reason today, it is acceptable to judge people based on how they eat. We respect their religious views, political beliefs, sexual preferences/habits, but if they get McDonald's for lunch or have a soda, many of us feel a need to express our disapproval.

The Evangelical Outpost had a post concerning the sin of gluttony. The article makes a good point in how gluttony is an oft-ignored sin, but I think it puts too much emphasis on comparing gluttony to sexual sin. While the roots of both sins may be similar (I'm honestly not good at understanding the psychological roots of sin), you cannot really treat them the same. As I commented there, and at Neil's site, which linked to the article, the area of sexuality has clearly defined boundaries, have sex only with your spouse (of a different sex) and don't lust after women (or men). Gluttony is not so clear-cut. God does not forbid eating a juicy cheeseburger. At the same time, God does not want us to abuse our bodies, so many times we have to do things in moderation.

I get annoyed at Subway commercials ( the ones that say I'll order the "make my butt look big" burger or something like that) and Kaiser Permanante commericals because they are all about making people feel bad for their choices, as opposed to encouraging them to make good choices. I feel that Christianity can easily jump on this bandwagon. "Not only is that cheeseburger unhealthy, it is a SIN."

Now, I don't know exactly the Christian way the sin can be approached, but I think it is important to realize that it is not a list of do's and dont's.

I also think that the writer of the article makes many good points and I don't think he makes any incorrect statements. When I read the article, however, it just made me think that people may not realize that moderation is really the key issue here, not a list of do's and dont's.

What I've been up to

2008-05-15T13:53:00.003-06:00

Sorry I haven't been posting lately, but I suppose you get what you pay for.

I've been busy the past few weeks. I took a trip to San Francisco for work for about a week, then my wife and kid and I visited family in Oklahoma.

Right now I'm trying to decide on stuff to write about. I am deciding if I want to pursue political topics or take a break from it right now.

Also, this post is meant as a jump start. Sometimes I have lots of ideas rolling around in my head and it's hard to know where to start. I always feel that posting on how I don't know what to post is extremely lame, but sometimes it is a good way to get the juices flowing.

At what point is it division?

2008-04-24T12:27:00.002-06:00

Several verses in the Bible speak of the importance of unity of all believers. The reality is that there are many different denominations and multiple points of debate within the body of Christ. But does this necessarily mean the body of Christ has to be divided? God wants us to be one, but I do not think he expects us all to believe the same in every area.

Concerning debate among Christians, for instance, in the blogosphere, at what point does that become division? I think it is important to have discussions with believers with some different opinions, but does it only stir up contention? Is it when friendly discussion is no longer so?

Just a few thoughts on my mind.

On implementing God's kingdom here on earth

2008-04-18T12:45:00.003-06:00

Katherine Coble writes this concerning the Social Gospel:

As a Christian Libertarian, I find myself frequently a more vocal proponent of what some call “Social Gospel” and others call “Pinko Liberal Commie Collectivist Bull.” I believe that Christ has called his Church to minister to the Least of these, an umbrella which includes everyone from those stricken with AIDS to those who live next door to you and are too busy at work to mow their lawn. Where I differ from many folks is that I believe the Social Gospel is absoluletly not to be confused with political socialism and active redistribution of wealth through forced means such as taxation. We as a church are supposed to do the going us therefore into all the world on our own. But of course, I’ve said this before and there’s nothing new in that idea.

I agree. God is an all-powerful being, but he typically interacts with us through free will. He let Adam and Eve freely eat the apple, Christ freely died for us, and we freely accept Him or reject Him. Despite God having a hand in the world and our lives, he typically gives us choice and does not rule us by force (I'm not sure how it will work during the End of this Age, I think we will still have free will, but there will be no sin...).

To me, forcing people to be generous seems to go against how God typically works. In the Mosaic law God did order that people give a certain percentage of their tithe, but the New Testament model seems to indicate freewill giving that is from the heart.

This doesn't have to be a matter of whether or not someone has a right to spend my money, although there is a worthy conversation there. I just don't believe actions from force can truly change the world, only actions out of love. Private initiatives involve something of the heart, simply more than a deduction from our paycheck. I do believe in some welfare, but I see the role of government here as providing a safety net to prevent people from starving to death. I don't see the role of government as our way of ensuring God's kingdom here on earth.

The game last night

2008-04-08T14:52:00.004-06:00

The Men's Basketball Championship game was amazing. I have had the good fortune of seeing two college teams I like, teams in the Big 12, winning the national title. First, Texas in 05/06 in college football, and now Kansas in 2008. Both games were somewhat similar. Both games started out with the Big 12 team doing well in the first half, leading at halftime, only to see the other team dominate for the most part in the second half. Both teams made improbable comebacks to win the game, Texas being behind 12 points with 6:42 left, Kansas down 9 with 2:12 left to play.

The great debate in sports radio today is if Kansas won the game, or if Memphis lost it. I would say, for the most part, Memphis choked. Kansas did a lot of work themselves, however, and it took a miraculous 3 pointer at the end to tie the game up. I don't think Memphis gave Kansas the game by any means, but they gave the Jayhawks something to claw back with.

When overtime hit, I felt confident in Kansas' victory. It's never over until victory is mathematically impossible, but it's almost like Kansas won the game at the end of regulation and overtime was merely a formality. Looking at center Sasha Kaun, he wasn't stressed out, he was pumped up. The Kansas team was excited to play.

As if anyone cares about my bracket performance

2008-03-31T12:04:00.002-06:00

I am 3 for 4 in the Final Four. I picked Kansas, UCLA, and North Carolina to go, who all made it. Instead of Memphis, however, I picked Stanford. Memphis is a team I greatly underestimated, and after seeing them dismantle Texas, who rolled over teams they played, I think Memphis is for real. Unfortunately, just about everyone in my group picked the same teams.

I picked UCLA to beat NC in the final. I am rooting for Kansas though.

Not looking like the world

2008-03-29T10:23:00.005-06:00

One thing about Christianity is that I believe it is supposed to stand out from the world's philosophy. In the New Testament there is a continual theme of being set apart. Jesus said the world would hate us because they hated him.

18"(Y)If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but (Z)I chose you out of the world, (AA)because of this the world hates you.

Paul says

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

John continues this theme.

Some things in Christianity do, in fact, coincide with values found in secular circles. Feeding the hungry, taking care of the poor, loving your neighbor as yourself, these are not really controversial values. Applying them is difficult, but the concept is not.

But at some point, Christianity should deviate from the philosophy of the world. I'm not saying we should add things to it that purposely irritate non-believers, but I do believe there is plenty within Christianity that should irritate people already. Usually, Christians are blamed for people being turned off on Christianity, and yes, that can be the case many times. But could it be that sometimes people just don't like Jesus?

The reason I bring this up is that it seems, more and more, some of Christianity is being shaped to be conformed to the world. The parts about loving your neighbors, Jesus being a swell guy, all that stuff seems to remain. But other facets seem to be disappearing in certain circles. Miracles turn out to not really be miracles, but maybe just something that could be explained with science, that people only thought were miracles. Certain standards of morality that do coincide with the world seem to remain (take care of the less fortunate) while those peculiar to accepted norms seem to disappear. Now people can disagree on what the Bible states, I think there are honest people on both sides of certain issues, but I can't help but see general trends.

This seems to be happening with the stories of Jesus. Fortunately, most people in Christendom do in fact, believe Jesus died a barbaric death and rose again. But I do wonder if much of the focus is on Jesus being a swell person, maybe even a nice guy, telling us to love one another and telling off the religious establishment. But so much of Jesus' teachings focus on himself. Jesus had difficult teachings. He affirmed that he was the only way to the Father. Yes, he taught us how to live good lives, but so much hinged on his identity.

To the world in general, Jesus has been diluted. Jesus is accepted by the world at large as some good religious leader, a nice guy (and I don't think he was even that). But as Josh McDowell points in in More than a Carpenter, Jesus doesn't really leave such a lukewarm reception of himself available. The guy who says he is Jesus Christ, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, I haven't really heard his teachings, but the fact that he says something like that, that pretty much turns me off to anything else he has to say. It should be the same with Jesus. A guy who says he is God himself, who says that he is the only way to God, if we don't believe these things, he is either psychotic or evil. Saying that he is simply a nice guy is weak.

There is some reasonable agreement within Christianity, and there is someone who I have been conversing with concerning these issues, and believe me when I say this post is not really addressed to you (not completely anyway). I'm not saying we should try to make Christianity as controversial as possible, but if our whole philosophy is indistinguishable from the world's, we should reevaluate some of our core beliefs. All I know is this, it seems that in some circles of Christianity, the hard parts of the Bible, anything that doesn't jibe with the world are being dismissed: most anything remotely supernatural, the moral standards that don't coincide with today's cultural norms, the difficult teachings of Jesus, to name a few. Before you know it, you know longer have a book that talks about God's awesome displays of power, a book that tells us to be set apart from the world, the book that tells us about a man who was truly radical. Now you have some document that essentially talks about a nice guy who tells us to love other people. As if I couldn't get that somewhere else. This goes along with the world's philosophy just fine.

Is there a conflict between science and Christianity?

2008-03-20T12:26:00.004-06:00

It is often assumed that the Christian must turn off their thinking caps when it comes to science, that they must reject cold hard evidence in favor of believing in their faith.

But I'm not sure such conflicts exist, at least not as often as people think. Nowhere does this conflict seem more apparent than in the area of evolution.

Now, when one asks, "do you believe in evolution", one has to consider that the word "evolution" is a loaded term. Does it mean evolution within a species, evolution across species, natural selection, etc... I think Christians can have a knee-jerk reaction to the term "evolution" and condemn it as evil, without considering what is meant by the term.

The real conflict is not necessarily between "evolution" and Christianity, but the Christian view of creation vs. the view of the universe being designed by random, purposeless forces. I do think there are parts of evolutionary theory that could be compatiable with Christianity. The point is, I know there is a divine being that created the universe, and that the Bible gives testimony to this God. Even with this belief, I believe there is room to believe that natural selection can hold true in the animal kingdom and that certain species have changed over time. Maybe even species have branched out into other species, who knows? I am not a biologist, so I'm not saying these things necessarily happened, I am just saying it is possible to believe in some aspects of evolution and not be a heathen.

That being said, I don't think man has evolved from the original design. At least not very much. If one follows the dating of the Bible, man is about 6000 years old. I don't think there would be much time for mankind to change on an evolutionary scale.

Unfortunately, evolutionists typically use the parts that are true or may be true to extrapolate to creation and mankind as a whole. For example, one may use the fact that a certain species changes to outside forces - natural selection on a small scale - and use it to conclude natural selection on a large scale. Small scale changes caused by random processes are used to infer that processes causing original life were also random.

I asked my wife, who graduated in Zoology, what the evidence was for evolution. The main pieces of evidence are the homologous structures (similar skeletal structures among different parts of the animal kingdom) and fossil records. I don't know a whole lot about the fossil evidence, someone can help me out if they wish, but I do think that if you find a collection of bones, you don't necessarily know if they were some primate or a less evolved version of homo sapien. Concerning bone structure, that could lead one to believe in evolution, but it can also be explained by design.

Christians are sometimes accused of looking for "God in the gaps." That is, something seems complex, so God must have done it.* But I feel that in the scientific community, the view of all life resulting from evolution has the same aspect. It's like "We don't think there is a God, evolution is the only possible explanation." The Truth Project by Focus on the Family says that science is no longer sticking to experimental observations, but it is trying to answer the fundamental questions of mankind. I think that is a valid point.

In short, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are reasonable and are not incompatible with the idea that God created the universe and man. However, I believe evolutionists take the noncontroversial parts and use them to push God out of the picture. I think that this worldview that is adopted by many in the scientific community simply doesn't hold water.

*I'm not saying that we can't attribute the fact that life is so complex to an ultimate designer, I think it is one of the evidences of the creator, I'm only trying to make a point here.

This is pretty scary

2008-03-12T15:13:00.002-06:00

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.
[...]
"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Unbelievable.

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog. I heard it there first.

Why expand the field?

2008-03-11T19:52:00.003-06:00

There's been a lot of talk about expanding the NCAA Basketball tournament from the present number of 65 teams (counting the play-in game).

My question is why? For those unfamiliar, teams are ranked from 1 seed(best)-16 seed, with four #1s, four #2s, etc... The lowest seed to win the tournament was Villanova as an 8 seed in 1985. Every once in a while a seed lower than that will win the tournament. Yes, maybe some teams more deserving were left out while others get in, as no system is perfect. However, when you get into the lower seeds, the odds are so small of running the tables anyway. Already, the lower half of the tournament has such a long shot anyway. If multiple low-ranked teams making it to the Final Four was a regular occurrence, I would think the seeding and the invitations needed quite a bit of work. But we see only see it as an irregular occurrence.

Probably the best argument in favor of expanding the field is that teams in the smaller school conferences have a smaller chance of getting in. Many times only the conference champ gets a shot. Is there any other good arguments in favor that I'm not seeing?

The tricky issue of immigration

2008-03-11T12:59:00.003-06:00

Concerning immigration, I am far from an expert in this issue. But I wanted to pen down my thoughts on issues as I see them. There are three parts of the issue I see.

1) Who do we let in?
2) What do they have to do to be let in?
3) What do we do with the people who are here illegally?

Concerning 3) I'm really not sure. This has been a point of contention among the Republican nominees. I don't want to reward breaking the law. At the same time, there are issues of practicality to consider. How much would it cost, and how effective would it be to deport a large number of illegal aliens? I would think, a lot, and not very. I'm not saying we should do nothing, I just don't know what exactly.

2) Again, I'm not sure. I think it should be fairly easy for those who want to come here to actually come here. There could probably be some requirement that somebody in the family actually get a job within a certain amount of time.

Concerning the English language, well, that's a whole other ball of wax. I don't think there should be an official language, but at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that immigrants know some basic English for everyday tasks, i.e. passing a drivers test. Concerning schooling, a purpose of schools are to teach people to be somewhat functional people, so I do believe English should be taught to all students. I know this issue seems more complicated the more I talk about it, so I'd be interested in a teacher's or school administrator's perspective on this issue.

1) This is the one I have the strongest opinion. I think the primary concern here is national security. I would support not letting someone in if there was a reasonable concern about the person from a homeland security perspective. I tend to take the more libertarian/free market position that immigration should not be capped based on economic issues. Yes, there is a real human face to this issue that concerns people losing their jobs. However, I also believe that the market is self-regulating in this aspect in that we have the immigrant inflow because of a vacuum in parts of the work force. Also, I believe the net effect for the economy is positive, even for the everyday person.

Also, some people want to cap immigration for cultural considerations, but I don't think this is a fruitful, or even desirable exercise. From a Christian perspective, there are concerns about other religions or cultures contrary to Christianity seeping into America, and that is a legitimate concern. However, I just don't think turning away outsiders is the right approach. America has been the land of opportunity for those seeking a better life, and I think we should continue to be so. I like Ronald Reagan's vision of America being a "city on the hill."

One of my pet peeves

2008-03-10T20:21:00.001-06:00

Why, at a red stoplight, do the people at the front scoot forward while they anticipate the light turning green? Does the extra half a foot or so really help them get a head start. Maybe it's the fact they are going 1 mile per hour as opposed to 0 when the light turns green. Who knows?

I saw Rocky for the first time

2008-03-09T21:56:00.003-06:00

The original Rocky has been one of those movies that I've been embarrassed to say that I never watched. So, I moved Rocky and Rocky Balboa(the 6th movie in the series) to the top of the Netflix Queue.

I was surprised at how good both movies were. I dare say that the endless stream of sequels may have tarnished the legacy in some people's minds, especially those that haven't seen them. I didn't realize Rocky actually won an Academy Award until recently.

In both movies Rocky seemed like a real, believable character. Not every word he speaks is significant or even necessarily funny. He says nonsense things about "flying candy" and just goofball stuff that you'd expect from an everyday person.

I did notice some strong themes that were present in both movies, which included the ideals of America being a land of opportunity and being a place where people should be free to pursue happiness. In the original Rocky, Apollo Creed decides to stage a fight with an everyday guy (who ends up being Rocky), in order to show that anyone can make it in America. In Rocky Balboa, there is a particularly moving scene where Rocky applies for a license to fight. The board, in order to "look out for him", initially reject his application. Rocky points out the Bill of Rights down the road (in Philadelphia) and states that he has the right to pursue happiness, and that it is his choice to make to risk his life; it is not their place to stop him just because they are doing what they think is best for him. There's also a scene where he tells his son to stop blaming other people for his problems and to take responsibility toward his own life.

Most people say Rocky and Rocky Balboa are the best, unless you want to reminisce about the Cold War, then rent Rocky IV.

Why this conservative is against (some) right-to-work laws

2008-03-08T22:02:00.004-07:00

Conservatives typically support right-to-work laws. On most issues I could be considered a conservative, albeit with some libertarian tendencies, and I'm a strong advocate of the free market. It is precisely this free market belief that motivates my opposition to (some) right to work laws.

Wikipedia defines right to work laws as those

...which prohibit agreements between trade unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

Now, I'm not really a strong fan of unions. However, I also believe in the employer's freedom to hire who they want. Here is an important distinction: if the government requires people to join a union to work certain jobs, or requires certain industries to hire only union workers, I am strongly opposed to that. If the employer requires union membership as a condition of employment, that should be fully within their rights. That is, as long as that requirement was made clear before hiring. While the common definition of "right-to-work" means the employer cannot choose to hire union-only, I would not be surprised if some variants are meant to repeal state government guidelines. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of these laws could help me out on this.

The common argument for "right-to-work" laws it that people should not be "forced" to join a union in order to get a job. However, if this is a requirement of the employee and NOT the government, no one is really being "forced" into anything. In the same way, just because being a Christian may be a requirement to work at a certain church, that doesn't mean I'm being "forced" into Christianity.

Another important note is that this swings both ways. A company should have the right to hire union only workers, and they should have the right to not hire union workers. Freedom works both ways.

A cool radio station

2008-03-05T21:26:00.002-07:00

For those who listen to radio online, Pandora is a great website. The site asks you for an artist or song that you like, then creates a station based on that. You can add additional artists, and you can give a thumbs up/down for songs they play.

The site is similar to Yahoo's Launchcast radio, but less complex. If I remember correctly, Yahoo asked you to rate songs/artists from 0 to 5 stars. Pandora's interface is simpler.

The site does seem to repeat songs quite a bit. I created a station based on U2, and I'm only interested in hearing so many versions of "One."

Thanks to Neil for informing me of the site.

What's missing among conservatives

2008-03-05T21:09:00.006-07:00

The other day at church someone mentioned how they liked Bush overall, but did not like his spending policy and how government has grown in size since he has taken office. He mentioned how he thought the Republican party had gotten away from small government principles.

This talk was refreshing to hear, as I don't think the scope of government gets enough attention. I think by definition, liberals are more embracive of large government, but conservatives are not supposed to be.

It is difficult to tell if people are inherently small government people or large government people. We all talk about the evils of large bureaucracy, we all hate going to the DMV, we spend time and/or money on paying our taxes, and almost any job is associated with red tape in some aspect. Yet, at the same time, the general populace seems to embrace any law that seems to make their life better on the surface, without considering the ramifications or if government should be involved in that aspect of life in the first place.

Consider smoking bans. I think reasonable people can fall on both sides of the issue. However, people tend to think "I don't smoke, I hate smelling smoke in a restaurant" and therefore, support a statewide smoking ban. Now, I'm not saying people who do so are ignorant or just not smart, I just think that one should consider any possible negative effects, and if regulating that sort of thing on private property is something government should be doing. My main point is not that people should agree with me, I'm just saying that when it comes to any law, one should consider if it should fall within the scope of government.

But I don't want to lose people with the smoking example. What I want to focus on is just an overall perspective concerning government. If gas prices are too high, we want government to step in and fix it. If the housing market takes a downturn, we want the President to act right away. If our local team owner wants a new stadium, we run to the polls to give millionaires our tax dollars. For those who have no problems with stem-cell research, it's not enough that our state dollars fund it, it is only humane that the federal government do it's part too. We also want the federal government involved in our schools; there was a time when conservatives believed the feds should not be involved.

My tone may sound somewhat mean or sarcastic, I don't intend it to. I just think we need to challenge our assumptions of what we expect government to do. A law may sound nice, but we need to keep count of just how many laws are being passed.

Conservatives tend to support their president and candidates based on their stance on certain moral issues, or whatever issues get the press for the day. Those things are important - my deepest political belief is my pro-life position. But I think we should also consider the person's views concerning the overall role of government. At the very least, it can be a nice tiebreaker.

My views of gun control

2008-02-26T12:27:00.004-07:00

This post was inspired by Josh's on his political views. This is not an attempt to argue with him really, I've just been wanting to talk about this topic for some time and finally decided to.

Guns can be very very bad. Many needless deaths occur because of guns. Basically any psycho can wipe a whole bunch of people out. Guns provide a whole lot of power over human life that people never had before.

Nevertheless, I still support the right to bear arms. Here is why. For a simplified analysis, let's say there are good guys and bad guys (yes, I know it is unenlightened to call anyone bad, but bear with me). Bad guys use their guns to kill people; good guys use their guns to protect themselves and their families from the bad guys.

By eliminating the right to bear arms, you are saying "Good guys, put your guns away; bad guys, put your guns away." Who do you think is going to listen?

Yes, gun control could be enforced in some instances. I'm willing to admit that it would even prevent some deaths, but I believe the net effect would work against the good guys, and the overall deaths due to crime would increase. Gun ownership is a crime deterrent, telling law-breakers to put away their guns...not so much.

Look, 2nd amendment people aren't heartless; they are well aware of the damages caused by guns. By simply yelling more gun death statistics at us, you are not telling us anything new. We just believe more innocent blood will be shed when the innocents have less defense against those who do not follow the laws in the first place.

Inequality: Does it matter?

2008-02-19T11:56:00.004-07:00

There were a couple of thoughtful comments to my last post.

The term inequality was brought up. So my question is this: does inequality matter?

The term "equality" gives me a new way to frame the topic of my last post. Conservatives typically look at equality of opportunity, whereas liberals tend to look at equality of resources. But doesn't resources equal opportunity? To some extent, yes.

But conservatives goal with government programs are typically different than that of liberals. Conservatives look at government as mostly a protector, even if their view is not limited to that of a military. Conservatives see welfare as being available for those who truly need it; and like the military, they may see it in terms of protecting people from bad things, such as hunger, living in the streets, etc... This is opposed to the more providing role of welfare as envisioned by liberals.

Conservatives typically view the role of welfare and other government programs as providing food and resources for those who need food and resources. It appears that liberals want government programs to "level the playing field" and provide equality.

Should equality be a goal? This is where I disagree with liberals. I think what a person has should be viewed in terms relative to their needs.

Look at it this way. If I have a 2-bedroom house over my head and I have enough groceries for 3 meals a day, does it really matter that my neighbor lives in a mansion and eats at the finest restaurants? No, I'm not saying gov't should provide homes and groceries, but my point is this: when we look at the poor, we should see if their needs are being met, not what they have relative to the rich.

When taxes are used to provide help for those who need it, I'm okay with that. When taxes are used to make sure people have the same amount of stuff, that breaks the Tenth Commandment.

Now, I'm not saying inequality never matters, because life is a competition, whether it is in school trying to get the best grades, or competing for scholarships, or competing for jobs based on the schools you attended. The schooling system is where inequality can shine through the most. But this is precisely where resources outside of government can provide the most help. The status quo with our school system is that the quality of school you get is proportional to how much house your parents can afford. School choice programs do equal the playing field.

When it comes to basic needs, comparisons between groups should not matter. However, inequality does play a role to what resources we have, and I believe school choice can greatly help with that.

A difference between conservatives and liberals

2008-01-24T14:35:00.000-07:00

I was having a conversation with my wife yesterday about political issues and such I had this thought. Now, I am not a liberal so I cannot say for sure what liberals are thinking, but I will venture my best guess, in an effort to understand those with different opinions. Any liberal who reads this should feel free to chime in and correct me where I'm wrong.

I think the goal of many liberal policies is to change the circumstances surrounding a person. They want to make sure that someone is given the resources to ensure that they will succeed. I think resources is the key word here. They want to make sure that the public schools are given enough funding, that they have the financial resources towards college, that housing projects are in place, etc... Liberals put emphasis on community in making sure that people are not disadvantaged with respect to other people.

Conservatives see things somewhat differently. Their focus is on opportunity, and they focus less on the resources aspect. Conservatives don't focus on making sure everyone starts out equally, but they want a society in which someone has all the opportunity for upward mobility. Conservatives have a high belief in the power of the individual, even in tough circumstances.

Keep in mind, this is not an either/or. I'm not saying liberals have no faith in the individual and conservatives believe there is no role for the community. It is really a question of extent. The

These two philosophies seem to butt heads in the area of government programs and in the economy/business. The individual and community are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they can be competing entities.

Liberals believe that government programs are needed to help the individual be successful, whereas conservatives believe that too many government programs can actually hinder someone's success.

In the area of business, security and opportunity struggle against each other. Liberals believe that business must be more regulated in order to provide security for the average worker. Conservatives believe that less regulated business leads to more upward mobility for the average worker.

Liberals believe in providing resources to the average individual in order to help them succeed. They want to shape the person's environment. The conservative is less concerned with resources. They aren't concerned so much with providing things; rather they want to remove things standing in the person's way. Their goal is to provide an environment of freedom where more things are possible.

Okay, we agree abortion is bad, now what?

2008-01-16T21:44:00.000-07:00

Many Christians, and for that matter non-Christians, believe that abortion is a bad thing. Many believe it is equivalent to murder. But even some of those people don't think it should be illegal. I think many pro-choicers have good intentions. They genuinely hate abortion, but they think that either outlawing abortion would not be effective, or they want to reduce the number of abortions without condemning the women who do them.

Those are important considerations. However, one of the reasons I do believe in using government to stop abortion is simply that I see it as an issue of equal protection under the law. I believe that an unborn baby deserves the same protection as anybody else. For the most part, whatever laws we have should apply equally to all people. The foundation of liberty is that there are not classes of "lesser" persons. Yes, people attain certain rights with age, but the right to be protected from another human being is one that is not age-dependent. In fact, we take extra steps to ensure that the young and vulnerable are not exploited by the older.

Keep in mind, many people are pro-life, not because they are trying to force morality upon someone or that they want to take back the country for Christ or anything like that, they simply see it as a matter of justice. Yes, I typically harp upon the fact that government is not the solution to our problems. But the one thing government is supposed to do is to protect us from other people. I think liberals sometimes don't understand where pro-lifers are coming from, as conservatives typically support government action concerning abortion, but support less government action in other areas, such as helping the poor.

I think this criticism is half-right. Those passionate about this issue shouldn't focus solely on outlawing abortion, but as previous posts have shown I believe voluntary efforts are more powerful than government programs. Pro-lifers should not look to the government as the only means to support the protection of life. There are many volunteer organizations that discourage abortion and they do what they can to help out the mother in that situation. We should look to the government to provide protection for the unborn for the same reason we look to it to protect other people. At the same time, we should look to the church and other voluntary efforts to also reduce abortions and help out those in need.

Update: Neil provides one such example of an effective tool, Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Will Vince Young be another Michael Vick (as in athletics, not in felonies)

2008-01-16T10:57:00.000-07:00

The Tennessee Titans firedtheir offensive coordinator Norm Chow, who found great success during his time with USC as their offensive coordinator.

So the burning question is this: is Chow really the problem, or is it Vince Young, the quarterback? Many sports analysts believe that Vince Young is a coach career killer, in the sense that he is not performing as well at the NFL level, and his coaches are wrongly blamed. Apparently, a similar thing happened with Michael Vick.

I am a huge Vince Young fan, as someone with ties to The University of Texas. I do believe in Young, and hopefully that belief is not solely based on my bias. Young is not your prototypical NFL quarterback; the Titans and everyone else knew that when they drafted him. Does one have to be the NFL prototype to be successful? I don't think that is necessarily the case.

Concerning athleticism, Young and Vick are very similar. Concerning character however, I believe they are miles apart. This isn't even about the dogfighting case. Even before that ordeal, Vick was hardly a boy scout. Young is different. There have been no off the field incidents to speak of. The closest thing is that he was suspended for a preseason game. I do believe that character helps a person develop in the NFL.

The Texas Longhorns became national champions because they developed their game around Young. The NFL is different, but it is not unreasonable to think the Titans should do the same. I'm not saying Chow did or didn't try to do that, but NFL teams lack the virtue of patience.

Unfortunately rookie quarterbacks are thrown in right away. That is fine if teams are patient, but if they are not, an otherwise good quarterback may be considered a failed project. Time will tell if Young becomes another Vick, but I think we'll see differently.

Justice and Mercy

2008-01-15T20:20:00.000-07:00

When people on the left talk about helping the poor, they often use the term social justice. I'm not sure I'm crazy about the term. Not because it's justice that people starve, but it does imply a bit of entitlement. Also, if everything is about justice, there is no room for mercy.

Many Christians, of any political stripe, believe that the true actions that change the world are those that go beyond what is required. The problem with a highly regulated economic system is that there is less room for voluntary actions. Liberals and conservatives alike believe that charity is great. Liberals will argue that charity does not do enough, therefore more government action is needed. However, people such as myself believe that more government action pushes out private charity. I think it does so in terms of resources and also opportunities.

Concerning the resources, I'm not naive enough to believe that if only we were taxed less, more people would necessarily be generous . At the same time, however, I believe that people who are generous will be all the more so with their resources. Also, one just has to look at the math. Tax rates of 90% will leave less room for charitable donations. Heck, how would someone give their tithe (if they do the 10% - but I don't think there is a specific number God requires) if 10% is all they have left?

Also, Christianity is all about doing beyond what is required and what is expected. When we have a system where all good deeds are required, there is less room and opportunity to do beyond what is required. There are many people who take Jesus' commands to help the poor seriously, but they look to do so primarily through government means. Every good deed is done out of "justice", and there is little room for mercy. Deeds that transform the world are done out of love an mercy.

Is there an evangelical center?

2008-01-12T13:25:00.000-07:00

Jim Wallis and Ron Sider are famous names in evangelical left circles. Jim Wallis is author of God's Politics and is part of the group Sojourners, and Sider wrote Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. The Evangelical Christian Left is a group that has been growing recently, or, maybe it is the same size but I am just now aware of it.

My problem with both is that they seem to insist that they belong to either some group in the middle or some kind of group that consists of both Republican and Democratic elements.

Don't get me wrong. When it comes to labels, the lack of a label is not an issue, it is mislabeling. Labeling itself is not all that important. I don't say in each post I am conservative or limited-government conservative or libertarian conservative. The beliefs are more important than what those beliefs are labeled. However, if I was to say in this blog that I am somehow a moderate or that I am even liberal that would be mislabeling. Either I would be confused or be disingenuous.

In his blog, Wallis repeats one of his famous mantras, "God is not a Republican or Democrat". And I think the statement is true in the sense that we can't try to fit God into our own or any other political system. But I wonder if Wallis even believes this himself. A look at his writings and his friends reveals a political agenda that is overwhelmingly Democrat. And that's fine - that's how they believe, but I feel that Wallis tries to portray himself and the Sojourners as something they are not. No doubt, Wallis wants the same thing that many on the Evangelical Right do. But politics is almost all about the methods, and Wallis favors those on the left.

In one of the rare instances I watch PBS, I happened to catch Bill Moyers Journal where the topic was Christians United for Israel. Moyers showed video segments of John Hagee and other conservative Christians sharing their support for Israel. Moyers had a sit down with Ron Sider, mentioned previously, and M.J. Rosenberg, Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum. Interestingly enough, Moyers didn't interview any of the conservative Christians he had spent so much time talking about. Sider was talking about the shift of politics within the Christian population, but he mentioned that people were moving from the Christian right to the "Evangelical Center." From the transcript

BILL MOYERS: How many evangelicals are there in this country?

RON SIDER: Oh-- you know, with different polls and different studies that say different things. But a quarter of the American voters. Eighty, 90 million people. It's a huge segment. What's emerging in the present time, and it's huge in terms of change and impact, is that there's an evangelical center emerging. You know, the stereotype was that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, you know, the religious right represented the evangelical world. They never did. But now we've got a-- an evangelical center emerging that is much, much broader. It's saying that faithful evangelical civic engagement must have a biblically balanced agenda. And that means you've gotta be concerned about sanctity of human life but also the poor. With the family but also with racial justice and creation care.

This is a sensible viewpoint, but where is this "Evangelical Center"? I have no doubt that there are some politically moderate Christians, but for the most part Christians are either primarily on the right or on the left. It is almost uncanny, but the more a Christian talks about using the government to care for the poor and needy, the more likely they are to be pro-choice. I'm not saying that should be the case, but that is the way it is, at least in my observations. People typically do embrace one side of the aisle or another. Either Sider is seeing something I'm not, or he truly thinks the "Evangelical Left" truly is the "Evangelical Center." Based upon this article he wrote though, maybe it is the former.

I think both of these men are good people. Maybe Wallis truly believes that his political beliefs actually fall outside the Republican/Democrat dichotomy. I think his writings say otherwise. Sider could actually be correct in his view of the emergence of an "Evangelical Center." It's just not anything I'm seeing. It could be that the political landscape leaves no choice but to latch on to one part or the other. But I tend to think that people cling to one side or the other for the same reason we have the emergence of the two parties we do. There are fundamental philosophical differences between the two groups, even within Christianity.

Yet another blogger talking about the campaign

2008-01-08T10:36:00.000-07:00

Right now I'm not sure who to endorse. Originally I liked Ron Paul, but I've heard him say a few things that bother me. I do like Thompson because of his federalist views, which serves in stark contrast to people of both parties who want to take all of their problems - and therefore all the power - on their back.

Lee gave his endorsement for McCain. McCain may actually not be that bad, I just don't like him because of his role in Campaign Finance Reform, which I believe - at least his version - limits free speech.

During the debates in NH this past weekend I liked Thompson's answers to many things. Paul and Guiliani spared over what caused 9/11. According to the debate, Paul thinks 9/11 has everything to do with foreign policy, Rudy thinks 9/11 had nothing to do with foreign policy. I think both views are wrong. Even if America was more isolationist, I do think radical Muslims would have problems with us. At the same time - I haven't followed our foreign policy in the 80s and 90s to say it was good or bad - I think it's dangerous to say foreign policy had nothing to do with why some people hate us. Paul did clarify somewhat on Leno last night his viewpoints. He does believe foreign policy was a factor, but he lays blame on those who actually carried out the attacks.

I will have to research the candidates again and decide who I will endorse. If McCain ends up winning the Republican nomination, it will be a great comeback. For my election prediction I think Obama will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

As Glen said, even though he is wrong on so many issues, Obama is a likable, energetic young man. So who has the best shot against Obama? I thought Guiliani would, as he is more socially liberal, pulling in people in the middle. However, many who would vote for Guiliani would also vote for Obama. I think McCain would stand a chance because he is many things Obama is not - conservative, older, more experienced, and less naive. Where Obama has weaknesses, those are McCain's strengths. Sometimes being a polar opposite is advantageous.

Various thoughts on Christianity

2007-12-27T12:47:00.000-07:00

Various people look at Christianity from different lens. One viewpoint focuses on personal righteousness, a perspective that believes in salvation through grace, but focuses on becoming a good and holy person nonetheless. Your typical Baptist has this viewpoint. Critics say that this viewpoint negates the whole love aspect - being kind to others and being careful not to judge sinners. Another viewpoint is that which focuses on the love aspect - loving and serving others and not judging others. Critics say that this view of Christianity may tend to neglect the aspect of personal righteousness.

I do think that a complete picture of Christianity - that is, a view of who Jesus is (hopefully) has all these aspects. It focuses on becoming more like Christ. That involves being free from sin but also serving others. Proclaiming God's truth yet not being quick to judge. James 1:27 says this

Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

I believe that an accurate depiction of Jesus makes us uncomfortable in one way or another. If Jesus doesn't make us nervous, then maybe we need to rethink our depiction of him.

Sometimes it's hard to know where the line is. How do we love the sinner without condoning his/her behavior? How do we dine with sinners without falling into sin ourselves?

I often hear of Jesus' message being portrayed as that of a man speaking truth to power. And I think this aspect of the message is true and is overlooked by many. This isn't an easy message for many to hear. But for many, it is an easy message, especially if you aren't rich and powerful. It is easy for us to say "Watch out you rich, you powerful, Jesus is coming!" In other words, watch out, you other people. And it's not just true in this case. We always think that others truly need to incorporate the message that Jesus is preaching. We focus on the parts of Jesus that makes him easier to digest, whether it be his call for personal righteousness, or him challenging the rich, the establishment. But he has a message for all of us. I believe that Jesus, in one way or another, challenges us, not just the other people.

On "Happy Holidays" and "Merry Christmas"

2007-12-20T07:20:00.000-07:00

This topic has probably already been beaten to death, but I wanted to add my two cents. First of all, do I think stores should be afraid to say "Merry Christmas"? No, not really. I don't think most people care. I could be wrong, but I think it is people who actually celebrate Christmas who are afraid of offending people who have caused the change, rather than anybody being offended.

However, these places are private businesses. They have the right to say whatever they want.

I wanted to bring this up because we often talk about how Christmas is being silenced, or how there is a "War on Christmas". But in cases like this, we aren't being silenced. We have our freedom of speech and businesses have theirs.

I think as Christians we should be slow to bring out the persecution card. We have it so much better than those in other countries who participate in underground Bible studies and where missionaries have to be undercover.

Things are different in a public institution, where actual oppression can take place. These institutions, such as public schools, I believe can focus too much on the establishment clause of the First Amendment and not the free exercise clause.

But even in these cases I think we should be slow to bring out the martyr card. I just don't think a "woe is me" attitude is flattering for Christians, as with any other group that may see themselves as victims. I think Christians should fight for religious freedom and stand up when they see somebody's religious expression being silenced, but I think we just sometimes need to do it with a different attitude. We should focus on the freedom aspect and not the persecution aspect - but I admit I don't know where the line is.

I'm just not buying what they're selling

2007-12-13T12:49:00.000-07:00

Let's look at who Jesus was and what he valued. In many ways he embodied what is the "conservative morality". He echoed the Old Testaments views on the family and had absolute standards of sexual morality (not saying liberals don't view these things as important, I am just speaking in terms of emphasis). And despite what many people say, I do believe that Jesus affirmed the two-fold path of "one man, one woman" or celibacy.

But Jesus also echoed many things that liberals consider important. Love your enemy. Love the sinners. Turn the other cheek. Help the poor and needy.

I want to focus on the last bit. Liberals have embraced the idea of helping the less fortunate, and that is very commendable. Christians in general seem to focus on keeping the letters of the law but forgetting the points of mercy and justice. In some aspects, the liberals have embraced the proper attitude concerning the poor. It's about giving people what they need, not what they deserve. Conservatives tend to focus on the work ethic aspect and whether or not somebody deserves to be helped.

But I still disagree with liberals on one important thing, the vital thing when it comes to the political. That thing is the role of government. For many of the Christian left, the government is the primary means for carrying out the work of God's kingdom.

I disagree with this method for philosophical and utilitarian reasons. Concerning the philosophical, Christianity is a spiritual viewpoint focused on free will, and it is about relationships. We enter into a relationship with Christ out of our free will. Think about evangelism. Trying to force conversions is self-defeating. Also, Jesus' mission did not concern the political. Granted, he had a certain goal at the time, but he didn't really irritate the political establishment by himself. It took the religious leaders to motivate his execution.

In addition, the Bible focuses on voluntary giving. Also, Jesus ministered to the spiritual as well as the physical. That's something not easily done by government services.

In my own opinion, I just believe charity is more effective than government programs. The giver has an opportunity to willfully choose to do something for other people, and the receiver sees the gift as just that, and not an entitlement.

I am not saying there is no room for government programs. And reasonable people can disagree on where government should get involved. But the Christian left have to reason and defend their position that government involvement is a given. I think when we look to the words of Jesus and try to further his kingdom, we should be focusing on the sphere of life outside government.

How to have a college football national championship

2007-11-29T12:53:00.000-07:00

Tune into ESPN or listen to sports radio and almost every time college football is discussed, the term "playoffs" soon surfaces.

For a while, I wasn't on board with a playoff system. I thought the season would simply be too long. Too much work and too much risk of injuries. But, something I think very few people realize is that there are playoffs in college football. Division-II and Division-III, even Division-IAA (now called Division I FCS) all have playoffs. 16 teams, 4 games for the top 2 teams. Why not Division-IA (or Division I FBS)? Not only that, high school football as playoffs. My high school's division had 32 teams, 5 games. How can one say that a playoff is too taxing for college football's top division when even high schoolers seem capable of handling it?

So if we decide playoffs are the best way, the question is who and how many?

Option 1) The best 8 or 16 teams get in, regardless of conference. The BCS or AP would select who they are.

Option 2) Playoffs are composed of the conference champs, period.

Option 3) Playoffs are composed of the conference champs and a few wild card picks. This is how the playoffs work for any major sport. Division/conference leaders get in automatically, and the best teams left get picked. A variation of this would be that only the champs of the BCS conferences got in, and the rest are at-large (similar to the BCS bowl system now).

The problem I have with Option 1 is that it still allows a high degree of subjectivity in football. The polls and even the BCS rankings are very subjective. I prefer either option 2 or 3 because it allows everyone a shot regardless of the conference. Yes, some conferences are weaker, but if that is the case, it would be proven in the playoffs. Who cares if, say Michigan or Georgia is better than Hawaii? The point is, they aren't better than the best team in their own respective conference, and the whole point of the playoffs is to determine the best team overall.

The problem with option 3 is it still leaves room for some subjectivity. Oklahoman columnist Berry Tramel points this out in his blog:

If the NCAA would adopt my playoff plan — an 11-team playoff, with only conference champions involved — think how great would be not just the playoff, but the regular season. That’s the problem with all the 16-team or 8-team playoffs. When you bring in the wild cards and at-large berths, you’ve got just as big a mess as we’ve got now, and you’ve watered down the regular season.

I agree with Tramel, and think that a tournament solely composed of the conference champs would be the best. The top 5 teams would get a first round bye. You would get 4 rounds, a total of 10 games.

7 facts about yours truly

2007-11-29T12:24:00.000-07:00

I was tagged by Lee to share 7 facts about myself. Give him a visit sometime. He's a pretty fascinating person.

1. I've been married for four years to my wonderful wife.

2. I was raised by my grandparents for 12 years.

3. I once met "Big Country" Bryant Reeves at a family reunion.

4. I used to play with Bible action figures as a kid. I had David and Goliath, Samson and Delilah, Jonah and a big whale he could fit in, all the famous Bible people. I also had Jesus, but I pretty much left him alone. I didn't want to do anything blasphemous.

5. As a kid, I watched way too much TV and didn't read nearly enough books.

6. I played football for a year in high school. I was a pretty small kid. Most small kids are at least fast. I was not.

7. Seeing my baby boy laughing for the first time brought tears to my eyes.

I'm supposed to tag 7 people, but I will just do those that typically or may do these: I will tag those who typically do these: Josh, The Pachyderm, Neil, and John Kaiser.

Still missing an important point: Possible breakthrough in stem-cell research

2007-11-20T10:31:00.001-07:00

An article from Wired states that

In an unprecedented feat of biological alchemy, researchers have turned human skin cells into stem cells that hold the same medical promise as the controversial embryonic stem cells.

Scientists believe stem cell research will be able to cure numerous diseases and regenerate failing bodies. The new technique, however, doesn't require the destruction of embryos, or use human eggs or cloning. Thus, it sweeps aside the ethical objections to stem-cell research.

I think this is great, because there are ethical questions involved when using embryonic stem cells.

However, some people are still missing an important point when it comes to stem-cell research. Ethical dilemmas are not the only reason to question government funding of medical research. To support stem-cell research does not automatically mean one must support government funding, though most people think the two are synonymous. I don't want to get into a detailed list of pros and cons for government funding right now, but I think it is a question that we should at least consider.

The problem with our culture is that we assume all things good and true must be funded by government. We think the arts are important, well, let's use tax money to fund the arts! We want to support our farmers; well, make sure they get subsidies! Ethanol can increase fuel efficiency, well, by all means, give lots of money to car or oil companies to research the issue! Like baseball, well, let's give billionaires some money so they will build a stadium in this city! Think faith-based initiatives are great, well, we better throw tax dollars at them!

The idea that government is a type of benefactor is so pervasive in our minds that we think anything that needs to be done in society should be done so through laws and tax dollars. And that's unfortunate, because I believe government corrupts so many things. People complain that we should fund stem-cell research because we shouldn't let politics corrupt science, but that is exactly what happens when you fund the research.

Some people prefer a "broader view" of government. But I prefer a "separate spheres" approach. Now, I don't mean that are values shouldn't inform how we interact in politics as one can take that statement to mean. What I mean is that we shouldn't be so quick to ensure that government infests every area of our lives. So many good and pure things happen outside the reach of government. Sure, we must ensure that we have a just society and that everyone is treated equally under the law. At the same time, however, many revolutionary things, Jesus' mission for one, happened outside, and in spite of, and even contrary to, the realm of government. Other institutions, such as the family, the church, and charities, are the ones that truly change lives.

A conflict of rights?

2007-11-16T16:41:00.000-07:00

Sigrid Fry-Revere from the Cato-blog says the following:

I believe abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe that in a conflict between mother and fetus, a woman’s right must always take precedence. A human being’s rights under the law increase with maturity. That has been the tradition under Anglo-American law as well as world wide for most of history. To suggest that a fetus has the same rights as a mature adult individual borders on the perverse. A woman’s rights should never be placed second to the needs of her fetus. To do so is to treat women first and foremost as communally owned vessels for bringing forth life and only second as autonomous individuals.

I take a couple issues with this.

First of all, I disagree that age affects right to life. She rightly asserts that the rights of individuals, on the whole, increase with age. Adults can do more things, whether it be vote, make major purchases, drink, etc... Children's lives can be essentially run by their parents. But the right to be free from harm should always be a constant. While parents can choose how they raise their kids and what philosophies to teach them, parents never have the right to harm their children. I understand that Fry-Revere does not believe a fetus qualifies as a human, but her argument concerning age and rights does not hold water here.

Secondly, one has to consider exactly what rights are being trumped. Many pro-lifers, such as myself, do agree that if the fetus poses an imminent risk to the mother, abortion is not immoral. However, Fry-Revere is weighing the right to life vs. the right not to be inconvenienced.

The author does say one statement I agree with, however. The idea of each state deciding whether abortion is legal or not does sound appealing, after all it is better than the current situation. But philosophically, I don't know if it is that sound. She states

Abortion should no more be a question for local politics than slavery.

Unfortunately, she goes in the wrong direction from there.

The media's view of the American Dad, real and ideal

2007-11-13T20:06:00.000-07:00

Who says you can't learn anything from Hollywood?

Watching TV and movies we see a portrayal of the average dad. This may provide insight into how many dads are viewed and/or what makes the ideal father.

In most TV shows the husband/dad is portrayed as a bumbling idiot. Look at King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, and The Simpsons. The dad is usually incompetent and inconsiderate of his wife's feelings. He is always the one that screws everything up. That is just how it is.

It seems to be different in the movies, however, and perhaps that is because of the style of storytelling that tends to work towards a resolution, both in events and character; whereas a TV show things tend to stay the same. At the beginning, the dad is someone to tied up into his work, ignores his family, and tends to pursue money as opposed to higher ideals. Let's look at the movies RV and the modern version of The Shaggy Dog.

In RV, the dad is having problems with his job, and he isn't exactly commanding respect from his kids. He finally faces a dilemma near the end of the movie, in which he has a choice of commercial success or staying true to his values.

In The Shaggy Dog, the dad is similar, but more extreme. He is pursuing success in his job, but all the while somewhat neglecting his wife, and he is not involved in his son and daughter's lives whatsoever. The son is pretending to play football to make his dad happy, while secretly practicing for a play. The dad, Tim Allen's character, is at odds with his daughter concerning a clash of values. When the dad transforms into a dog, however, he gets a sneak peek into his children's lives. He transforms from a workaholic dad to a great family man who shares the values of his daughter.

I think in movies and TV we may get a glimpse of the American Dad archetype (I suppose this could be any dad, but I really just watch American TV and movies). (I hope archetype is the right word, correct me if not) In the movies, he is a workaholic father and may only be involved in the children's lives to the extent that he urges them to get good grades or, in the case of a son, be a man's man and play football or the like. His primary concern is his career, and the family is really secondary.

Interestingly enough, the TV representation in some sense, is the opposite. Instead of being ambitious and successful, he has little motivation at all. We don't see this so much in the Raymond character, but in King of Queens, The Simpsons. But the attitude towards the family is still not overwhelmingly positive. It is primarily one of indifference, although not the degree of neglect seen in the movies.

These are just observations I've made. In TV, there's not really much redemption concerning the father character; the father character is not motivated to be an active father, and he realizes that, and he accepts that, and the family accepts that. Movies are more positive, however, we see how some fathers are, but we also get a glimpse of how fathers should be. Men need to take note of these characters. Society wants fathers that are not tied up in their job, who love their wives, who are involved in their children's lives beyond the disciplinarian role, and who shares values that aren't compromised by the outside world. I think God wants the same thing. I would add this though. At the same time, I believe the wife/mother has a responsibility to ensure that the dad is still respected, even if he is not perfect. But the overall message is clear; be there for your family, don't just be the breadwinner.

A vet's day post, a day late

2007-11-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

Perspective, I believe, is one of the keys to living a somewhat content and grumble-free life.

My boss was telling me this story. He occasionally has to travel to Hawaii. He has been there 50-something times over his career. He's sick of going. He was complaining about the trip...to someone who was in Iraq. The soldier was kind enough, but his elaboration about his trip changed my boss's perspective.

At Starbucks the other day, some guy was yelling at the barista because his order was wrong. If the worst thing that happens to you that day is that you have the wrong kind of milk in your coffee drink, you live a blessed and/or fortunate life.

And I'm no different. I get consumed by the everyday worries of life. I have bills to pay, projects for the house, etc... I get upset when my teams lose, but again, if that's the worst of my problems, I am in good shape.

One of the greatest days of my life was when my son was born. I saw him the very second he stepped into this world. When he graduates, when he gets married, when he has his own babies, I will always look back to the day I saw him, and he saw the world, for the very first time.

But some people don't see that day. They are off on the other side of the world while their baby is born. All wonder if they will live to see their child. Some don't.

Many of us don't have to spend 13 to 15 months away from our family. For many of us, imminent death is not at the front of our minds. For many of us, we don't sleep in a foxhole. Many of us have the luxury of being there when our babies are born.

All it takes is a little perspective to see that our lives really aren't that bad. We have it pretty good and we have had to sacrifice so very little. Other's have and are making that sacrifice.

This isn't about the nobility or lack thereof of the current war, or any war in particular. The point is, people are willing to die for us.

To all the veterans and current soldiers, Thank you.

The Universe

2007-11-10T23:13:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I enjoy getting into a good debate. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'm in the mood to talk about serious topics, whether it be political, theological, whatever... Unfortunately, I seem to be in a bit of a bind. I do one of my few posts about TV shows, then I am criticized for watching too much TV. Go figure. I suppose everything is a topic for debate. I just feel that the topics I post on are subject for debate. At the same time, however, a blog is somewhat like a safe haven, where I post about whatever I feel like talking about; but when I am criticized personally based on my selection of topics, then that "safe haven" aspect goes away. I guess that's what irks me.

Speaking of TV, right now I am watching a special on the History channel called "The Universe." It touches a little bit on the topic of religion and science in regards to the origin of the universe.

So here's a question. Are religion and science meant to be mutually exclusive? I've heard the theory that science explains the what, religion explains the why? Or are science and religion really compatible, is it just religionists who put God in a box, or scientists who are pure materialists that make it not seem to be the case?

I'm more of a fan of the physical sciences, as opposed to the biological. Concerning evolution and such, I'm not opposed to the idea of any evolutionary mechanisms being involved in nature. And evolution can be a vague term. If I am asked, "Do you believe in evolution", I'm not even sure what I am being asked. Macro-evolution? Micro-evolution? Sometimes I think Christians are focused on the idea of defeating evolution, when not all aspects of evolution necessarily contradict the Bible.

There seems to be less of a conflict when it comes to the physical sciences. It seems that the origin of the universe as a whole does not really conflict with a divine Creator. In fact, the idea of the Big Bang seems to fit along just nicely.

Is it natural to believe in a divine Creator? At first glance, the idea of a universe that came on its own is no easier to swallow than a universe that sprang from a Creator. The natural question is, if God created the universe, who created God? I would say nobody, and I don't think that is an intellectual cop out. Here's why.

I have two options:
1) The universe, which has certain rules (conservation of energy, things always tend towards choas) came out of nothing.
2) Something outside the universe which is not bound by our same rules created the universe.

To me, option 2 seems easier to swallow. Maybe it doesn't to other people. Psalm 19:1-4 says that "The heavens declare the glory of God", so I think God did instill something in us that leads us to look at nature and infer a Creator behind it.

This isn't meant as some course in apologetics. I'm just thinking out loud. My main point is, as far as the science I know, I don't think religion and science necessarily come into conflict. But I don't know if our worldview should be that religion and science are mutually exclusive, or that they truly complement each other.

Love isn't all you need

2007-11-06T11:22:00.000-07:00

In my Sunday School class we are going over the Love and Respect series by Emerson Eggerichs. The idea of the series is that it focuses on a key verse on marriage in the Bible from Ephesians 5:33:

Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

As most marriage books/videos do, the series talks about the need for a husband to love his wife, but it also focuses on another key aspect of a successful marriage - that a wife respect her husband.

Women should love their husbands, and husbands respect their wives, but the idea is that women are naturally loving, and men are naturally respectful, so they may not tend to give their spouse exactly what they need.

The idea of what respect looks like is less certain than love, at least to me and many others. Some people, such as myself, believe the husband is the head of the household under Christ, and part of this respect is a recognition of that position. But even if you tend to be more liberal in thought regarding family structure, you could still appreciate the idea of respect, in that a husband wants to be admired and not looked down upon. I think men want to be treated in a way that say, other people at work treat him. I was with a group of guys once at a former church, and one of their complaints about their wives was that at times they talked to the men, they talked to them in a disrespectful way that other men wouldn't dare talk to them.

I just wanted to touch on this idea a little bit. This doesn't mean that women don't deserve respect and men don't deserve love, I just believe this verse just focuses on needs of our spouse we tend to overlook. And respect doesn't mean the man can never be challenged or called out if he does something wrong; people have taken this idea to the extreme and made respect equate with control. At the same time, we are also a love-saturated society. The idea of respect is often not talked about. Love isn't all you need.

Dear writers

2007-10-29T12:27:00.000-06:00

Dear writers of Scrubs,

For some reason, every show feels like they have to have an on-again, off-again relationship between two main characters. I think Who's the Boss started this, and was popularized by Friends Ross and Rachel. Consequently, so many sitcoms feel that they have to pursue this formula. Some shows still do this well, like The Office's Jim and Pam. But those two have a chemistry; there is absolutely none with J.D. and Elliot. They are more like best friends. Having two co-stars get involved is okay, but they have to click in order to have a real relationship. I feel like Scrubs is simply putting the two together because they happen to work at the same place. It's predictable. Why not do something totally out of the norm, like people not getting together solely because they are two young costars on the show?

And what is up with people only dating those they work with? Why does a doctor have to date another doctor? What about the pizza girl/guy? I'm just not sure if the majority of America dates and marries the person they work with. And why does every member of the family have to work the same occupation? Alias did this to the extreme. Sydney, of the CIA, has a dad who is in the CIA, and has a mom who used to work the CIA (but ended up being a double agent), she had an unknown half-sister who works for some foreign intelligence group, whose dad happened to work for the CIA, and Sydney marries a guy who works for the CIA, whose dad used to work for the CIA...this is getting ridiculous.... I work on software. If everytime I had a conversation with my wife, sister, sister's husband, long-lost brother, secret father of mine, and it involved whether or not C++ or Java is a better programming language, I would move to the forest.

Dear writers of The Office,
You are about to suffer from Steve Urkel syndrome. Family Matters used to be a somewhat heartwarming show spotlighted on a variety of characters (not that it was really a great show to begin with). They had the nerdy guy who everyone liked, and, in typically fashion of writers who milk things for all they are worth, basically turned it into the Steve Urkel show. You are doing the same with Steve Carr\ell's character, Michael Scott. Instead of the show staying true to its origins, a comedy with somewhat real people in a documentary type scenario, the show has become a "what crazy things will Michael do in this episode?" You have a great cast, use them.

Dear producers of The Next Great American Band,
Kudos to having a long overdue show on actual bands who write their own stuff and cover something other than Destiny's Child. But, c'mon, having a critic who is an outspoken British guy, how original.

When being a sports fan, take it one game at a time

2007-10-25T13:03:00.000-06:00

Being a fan of any sports team can be a great experience, or it can be painful. But the experience doesn't have to depend on how a team does. Being a good fan depends on how seriously they take their team's success, to some degree.

One aspect of fandom I think is very important is to have the same approach that a coach or player should have: take it one game at a time.

What I mean is that a fan should focus only on the upcoming game and not the big picture of how the team does. I believe that when fans focus on the overall picture - if they will make the playoffs, how good of a bowl game they make, if they'll win a conference/league championship - then the overall fan experience is less enjoyable.

Why do I think this? Let's look at things in college football terms, since that is my favorite sport. If you don't have a team that typically performs all that well, then from the fan's perspective, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Every victory is a joy. Losses are still a disappointment, but they are gotten over more easily.

However, let's say you root for a championship caliber team, Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Oklahoma, Florida, etc... Things change. Fans will believe that the conference championship and a BCS bowl game is theirs to lose. High expectations are set upon the team. Losses are met with people calling for the coach's head. Wins are met with sighs of relief. Even during a victory, fans will analyze the teams performance to see if any weaknesses were exposed that will cause problems later.

So, does this mean we just root for bad teams? No. I think the answer is to keep a short-term mindset even when your team becomes successful. As I said earlier, fans should just look at the value of winning a game, one game at a time. Relish each victory. Don't worry about the postseason. Don't obsess over the fact that your team barely hung on to victory while their pass defense was ripped to shreds; be thankful that they found a way to win.

It's okay to be disappointed after losses, and I think, to even lose a little sleep that night from time to time. But be disappointed because it was a loss, not that the team won't get to go to so and so bowl game or, because they lost this game there is no way they will win the next one.

By approaching games this way, I think fans do a better job in sharing in the emotional highs and lows of the season along with the team.

My apologies to anyone who is not an Oklahoma State fan

2007-10-19T16:32:00.000-06:00

Posting about my college team is a tad self-indulgent, because OSU is one of those teams whose fan base consists primarily of locals to Oklahoma and/or alumni, me being at one time the former and now the latter. And OU is winning the battle as far as local fans. But, you have a choice if you want to read this or not.

Why I believe Oklahoma State will do better this season than the last season. OSU just romped Nebraska 45-14 in Nebraska. But the thing OSU fans saw last year is that the team would have a great victory one weekend but not carry the momentum into the next weekend. A great come-from-behind victory last year in Kansas was deflated by a loss to A&M the following weekend at Homecoming. A great victory over Nebraska did nothing to propel the Cowboys at Austin playing Texas. So, based on last year, the victory over Nebraska means swat in predicting future outcomes this season.

However, there are a few factors that makes me think this year's team is different.

1. Better defense. OSU played poorly at the beginning of the season, but they picked things up in the middle of the Texas Tech game, despite the loss to A&M after that. OSU kept a great Nebraska offense to a couple of garbage-time touchdowns.
2. More consistency at quarterback. Bobby Reid, who started last year but is benched this year, is a great athlete and hit great heights as quarterback, but was very inconsistent last year. Zac Robinson, the current QB, has had more consistent production if you neglect his very first starting game at Troy.
3. More overall offensive consistency. Even during the victories last year, it would take some time for the offense to click. Last season, Nebraska jumped to a 17-0 lead before OSU started finally moving the ball. In the Kansas game, OSU came from behind to win, and at Kansas State, they almost had a come from behind victory. This season, OSU's offense is clicking early and jumping out to an early lead.

About Mike Gundy: For those who don't know, Gundy held a passionate, angry press conference when a columnist from the Oklahoman criticized Bobby Reid. In short, I agree with what Gundy did, but I don't agree with the way he did it. I disagree with Gundy in some respects, because I think college athletes are fair game when it comes to both praise and criticism. At the same time, however, Gundy has every right to defend his players in public and say that a column is wrong, although he should be careful not to attack the columnist. I think Gundy was right in talking about the issue publicly, because it was a public column, but he should have waited till he calmed down and collected his thoughts. The news, whether local or ESPN, have shown an amazing amount of bias in showing the negative reactions to his spiel, and not any of the positives from fellow coaches.

Is football just a big chess match?

2007-10-18T10:02:00.000-06:00

Colin Cowherd from ESPN radio listed the following 4 things to look for when determining if you have a good coach in football.

1) Team plays better after halftime.
2) Team plays better as the season progresses.
3) Team scores few offensive penalties. Defensive penalties are less importance since they are more reactionary.
4) Team plays fairly consistently. Team does not do awesome one week then totally blow it the next.

The quality of coaching, Colin insists, does not depend on play calling. Or, at the very least, cannot be surmised from the play calling.

I believe those 4 points he mentioned are probably pretty good ones, although 2 and 4 could probably be combined. However, the lack of these qualities could also indicate an inexperienced team, especially on the college level, so that should always be factored in.

So, how important is play-calling? I think people like strong leaders. They like their quarterbacks to shoulder the team, and they like their head coaches to be the mastermind pulling the team's strings. We like to envision football as a big chess match between two head coaches. When a fourth and one is not converted, we may tend to blame the coach for calling the play, not on the players who should have executed properly. So I think we harp on play-calling too much at times.

However, I don't know if we can dismiss the importance of play calling. I'm not talking so much about when a run or pass is called, but an overall play calling philosophy. It is important that a coach utilizes the talent he has. Many people in the area claim that the Denver Broncos performed better when the current coach, Mike Shanahan, took over, simply because he utilized John Elway much more than the previous coach (although there are not a lot of Shanahan fans at the moment). When you have a star quarterback, you want to make the riskier calls and go long more often, and when you have a stud running back, then you want to go for the sure running game.

But I can still see Colin's point in that we often assume that we know what the best calls are, but we aren't in the coaches shoes. We also don't know what is the result of bad play-calling and simply poor execution. But we tend to look at the end result of the game, when the end result is a combination of coaching and players.

Our view of authority - what it means for politics and where it came from

2007-10-16T11:59:00.000-06:00

Although I would call myself a limited-government conservative, to me, mainstream conservative somewhat makes sense. Although the term "mainstream conservatism" is somewhat up for grabs, in short, I would define it as this: a view that government should have a say in moral affairs and be more hands-off in economic matters. This is why it makes sense. In general, authority figures have a role in saying what is right and wrong; examples include the church, our parents, schools, etc...

But...I am overlooking something. Let's go back to the parents example. Parents tell us what is right and wrong, but they also provide for us. They nurture us and they try to provide a somewhat safe environment.

So, for some reason, when I think of authority, I immediately think of a type of moral authority, some guide telling me what to do and what not to do. Others, however, may think of a more nurturing, provisional figure. It's not that we neglect on facet of authority, we may just tend to emphasize one side in our minds.

So this makes me think, do our political views come from our view of authority in general? In fact, do our political views have something to do with our family structure, or at least, our view of it?

Think of a conservative's view of government. The government lays down the (moral) law, protects us from bad guys, and tells us to go out and get a job. Sounds like your stereotypical Dad.

Think of a liberal's view of government. Here, the government makes sure we have what we need and is a little more permissive concerning what we do and don't do. Does this sound like a Mom?

Stay with me here. This has nothing to do with if conservatives are manly men and liberals are girly girls or anything like that. I'm just saying that, for some reason, conservatives tend to view their ideal government as some type of father figure, whereas liberals see the government as a more nurturing mother figure.

So do our political views have anything to do with our family structure? Does the dominant parental figure affect our views?

This is just a theory, but I really don't have anything to back it up. I consider myself a cultural conservative, but I didn't have a strong father figure until later in my life. If I asked conservatives and liberals I knew about their family life, I don't know if their stories would indicate any correlation between political views and dominant parental figure.

So how would libertarians figure into the equation. It's hard to say because, unlike conservatives and liberals, their whole philosophy requires more of a compartmentalization between the institution of government and other institutions, so their experience with authority in the family structure may be less likely to affect their view of government. Or, has their experience with familial authority initiated their limited government views in the first place?

But maybe I am limiting my scope and need to expand it to other areas of authority in our life. What about the church? There is a high correlation between religious people and conservative thought, but there is also a growing number of Christian liberals, so who knows?

So am I onto something here, or am I way off?

Thoughts on the college football scene

2007-10-10T08:38:00.000-06:00

People have underestimated Ohio State. While Michigan was losing to I-AA schools and Texas was just barely beating Central Florida and Arkansas State, Ohio State was dominating their opponents under the radar. There is too much of a time lag in rankings in the polls. I would have kicked Texas out of the top 10 after the first 1 or 2 weeks.

Les Miles is a better coach than I thought he was.

Because of the way we crown our national champion, people get involved in imaginary contests about which conference is better. We can only surmise that such and such conference is better than the other one just because of a single game between two schools earlier in the season, or maybe there were no games at all. We don't really know if the Big 12 champ is truly better than the PAC-10 champ, so we make a guess based on strength of schedule, which is primarily within one's conference. It doesn't make any sense.

The best way is to have a tournament of 8 teams. Why 8? Because we want to avoid two things:

1) the have's having two or three more games than the have-nots. Let's say a regular season schedule is reduced to 11 games. Bowl-worthy teams would have 12 games. The top 8 would only have 12, 13, or 14 games. If we have a tournament of 16 or 32, we have the top teams getting 4 or 5 more games experience than a team at the bottom.
2) Injuries.

Big 12 notes:

Analysts said that the Big 12 was rich in great quarterbacks, but things have turned out slightly different than expected. No one would expect Oklahoma's Sam Bradford would lead the pack, not only in the Big 12, but in the nation in efficiency. Texas's McCoy is in a bit of a sophomore slump, although the Red River Game looked promising for him. And OSU's Bobby Reid isn't starting for his team anymore.

The Big 12 champ may very well come out of the North this year. Kansas, Colorado, and Missouri are looking good.

Nebraska should have stuck with Frank Solich. He was a 10-3 coach when they fired him, and if I'm not mistaken, he took them to a national championship game. He was fired because Nebraska wasn't THE team in the Big 12 anymore. However, things change in college football. It wasn't just Osborne leaving Nebraska, it was two coaches by the name of Bob Stoops and Mack Brown that changed things in the Big 12. Now, looking from Nebraska's point of view, they believe someone else could take them to the top rung. Callahan came in, and it was known things would be messy, as their would be growing pains with a new type of offense. But Callahan has had time to recruit. They have not been much of a factor in the Big 12, and the idea of them going to a national championship game anytime soon is laughable. As the San Diego Chargers have learned, you don't fire a winning coach.

I just couldn't stay away... On SCHIP

2007-10-06T10:26:00.000-06:00

So Bush vetoed SCHIP, so he's a total scumbag right? I mean, who wouldn't want to provide health insurance for kids?

But no issue is as simple as it seems. And sometimes what seems like the obvious, simple solution may provide a short term fix, but will not really address the problem.

So the SCHIP idea works like this: health care is too expensive, so let's have the government cover the costs. It is a noble plan, and I admire the Democrats motives. But, as I said a couple posts back, opposite opinions do not mean opposite goals or motives.

Bush and the Republicans don't hate kids, they just don't think government expansion of health care will truly fix the problem, and they think it can make things even worse. People such as myself believe government expansion will harm the overall quality of health care. And the net result would be more children dying.

When something is too expensive, we must ask why it is too expensive. And liberals may roll their eyes when this conservative says that government is the problem, because it seems that that is the excuse every time. But at least some of the time that is true. As the pachyderm points out:

In Manhattan, an individual cannot purchase health insurance for less than $10,000/year. Clearly, that is a problem with NY laws, which do not permit managed care organisations to charge lower premiums to healthy 25-year-olds than to the elderly or the chronically ill. A 30-year-old, nonsmoking, female resident of SoCal, however, can get basic coverage for approximately $600/year.

What's frustrating about the issue is that so many people look on the surface and see it as the caring Democrats being shut down by the "couldn't care less about children unless they are in the womb" President Bush. I'm not saying there is no worthy debate here, because there is, but it still requires further analysis.

Unlike the strict libertarians, I'm all for the government helping people who cannot help themselves. Not everyone can afford health insurance. But before helping people out, we must examine why such a problem exists in the first place. Cut down spending before asking for more money.

Normal people do this. If I look at my budget and find out I am in the hole every month, I would examine my budget and find out where I could cut costs and if there are any unnecessary expenses. If our family worked like government however, my wife would immediately demand that I get a 2nd job so that we can afford to feed our son.

A short break

2007-10-02T16:27:00.001-06:00

I've been on travel the past week so I haven't had time to post. Right now I am busy with a few things. I want to come back soon, I just have to devote time to other things at the moment. I want to make sure that when I do come back I can post at least 2 times a week, which I know isn't very much to some, but I want to at least be consistent.

Using your own conclusions to evaluate others' opinions

2007-09-13T13:48:00.000-06:00

Yes, catchy post title I know.

On Neil's blog a user commented

It might make a difference in my opinion [about abortion] if I ever once saw a pro-lifer actually make an argument for adoption; for universal health care and adequate funding for education; even criticize the Bush Administration for planning to defund the S-CHIP program. Since I have yet to read a peep about any of this, I will rest my case on what I have experienced. All too much concern over all those fetuses makes little difference because there seems no concern at all ever expressed for the life of “post-birth” life.

I've addressed this viewpoint somewhat in a previous post, but I'd like to touch more on this again.

The problem the commenter has is that he equates "caring for the born" = "voting Democrat." The reason he does this is, I believe, he uses his own motivations to evaluate the motivations of others.

Here is my response on the blog:

You seem to think that these programs are the best ways to preserve life…I don’t.

I think universal health care harms the overall quality of care and actually puts people’s lives at risk due to long waiting lines. Canada’s supreme court seems to agree.

I think funding for education is adequate, but more revolutionary ideas have to take place in order for education to improve, rather than simply more funding. Many free market advocates are passionate about this issue, they just don’t think it is a matter of more money, but of school choice.

So there are a couple issues with your argument. 1) You assume that conservatives have the opinions they do simply because they don’t care. 2) You support certain programs because they produce supposed results. Let’s call them results A. The problem with this is that you evaluate other people’s political ideals based on results A, rather than the supposed results (results B) in the conservatives mind.

Here is an example:
1) You support universal healthcare because you believe it provides great health care for everyone and saves lives, especially poor kids.

2) Conservatives don’t support universal healthcare.

3) Therefore…the conclusion is that conservatives don’t want great health care for everyone and wants kids to die.

Now I’ll do the same.
1) I am against gun control because I want innocent people to defend themselves. For instance, I want a woman to defend herself in case she is about to be raped.

2) You support gun control.

3) Therefore…you want women to be raped.

The ultimate source of authority

2007-09-07T12:29:00.000-06:00

In Christianity, typically the measure of how conservative or liberal someone is theologically hinges on their viewpoint of the Bible. Theological conservatives tend to believe the Bible literally and believe in it's infallibility, whereas liberals may tend to view the Bible less literally. This is quite a spectrum. Many believe that the Bible is inspired by God, yet view many stories and accounts of miracles as merely symbolic. Others see the Bible as their Holy Book, yet believe it is full of errors since it was written by men.

I don't want to get too much into the debate about the overall veracity or how literal the Bible is. From my own viewpoint, I am pretty conservative, so I believe the Bible completely. I tend not to dismiss elements of stories simply because they contain accounts of the supernatural.

Those who believe that the Bible is completely true view the Bible as the ultimate source of authority. Any other philosophy, whether it be presented by our pastor, a self-help book, the slick-haired man asking for money on TV, it is weighed against Scripture. If things don't line up with the Bible, it is rejected; hopefully, however, it illuminates our understanding of something already found in the Bible. This is, of course, not a perfect process. We are humans, so we can often misunderstand what the Bible says. Nevertheless, we do have a reference source that helps us greatly.

Many people believe the Bible for the most part, but believe that it can or does contain errors since it was written by men. However, when one doubts certain parts of the Bible, how does one know what parts to accept and what parts to reject? That person's internal philosophy ultimately becomes the lens through which the Bible is viewed. Instead of weighing everything against the Bible, they weigh the Bible, and everything else, against their own personal philosophy.

As I said, this is not really an argument that the Bible is completely true, though I believe it is. However, something has to be our ultimate source of authority. If we make evaluations about which parts of the Bible are true, we become our own source of authority.

My increased appreciation for my wife, and other stay-at-home Moms

2007-09-05T12:52:00.000-06:00

We decided before Levi was born that my wife would stay at home. We had tried for some time just to live solely on my income so that when she would stay home it would not be a big strain.

So, the baby was sick last week with a viral infection. Once he got over it, my wife got sick. When it is just the husband and wife, either person being sick is not a ton of fun. When my wife was sick in the past, I may have stayed home from work and took her to the doctor.

With a baby, this takes on a whole new dimension. For one, when the newborn is sick, it is not fun to hear him moan in pain from a sore throat; that is about the worst sound you can hear. When the wife is sick, that means I become the stay-at-home mom. I enjoyed my extra time with Levi. At the same time, I realize how much my wife goes through taking care of a newborn. I thought it was rough taking care of him all day for 2 or 3 days, so I can only imagine what my wife goes through doing it all the time. So, my appreciation for what my wife does every day is renewed. To all those stay at home moms, or moms in general, I salute you.

Analysis of my fantasy football draft

2007-08-30T12:22:00.001-06:00

A quick note: I haven't been posting nearly as often. Part of it is being busy. I'm doing a little bit of work offsite, and overall I've just had a lot on my plate. Also, the little bit of time during work I am engaged in personal stuff, I've been involved with my fantasy football team that I drafted last weekend. Also, I've had a lack of inspiration due to being so busy. When I'm not busy, all sorts of stuff is going through my head, and the focus for some time has been political/philosophical issues. For some reason, having a child, fantasy football, and work stuff has been filling my head. I will try to post when I have the time, but I'm not making any promises. I know it's nice for readers of a blog to have the blogger post on a consistent basis, but I just can't promise that.

Back to my fantasy football draft, here is an analysis of a few of my picks. There are 15 players and 15 picks per player.

1st round - Travis Henry, RB, Denver Broncos. I think Henry has a lot of potential in an offense in which any running back does pretty well. There are injuries to be concerned about. I had a choice between him and Maroney of the Patriots, and upon reflection, Maroney may have been the better choice, but I think Henry has the bigger upside.
2nd round - Cedric Benson, RB, Da Bears. At this point, there were higher rated players who were quarterbacks. I decided to go for two strong running backs. This is a bit of a gamble, as this is his first year as the premier back.
3rd round - Vince Young, QB, Tennessee Titans. I am a huge Vince Young fan. However, this may not have been the best pick. A good rule in Fantasy Football is to pick either a super-elite QB, or wait until the later rounds as their is not a huge point difference among them. I probably should have picked a very good wide receiver at this point. Nevertheless, having Vince will make FF more fun this year. I root for Vince Young anyway, and when he does well, I have the added bonus of my team doing well.
6th Round - Fred Taylor, RB, Jacksonville Jaguars - I think a good pick for this round. I needed a backup RB, and I thought Fred was pretty good to still be hanging around. He typically has injuries at least once during the year, so that probably gave him a low ranking. For a 3rd RB, however, (I have to start 2), I trust his health enough.
8th Round - Patriots Defense - One of the better defenses, a steal at this round.
15th Round - Josh Scobee, Kicker, JacksonVille Jaguars - I don't know much about this guy, but the fact that I waited until the last round is one of the smartest things I have done.

A few thoughts on the Michael Vick case

2007-08-21T08:04:00.000-06:00

1) It's not a racial issue, no matter how much some want it to be. It's about animal cruelty. I don't naively believe that race is never an issue in America, but I don't see sufficient reason to believe people would react any differently if this was a white athlete. To say that this has something to do with race takes away from the significance of the issue at hand. The ones bringing up race are the racially divisive people.

2) Money will not make someone a better person.

3) I'll try to say this without moralizing. I'm glad to see that people have regard for somewhat defenseless creatures (as defenseless as these breed of dogs can be anyway). However, I think our priorities are somewhat misplaced. Is dog torture really more inhumane than say partial birth abortion (I would say any abortion, but I'll take what I can get)? I understand that pro-choicers view fetuses on a lower plane than those outside the womb, but why lower than dogs?

On the existence of miracles

2007-08-14T10:54:00.000-06:00

No doubt the Bible is filled with miracles. Many secular scholars reject the existence of miracles, as well as Christian scholars who tend to be more theologically liberal.

Sometimes, the rejection of all/some miracles tends to use circular reasoning. Consider the following statement.

"I don't believe in miracles because they contradict science."

However, miracles are supposed to contradict science, otherwise they are not miracles. By definition, miracles are "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs". So, if miracles are manifestations of a divine power, or an outside source, then the fact that they contradict science is really irrelevant.

So, the person might as well say

"I don't believe in things that contradict science because they contradict science."

Now, I'm not saying everyone who disbelieves miracles suffers from circular reasoning or some lack of cognitive ability. Miracles take faith to believe in, unless someone witnesses a miracle firsthand. Much of secular society disbelieves in miracles for multiple reasons. In short, they believe that God chooses not to interact in our physical environment, or that there is no God. But saying that miracles cannot exist because they contradict science is not really saying anything.

I'm always more perplexed by Christians who don't believe in all/some miracles. I suppose many believe in some miracles to some extent but don't believe in all the miracles documented in the Bible. I'm not quite sure how to know which ones to believe in, because the essential elements of the Christian faith are probably the most fantastical. God coming in human form is a pretty overwhelming.

Now, some Christians may reject some/all miracles in the Bible because they see none happening today. Why was there so much supernatural activity in the past, but not today? I don't completely know the answer. I have a few guesses though.

1) Because of the age we live in, we have access to so much more information than those in Bible times. Consequently, it is easier to have access to divine revelation through human means, so supernatural means are less necessary.

2) God went through a long period of not speaking to the people from the time of the prophets to the time of Christ. Perhaps in the period from the spread of the early church to times around the Second Coming/Tribulation is a sort of dry time for miracles. Maybe miracles abound only around significant events in the spiritual timeline, i.e. escape from Egypt, lifetime of Christ, spread of the early church.

3) Perhaps it has something to do with us. The supernatural is downplayed somewhat in the modern church, so it just doesn't happen that often. However, it seems like the supernatural happened in Bible times when people were not expecting it. For instance, Abraham didn't ask to be contacted by God. People didn't know when Jesus would come and perform miracles. At the same time, maybe our additional knowledge of God's overall plan should increase our expectations.

4) Maybe miracles happen more often than we know. I've always heard stories of amazing things happening with missionaries as far as healing of the sick and encounters with physical manifestations of spiritual entities. However, that doesn't explain why many of us don't see those things today. But then again, maybe miracles were only seen by select people in the Bible.

To Drug War or not to Drug War

2007-08-08T15:06:00.000-06:00

Make no mistake, I believe drugs are bad. I believe using drugs for recreation is a sin. However, I'd like to consider philosophical and utilitarian arguments for and against drug legalization.

Philosophical arguments against drug legalization

1) Drugs are not, in fact, a victimless crime. Families and friends are torn apart by someone's drug usage. Drugs may be consumed by the individual, but they are a cancer to society as a whole.

2) Freedom implies someone has free will to make their own choices. Due to the addictive nature of drugs, however, that free will can be severely limited. They may make a choice for their first fix, but they are hooked afterwards.

3) To say that drugs should be legal because they only hurt the person that takes them (at least directly) may provide a disturbing distinction between victimless sins and other sins. By legalizing drugs, we may be saying "these things are bad, but they aren't as bad as murder, stealing, etc..." I think many people would agree, but they fear that by legalizing drugs, society, as a whole, is approving of them. While the Bible places a lot of importance on the Golden Rule, it provides little or no distinction on the level of sin based on how many people it affects.

4) In the balance of freedom vs. security, the benefits gained for society as a whole outweigh the benefits of being "free" to do crack, heroin, etc...

Philosophical arguments for legalizing recreational drugs

1) (Counterpoint to argument 1 above) It is up to the family structure, the church, and other voluntary organizations to discourage such behavior. Concerning friends and spouses, people have freedoms and responsibilities in choosing who they have relationships with, and drug usage, or the possibility thereof, is something that should be considered.

2) (Partly a counterpoint to argument 3 above) This is the typical libertarian argument. The purpose of government is to keep people safe from other people, not enforce morality, even if that saves someone from their own actions. Someone should have the right to do whatever they want, provided that they do not hurt anyone else. Who am I to say that someone doesn't have the right to participate in recreational drugs? If we truly value freedom, someone should have the right to live their life as they please. Anti-drug laws dwell on a slippery slope, and such laws will work their way into other areas of life, such as cigarettes, consumption of fast food, etc...

Utilitarian arguments against legalizing recreational drugs:

1) Legalizing drugs would make it easier for kids to get a hold of them. A kid would only need to get a hold of someone over 18/21 to get their fix.

2) Drugs impair the individuals ability to function. People couldn't perform their job duties while impaired. People can't drive while high.

Utilitarian arguments for legalizing recreational drugs:

1) Drug enforcement is largely ineffective, as demonstrated by Prohibition against alcohol. We spend tons of money on the drug war with little or no results.

2) Outlawing drugs has increased crime. It has created a black market that inflates drug prices, causing people to steal and murder. Furthermore, it has increased the powers of gangs that profit greatly from the drug trade. The illegal drug market also funds terrorists.

3) Outlawing drugs has reduced our freedoms. People's privacy has been decreased due to drug raids, as police forces on the federal and local level have become more invasive. Innocent citizens have been harmed during the execution of the Drug War.

4) Outlawing drugs is harming the suppliers and consumers of prescription drugs. Doctors are paranoid about prescribing too many pain killers due to the government's watchful eye. In turn, people who genuinely need pain relief suffer. Furthermore, a drug like marijuana may be the most useful in relieving nausea for patients with certain diseases.

5) Enforcing drug laws harm the police force in pursuit of other duties. Police spend resources executing the Drug War, not spending as much time pursuing killers and thieves. Jails are becoming overcrowded. (Note: This argument depends much on someone's philosophical reasoning. This argument presumes that drug usage is on a much lower level than victim-claiming crimes).

6) (Counterpoint to philosophical arguments 1,2 for keeping drugs illegal). While drugs harm free will and hurt people's loved ones and families, again, these arguments presume that keeping drugs illegal will actually decrease drug usage.

7) (Counterpoint to utilitarian argument 2) It is up to private companies to do drug testing. Driving while impaired would still be illegal.

So there you have it. I am not trying to push across a certain point of view. This is something I am pondering, and these are the arguments that come to mind. In short, drugs are so damaging that I think outlawing drugs is worth the tradeoff in freedom. So, philosophical I don't have as much of an issue with keeping drugs illegal. However, I genuinely wonder if the Drug War is indeed effective and is not making things worse.

This chilling thought comes to mind. What if the S.W.A.T. team busts down my door either by mistake or by an "informant" who has a grudge against me. What if my wife or kid gets shot in all the confusion. It is known to happen.

I'm curious what other people's thoughts are and if they have good philosophical/utilitarian arguments for or against the Drug War.

Resources:
Balanced Politics: Legalization of Marijuana? follow link for pro/con articles
The Cato Institute: Against the Drug War
Note: I tried to find an individual link supporting the drug war that was not already on Balanced Politics, but it is harder than I thought.

The exclusivity of Christianity. Is it important?

2007-08-07T18:57:00.000-06:00

I have taken part in many discussions concerning the exclusivity of Christianity, that is, believing not only that Christ is the way to heaven, but that he is the only way. A key verse for this belief is "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." "

Now, I believe someone can be a Christian and not necessarily believe that Christ is the only way, but it would lead me to suspect the rest of their doctrine.

There seems to be three primary beliefs in salvation across the religions.

1) Good works get you to heaven.
2) Everyone goes to heaven.
3) Believing that Jesus Christ is the Messiah will get you to heaven.

If I left something out, let me know.

Now, if someone believes Option 3, but believes it is not the only way, then they would probably have to believe in Options 1 or 2. I know there are some Christian universalists who believe that Jesus's sacrifice automatically redeems all mankind. That view isn't necessarily inconsistent, though I disagree with that point of view for biblical reasons, as the scriptures frequently state that some response is needed. John 3:16 and John 1:11-12 being examples.

However, most people who believe Option 3 but do not believe in Christ being the only way typically believe in Options 1 and 3. I've heard many say that they believe in Jesus's sacrifice, but they believe someone can also go to heaven by being a good Buddhist or Muslim or whatever. But, in my view, believing that shows a lack of understanding of why exactly Jesus was our atonement. Christ paid the sacrifice because no one is good enough, whether they be Christian, Hindu, etc... Romans 3:23 states that "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The entire books of Romans and Galatians echo this concept.

When talking about this concept to non-believers, we don't want to present it as an issue of I'm right and you're wrong. It's really an issue of none of us being good enough to meet God's standards.

My main point of this post is that the concept of Christ being the only way is indeed important, simply because it is intertwined so much with belief of salvation in general. Is this belief narrow? Of course. It is an un-PC idea. But that doesn't prevent it from being true.

A couple more thoughts. If there was another way to heaven, why on Earth would Jesus go through the ordeal he did? It's not like he was looking forward to it. Also, if he is not the only way, it would provide much less motivation for evangelism. It carries serious implications for all the missionaries risking their lives in closed countries.

Some say Jesus came to this earth really to provide an example on how to live. That is true, but in a way, that makes it harder for us. Obeying the Mosaic Law is tough. Living the Law in our hearts is even tougher. The Law shows us how we fall short; Jesus does this to an even greater extent.

USC top team of last 10 years, according to ESPN

2007-07-27T12:47:00.000-06:00

ESPN.com ranked every 119 Division 1-A college football program over the last 10 years. Not surprisingly, the USC Trojans ranked at the top. It's a pretty good list overall, though I'm surprised to see Florida State and Miami in the top 10. However, I have to remember that this is over the last 10 years, not the last 2.

I was glad to see Texas at number 3, and my beloved Oklahoma State Cowboys were tied at 56 with the Air Force Academy. I hope both my old home team and my new home team improve.

The only thing that bothered me about the rankings is they kept mentioning that USC was "a few seconds away from a third [national championship]." Yes, going to a championship game, even if you don't win, should count for something. But when it comes to the national championship game, or any game for that matter, it is either a win or a loss. In my view, closeness doesn't count.

I'm excited for the next football season. I think my two favorite teams, Texas and Oklahoma State, will improve. I was sad to see Texas implode last year near the end of the season, but they have gotten the OU monkey off their back (not to say it is a guaranteed win, but that the psychological blocks of a 5-year slump should be over), so I see their potential as limitless. Oklahoma State will depend heavily on their quarterback, if he can play consistently.

I am not an OU fan, but I thought they got the shaft, having to forfeit their wins from the 2005 season. They dismissed the crooked players as soon as they found out, so at the most, they should have gotten a warning.

I suppose it is early to talk about college football, but what else am I going to talk about when it comes to sports (other than Michael Vick, Barry Bonds, and the crooked NBA ref)?

Health care and health coverage

2007-07-25T13:07:00.000-06:00

Without getting too much into details, I wanted to touch on the subject of health care and health coverage, primarily the fact that the two are different. Many conservatives/libertarians, Cannon, for one, argue that the goal is not to provide increasing coverage to people, but health care in increasing coverage and quantity. Coverage alone does not guarantee access to health care, only a waiting line in many cases.

Conservatives/libertarians argue that getting the government out of health care will make health care cheaper and of higher quality, resulting in fewer people uncovered. Still, the question remains, what about those people, however small or large the group may be, that are not covered? Some libertarians will argue that charity or the doctors themselves will eat up the cost of caring for them, whereas conservatives and more practical libertarians agree that those who truly cannot afford health care would indeed be cared for under government programs. Liberals will argue that it is cheaper to insure those people in the first place, as opposed to paying catastrophic expenses, and it is a valid point. However, many claim that government getting involved in coverage is inherently more intrusive and expansive as opposed to taking care of costs for the poor when they arise.

Anyway, my main point is that coverage and care are two different things. Access to coverage does not equal access to care. The goal should be to increase availability and quality of care, which I believe can be done through less government involvement. And I think we can do so without leaving the poorest in the gutter.

Make your own all-star band

2007-07-20T16:37:00.000-06:00

Lee is back to blogging, and he has a post where you can create your own all-star band, inspired by the previous all-star band the Traveling Wilburys. See his post for more details and rules. My dream band is (not sure about spelling on all):

Bono (U2)
Pete Townshend (The Who)
John Frusciante (Red Hot Chili Peppers)
John Rzeznik (Goo Goo Dolls)
Chris Martin (Coldplay)

I do realize that not every position is covered, as I am not sure any of these guys can play the drums. If I had to have a drummer, it would probably be the guy from Rush.

Be sure to visit Lee and participate.

The cheap and easy way to argue

2007-07-18T12:23:00.000-06:00

Over in another blog, the issue of homosexuality is being argued, as in, whether or not the Bible actually condemns it. Dan, being the good man that he is, uses a reasoned argument in the negative, although I disagree with him. However, I worry about poor Dan. He probably puts a bit of time and energy into his arguments. Doesn't he know it would be so much easier if he chalked the conservative Biblical view to homophobia, like another commenter on the blog?

Similarly, in the immigration debate, a few of those who think illegal immigrants should have amnesty or have access to free government services simply cry "racist" to their opponents. They could argue about the costs/benefits associated with deportation, but the former method is so much easier and takes less brainpower.

Of course, the effectiveness of emotional arguments and name calling should be seriously questioned, but sometimes people don't want to change minds, they just want to get an emotional charge out of their self-righteous ramblings.

What is the dividing line?

2007-07-11T12:43:00.000-06:00

There has been much discussion on Neil Simpson's blog concerning what various denominations, particularly the liberal ones, believe. I would easily consider myself a conservative Christian, in the sense that I tend to have the mainstream Christian beliefs. More and more denominations tend to become liberal, in the sense that they have a more liberal as opposed to literal interpretation of the Bible, and they have a more liberal view on cultural issues such as homosexuality/transgenderism.

It was discussed on the blog what the dividing points are. Although I don't think anyone came out and explicitly said it, I think many would agree with me that the central issue of Christianity is, of course, Christ. The nature of our belief in Christ is what separates Christianity from other religions/spiritual viewpoints. John states in his first epistle that

" 20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

There are a wide ranges of beliefs within the body of Christianity, but when people deny that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, but just a good person, or another prophet, those beliefs fall outside the realm of Christianity. This is not an endorsement in any way of all of [theologically] liberal Christians' beliefs. And keep in mind, I am far from a theological scholar. It does appear to me, though, that the Bible continually focuses on belief in Christ as the central point, as stated in John 3:16.

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Some may argue that a belief in the entire Bible is necessary to be a Christian. I don't quite agree, because Jesus says that we should believe in Him, not the Bible. However, it would seem dangerous to question the authority and authenticity of the Bible, because it could make us question the gospels, and the entire story of Jesus. However, when talking to non-believers, I would tend to focus on the story and evidence of Christ's life and resurrection and then let the rest of the Bible fall from there.

I don't want to say anything incorrect here. If I'm missing something major, let me know. Any inputs are welcome.

Bible Translations

2007-07-11T12:26:00.000-06:00

One of my friends gave me a NET Bible, which is a fairly new translation of the Bible. I still prefer the NIV, but I really enjoy using the Bible study tools on Bible.org, which is an accompaniment to the NET Bible. The notes inside the physical Bible are minimal, but the online resource has more extensive notes. I've noticed that I prefer notes that focus on what the actual words mean with respect to the original Greek or Hebrew. I have a Life Application Bible that has quite a bit of notes, but lately, I've preferred notes/commentary of a more academic nature.

I also like notes on the Greek/Hebrew as they give transparency to the translation process. I don't think many Bible versions have sinister intent during the translation process, but it is nice to know as much about the original copies of scripture as possible.

In general, I think reading a couple different translations during study time is good, as I have noticed that I sometimes pick up on things that I did not before.

Apparently, there is a group of people who believe that the King James Version is the only acceptable translation, and is, in fact, divinely inspired. Some people call this the King James Only Movement. I've checked out various websites purporting this idea. Some criticisms use circular reasoning, in that they compare other versions against the KJV, and point out that they omit test included in the KJV. I respect their views, but I haven't found any convincing reasoning why one should put faith in the KJV as opposed to other translations. The more serious scholars can also look at earlier biblical text to evaluate a translation.

Yet another political quiz

2007-07-05T12:50:00.000-06:00

Speakout.com has a nice quiz on political issues. I prefer this quiz over many others for a couple different reasons.

The same quiz can be used for multiple things, such as your match with various Presidential candidates or your political philosophy. The first part of the quiz has you select what you are looking for. You can simply hit the 'Back' button, select a new gauge, and simply resubmit your questions without re-answering everything.

You can click on questions to get more details. Some of the questions may not be clear, so you can click and find out what they are really asking.

Here is my score

Your Score

You scored the following on the PoliticsMatch questions:

Personal Score 52%
Economic Score 82%

Where You Fit In

Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy. Based on the above score, you are a Libertarian Conservative.

I didn't match up closely with any of the presidential candidates. My top two were Sam Brownback at 53% and Ron Paul at 50%. Clinton was at the bottom at 13%

A random rant on taxes, welfare, the rich, etc...

2007-07-03T12:37:00.000-06:00

Through my time blogging and just engaging in political thought in my spare time, I am beginning to wonder if arguing about what is "fair" concerning taxes is useless. After all, much of it has to do with subjective opinion. It seems fair to me that someone be able to pass on their inheritance to their children, whereas others believe that it is only fair that they only pass on half their inheritance to their children, and the rest go to the government (or more euphemistically, the people).

I wish I had the luxury of being a pure libertarian, then I could say that any income redistribution is immoral. By doing so, I could easily draw a line in the sand. However, I do believe in using taxes to help those who cannot help themselves. Maybe I'm too much of a softy, but I don't want to see people dying in the gutter. At the same time, I do not see the government as an agent of social change, and I do not think the majority of charity should be done through the arm of government. Like most conservatives, I believe welfare for able-bodied people should be temporary, but I think there can be exceptions for those severely handicapped.

But by having the aforementioned position, it is hard for me to draw a line in the sand in determining just how much we should be taxed. I suppose that is what democracy is for, to figure such things out. However, in our current system, it is not how much we decide "we" should be taxed, but how much other people should be taxed. Now, some of the rich vote to tax more of the rich, what liberals call the "responsible rich". And yes, the rich can afford to pay more. But, for me personally, I have issues voting to tax certain groups outside myself. I don't know if I have any firm philosophical footing to support a flat tax right now, but I do like the idea of everyone chipping in when there is a problem, not one group asking another group to chip in. That bothers me.

Concerning the rich "paying their fair share", let's put aside the philosophy for a second. I believe from an economics standpoint, it can do more harm than good. As JFK said, "An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget-just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits." (Hat tip to Glen) Even if people disagree on what the optimal rate is, we all know that, of course, it is not 100%.

Back to the philosophical side (which I said is probably useless in debate anyway), I personally don't believe people should have many guarantees. I do admit that in theory, I like the idea of universal healthcare. But I simply believe that it won't work, and I believe a host of other countries have demonstrated that it leads to care rationing.

I think we should separate the economic issues of the market and welfare. The market should be regulated to some extent concerning pollution and safety. But it seems like the left's biggest criticism of the market is its ability to provide for the poor. However, if I have to pick my battles, I would rather see a freer market with higher tax rates than a regulated market with lower tax rates. A freer market should produce more wealth anyway. If I was a progressive, I would allow for a free market, but simply tax people more. A loaf of bread costs what a loaf of bread costs. I would rather see the government tax the seller of the bread more than regulate what the loaf of bread costs. Not that I want to see extremely high taxes, but I think the economic right needs to fight the battle for the market, and let democracy sort out the tax rates. Maybe I'm saying something dangerous to economic liberty, but I think we should separate the two issues.

Finally, I prefer a measure of freedom when it comes to economics, as opposed to complete security. The left is correct in that we should not sacrifice civil liberties in our fight against terrorism. They see the importance of freedom with respect to security. The importance may not be that apparent to the right with regards to our physical security, but I think they do realize the importance when it comes to economics.

In summary, many people criticize the right for not caring about the poor. And I'll be honest, there are probably many who don't. But, as someone on the right, I still want to leave enough help so that people aren't starving. At the same time, I believe that charity is a more powerful force than government assistance, and we should still leave room for that. Also, I believe that taxing any group excessively can be counter-productive. I believe that economic liberty is intertwined with personal liberty.

Current top 10 albums

2007-07-03T11:57:00.000-06:00

My top 10 albums changes from time to time, based on what I'm listening to. Here is my list for right now.

1. U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
Overall, a complete album experience.

2. U2 - Achtung Baby
This maybe the actual best album of U2's career, but I'm fancying #1 right now.

3. U2 - The Joshua Tree
Almost a perfect album. What makes this album so great is that it contains the songs everyone knowns ("With or Without You", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For), but the other songs not played on the radio are just as good. U2 is the king of 2nd-tier songs.

4. Belle and Sebastian - The Life Pursuit
I'm probably the only person who listens to this group who is a registered Republican. The wide variety of songs here would make one thing this is a various artists compilation album.

5. Beck - Sea Change
This album is simply amazing. Nothing like Becks other stuff. Good for those who like bluesy music with a twang.

6. Fiona Apple - Extraordinary Machine
Fiona's least accessible album, but probably her best. It's disappointing that radio chose to play "Oh Sailor" when it's probably the 10th best song on the album.

7. The Innocence Mission - Glow
I'm not sure why, but I tend to think of the early 90s version of the band as a female U2. This band has become more gentle and folksy, which some people like, but I prefer the more rockin' albums like this one.

8. Various Artists - The Empire Records Soundtrack
It seems like cheating to put a compilation album here, but this has a great collection of the non-aggressive 90s alternative bands, such as Better than Ezra, Cranberries, Gin Blossoms, etc...

9. The Elms - Chess Hotel
I reviewed this album in an earlier post.
This is a CCM band that sounds more like something on the classic rock station.

10. Bleach - Again, for the First Time
Bleach is a great Christian punk band that's no longer around. For some reason, bands like these are overshadowed in CCM.

Thoughts on the Democratic Debate

2007-06-29T12:12:00.000-06:00

This is the first debate I caught on TV, because my wife was flipping through the channels and wanted to watch. I only saw part of the debate, but here are my random thoughts.

1) I really like this Gravel guy. I like how he went against the grain and called for a replacement of the income tax with a larger sales tax. Even if you don't agree, it's always nice to hear something different.

2) As expected, every other candidate talked about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. I can see their point about capital gains tax being lower than the income tax, and how that doesn't seem right. My response would be lower the income tax, but I have a feeling they have the opposite solution.

However, I would like both sides to quit talking about what is "fair" and using their subjective opinions to when it comes to arguing for lower/higher taxes. Both sides will just talk past each other. Conservatives do contend that lower taxes produce higher revenues. I would like to see Democrats respond to that.

3) I think every candidate harped on the failure of Katrina. It will be a helpful issue to the Democratic nominee, as they will suggest more spending and programs, but it won't exactly hurt the Republican nominee, as it will not be Bush running again.

4) Obama may have responded well to the questions, but I think he was upstaged by the more fiery candidates, such as Kucinich and Clinton. Obama is more of a calm, collected sort of guy, which isn't a good/bad thing necessarily. I just know that he didn't stick out the most in my mind after the debate was over.

5) Republicans need to come up with a good plan to fix healthcare that will resonate with voters. The universal healthcare approach will have massive appeal to voters, so they need to come up with an alternative quickly.

Another advantage of school choice

2007-06-29T07:57:00.000-06:00

The Cato Blog makes a good point. There are other ways to achieve racial integration rather than the direct methods struck down by the Supreme Court yesterday. One way is school choice. Imagine a system where poor minority children wouldn't be stuck with their inner-city schools. Such a system would require less government involvement, something many aren't ready for.

The separation of the sacred and secular

2007-06-28T10:50:00.000-06:00

I have noticed that in art, particularly in music, there is a strong separation between CCM (Christian Contemporary Music) and secular music. This line is being blurred somewhat, with some crossover artists, but it seems that someone is a "Christian" artist, or they are not.

My question is this, is this a good thing?

The reason I ask is that I am not sure this separation always existed. Da Vinci painted religious themed portraits like The Last Supper, but he wasn't known as a "Christian" artist, and he painted non-religious things as well. People didn't ask "Oh, he painted The Last Supper, is he a Christian artist now?" Classic composers (of whom I know little about) would compose works inspired by their faith, but sometimes they would not be. It seems that there were many classic poets and authors (correct me if I am wrong, as I left all my poetry books at home) would speak on spiritual themes, sometimes they would not. There was not a question of whether they belonged to the Christian genre or not.

This may be a good thing, because much of secular culture is quite distant from Christian values, based on the things they glorify. Maybe as the secular becomes more profane, this distancing is inevitable.

Why would it be a bad thing?

Perhaps it has to do with the overall quality of art. I will be honest, there is much CCM I don't care for right now; much of it seems second-rate. Maybe it's just an issue with me though. But I notice that many great artists are those that are Christian, but not in the "Christian" genre. U2 is the most glaring example. Three of the four members are Christian, and many songs are very spiritual. Another lesser known band is the Innocence Mission that has many spiritual songs as well, and even has an album of hymns. Some of the highest quality CCM bands are now crossing over, or at least have a foot in the mainstream, such as Switchfoot or Skillet.

So, I don't know if my concerns have any foundation. Basically, I have noticed that much great art of the past was influenced by Christianity but was not in a genre separate from everything else. Today, I notice a distinct separation in many cases, and it seems that many times the "Christian" side is inferior, whereas those artists that may have some mainstream involvement are the superior bands. (To be fair though, it is understandable that the creme of the Christian crop would get mainstream attention). At the same time, I know we, as Christians, are called to stand out and not blend in.

As a final note, there seems to be a distinct exception in the genre of country music. Carrie Underwood has a hit called "Jesus, Take the Wheel" but there is not a debate on whether she is a Christian artist. Garth Brooks will have overtly religious songs on his album, but at the same time sing about a woman killing her unfaithful husband (I don't say that to be critical, as I don't think he is glorifying or justifying murder, I am just illustrating the main point of my post). There does not seem to be a big "Christian country" genre. What is so different about country?

Off for about a week

2007-06-19T12:55:00.000-06:00

I'll be gone for about a week visiting family, so no posts for a while, which may not be unusual as I sometimes go a week without blogging. Have a good weekend.

Conservatism, liberalism, and the Gray-Haired Old White Man

2007-06-19T08:27:00.000-06:00

The concept of a modern day Noah's Ark story found in Evan Almighty had fascinated me. After all, the original account deals with God wiping out the earth because of our sin. The idea of a story about God punishing sinful man, well, it just seems out of place in Hollywood.

Of course, it depends what the sin is. Now, I have not seen the movie, but I've read a brief synopsis in the Washington Post review. This is not an in depth analysis, otherwise I would wait till I saw the movie. But the sin that the movie focuses on is not surprising. The post says...

the movie has a modern theme about saving the environment from corrupt politicians and businessman looking to profit by diminishing green meadows and animal habitats.

Now, of course many people can get on board with this idea. I don't like corrupt politicians and businessmen either.

But corrupt politicians are not the only thing wrong with the world either. For instance, there is the dissolution of families, promiscuous sex, and the marketing of sex on TV. However, I don't think a movie about the bad guys being people who sleep around a lot would catch on as one in which the bad guys are evil businessmen destroying the environment.

This is not to downplay the latter, but the concept of the movie does point out a divide between what bothers liberals and conservatives. Now, this post is not an attempt to invalidate or discredit the beliefs of either side, it is only an attempt at an analysis of what each side values. I would welcome any input from anyone regarding these views.

Liberalism, it seems, has the spark of youthful rebellion. Liberalism is all about challenging the establishment. It is rebelling against the Gray-Haired Old White Man. (I don't say "White" to give this any racial overtones, I am just mentioning it because if you look at most people in power, well, that's what they look like.) Liberals like to leave people alone in their personal lives (again, in theory, I think the DP has done the opposite many times) but focus more on regulating economic activity. Regulating economic activity is essentially telling the Gray-Haired Old White Man what to do.

Also, part of liberalism is the avoidance of being the Gray-Haired Old White Man. Let's take abortion for instance. Saying "No" to some poor woman, maybe a minority, just doesn't have the same zing as saying "No" to the rich and powerful. Telling someone who isn't in power "you can't do that" is so Gray-Haired Old White Man, it's so...conservative.

Conservatives, on the other hand, well, most often they are the Gray-Haired Old White Man, or at least the favored son of the Gray-Haired Old White Man. Perhaps the conservative is the good son who went to college and has a nice job in a skyscraper, and the liberal is the 2nd-born son who dropped out of college and builds houses in Ecuador.

Jesus Himself could be seen as a liberal, in the sense that He also challenged the rich and powerful. He purposely upset the religious establishment, the Pharisees, and he had no qualms about upsetting the governmental authorities, although he had no political ambitions. But Jesus was also set on challenging us as the individual. He not only challenged the Pharisees taking God's name in vain, but he also challenged the woman at the well who had five previous husbands and was living with a guy. He did so out of love, and not a condemning tone, but he still made her feel uncomfortable.

In the political sense, both appeal to government power more than I would like. But I think in a cultural sense, in the sense of what is right and wrong, I think both groups have their strengths. Many conservatives can learn from liberals in regarding those who are oppressed and corruption among the rich and powerful. At the same time, I think liberals need to look more at "conservative" type issues and realize that maybe the fracture of the family structure may be leading to things like poverty and inner-city crime.

Also, sometimes Christianity and our current modern American philosophy may agree. Both scorn the abuse of power by the Gray-Haired Old White Man. But Christianity goes further. It is not just telling Gray-Haired Old White Man, "Hey, quit destroying our earth" or "Hey, quit oppressing the poor!" but it is telling the suave 20-something year old man "Hey, keep it in your pants!" or telling the 30-something housewife "Hey, stick with your husband and work it out, even if you think the guy in the next office truly 'gets you'!" Christianity is not only about exterminating the evil found in the ranks of the rich and powerful, it is looking at ourselves and finding the evil within us.

Our perception of God, or, a Father's Day post a little early

2007-06-13T12:53:00.000-06:00

Last Father's Day, the pastor at my church talked about how our perception of God depended heavily upon our relationship with our earthly father. (Disclaimer: I wasn't at church then, I can't remember why, but my wife relayed the central themes).

It's an interesting idea. What is our perception of God? Do we think of Him as some angry deity ready to smite us whenever we mess up? Or do we think of God as absent? Someone who cares not for the petty details of our life and leaves us to our own devices.

I think many of us Christians know in our head what God is like. A loving God slow to anger, forgiving yet just, and all that stuff. But I think sometimes in our hearts we picture Him much differently. Related to that picture is a desire that He be more this or that.

So what is our perception of God? It may illuminate our relationship with our father. Look at the relationship with our father, it may illuminate our perception of God.

I've got a big responsibility to ensure that my son will have a balanced and accurate view of God, not just in his head but in his heart.

My idea for a reality show

2007-06-11T12:44:00.000-06:00

I was watching a Simpsons episode called "Mr. Lisa goes to Washington", in which Lisa wins an essay contest about the greatness of America, but quickly becomes disillusioned when she sees the corruption in Washington.

The show made me think about politicians in general, and it seems that even the honest ones have probably made some moral compromises along the way. Not that I would consider going into politics, but even if I wanted to, I am afraid my Christianity would be compromised. But somebody's gotta do the job.

A common theme in various Christian men's ministries is that of accountability in many areas of life, including sexual purity. The idea is to have men keep each other accountable, where they can talk about their daily struggles and their progress in their spiritual life. Intertwined with accountability is the whole idea of openness, keeping one's daily activities and interactions in the light. The biggest thing tripping up many Christian men is the internet. I use a program called Covenant Eyes that keeps my surfing activities in the open.

I think Christian men should have at least one person keeping them accountable, and their are many verses supporting this idea. (As well as women, I am just speaking from a man's point of view).

So if accountability and openness is required to be a good Christian person, what about our elected representatives?

So this idea came to me. What if some, or every representative had their own reality show? The gist of most reality shows is that the camera follows a celebrity around and captures the inane details of their life. What if they did the same for politicians? The cameras would follow every lunch with a lobbyist, every interaction with their secretary, their involvement in each legislative session. Not everything would make the show, of course, but the juiciest details would.

I'm sure the idea would never go over. But if I ever wanted to be involved in politics, I would want all my interactions to be out in the open for everyone to see. I'm just not that virtuous.

Difference between big and small government folks

2007-06-11T09:39:00.001-06:00

Big government folks, whether they be conservative or liberal, are optimistic. They put their faith in politicians, that they will always do the right thing. Limited government folk are different in that they prepare for the worst-case scenario, that the worst sort of people will be in charge.

Understanding the scientific origins of the universe is way overrated. Or is it? Let the parents decide.

2007-06-08T12:48:00.000-06:00

There is an interesting discussion over at Glen Dean's blog about school choice. One of his money quotes is

Christians who believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and want their children to be taught that, are not necessarily the enemies of science. All they really ask is that they have a little say in what their children are taught. After all, the children do belong to them, not the state.

. Another commenter made a reasonable point in the second paragraph

I disagree that the topic is freedom. I really am frightened by the prospect of millions of ignorant kids growing into adulthood completely lacking some basic knowledge about how the world works. Furthermore, the South and pockets of the midwest, seem to be havens for this sort of thinking. Left unchecked, the day will come when we'll have pockets of ignorance--sorta like how things were in the last century.

Parents can teach their kids whatever they want, but there should still be certain standards of education. Kids need to at least be exposed to real science. What they choose to do with that knowledge is their own business.

I wanted to raise a couple of points.

I agree with Glen in that parents should have the primary role in what their children are taught. If a central federal office or court has the power to enforce teaching with which we agree, it has the same power to do so when we don't disagree. Liberals may think they have more to gain with a centralized school system, but there could still be governors or courts that think creationism is the way to go.

Additionally, let's say evolution does provide a sufficient framework for explaining the universe. Okay, fine, but is someone really going to miss out and not be able to function in society if they don't learn about it? From a scientific perspective, people give the origins of the universe too much credit. I went through a whole set of college coursework without touching a biology class, as it was not necessary or related to my major. But even in high school, when I did take a biology class, we didn't really touch on evolution too much, but that doesn't mean I didn't learn (and quickly forgot) the processes of mitosis, meiosis, photosynthesis, and all that other stuff. Not only is an understanding of evolution unnecessary to basic functioning in society, but someone can still have a good grasp of the sciences without going into the subject. In the case that someone wanted to go into academia in the life sciences,the desired college program can determine if evolutionary understanding is necessary. Already, college programs decide on entry requirements typically beyond high school graduation requirements anyway.

But I'm only looking at it from a purely utilitarian point of view. After all, reading classic works or learning the finer details of our American government are not things I apply everyday in my particular line of work, but I am still glad I learned those things, and I hope my children do as well.

The point is, I, as a parent, should determine if learning the scientific origins of the universe is even that important in the first place. The same should go for other areas of education as well.

When it comes to regulation, we should look at all sides of the story

2007-06-06T06:59:00.000-06:00

I was watching a CBS News report about the poor in Mississippi. It spoke about a poor black girl who had problems receiving Medicare due to some bureaucratic red tape. Because of some new regulations, she had to fill out additional paperwork and have a face-to-face meeting 30 miles away, and she had no care.

Fair enough. No doubt the regulations were probably passed to ensure that people were not bilking the system, but every action has unintended consequences.

But let's say the story was slightly different. Let's say this person, or someone similar, was fortunate enough to have a little money saved up and was trying to start a business, like a manicure shop or a restaurant. And let's say, due to some new regulations, she had to fill out additional paperwork, or go to some class 30 miles away to get her license at least once a year.

For some reason, I don't imagine many media news outlets would report on such a story.

Regulations affect every area of our life, but why do we primarily hear reports about it when it comes to things such as getting food stamps or Medicare? Why don't we hear about the endless regulations that get in the way of people who are trying to make a living for themselves? Regulations don't just affect rich white men running large corporations; they affect the black women in Minnesota who simply want to make money braiding hair without having to pay $15,000 in tuition.

Here are my points.

1) Many people, including the media, tend to have a certain bias when it comes to regulations. Additional paperwork or any work at all when it comes to getting direct things from the government seem to get the most attention.

2) With regulation, there are multiple sides to the story. Like the red tape of Medicare that makes it harder for people to get treatment, red tape that is done in the interest of consumer protection makes it harder for the average person to start a business. The Institute for Justice covers such cases. With every law there can be good and bad consequences.

3) Regulation on the local or state level can make it too difficult for the poor to start businesses. State licensing and the like are usually passed by established, large corporations already in power that make it harder for new, smaller competitors to get on their feet. Eliminating some of these regulations should be something with which conservatives, libertarians, and liberals can all get on board.

More music reviews

2007-06-05T12:25:00.000-06:00

Skillet - Comatose. Skillet is one band who hasn't watered down their sound, despite being at the forefront of Christian Contemporary Music. I like this album better than the previous one, Collide, which was more on the edgy side. The songs are a bit more accessible without being compromising. The album builds a little upon the song "Collide" in the last album, by incorporating stringed instruments in a few songs. Overall, a very good album. My one complaint about this album and Skillet in general is that they simply make their songs too long. They have a tendency to really hammer the choruses into your brain. I recommend this album for fans of hard Christian rock. Click here to preview their tracks.

Everyday Sunday - Stand Up
Another great CCM band with a fun punk-rock (that is, modern punk in the style of Green Day, Blink 182, etc...) style. They have actually released 2 albums since this release, Anthems for the Imperfect and Wake Up, Wake Up! which I will check out when I get the opportunity. Here are some track samples.

Hey kids, you like the rock and roll? Here are some album reviews

2007-06-04T12:55:00.000-06:00

The Elms - The Chess Hotel. I became familiar with The Elms through hearing a couple of their songs on contemporary Christian radio stations. I had some free CDs to buy with my BMG account, and decided to give them a try. Even though I didn't hear a track from this album previously, I was told somewhere that this album was heavily influenced by 60s groups like the Rolling Stones. I had to give the album a try.

Any fans of acoustic and/or classic rock will love this album, as it is ripe with various influences. I thought I detected some Black Crowes and Tom Petty. Interestingly enough, their website states that the producer was "the engineering mind behind brilliant albums from Tom Petty, The Posies, The Black Crowes, and scores of others..." The album, like many in CCM today, is not overtly spiritual, but to me, I think a spiritually-neutral album is better than one spiritually corrosive. I highly recommend this album for any lovers of pure rock and/or roll. Click here to check out some of their tracks.

eHarmony being sued

2007-06-04T08:14:00.000-06:00

Hat tip to Neil Simpson for this bit of news. eHarmony is being sued for excluding gays.

Here are a couple of my thoughts.

1) This is a prime, prime example of where we should let the market sort it out. If someone wants to start an all-gay dating service, so be it. That is their right. If someone wants to start an all-straight dating service, so be it.

As much as (some) liberals detest the free market, the free market is what allows people to live according to their own moral code. Think about it. All dating services could be forced to conform to a universal set of government laws, or they could all be free to operate as they wish, satisfying the diversity of consumers out there.

2) Many liberals are truly liberals, they believe that people should be free to live as they please. Other liberals, however, are not. They are all about coercion. These are the liberals who think doctors should be forced to perform abortions against their conscience, enforce campus hate speech codes, and in this case, force a business to accommodate lifestyles with which they disagree. Don't let the "live and let live" stuff fool you. These people are all about forcing others to do things against their conscience to accommodate their own lifestyle.

Funniest Quote of the Week (So Far)

2007-06-04T08:06:00.000-06:00

Josh says in reference to Fred Thompson "he'll have the votes of every member of the cast of Law & Order, and that show's been on for a long time."

For you computer nerds: Windows vs. Linux

2007-05-31T12:19:00.001-06:00

I don't know how many of you out there use operating systems other than Microsoft Windows. For personal use, I use a Windows machine like most everyone else, but for work, I use Linux, since that is the platform on which our application runs.

It's interesting to compare the 2 systems because they seem to come from different cultures. The Windows environment is created by a large corporation in a proprietary format, whereas Linux is "one of the most prominent examples of free software and open source development; its underlying source code can be modified, used, and redistributed by anyone, freely."

I'm not a computer expert, but my smart computer friends tell me that Linux is more stable than Windows. That seems to be the case, as we can leave Linux running for days and weeks on end. Personally, I really like the Unix-ish command line interface, that makes it easier to move around in a file system, if I know what I'm doing. I also like the window management system better, as I can type on a window, even if it is partially covered by other windows, a major downfall of Windows.

The disadvantages is that, in many cases, you get what you pay for. With a Linux release, it's not uncommon to have parts of the OS that simply don't work. With SuSE 10.1, the update system was broken, along with several other bugs. Granted, they do have an Enterprise version that is supposed to be more tight. Windows is not free from bugs, but surface-level flaws are much more rare. Bugs found using some Linux versions would not make the first version of Windows software.

Also, Windows has been much easier for the common person to use. Programs internal and external to windows are installed with a few clicks of a mouse. Linux, however, is mostly designed by computer geeks for the computer geek. For many distributions, a Linux user needs to use the command line interface and deal with "tarballs" and "makefiles."

Some may look at the battle between Windows and Open Source as a microcosm of capitalism vs. say, socialism, but I don't know if the analogy is apt. Microsoft is, no doubt, an example of capitalism, but open source is not exactly a parallel to socialism, primarily because of its voluntary nature, although many advocate for open source to be the universal standard.

But perhaps, open source software may show why, in life, voluntary acts are better than coerced ones. I think open source software is great, but I would not want it to be the only thing out there. I would not want an environment void of any intellectual property or where the only software available was developed by unpaid programmers. But perhaps I am just attacking a strawman, as I am not completely familiar with all the objectives of the open source community. And maybe the lesson cannot be extrapolated so easily.

I can get on board with open source as long as the community respects the rights of other people to sell their software if they wish. If someone wants to offer their software for free, great, but don't feel like having a free operating system on your computer is a right. I suppose this matches with my life philosophy. I believe in generosity and not always being guided by a profit motive, but at the same time, we should not feel entitled to the work of others.

To me, open source software just shows that people can do creative work without being paid for it. Some people enjoy programming just like some enjoy building a table from scratch (and usually these two groups do not overlap). Like one must consider if they want a table a friend built or one from a store, they should consider operating systems.

By the way, here is an article comparing Ubuntu Linux to Windows Vista.

And yes, I also know that Macs exist, I just haven't used one enough to know anything about them.

Cheers and Jeers

2007-05-30T08:46:00.000-06:00

Cheers to Boston Legal for only doing a 1 hour Season Finale. I don't know why, but it bugs me that every show feels that they have to do a 2 hour Season Finale Spectacular where something really special happens. Part of me feels like a 2 hour episode should be reserved for only special events. Maybe this is a holdover of my comic book days, where every 5 issues they felt they had to do a super-duper special issue (that also happened to cost twice as much).

Cheers to Lost for the twist they threw right in the end, and the manner in which they did it, and they did so without even throwing in yet another special character to advance the storyline. The last 2 minutes really left me waiting for the next season, as all good season finales do.

Jeers to American Idol. I like the show, and I'm okay with it taking 2 hours to announce the winner. After all, they have special guests and musical performances that entertain. I'm okay with 2 hours. But c'mon, 2 hours and 7 minutes! I don't know why, but the extra minutes really bug me. Can't you fit the show within 2 hours?

Jeers to On the Lot for trying to be like every other single reality show. On the whole, I think it is a great, original reality show. However, why does every reality show feel like they have to follow suit and take 5 minutes and a commercial break to announce who is going off the show? And, it's not really that suspenseful when you have 18 people on the show and are booting off 3. You don't need a whole hour, especially since we are not that far in the show anyway.

A short summary of my beliefs

2007-05-29T12:40:00.000-06:00

As I said in the last post, I'm evaluating where I want to take my blog. I want to post more on areas other than politics, but as a last hurrah, I wanted to do one short statement of my beliefs, which is definitely not all-encompassing, but summarize what I have talked about the past year and a half.

In a spiritual sense, I am a Christian. I try to align my Christianity as close as I can to the Bible, but I don't think many people get it perfect.

In a political sense, I am pro-life. I won't go into this too much, except that I don't think there is a morally significant difference between a fetus and a born person. Therefore, I believe a fetus deserves equal protection under the law.

I am also free market. Now, I haven't worked out the finer points of where government should get involved, but for the most part, I believe this. If I have a product, I should choose the price for which I sell. If I am a laborer, I should be able to negotiate my terms without interference of a third party. I, as a consumer, should not be able to dictate the terms of a business. I can influence it by my consumer choices, however. For instance, if I don't like the fact that Apple produces their music in a certain format, I don't buy it. If I don't like the fact that a restaurant allows smoking, I don't go there. If I don't like the fact that a cable company sells channels in bundles, well, I'm really not entitled to cable. I know there are other issues involved, such as worker safety, and pollution. These should all be factored in, but I strongly believe that the government shouldn't dictate prices/wages and shouldn't dictate things that the consumers can.

I believe in school choice and decentralization of school curricula. I think parents should have flexibility in choosing schools for their children. Whether this is through tax credits or more privatization or whatever, I think we need school choice. We don't like monopolies in other areas, and we shouldn't want them when it comes to educating our children. I disagree with Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, because I don't think the federal government should dictate what every single school should teach/test. Colleges already have their own recommended high school courses for students that may or may not match what is necessary for a degree. Necessary coursework would be established by the workplace after school or the desired college.

When it comes to religion, I tend to follow the wording of the First Amendment, rather than the clause "Separation of Church and State." If one takes the latter without regard to the First Amendment, I believe the government can "prohibit the free exercise" of religion in the interest of keeping things separate. Schools should take extra care not to discriminate on clubs and/or extracurricular activities solely because of religious content.

Those are just a few things, but I just wanted to provide a short summary of the political issues I have focused on over the past year and a half.

At a crossroads...

2007-05-29T12:27:00.000-06:00

I'm at a bit of a crossroads with my blog. I'm not sure how much more political posting I want to do. I feel that I've said just about everything I can say in the year and a half I've done my blogging. In a way, blogging about politics all the time is like talking about politics all the time with a close friend or wife with whom you disagree. If you do so, conversations tend to get heated, and you start to be annoyed with that person and not have pleasant conversations about things you have in common. I enjoy discussing movies and music and not arguing about politics all the time. This is not intended to offend those who do focus on politics, it's just an issue of my personality.

In a way though, this makes the blogging more challenging. By nature, I am a very analytical thinker. Instead of writing stories, I right about issues. Politics involves reasoning, and I'm better at logic than creativity. If I had chosen a path of ministry or such, I would probably specialize in the fine points of theology or apologetics.

So, I will probably post on politics from time to time, but I'm going to try to focus more on theological/philosophical issues somewhat removed from the realm of politics. Also, I will try to comment more on media, such as movies and music. The frustrating thing is, I state what I'm going to do, but may find myself doing the opposite. In the past I have announced a break from politics, but then an issue piques my interest.

Here's a pic of the little guy

2007-05-23T12:14:00.000-06:00

Big Surprise

2007-05-15T08:18:00.000-06:00

Okay, so my "little girl" came with a couple extra parts. His name is Levi. More later...