Ever since Vince Young almost single-handedly won the Rose Bowl (from an offensive standpoint, the Texas defense was awesome as well), its almost as if various sportswriters have lined up to take shots at him, pointing out any possible weakness, real or imagined, in order to convince us that he will be a bust. Arm strength is a legitimate point of concern, but other than that, the best I've heard is that Vince Young is used to playing in the shotgun, therefore, logically, him playing in an under-center formation will be an absolute disaster. Like I said, its not even a real weakness, but something that is imagined if he plays in a different formation.
Now, granted, collegiate success does not automatically mean NFL success, but so many characteristics of Vince Young indicate a high likelihood for NFL success. Despite his raw athleticism and his high efficiency numbers from last season, Vince Young wins huge games under pressure. He rallied to beat Big-10 powerhouses Michigan and Ohio State. He led his team from a 28 point deficit against Oklahoma State in 2004, and accomplished an equally impressive feat in another come from behind victory against Ok. State in 2005. And that was all before the national championship game. With the exception of the OU game in 2004, I have not seen Young choke under pressure.
The thing is, the critics never learn. As recent as 2004, sportswriters were calling for Young to move to another position (which, granted, his athleticism at the time outshined his quarterback ability). He has been criticized throughout his collegiate career and proven his critics wrong, so you think the critics would finally learn before opening their mouths again as he enters the NFL draft.
Now, Young is not immune to criticism, but one has to do better than say "he hasn't played under center."
Mark my words though, Young will be one of the better athletes to play the game, even on the NFL level. Sportscentury or some similar show will highlight the career of Vince Young, and they will mention how Young was constantly criticized even after proving himself over and over again. They will talk about how people doubted him because he didn't fit the typical quarterback mold, how he didn't fit into the typical NFL offense, and how this was looked at in 2006 as a bad thing.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Friday, April 21, 2006
According to the Political Brew, I am...
According to the Political Brew test I am a moderate non-fiscal conservative (59 out of 100) and a strong fiscal conservative (94 out of 100). I couldn't figure out how to save the picture that shows my results, which is really unfortunate, because I could really use pictures on this blog. Even I get bored looking at it.
Probably what steered me to the middle (as opposed to the right) of the non-fiscal issues was the fact that I think the Patriot Act should be reevaluated while considering civil liberties, and I don't believe in government funding of faith-based initiatives for reasons I have mentioned previously.
Probably what steered me to the middle (as opposed to the right) of the non-fiscal issues was the fact that I think the Patriot Act should be reevaluated while considering civil liberties, and I don't believe in government funding of faith-based initiatives for reasons I have mentioned previously.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Sometimes Capitalism does seem a bit troubling.
I admit sometimes that some of the philosophy behind capitalism is troubling. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand (who I'm hardly a disciple of, but a chief proponent of capitalism) both assert that we will all ultimately benefit if we each pursue our own self-interests, so capitalism, following from that, is the best economic system.
Now, Christianity in many cases teaches the opposite, in which we must all die to ourselves, and the Bible teaches selflessness, especially through the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. The idea that we must always pursue our own self-interests and only our self-interests is contradictory to the teachings of the Bible.
What does this mean concerning our economic systems? I do not think socialism is the answer. I think what many Christian proponents of socialism miss is that fact that it is virtuous to give to another person, but it is not virtuous to expect something from another person.
Now, not everyone who is a economic libertarian is a socialist, there are plenty of people in between, and everyone has their own ideal balance of government economic control against capitalism. Sometimes I may call all Democrats socialists, but I don't think that is true. Many, at least here in the states, do believe in capitalism to some degree. I am not addressing anyone who is to the economic left of me, I am just addressing the foundations of capitalism and socialism themselves.
Greed can exist in this system, but I do not think many realize that greed exists in a socialist society, just in a different form, many times in the form of envy. You either covet and obtain through working more hours and neglecting your family, or you can covet and gain through government assistance. Capitalism can encourage too much self-reliance, but socialism encourages too much reliance on other people, and on a government (which is supposed to be separated from the church, by the way). Neither one, at least in theory, encourages reliance on God.
So it seems that both systems have their flaws. But for right now, I'll go for more freedom. Capitalism, for the most part, is composed of mutual, free exchanges. Furthermore, I'll go for what appears to work. America has been very prosperous, and this has been chiefly through God's blessing, but I believe He has blessed us by helping us find a system that works. People risk their lives fleeing Cuba, or other countries to come here. We must be doing something right.
Now, Christianity in many cases teaches the opposite, in which we must all die to ourselves, and the Bible teaches selflessness, especially through the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. The idea that we must always pursue our own self-interests and only our self-interests is contradictory to the teachings of the Bible.
What does this mean concerning our economic systems? I do not think socialism is the answer. I think what many Christian proponents of socialism miss is that fact that it is virtuous to give to another person, but it is not virtuous to expect something from another person.
Now, not everyone who is a economic libertarian is a socialist, there are plenty of people in between, and everyone has their own ideal balance of government economic control against capitalism. Sometimes I may call all Democrats socialists, but I don't think that is true. Many, at least here in the states, do believe in capitalism to some degree. I am not addressing anyone who is to the economic left of me, I am just addressing the foundations of capitalism and socialism themselves.
Greed can exist in this system, but I do not think many realize that greed exists in a socialist society, just in a different form, many times in the form of envy. You either covet and obtain through working more hours and neglecting your family, or you can covet and gain through government assistance. Capitalism can encourage too much self-reliance, but socialism encourages too much reliance on other people, and on a government (which is supposed to be separated from the church, by the way). Neither one, at least in theory, encourages reliance on God.
So it seems that both systems have their flaws. But for right now, I'll go for more freedom. Capitalism, for the most part, is composed of mutual, free exchanges. Furthermore, I'll go for what appears to work. America has been very prosperous, and this has been chiefly through God's blessing, but I believe He has blessed us by helping us find a system that works. People risk their lives fleeing Cuba, or other countries to come here. We must be doing something right.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Some links to cool political surveys
The Political Brew Gauge - pretty neat quiz, each question has five possibile answers detailing how gov't should deal with certain situations.
Politopia - another quiz with five possible answers. The results are in a neat format, where it shows a map with names of various politicians and celebrities. The people you live by depend on how you answer the quiz. I lived somewhere by Drew Carey.
Political Compass - Pretty comprehensive survey, and answers are based on a spectrum of "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree"
World's Smallest Political Quiz A very popular quiz put out by the libertarian group The Advocates. There are 10 questions, 5 in social, 5 in economics. A little simplistic, but fun to take nonetheless. I answered alot of maybe's in the social section, and many yes's in the economics, so that rated me a libertarian.
I like all of these quizzes because they look at politics on a 2-D map, one dimension for social issues and one dimension for economic issues. They all recognize that politics is not just a line spectrum of left-right, even though there are many that fall along this line (either liberal in both economics and social issues, or conservative in both of these areas).
Politopia - another quiz with five possible answers. The results are in a neat format, where it shows a map with names of various politicians and celebrities. The people you live by depend on how you answer the quiz. I lived somewhere by Drew Carey.
Political Compass - Pretty comprehensive survey, and answers are based on a spectrum of "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree"
World's Smallest Political Quiz A very popular quiz put out by the libertarian group The Advocates. There are 10 questions, 5 in social, 5 in economics. A little simplistic, but fun to take nonetheless. I answered alot of maybe's in the social section, and many yes's in the economics, so that rated me a libertarian.
I like all of these quizzes because they look at politics on a 2-D map, one dimension for social issues and one dimension for economic issues. They all recognize that politics is not just a line spectrum of left-right, even though there are many that fall along this line (either liberal in both economics and social issues, or conservative in both of these areas).
Private Education is Good for the Poor
I found this article today on the Cato Institute website, and it has to do with some of the concerns I expressed yesterday concerning private school and the poor.
Original Article Here
If you follow the link, at the bottom of the page is a link to the actual policy study, which is 64 pages. I haven't read it all and don't expect anyone else to, I just wanted to post the executive summary to show that studies have been done concerning private schools and poor areas. I am not saying everything is all nice and rosy for the poor people, but I just wanted to point out that the issue of the poor affording private school, and the issue of private schools providing what poor students need, apart from state regulation, have at least been addressed by some people, even if not necessarily answered. I hate to say that if private schools were implemented without the presence of public schools, everything would be A-OK, but this is what the study addresses.
Link to 64-page Policy Report
Original Article Here
If you follow the link, at the bottom of the page is a link to the actual policy study, which is 64 pages. I haven't read it all and don't expect anyone else to, I just wanted to post the executive summary to show that studies have been done concerning private schools and poor areas. I am not saying everything is all nice and rosy for the poor people, but I just wanted to point out that the issue of the poor affording private school, and the issue of private schools providing what poor students need, apart from state regulation, have at least been addressed by some people, even if not necessarily answered. I hate to say that if private schools were implemented without the presence of public schools, everything would be A-OK, but this is what the study addresses.
Private Education is Good for the Poor: A Study of Private Schools Serving the Poor in Low-Income Countries
by James Tooley and Pauline Dixon
James Tooley is professor of education policy at the University of Newcastle and director of the E.G. West Centre. Pauline Dixon is international research coordinator of the E. G. West Centre in the School of Education at the University of Newcastle.
Executive Summary
Many observers believe that the private sector has very little to offer in terms of reaching the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of "education for all" by 2015. Private education is often assumed to be concerned only with serving the elite or middle classes, not the poor. And unregistered or unrecognized private schools are thought to be of the lowest quality and hence demanding of detailed regulation, or even closure, by governmental authorities.
Our findings from a two-year in-depth study in India, Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya suggest that these conclusions are unwarranted. Private schools, we argue, can play—indeed, already are playing—an important, if unsung, role in reaching the poor and satisfying their educational needs.
The first component of our research consisted of a systematic census and survey of all primary and secondary schools, government and private, in selected low-income areas. The second component examined a stratified random sample of between 2,000 and 4,000 children from each of those areas. Tests in mathematics, English, and (in Africa) one other subject were administered. Children and teachers were also tested for their IQ, and questionnaires were administered to students, parents, teachers, and school managers or headteachers.
In each area, we found the majority of schoolchildren attending private schools. In the areas officially designated as "slums" of three zones of Hyderabad’s Old City, we found 918 schools, of which only 35 percent were government schools, fewer than the 37 percent of unrecognized private schools. In total, 65 percent of schoolchildren in those low-income areas attended private unaided school. In the Ga District of Ghana (the lowincome suburban and rural area surrounding the capital city of Accra) we investigated 779 schools in the same way, finding that only 25 percent were government schools and that 64 percent of schoolchildren attended private school.
In the "poor" areas of three local government districts (one rural, two urban) of Lagos State, Nigeria, we found 540 schools, of which 34 percent were government, and the largest proportion, 43 percent, were private unregistered. An estimated 75 percent of schoolchildren were enrolled in private schools.
We also conducted research in the small shanty town of Makoko, in Mainland, Lagos State, and in the slum of Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya (reportedly the largest slum in sub-Saharan Africa). In both cases, the large majority of poor children attended private, not public, school. Moreover, in Kenya we were able to observe the impact of free primary education on enrollment. Despite the fact that huge increases in enrollment have been noted in government schools by commentators, our research suggests that, at best, children appear to have transferred from private to government schools. Given the advantages of private schools and problems found in government schools, that may not be to their advantage.
In each location, the private schools are run largely by proprietors, with very few receiving outside philanthropic support and none receiving state funding. Roughly equal numbers of boys and girls attend private unaided schools, which have better pupil-teacher ratios, higher teacher commitment, and sometimes better facilities than government schools. A significant number of places in private unaided schools are provided free or at reduced rates to serve the poorest of the poor.
The raw scores from our student achievement tests show considerably higher achievement in the private than in government schools. In Hyderabad, for instance, mean scores in mathematics were about 22 percentage points and 23 percentage points higher in private unrecognized and recognized schools, respectively, than in government schools. The advantage was even more pronounced for English. In all cases, this achievement advantage was obtained at between half and a quarter of the teacher salary costs.
Our research indicates that a great success story is taking place, usually beneath the government’s radar. The mushrooming private schools, if noticed at all by the authorities and development experts, are assumed to be educationally inadequate. Our research shows that this assumption is false. Moreover, because so many children are in unrecognized private schools that do not appear in government statistics, achieving universal basic education — the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of "education for all" — may be much easier to reach than is currently believed. In Lagos State, for instance, including enrollment in private unregistered schools would reduce the percentage of out-of-school children from 50 to 26 percent.
Certainly, the private schools for lowincome families could be improved even further by creating revolving loan programs to help infrastructural investment or, following the private schools’ own example, creating targeted voucher programs to enable the poorest of the poor to attend private schools. But above all, the existence and the contribution of private schools to "education for all" is a cause for celebration.
Link to 64-page Policy Report
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Should we separate school and state?
Perhaps my most radical political beliefs involve public schooling. I think a society in which school and state is separate is preferable. I am a little hesitant to have such a position, because I like the idea of the poor having guaranteed schooling. Yes, despite being a limited welfare, free market kind of guy, I still hate the idea of having government schooling taken away. Maybe it is because it has been the status quo for decades. However, there are some reasons I think the benefits of separating school and state may outweigh the disadvantages (many scholars argue that even in the economic arena, the poor are better off). At the very least, I believe we should have a voucher system, where, even though government funds support schooling, the parents at least have a choice where they send their kids.
The secularization of society.
Somehow, we have gotten the idea that there is a way to be taught that is totally value free. We have this idea that we can and should separate moral values from the rest of schooling. But I do not think this is possible. Sure, things like mathematics and grammar are easy to teach without attaching moral values. But what about history, political science, or sex education. So many courses make subjective judgments about our society, including our history, and moral values. I believe that whether it is religious belief or outright secularlism, some values are going to be attached to what we are taught.
Even if the public school tries to be value free, certain values are going to be taught. Sex ed, for instance. Even the decision whether or not it should be taught in schools is a value judgment. If it is taught, do you discuss contraceptives, STD preventative measures, abstinence?
There is also the debate about intelligent design vs. evolution. Either way, the school has to make a judgment call. Should a school consider the possibility of outside forces of what is directly observable in considering the causing forces of the universe? Science is science, but it seems that it is getting to the point where you have to open your mind to the possibility of outside forces, or you have to close your mind to them. Instead of a state government or federal court making a decision for all the schools within the reach, I think it would be preferable for parents to send their kids to the school of their choice.
For Christians, who says that you have to separate religion from schools? Who says that at home you can be taught spiritual values, but when you go to school you have to be taught in an institution that pretends religion does not exist? Why does there have to be taught in two different spheres, where the moral and spiritual values have to be separate from the sphere in which you learn math, history, and spelling. Any way you go, children are going to be taught certain values, whether it is the Baptist school in town, or the secular philosophy that public schools bring.
Government Bureaucracy and Efficiency
I believe the problem with public schools is not simply an issue of not enough money. Public schools are managed by huge bureacracies that are inefficient. Furthermore, as I touched on earlier, with government controlled schools, legislatures and judges make decisions affecting what is taught for schools across several districts, or the entire state.
Competition ensures quality, efficiency, parents wishes With a free market, schools would have the motivation to operate efficiently, to keep costs down. They would also operate more effectively. They would be directly accountable to parents, who can move their children to a different school if they choose. Parents have more say in disciplinary policy, what is taught, the manner of teaching, the educational philosophy, etc...
Some advantages for the poor.
Right now, the rich have school choice, by choosing the neighborhood they live in which they live. The poor do not have this luxury. Sure, in the free market, they will still be the distinctions between the schools the poor attend, and those of the rich. However, the difference between rich housing and poor housing is in the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands. I do not believe this will be the difference between rich schools and poor schools.
I know this is a radical idea. I am sure I did not do this justice as a persuasive piece, I am just summarizing my thoughts on the subject. Half of me hates the thought of not having public schools, because I think of the poor not having guaranteed schooling and many look to public schools as someone evening out class distinctions in society. The other half thinks that public school is leading to the secularization of society, in which spiritual values and education are viewed to be in different spheres, and the way to eliminate this is through having schools that reinforce the parents' values. The idea of a secular state educating our children bothers me. It also bothers some other Christians as well, Marshall Fritz, founder of The Alliance for the Separation of School and State. It also bothered C. S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis, in his last chapter of the Screwtape Letters, paints a scene in which demons in hell are meeting, discussing their strategy against the humans.
Now, I just read this the other day and have not had time to absorb this all. I am not saying everyone who supports public schools are supporting the devil's plan, or anything like that. It is just something I read the other day, and wanted to bring in his perspective. C. S. Lewis was a classical liberal who feared the attempts of government to produce an egalitarian society, and he saw public school as a means to do that.
The secularization of society.
Somehow, we have gotten the idea that there is a way to be taught that is totally value free. We have this idea that we can and should separate moral values from the rest of schooling. But I do not think this is possible. Sure, things like mathematics and grammar are easy to teach without attaching moral values. But what about history, political science, or sex education. So many courses make subjective judgments about our society, including our history, and moral values. I believe that whether it is religious belief or outright secularlism, some values are going to be attached to what we are taught.
Even if the public school tries to be value free, certain values are going to be taught. Sex ed, for instance. Even the decision whether or not it should be taught in schools is a value judgment. If it is taught, do you discuss contraceptives, STD preventative measures, abstinence?
There is also the debate about intelligent design vs. evolution. Either way, the school has to make a judgment call. Should a school consider the possibility of outside forces of what is directly observable in considering the causing forces of the universe? Science is science, but it seems that it is getting to the point where you have to open your mind to the possibility of outside forces, or you have to close your mind to them. Instead of a state government or federal court making a decision for all the schools within the reach, I think it would be preferable for parents to send their kids to the school of their choice.
For Christians, who says that you have to separate religion from schools? Who says that at home you can be taught spiritual values, but when you go to school you have to be taught in an institution that pretends religion does not exist? Why does there have to be taught in two different spheres, where the moral and spiritual values have to be separate from the sphere in which you learn math, history, and spelling. Any way you go, children are going to be taught certain values, whether it is the Baptist school in town, or the secular philosophy that public schools bring.
Government Bureaucracy and Efficiency
I believe the problem with public schools is not simply an issue of not enough money. Public schools are managed by huge bureacracies that are inefficient. Furthermore, as I touched on earlier, with government controlled schools, legislatures and judges make decisions affecting what is taught for schools across several districts, or the entire state.
Competition ensures quality, efficiency, parents wishes With a free market, schools would have the motivation to operate efficiently, to keep costs down. They would also operate more effectively. They would be directly accountable to parents, who can move their children to a different school if they choose. Parents have more say in disciplinary policy, what is taught, the manner of teaching, the educational philosophy, etc...
Some advantages for the poor.
Right now, the rich have school choice, by choosing the neighborhood they live in which they live. The poor do not have this luxury. Sure, in the free market, they will still be the distinctions between the schools the poor attend, and those of the rich. However, the difference between rich housing and poor housing is in the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands. I do not believe this will be the difference between rich schools and poor schools.
I know this is a radical idea. I am sure I did not do this justice as a persuasive piece, I am just summarizing my thoughts on the subject. Half of me hates the thought of not having public schools, because I think of the poor not having guaranteed schooling and many look to public schools as someone evening out class distinctions in society. The other half thinks that public school is leading to the secularization of society, in which spiritual values and education are viewed to be in different spheres, and the way to eliminate this is through having schools that reinforce the parents' values. The idea of a secular state educating our children bothers me. It also bothers some other Christians as well, Marshall Fritz, founder of The Alliance for the Separation of School and State. It also bothered C. S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis, in his last chapter of the Screwtape Letters, paints a scene in which demons in hell are meeting, discussing their strategy against the humans.
In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.
Of course, this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I’m as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they. As an English politician remarked not long ago, “A democracy does not want great men.”
Now, I just read this the other day and have not had time to absorb this all. I am not saying everyone who supports public schools are supporting the devil's plan, or anything like that. It is just something I read the other day, and wanted to bring in his perspective. C. S. Lewis was a classical liberal who feared the attempts of government to produce an egalitarian society, and he saw public school as a means to do that.
Radio seems to play more "adult" stuff now
Maybe it is just a function of where I live now, rather than the change in radio stations in general... I've been listening to mainstream pop radio, and it sounds so much better than it did 5 years ago. Now, I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with corporately produced boy bands or synth-pop female singers (except the usage of sex to sell music), it is just something I do not personally like, and this style of music dominated the stations at the turn of the century.
These days though, pop music seems to have gotten back where it was before the boy-band revolution (I do like Backstreet Boys though, I think they have real talent) and teen-girl revolution. We have actual adults singing songs with a mature sound. Examples are Coldplay, Train, Daniel Powder, Rob Thomas, some British guy with the "You're Beautiful" song. Even the younger artists sound more mature than what was offered in Britney, Jessica, and early Christina (who, even though I do not like because of her freakiness and sluttiness, at least has matured I think in her songwriting). I like artists like Michelle Branch, Avril Lavigne, among others. Many of these artists have been around for some time, but radioplay has shifted in their favor, it seems of late.
I like the change, and radio is definitely more enjoyable. Again, I don't want to be a snob and look down on teeny-bop music, I just prefer more natural sounding music.
These days though, pop music seems to have gotten back where it was before the boy-band revolution (I do like Backstreet Boys though, I think they have real talent) and teen-girl revolution. We have actual adults singing songs with a mature sound. Examples are Coldplay, Train, Daniel Powder, Rob Thomas, some British guy with the "You're Beautiful" song. Even the younger artists sound more mature than what was offered in Britney, Jessica, and early Christina (who, even though I do not like because of her freakiness and sluttiness, at least has matured I think in her songwriting). I like artists like Michelle Branch, Avril Lavigne, among others. Many of these artists have been around for some time, but radioplay has shifted in their favor, it seems of late.
I like the change, and radio is definitely more enjoyable. Again, I don't want to be a snob and look down on teeny-bop music, I just prefer more natural sounding music.
No one has been talking about it recently...so I will...Immigration.
Of course the title name is sarcastic. The immigration issue has been pretty hot recently. Josh left a comment on my last post asking about immigration. To be honest, I never thought about the immigration issue a whole lot, and not in the context Josh had asked, but it is a good way to think about it.
Mostly, I had focused on the law aspect of it. There are certain laws, they should be enforced, and we should prevent illegal immigrants from coming over. While I still believe, of course, we should follow the rule of law, I started focusing on the issue of "how many people should we let over in the first place?" and "how hard should it be for someone to come over here to work, or to become a citizen?" Much of the free marke t and limited government/libertarian stuff I read support open borders. In a Cato Article from December 2004, Daniel T. Griswold asserts
This makes sense, and other scholars argue that it is not just the low-skilled jobs, but some of the high-skilled occupations as well, that immigrants tend to fill.
I was thinking from it from a national security and free-market perspective, but Josh implied that it could be a Christian issue as well, and I think he is right. While I do not believe government should be overbearing when enforcing certain "Christian policies", (i.e. no beer on Sundays, no tattoos, which aren't necessarily "Christian" anyway) I still believe Christian philosophy should be a factor in facets of government, such as structure, interaction with other countries, etc...
Josh asked"
A good question. America is far from perfect, and is far from the ideal "Christian nation." However, by handling the immigration policies the right way, America can aspire to be "the shining city on the hill", as the late great Ronald Reagan would say. I don't know the statistics on immigrants. I would not be surprised if many of them just want the free government services offered by the border states, but I think even more honestly want to work, to make things better for their families, to search for better opportunities. I have no problem with the U.S. allowing them those opportunities.
I am admittedly ignorant about the process of citizenship, and also about what it takes to come here and work. I am not asking that the citizenship process necessarily be easier, but at least the process where someone comes to work. If someone comes into this country, and is willing to work, then, for the most part, I have no problems with them coming here.
The main issues I see with immigration is overpopulation, national security, and the rule of law.
Concerning overpopulation, maybe it is not a fear I should have, and it may not be relevant. After all, people are going to come here, illegal or not.
Concerning border security, it is definitely a relevant issue. I think by making it easier to come here to work, it is easier to focus on those who sneak in with evil intentions. I believe in open borders, but not completely open. Be wary of those from hostile countries. I know this is easier said than done, and I don't know all the details concerning the registration and such of people who live here, but national security should still remain a priority.
Concerning the rule of law, I don't think such laws should just be ignored. However, I think once decisions have been made concerning what it takes to come to this country and work, I would be willing to let the current illegals stay here, if they are willing to go through the decided process.
Back to what Josh asked, I think that by allowing in those who want to come here, we are allowing them a chance to have a better life. While the U.S. is far from a perfect nation concerning Christianity, it can still minister to these people through example and opportunity as a nation, and it gives the church opportunity to minister to those who come here.
However, saying that last statement makes me wonder if I am looking through this through rose-colored glasses, or however the saying goes. That last paragraph sounded entirely too optimistic. Part of me wonders if "letting anyone in as long as they mean no harm" is too easy. However, perhaps we should have a compassionate stance because they are "the least of these."
Those are my thoughts for now on the subject.
Mostly, I had focused on the law aspect of it. There are certain laws, they should be enforced, and we should prevent illegal immigrants from coming over. While I still believe, of course, we should follow the rule of law, I started focusing on the issue of "how many people should we let over in the first place?" and "how hard should it be for someone to come over here to work, or to become a citizen?" Much of the free marke t and limited government/libertarian stuff I read support open borders. In a Cato Article from December 2004, Daniel T. Griswold asserts
The reason for the failure is simple. Our existing immigration system is out of step with the realities of American life. Our economy continues to produce opportunities for low-skilled workers in important sectors of our economy such as retail, services, construction, and tourism. Meanwhile, the pool of Americans willing and happy to fill those jobs continues to shrink as the average American worker grows older and becomes better educated. Yet our immigration system has no legal channel for workers from Mexico and other countries to come to the United States even temporarily to fill those jobs. The result is widespread illegal immigration.
This makes sense, and other scholars argue that it is not just the low-skilled jobs, but some of the high-skilled occupations as well, that immigrants tend to fill.
I was thinking from it from a national security and free-market perspective, but Josh implied that it could be a Christian issue as well, and I think he is right. While I do not believe government should be overbearing when enforcing certain "Christian policies", (i.e. no beer on Sundays, no tattoos, which aren't necessarily "Christian" anyway) I still believe Christian philosophy should be a factor in facets of government, such as structure, interaction with other countries, etc...
Josh asked"
With the whole Mexican immigration policies, I've been hearing the "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to Me" quote.
Personally, I've been challenged by this debate recently. I mean I do want to show hospitality to the least of these, and most who cross our borders are the least of these, but at what price?
A good question. America is far from perfect, and is far from the ideal "Christian nation." However, by handling the immigration policies the right way, America can aspire to be "the shining city on the hill", as the late great Ronald Reagan would say. I don't know the statistics on immigrants. I would not be surprised if many of them just want the free government services offered by the border states, but I think even more honestly want to work, to make things better for their families, to search for better opportunities. I have no problem with the U.S. allowing them those opportunities.
I am admittedly ignorant about the process of citizenship, and also about what it takes to come here and work. I am not asking that the citizenship process necessarily be easier, but at least the process where someone comes to work. If someone comes into this country, and is willing to work, then, for the most part, I have no problems with them coming here.
The main issues I see with immigration is overpopulation, national security, and the rule of law.
Concerning overpopulation, maybe it is not a fear I should have, and it may not be relevant. After all, people are going to come here, illegal or not.
Concerning border security, it is definitely a relevant issue. I think by making it easier to come here to work, it is easier to focus on those who sneak in with evil intentions. I believe in open borders, but not completely open. Be wary of those from hostile countries. I know this is easier said than done, and I don't know all the details concerning the registration and such of people who live here, but national security should still remain a priority.
Concerning the rule of law, I don't think such laws should just be ignored. However, I think once decisions have been made concerning what it takes to come to this country and work, I would be willing to let the current illegals stay here, if they are willing to go through the decided process.
Back to what Josh asked, I think that by allowing in those who want to come here, we are allowing them a chance to have a better life. While the U.S. is far from a perfect nation concerning Christianity, it can still minister to these people through example and opportunity as a nation, and it gives the church opportunity to minister to those who come here.
However, saying that last statement makes me wonder if I am looking through this through rose-colored glasses, or however the saying goes. That last paragraph sounded entirely too optimistic. Part of me wonders if "letting anyone in as long as they mean no harm" is too easy. However, perhaps we should have a compassionate stance because they are "the least of these."
Those are my thoughts for now on the subject.
Christianity and Politics
Okay, kind of a vague title, I admit. Especially since that is what so many of my posts are about. Last Sunday, the young adult preacher discussed Palm Sunday, where Jesus rode on the donkey. He pointed at something I had never noticed. In Psalm 118:26 the Psalmist says "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD." Many of the gospels mention that the people of Jerusalem quote this verse as Jesus is riding on the donkey the Sunday before his crucifixion. In Luke 19:38, however, there is a slightly different phrase "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" Now, we all think of Jesus as the king, this is not unusual, but Israel thought of Jesus as an earthly king, as someone who would help the Jews break free from the Romans. As the people awaited the Messiah, their expections of what he would be overshadowed who he actually was.
The pastor pointed out that many times we can do this as well. It can happen with our political beliefs. That hit home with me. I know many times I tend to believe what I want to believe, then use the Bible to support it. My goal should be to study the Bible, understand what God wants and commands, and derive political beliefs from that. Doing so is very difficult, however. There are many Christians who believe the Bible, yet have widely varying political beliefs. Also, the Bible seems so silent concerning the role of government. The New Testament mainly focuses on submitting to the authorities, but it does not focus on what type of authority should be established. There is the theocracy established in Israel for much of the Old Testament, but this is a situation where a nation almost directly communicates to God.
Anyway, no matter what political belief system we have, we should ensure that we do not manipulate our understanding or image of Jesus to fit along with our political convictions, and that is not meant for anyone reading this, this is meant really for myself. But how does one totally separate themselves from what they believe? How do we derive political philosophy from the Bible, without somehow doing the opposite? Sometimes our political beliefs are imbedded in us, as well as our religious beliefs, so its hard sometimes not to read the Bible without our political lense. No matter what we come up with, we should always be careful to attach Jesus' name to our cause.
What Jesus wants, and what the Bible commands, is clear. Flee from sexual immorality, do not be drunk, abstain from profane speech, feed the poor and hungry, love your wife, etc... While we may all have different opinions on where government gets involved, I believe that the Bible is pretty clear on morality for our own lives.
The pastor pointed out that many times we can do this as well. It can happen with our political beliefs. That hit home with me. I know many times I tend to believe what I want to believe, then use the Bible to support it. My goal should be to study the Bible, understand what God wants and commands, and derive political beliefs from that. Doing so is very difficult, however. There are many Christians who believe the Bible, yet have widely varying political beliefs. Also, the Bible seems so silent concerning the role of government. The New Testament mainly focuses on submitting to the authorities, but it does not focus on what type of authority should be established. There is the theocracy established in Israel for much of the Old Testament, but this is a situation where a nation almost directly communicates to God.
Anyway, no matter what political belief system we have, we should ensure that we do not manipulate our understanding or image of Jesus to fit along with our political convictions, and that is not meant for anyone reading this, this is meant really for myself. But how does one totally separate themselves from what they believe? How do we derive political philosophy from the Bible, without somehow doing the opposite? Sometimes our political beliefs are imbedded in us, as well as our religious beliefs, so its hard sometimes not to read the Bible without our political lense. No matter what we come up with, we should always be careful to attach Jesus' name to our cause.
What Jesus wants, and what the Bible commands, is clear. Flee from sexual immorality, do not be drunk, abstain from profane speech, feed the poor and hungry, love your wife, etc... While we may all have different opinions on where government gets involved, I believe that the Bible is pretty clear on morality for our own lives.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Is it ever okay to discriminate? A look at Affirmative Action
We are all familiar with the positions that the two parties have on affirmative action.
The liberal view: It is the role of the government to take an active role in improving the positions of minorities in the workplace and academia. There appears to be 3 primary reasons
1) to ensure diversity as an end in itself
2) balance out and/or prevent racism against minorities in making hiring decisions, or admissions/scholarships in the case of learning institutions
3) correct past wrongs suffered by minorities.
It seems that reason 1 has become more popular lately, perhaps in response to the meritocracy argument (the best should get the job/college acceptance).
The conservative view: Discrimination is wrong, no matter what. Although discrimination has taken place in the past, two wrongs don't make a right. Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination. In terms of academia and the workplace, people should be selected on the basis of merit. Conservatives typically rally against mandatory affirmative action in academia and government posts, and I assume that they support anti-discrimination legislation that still ensures minorities are not rejected for the fact that they are a minority.
There is a lesser known, third view, that most libertarians have. They focus not so much on the virtues and vices of various discriminations (old fashioned or affirmative action), they look at it in terms of the Constitution, and through the freedom of association.
First of all, they argue that affirmative action in the public arena (that is, public colleges or government jobs) cannot discriminate, based on the Civil Rights Act and/or similar legislation.
In private arenas, however, they argue that private companies or private colleges can implement their own affirmative action policy, based on what is called "freedom of expressive association", which is essentially the freedom to associate with who we want. While this belief leads to voluntary affirmative action, it also opens the door to discrimination against minorities as well. While libertarians view discrimination as immoral, they believe that the government should not force any type of relationship, business or personal. They also argue that a free market is color blind, and although some discrimination may initially take place, ultimately, the color green overrides any other color. They commonly point to the fact that most past segragation was implemented by government, not by businesses.
I have held the conservative view for some time, but I wonder about the libertarian viewpoint. The idea that businesses are allowed to discriminate against who they hire based on their age/sex etc... is a little bit troubling. However, the idea of freedom of association makes a little bit of sense, just because I don't think the government can effectively force people to join into relationships they do not want. For instance, if there is a white boss who does not want to hire a black man for a certain job, it may be actually better if that black man is not hired for the job, based on discrimination he could receive from the white boss, such as bad treatment, or him hitting a "glass ceiling." Things could be worse for him if the boss is forced to hire him. At the same time though, I imagine that discrimination is still bad in many parts of the country, and I could imagine it being terrible around the time that equal rights were being established. Also, extensive anti-discrimination laws could be very intrusive into businesses.
Either way though, I am against mandatory affirmative action.
What about voluntary affirmative action? Is discriminating every okay, even if it is to help disadvantages minorities. Here are some thoughts I wrote the other day. They were kind of stream of consciousness, so sorry for any poor grammer, ramblings, etc...
The liberal view: It is the role of the government to take an active role in improving the positions of minorities in the workplace and academia. There appears to be 3 primary reasons
1) to ensure diversity as an end in itself
2) balance out and/or prevent racism against minorities in making hiring decisions, or admissions/scholarships in the case of learning institutions
3) correct past wrongs suffered by minorities.
It seems that reason 1 has become more popular lately, perhaps in response to the meritocracy argument (the best should get the job/college acceptance).
The conservative view: Discrimination is wrong, no matter what. Although discrimination has taken place in the past, two wrongs don't make a right. Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination. In terms of academia and the workplace, people should be selected on the basis of merit. Conservatives typically rally against mandatory affirmative action in academia and government posts, and I assume that they support anti-discrimination legislation that still ensures minorities are not rejected for the fact that they are a minority.
There is a lesser known, third view, that most libertarians have. They focus not so much on the virtues and vices of various discriminations (old fashioned or affirmative action), they look at it in terms of the Constitution, and through the freedom of association.
First of all, they argue that affirmative action in the public arena (that is, public colleges or government jobs) cannot discriminate, based on the Civil Rights Act and/or similar legislation.
In private arenas, however, they argue that private companies or private colleges can implement their own affirmative action policy, based on what is called "freedom of expressive association", which is essentially the freedom to associate with who we want. While this belief leads to voluntary affirmative action, it also opens the door to discrimination against minorities as well. While libertarians view discrimination as immoral, they believe that the government should not force any type of relationship, business or personal. They also argue that a free market is color blind, and although some discrimination may initially take place, ultimately, the color green overrides any other color. They commonly point to the fact that most past segragation was implemented by government, not by businesses.
I have held the conservative view for some time, but I wonder about the libertarian viewpoint. The idea that businesses are allowed to discriminate against who they hire based on their age/sex etc... is a little bit troubling. However, the idea of freedom of association makes a little bit of sense, just because I don't think the government can effectively force people to join into relationships they do not want. For instance, if there is a white boss who does not want to hire a black man for a certain job, it may be actually better if that black man is not hired for the job, based on discrimination he could receive from the white boss, such as bad treatment, or him hitting a "glass ceiling." Things could be worse for him if the boss is forced to hire him. At the same time though, I imagine that discrimination is still bad in many parts of the country, and I could imagine it being terrible around the time that equal rights were being established. Also, extensive anti-discrimination laws could be very intrusive into businesses.
Either way though, I am against mandatory affirmative action.
What about voluntary affirmative action? Is discriminating every okay, even if it is to help disadvantages minorities. Here are some thoughts I wrote the other day. They were kind of stream of consciousness, so sorry for any poor grammer, ramblings, etc...
"Is discriminating against whites ever okay?
a) Is hiring a minority for the sake of them being a minority okay?
The conservatives use a meritocracy argument against AA, but there is no law in the Bible that says you have to hire the absolute best person for your company. The owner of a company needs to understand though, that their company depends on the people they hire. They have to take into account any risk by not hiring the very best person. But still, is AA morally okay? Would it be okay, if I, as a businessman, to hire a black person that is a little less qualified, because perhaps he had a tougher background? That’s a tough call. It is troubling if I hire people based on their need for a job, rather than what they can provide me. That may be selfish, but businesses must operate on what will keep it running effectively. Hiring someone because they had a harder background could become a troubling pattern. Is it okay to do it once in a while? Perhaps if its in an area where blacks are discriminated against regularly, I would want to give that person a chance. Perhaps there is a situation where hiring a minority for the sake of them being a minority is okay. I’m sure many minority groups have banded together to help each other out through hiring decisions.
b) Hiring a minority for other reasons. However, I believe there is some cases in which hiring a minority is okay, for the sake of what they can contribute. Diversity can help a business. At the risk of sounding like an anti-WASP liberal, hiring a bunch of white males could harm a business. But hiring many people from any single demographic could be harmful. People from different walks of life can contribute many different viewpoints. It is no secret to any person not bound by political correctness that men and women are different, and even white, black, and Asian people can be different. Various racial and ethnic groups have their own subcultures, and there is no reason why these subcultures cannot contribute different things to the workplace. One has to be careful with this philosophy though. Don’t assume that hiring a woman will automatically contribute a warm and nurturing personality to the workplace. Don’t assume that some Native American will treat co-workers to tails of Pow-Wows and underwater basket-weaving.
c) other cases of special treatment. Back to the argument of meritocracy. This is a conservative argument that someone should hire the best person for the job, regardless of ethnicity, sex, fetishes, etc… However, there are many cases where people will argue that this isn’t the case. How many family owned businesses have hired a son or daughter to inherit the company, even though there is a distinct possibility they are not the very best person? In many foreign cultures, family hiring is done more often, and is done so because the father trusts the son more than anyone else, for example. If its okay to hire a family member, or even a friend, then it weakens the meritocracy argument somewhat. Don’t get me wrong, businesses should hire the best people, but if its okay to hire a friend or family member, why not a minority, because you care about helping him or her? "
Friday, March 31, 2006
I hope George Mason wins it all.
George Mason University, Much More Than Basketball by Radley Balko at the Cato Institute.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Am I a libertarian?
The truth is, I just do not know. I don't think I would be a big 'L' libertarian, and I don't think I fit the requirements as put forth by David Nolan, the founder of the Libertarian Party. Many of the libertarian ideals I have... it is not so much an issue of "the government doesn't have the right to tell me what to do", or, "I own my own body" as my libertarians say. Some of the philosophical elements of the Libertarian Part could be incompatible with Christianity, as they insist self-ownership, ideas that the Bible directly refutes.
However, I have many ideas that are shared by libertarians, simply because I believe in a limited government. I try not to make it an issue of my rights, but simply an issue of avoiding centralized power. As Lord Acton said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" which may not be a verbatim quote. Man is inherently sinful, therefore, I believe in giving Man less power over another Man. Power corrupts. I am not completely pleased with how the Republican Party has been conducting themselves. They said for years they wanted small government, while, of course, the Democrats were in control. Now they are in power, and the size of government is increasing at an alarming rate. Many people want a large government to help the poor, but a large bureaucracy is not the friend of the poor. Many Christians want to feed the government more and more power, but government is not the friend of Christianity in many cases.
Basically, my libertarian ideas are these: Allow citizens the right to defend themselves, allow for freedom of speech, but limit it in the public domain (i.e. no pornographic billboards, limit content on public airwaves), minimal regulations for businesses on every government level to make it easier for people to make a living, abolish minimum wage and social security (God expects the ants to store up for winter, why not us?), reduced taxes, among many others.
While I am more conservative than many libertarians when it comes to social issues, I am against using taxation to produce "beneficial behaviors." What I am referring to is: I am against tax on fast foods, cigarettes, or beer. If beer is legal on weekdays, it should be legal on Sundays too. If legislating morality, at least be consistent, having different laws on different days is just hypocritical. Allow tattoo parlors. Even Christians do not have agreement on this issue, so just let the individual decide.
Also, I am against any corporate welfare. Do not fund stadiums through taxes. Multi-millionaires can make their additional millions without help from the taxpayers. Do not subsidize farmers. Both groups can make money like the rest of us: produce a product that we are willing to pay for in the free market.
I am against using taxation to encourage economic incentives. I got a tax break for moving 1000 miles for a different job. I made the decision because it was financially viable for me. I do not need the IRS prodding me to make favorable financial decisions. If it was not financially favorable, I would not have moved. I have no issues with getting a tax deduction because of moving expenses, but to get a type of credit simply for moving to a different job is a little absurd. Let individuals make financial decisions that is best for them.
I am for a simpler tax code. I have no idea what, but less and fewer taxes would be a good start, and without a huge bureaucracy, this would be much easier.
I could be off on this...but I believe the free market is a sufficient means to conserve natural resources. Society wants people to cut back on gas and drive less, or drive more fuel efficient cars, yet they complain when gas prices go up. Hello? Won't hire prices cause people to cut back and drive less? When supply goes down for oil, prices go up. When prices go up, people will be motivated to carpool, have more fuel efficient cars, avoid casual trips to the supermarket, etc... People seem to have no problem with higher gas taxes, but if the company raises prices, oh no! The government makes more on gas than oil companies do on profit. As far as when the oil runs out, again, this will happen slower, I believe, if the free market is allowed to raise prices with decreasing supply. I would hope oil companies would be smart enough to research alternatives fuels, and I think the fact that they do not want to go bankrupt is enough to motivate them.
I believe the best way to help the poor is through what the Democrats snidely call "trickle-down economics." Yes, that's right. I prefer job creation and investments spurred by tax cuts to help the poor, rather than simply giving the money to them. I believe in making it easier for businesses to function, without red-tape, so that there are more jobs.
Most libertarians would disagree with me on this, but I have no issues with a temporary welfare system for those who cannot make it on their own. Concerning welfare and the poor as a whole...I believe strongly in private charity. Here is why:
1) private charity is much more efficient than government bureaucracy, and private charity coupled with only minimal gov't programs, I believe, is sufficient to help the poor.
2) government is inherently secular, the church is not. I believe that when government becomes more powerful, and becomes the agent of change in our society, that muscles out the church. Jesus focused very strongly on people's physical needs, but when government takes over as a caregiver to the poor and needy, the church loses its power. I believe government programs rob the church of its purpose. Also, government simply dishes out money. The church can minister to people's spiritual needs while providing for the physical. Now, many may say that with the government, there is a guarantee of welfare, with private charity, there is not. I personally believe that charity given voluntarily, out of love and compassion, can make much more difference than a government program.
However, I have many ideas that are shared by libertarians, simply because I believe in a limited government. I try not to make it an issue of my rights, but simply an issue of avoiding centralized power. As Lord Acton said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" which may not be a verbatim quote. Man is inherently sinful, therefore, I believe in giving Man less power over another Man. Power corrupts. I am not completely pleased with how the Republican Party has been conducting themselves. They said for years they wanted small government, while, of course, the Democrats were in control. Now they are in power, and the size of government is increasing at an alarming rate. Many people want a large government to help the poor, but a large bureaucracy is not the friend of the poor. Many Christians want to feed the government more and more power, but government is not the friend of Christianity in many cases.
Basically, my libertarian ideas are these: Allow citizens the right to defend themselves, allow for freedom of speech, but limit it in the public domain (i.e. no pornographic billboards, limit content on public airwaves), minimal regulations for businesses on every government level to make it easier for people to make a living, abolish minimum wage and social security (God expects the ants to store up for winter, why not us?), reduced taxes, among many others.
While I am more conservative than many libertarians when it comes to social issues, I am against using taxation to produce "beneficial behaviors." What I am referring to is: I am against tax on fast foods, cigarettes, or beer. If beer is legal on weekdays, it should be legal on Sundays too. If legislating morality, at least be consistent, having different laws on different days is just hypocritical. Allow tattoo parlors. Even Christians do not have agreement on this issue, so just let the individual decide.
Also, I am against any corporate welfare. Do not fund stadiums through taxes. Multi-millionaires can make their additional millions without help from the taxpayers. Do not subsidize farmers. Both groups can make money like the rest of us: produce a product that we are willing to pay for in the free market.
I am against using taxation to encourage economic incentives. I got a tax break for moving 1000 miles for a different job. I made the decision because it was financially viable for me. I do not need the IRS prodding me to make favorable financial decisions. If it was not financially favorable, I would not have moved. I have no issues with getting a tax deduction because of moving expenses, but to get a type of credit simply for moving to a different job is a little absurd. Let individuals make financial decisions that is best for them.
I am for a simpler tax code. I have no idea what, but less and fewer taxes would be a good start, and without a huge bureaucracy, this would be much easier.
I could be off on this...but I believe the free market is a sufficient means to conserve natural resources. Society wants people to cut back on gas and drive less, or drive more fuel efficient cars, yet they complain when gas prices go up. Hello? Won't hire prices cause people to cut back and drive less? When supply goes down for oil, prices go up. When prices go up, people will be motivated to carpool, have more fuel efficient cars, avoid casual trips to the supermarket, etc... People seem to have no problem with higher gas taxes, but if the company raises prices, oh no! The government makes more on gas than oil companies do on profit. As far as when the oil runs out, again, this will happen slower, I believe, if the free market is allowed to raise prices with decreasing supply. I would hope oil companies would be smart enough to research alternatives fuels, and I think the fact that they do not want to go bankrupt is enough to motivate them.
I believe the best way to help the poor is through what the Democrats snidely call "trickle-down economics." Yes, that's right. I prefer job creation and investments spurred by tax cuts to help the poor, rather than simply giving the money to them. I believe in making it easier for businesses to function, without red-tape, so that there are more jobs.
Most libertarians would disagree with me on this, but I have no issues with a temporary welfare system for those who cannot make it on their own. Concerning welfare and the poor as a whole...I believe strongly in private charity. Here is why:
1) private charity is much more efficient than government bureaucracy, and private charity coupled with only minimal gov't programs, I believe, is sufficient to help the poor.
2) government is inherently secular, the church is not. I believe that when government becomes more powerful, and becomes the agent of change in our society, that muscles out the church. Jesus focused very strongly on people's physical needs, but when government takes over as a caregiver to the poor and needy, the church loses its power. I believe government programs rob the church of its purpose. Also, government simply dishes out money. The church can minister to people's spiritual needs while providing for the physical. Now, many may say that with the government, there is a guarantee of welfare, with private charity, there is not. I personally believe that charity given voluntarily, out of love and compassion, can make much more difference than a government program.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Persecution Complex, Perhaps?
Sometimes, when we are critical of a certain person, administration, or belief system, we tend to attack not that particular thing, but rather, a caricature of it. We, at times, have a tendency to demonize someone or something we disagree with, and ascribe to it characteristics that are not actually there.
My first example has to do with the American liberals attack of the Bush administration. Now, I am not saying no one can disagree with the Bush administration, there are things I disagree with, though these are typically different issues than those raised by liberals.
Some liberals, especially those in the entertainment industry, characterize the Bush administration as an evil empire crushing all those who dissent. They have this idea that the Bush administration punishes those who disagree with its policies.
Case in point, from the lyrics of the Green Day song, Holiday,
"Zieg Heil to the president gasman
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel towers
Who criticize your government
Bang bang goes the broken glass and
Kill all the fags that don't agree
Trials by fire, setting fire
Is not a way that's meant for me
Just cause, just cause, because we're outlaws yeah!"
Now, I was not aware that the U.S. was planning to take military action against any nation simply for disagreeing with it. Now, sure, I understand many disagree with the Iraq war. Many countries, including France, do not support the U.S. operation in Iraq, and these countries have been criticized by our government officials. But since when has this criticism turned into military action? I realize the song is meant to be an exaggeration, but its supposed to be an exaggeration of an idea that is already there. There is always the guy driving around with the bumper sticker "Invade France", but this is hardly representative of the feelings of the current administration. Our leaders have had hard feelings towards countries like France, but I have had no indication that these feelings are hostile.
Another case in point is an episode of the Simpsons called the Bart-Mangled Banner Episode #FABF17 in which "the Simpson family becomes portrayed as unpatriotic and un-American, getting them thrown into "re-education" therapy, where they escape and migrate to France." (quoted from snpp.com) In this episode, the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore get thrown in jail for disagreeing with America. Since when did these celebrities get in trouble with the law for their viewpoints?
Now, part of the problem seems to lie in that people confuse government sanctions with social sanctions. Radio stations stopped playing Dixie Chicks songs, people protested their comments about Bush, etc... but these were individuals or groups speaking their disagreement, not government sanctions. The Dixie Chicks were not censored by the FCC, at least not to my knowledge, it was radio stations exercising their right to play the music they want to play. Half of America hated Michael Moore for his "Farenheit 911" movie, but these were citizens expressing their own dissent, not the government taking action against his movie. Sure, some politicians lambasted the film, but a politician saying that they disagree with the movie, or even that it is unpatriotic, does not equal the "crushing of opposing viewpoints." How did popular disagreement with these celebrities equal the government throwing people in jail? I thought the Simpsons writers were smarter than this.
During the Iraqi War, I heard so many columnists talk about how they are being "silenced." Hollywood celebrities would talk about how there was this fear among their circles of speaking out against the war. How so? Now, citizens and politicians may have deemed opponents to the Iraq War as "unpatriotic", which is, I admit, unfair, but this does not equal the silencing of their viewpoints. When I say I disagree with the minimum wage, people may call me a heartless <>, and while I disagree with name calling based on opinions, I do not think such critics are trying to silence me.
My point is, people are ascribing characteristics to the Bush administration that I do not believe are there. Liberals in the entertainment industry are always talking about how they are being silenced, but they are confusing social sanctions with government sanctions, and they are attacking a characterization of the administration. Maybe I am just naive, but I am not aware of this country taking a large-scale police action or military action against those who disagree.
My first example has to do with the American liberals attack of the Bush administration. Now, I am not saying no one can disagree with the Bush administration, there are things I disagree with, though these are typically different issues than those raised by liberals.
Some liberals, especially those in the entertainment industry, characterize the Bush administration as an evil empire crushing all those who dissent. They have this idea that the Bush administration punishes those who disagree with its policies.
Case in point, from the lyrics of the Green Day song, Holiday,
"Zieg Heil to the president gasman
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel towers
Who criticize your government
Bang bang goes the broken glass and
Kill all the fags that don't agree
Trials by fire, setting fire
Is not a way that's meant for me
Just cause, just cause, because we're outlaws yeah!"
Now, I was not aware that the U.S. was planning to take military action against any nation simply for disagreeing with it. Now, sure, I understand many disagree with the Iraq war. Many countries, including France, do not support the U.S. operation in Iraq, and these countries have been criticized by our government officials. But since when has this criticism turned into military action? I realize the song is meant to be an exaggeration, but its supposed to be an exaggeration of an idea that is already there. There is always the guy driving around with the bumper sticker "Invade France", but this is hardly representative of the feelings of the current administration. Our leaders have had hard feelings towards countries like France, but I have had no indication that these feelings are hostile.
Another case in point is an episode of the Simpsons called the Bart-Mangled Banner Episode #FABF17 in which "the Simpson family becomes portrayed as unpatriotic and un-American, getting them thrown into "re-education" therapy, where they escape and migrate to France." (quoted from snpp.com) In this episode, the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore get thrown in jail for disagreeing with America. Since when did these celebrities get in trouble with the law for their viewpoints?
Now, part of the problem seems to lie in that people confuse government sanctions with social sanctions. Radio stations stopped playing Dixie Chicks songs, people protested their comments about Bush, etc... but these were individuals or groups speaking their disagreement, not government sanctions. The Dixie Chicks were not censored by the FCC, at least not to my knowledge, it was radio stations exercising their right to play the music they want to play. Half of America hated Michael Moore for his "Farenheit 911" movie, but these were citizens expressing their own dissent, not the government taking action against his movie. Sure, some politicians lambasted the film, but a politician saying that they disagree with the movie, or even that it is unpatriotic, does not equal the "crushing of opposing viewpoints." How did popular disagreement with these celebrities equal the government throwing people in jail? I thought the Simpsons writers were smarter than this.
During the Iraqi War, I heard so many columnists talk about how they are being "silenced." Hollywood celebrities would talk about how there was this fear among their circles of speaking out against the war. How so? Now, citizens and politicians may have deemed opponents to the Iraq War as "unpatriotic", which is, I admit, unfair, but this does not equal the silencing of their viewpoints. When I say I disagree with the minimum wage, people may call me a heartless <
My point is, people are ascribing characteristics to the Bush administration that I do not believe are there. Liberals in the entertainment industry are always talking about how they are being silenced, but they are confusing social sanctions with government sanctions, and they are attacking a characterization of the administration. Maybe I am just naive, but I am not aware of this country taking a large-scale police action or military action against those who disagree.
Why the minimum wage may not be such a good idea
A friend of mine is trying to get a job with the company I work for. My friend has an advantage, because he is asking for a lower wage than some of the other guys. The other guys are more experienced, more senior, but they demand a higher wage, but because my friend can set his wage, he has a chance against people that are more experienced.
My friend has some experience, and a bachelor's degree, so if he does not get this job, he will be able to find something else. Less skilled workers do not have quite the same advantage. Consider the jobs low on the totem-pole, the ones receiving at or near minimum wage. I believe that by setting a minimum wage, it makes it harder for lower skilled workers to get a job, because they cannot negotiate for a lower wage, like my friend can. Glen Dean says this: "Let me ask you all a simple question. Do you know anybody, other than a teenager or college kid, that works for minimum wage? And if the Dairy Queen is able to hire four of these kids at $5.15 an hour, how many do you think they will be able to employ at $6.15?"
The point is, companies that hire workers with little or no skills will try to keep things at the same cost. If the minimum wage goes up, they will hire fewer workers, or they will try to go another route, maybe something along the lines of the self-checkout at grocery stores.
It's not that I want the working poor to receive less money, I just think those with fewer skills are disadvantaged even more when they have less power to negotiate their wages. If a law was passed that people with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering had to make at least 80K a year, companies would be far less willing to hire a starting engineer, making it harder for the new engineer to get a job, and for them to even develop job skills.
I personally believe that transactions, including an employment transaction, should be based on a mutual agreement between two parties. The unskilled worker has few bargaining chips as it is, why take the salary bargaining chip away?
My friend has some experience, and a bachelor's degree, so if he does not get this job, he will be able to find something else. Less skilled workers do not have quite the same advantage. Consider the jobs low on the totem-pole, the ones receiving at or near minimum wage. I believe that by setting a minimum wage, it makes it harder for lower skilled workers to get a job, because they cannot negotiate for a lower wage, like my friend can. Glen Dean says this: "Let me ask you all a simple question. Do you know anybody, other than a teenager or college kid, that works for minimum wage? And if the Dairy Queen is able to hire four of these kids at $5.15 an hour, how many do you think they will be able to employ at $6.15?"
The point is, companies that hire workers with little or no skills will try to keep things at the same cost. If the minimum wage goes up, they will hire fewer workers, or they will try to go another route, maybe something along the lines of the self-checkout at grocery stores.
It's not that I want the working poor to receive less money, I just think those with fewer skills are disadvantaged even more when they have less power to negotiate their wages. If a law was passed that people with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering had to make at least 80K a year, companies would be far less willing to hire a starting engineer, making it harder for the new engineer to get a job, and for them to even develop job skills.
I personally believe that transactions, including an employment transaction, should be based on a mutual agreement between two parties. The unskilled worker has few bargaining chips as it is, why take the salary bargaining chip away?
Friday, March 24, 2006
Never have enough time...Thoughts for the day
I never have enough time to post all the things that I want to. I was thinking, for today...What is the best strategy for those who are pro-life? There is no question that I believe that we should vote for pro-life politicians and pro-life related issues, but what about when it comes to persuasion. For us Christians, should we focus on the Christian aspect, trying to be good witnesses to other people. Should we hope that by spreading the gospel and through Christian teaching, that we will change the hearts of those who are pro-choice?
Or should we meet the pro-choice liberals where they are at? Should we focus on logical arguments to win the war against abortion? Should we focus on concepts such as biology, philosophy, and freedom, and argue against the so-called "right" to an abortion.
Part of me thinks that the only way to change minds is through changed hearts. This is what happened to Norma McCorvey, who was Jane Roe in the monumental Roe vs. Wade. She accepted Christ and is now a campaigner for the lives of unborn babies. Another part of me thinks the only way is through logic, you have to meet them where they are at. They don't want to listen to Christianity, but maybe they will listen to reason. Maybe its a little bit of both.
Or should we meet the pro-choice liberals where they are at? Should we focus on logical arguments to win the war against abortion? Should we focus on concepts such as biology, philosophy, and freedom, and argue against the so-called "right" to an abortion.
Part of me thinks that the only way to change minds is through changed hearts. This is what happened to Norma McCorvey, who was Jane Roe in the monumental Roe vs. Wade. She accepted Christ and is now a campaigner for the lives of unborn babies. Another part of me thinks the only way is through logic, you have to meet them where they are at. They don't want to listen to Christianity, but maybe they will listen to reason. Maybe its a little bit of both.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Government funding of Faith Based Initiatives: Why I am against it
When it comes to church and state, I do not fall back on the "separation of church and state" clause that does not exist in the Constitution, I typically like to go back to the 1st amendment itself, which argues against laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as establishing a religion. Does Government Funding of Faith Based Initiatives violate this? To me, that question is irrelevant.
Gov't funding of faith based initiatives is a bad idea. Not to protect government from religion, but the other way around. I respect President Bush as a person and a leader, but I think he is wrong on this one. He has argued in the past that he has found that faith-based initiatives typically get the job done better than government programs, which I believe is true. However, by turning faith-based initiatives into government programs, isn't that defeating the whole value of faith-based initiatives in the first place. Besides being inspired by charitable values, many times Christian, perhaps these initiatives are effective because they are not, in fact, government programs.
Michael Tanner, a scholar of the Cato Institute argues in Corrupting Charity: Why Government Should Not Fund Faith-Based Charities that "Government dollars come with strings attached and raise serious questions about the separation of church and state. Charities that accept government funds could find themselves overwhelmed with paperwork and subject to a host of federal regulations. The potential for government meddling is tremendous, and, even if regulatory authority is not abused, regulation will require a redirection of scarce resources from charitable activities to administrative functions. Officials of faith-based charities may end up spending more time reading the Federal Register than the Bible."
One example of this is in the hiring and firing of employees. Typically, a private charity, to my knowledge, can hire people based on their religious affiliation, which makes sense. A Christian charity would not want to hire someone who disagrees with their mission. However, once government funds are directed to this charity, people have argued that hiring should not be discriminatory on the basis of religious beliefs. A case was brought against the Salvation Army, which the Salvation Army won, but it will not likely be the last lawsuit of this kind.
Glen Dean, when arguing why Christians should be libertarians, has this to say:
"Most people do not realize why the framers sought to separate government from religion. It wasn't because they feared that religion would harm government, as most modern liberals seem to think. The founders actually wanted to protect religion from government. Government is not the friend of religion."
I think he is right. Christians on both sides of the spectrum think that government is their best friend. But one does not necessarily have to be a Christian libertarian to view the government with a certain suspicion. The government that is imbued with the power to enforce Christian ideals can also do just the opposite. While I would not mind that some of my dollars go to Christian charities, I do not want them going to organizations that promote anti-Christian ideals either.
Gov't funding of faith based initiatives is a bad idea. Not to protect government from religion, but the other way around. I respect President Bush as a person and a leader, but I think he is wrong on this one. He has argued in the past that he has found that faith-based initiatives typically get the job done better than government programs, which I believe is true. However, by turning faith-based initiatives into government programs, isn't that defeating the whole value of faith-based initiatives in the first place. Besides being inspired by charitable values, many times Christian, perhaps these initiatives are effective because they are not, in fact, government programs.
Michael Tanner, a scholar of the Cato Institute argues in Corrupting Charity: Why Government Should Not Fund Faith-Based Charities that "Government dollars come with strings attached and raise serious questions about the separation of church and state. Charities that accept government funds could find themselves overwhelmed with paperwork and subject to a host of federal regulations. The potential for government meddling is tremendous, and, even if regulatory authority is not abused, regulation will require a redirection of scarce resources from charitable activities to administrative functions. Officials of faith-based charities may end up spending more time reading the Federal Register than the Bible."
One example of this is in the hiring and firing of employees. Typically, a private charity, to my knowledge, can hire people based on their religious affiliation, which makes sense. A Christian charity would not want to hire someone who disagrees with their mission. However, once government funds are directed to this charity, people have argued that hiring should not be discriminatory on the basis of religious beliefs. A case was brought against the Salvation Army, which the Salvation Army won, but it will not likely be the last lawsuit of this kind.
Glen Dean, when arguing why Christians should be libertarians, has this to say:
"Most people do not realize why the framers sought to separate government from religion. It wasn't because they feared that religion would harm government, as most modern liberals seem to think. The founders actually wanted to protect religion from government. Government is not the friend of religion."
I think he is right. Christians on both sides of the spectrum think that government is their best friend. But one does not necessarily have to be a Christian libertarian to view the government with a certain suspicion. The government that is imbued with the power to enforce Christian ideals can also do just the opposite. While I would not mind that some of my dollars go to Christian charities, I do not want them going to organizations that promote anti-Christian ideals either.
Some things I have learned in battling sexual immorality
Now, I am far from an expert in this area, but it is something I have struggled with. the Setting Captives Free course has really helped me out, and it taught me many important things when dealing with issues such as pornography.
First of all, the most important thing is to have an active relationship with Christ, to spend time in the Word and have a continuous prayer line with God. For those who struggle, it is impossible to be free without God's help.
Also, however, it is important to be obedient. Now, I know for many people, they can pray all they want to be freed from pornography, but unless they take certain steps, it is not going to happen. I am not referring to the necessity of joining a 12-step program, or similar thing, but simply taking steps of obedience. One thing pointed out by the Setting Captives Free course is the need for radical amputation. That is, eliminating anything that could cause us to stumble.
Matthew 5:27 - 30 says :"27 You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
I felt like I never really knew what these verses meant until the course, but I feel like this means, cutting off everything that you must in order to be free from adultery. If the problem is internet access, get a filter or accountability program, or only go online when people are around. It may mean driving a different way home if their is a certain type of billboard that trips you up. It means cutting off anything that could cause you to stumble.
Now, not everyone agrees with this idea, because of the argument that it is the person's heart that is the problem, not their environment. By eliminating things that cause us to stumble, we are not really facing the problem. I understand this argument, and it is a viewpoint I used to share, but I disagree based on scripture.
Most importantly, the Bible, when dealing with the issue of sexual immorality, tells us to flee. 1 Corinthians 6:18 tells us to "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." Also, I use the same passage above in Matthew 5 to support the idea that we are supposed to flee. The Bible does not tell us to stand and fight sexual immorality, it tells us to flee.
Now, there are times when it comes to spiritual warfare when we have to stand and fight. Ephesians 6:10-13 says "10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. "
Now, I believe this verse applies to certain situations where we must fight. Even though we do all we can do, we are still going to be faced with temptation, there is no way to avoid it in this sinful world. However, the verse above says that if we put on the full armor of God and do all we can do, God will give us the strength to face temptation when the time comes.
Now, this is a fine line. We cannot depend on our own strength in this war against evil desires. However, we must be obedient to God and shed off the things that cause us to trip up, along with depending on Him completely. We must depend on God to give us the strength, we must realize that we are weak and that we are dependent on him. However, that does not prevent us from doing whatever we need to do to eliminate sources of temptation. The best way to win the war against sexual immorality is to avoid the battle in the first place.
First of all, the most important thing is to have an active relationship with Christ, to spend time in the Word and have a continuous prayer line with God. For those who struggle, it is impossible to be free without God's help.
Also, however, it is important to be obedient. Now, I know for many people, they can pray all they want to be freed from pornography, but unless they take certain steps, it is not going to happen. I am not referring to the necessity of joining a 12-step program, or similar thing, but simply taking steps of obedience. One thing pointed out by the Setting Captives Free course is the need for radical amputation. That is, eliminating anything that could cause us to stumble.
Matthew 5:27 - 30 says :"27 You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
I felt like I never really knew what these verses meant until the course, but I feel like this means, cutting off everything that you must in order to be free from adultery. If the problem is internet access, get a filter or accountability program, or only go online when people are around. It may mean driving a different way home if their is a certain type of billboard that trips you up. It means cutting off anything that could cause you to stumble.
Now, not everyone agrees with this idea, because of the argument that it is the person's heart that is the problem, not their environment. By eliminating things that cause us to stumble, we are not really facing the problem. I understand this argument, and it is a viewpoint I used to share, but I disagree based on scripture.
Most importantly, the Bible, when dealing with the issue of sexual immorality, tells us to flee. 1 Corinthians 6:18 tells us to "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." Also, I use the same passage above in Matthew 5 to support the idea that we are supposed to flee. The Bible does not tell us to stand and fight sexual immorality, it tells us to flee.
Now, there are times when it comes to spiritual warfare when we have to stand and fight. Ephesians 6:10-13 says "10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. "
Now, I believe this verse applies to certain situations where we must fight. Even though we do all we can do, we are still going to be faced with temptation, there is no way to avoid it in this sinful world. However, the verse above says that if we put on the full armor of God and do all we can do, God will give us the strength to face temptation when the time comes.
Now, this is a fine line. We cannot depend on our own strength in this war against evil desires. However, we must be obedient to God and shed off the things that cause us to trip up, along with depending on Him completely. We must depend on God to give us the strength, we must realize that we are weak and that we are dependent on him. However, that does not prevent us from doing whatever we need to do to eliminate sources of temptation. The best way to win the war against sexual immorality is to avoid the battle in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)