I'll preface this by saying that I am far from a theological expert; these are just thoughts I have after watching a video.
In our church small group we were watching a video from Abiding Life Ministries. The director, Mike Wells, says many interesting things, and I don’t completely agree with them all, but I think many good things can be extracted from his messages.
He said something of note: “Pride is what sends us to hell…not sin.”
Is this a correct statement? Yes and No. Technically, it is sin (and pride is a sin) that separates us from God. We break one letter of the law, we are deserving of damnation. However, God created a way out for us, and it's not like a loophole, it's that the punishment for breaking the law is satisfied through Christ’s death. Mike argued that it is pride that prevents us from accepting Christ. So, I guess it depends how you look at it. It is sin that got us in the mess in the first place, but it is pride that keeps us from accepting the way out. A guy in my small group stated. “It is as if you had a deadly sickness, and you had the pill that would cure you in your pocket, but you refuse to take it. Is it the sickness that kills you, or your refusal to take the pill?” I suppose you could argue either way.
Another thing to note is that pride played a role in original sin, or the fall of man. The typical interpretation of Satan's rebellion states that it was the pride of Satan that caused the rebellion in heaven, and it was the desire to be like God that caused Adam and Eve to eat the apple in the garden. Now, in the garden, there was also the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh, so pride may not be the source of all of man's sin.
The point was, that a threat in our spiritual life is not only sin, but our pride. Even if we are “holy” by some standard, we can still give the glory to ourselves, and not to God, which Mike argued was just as bad as sin.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The battleground for public schools
Currently, the California state legislature is considering the addition of gay studies to the curriculum.
Predictably, and understandably so, conservative Christians do not like this, and many are fighting it. In my personal view, whether or not someone is discussed in history textbooks should really depend on the contribution they made to history, not what their sexual orientation happened to be. Concerning the overall battle, however, I cannot help but wonder if the battle is being fought in the wrong way.
I believe that the best way for Christians to fight the culture wars is not through the public schools. I think many Christians understand that you can't teach exclusively Christian values in the public schools, but they want their children to be free of the secular philosophy pervading public schools. But I think conservatives and/or Christians need to think outside of the box. The battleground is not our public schools, but how our children our educated in general.
The idea behind public schools is that it is a secular state system, and it is available to all. In theory, socialized institutions appeal to a certain side of me, despite my libertarian nature. The idea of school for all, healthcare for all sound like a good idea. Unfortunately, I believe the empirical data shows that market health care works far better than socialized health care, and many conservatives who keep up with financial matters would agree. The idea of socialized schools is not so hotly contested, and really, only libertarians support the abolition of public schools. But I digress.
As mentioned above, public schools are secular, and ideally, suppose to remain value free. The idea is that the public school system is supposed to be immune from religious influences. Whether “freedom” from religious influences implies freedom from moral values is not so clear. Many claim that a school can teach grammar, mathematics, and even history without them being entwined with moral values. Some claim that schools can teach children values, just not those influenced by religious teachings, such as the value of diversity and tolerance and all the things public schools focus on these days.
There are several points I would like to make.
1) Schools cannot be value free. They just can’t. As with the gay studies, value judgments must be made on whether homosexuality is even an acceptable lifestyle or not, and public schools will say that it is, and to say otherwise would be due to an influence of religious values. And maybe this is the case. The same issue with intelligent design vs. “unguided” evolution. I say unguided to mean theories of evolution that reject the existence of a creator. Critics of ID argue that it is just creationism light. However, “unguided” evolution outright rejects an intelligent force, based on a materialistic view of science. I understand that current science is based on what can be observed, but I argue that science does not have to outright reject what cannot be seen, or even dismiss the unseen as a possibility. The materialistic view of science does not have to be the only way. Finally, I was having a discussion with my wife about sex ed. I realized the need for teaching sexual education in schools, but the problem I have is that this subject has to be intertwined with more value judgments. Should abstinence be encouraged, along with, or in opposition to safe sex? Should sexual education include the teaching and promotion of alternative lifestyles? Sex ed cannot be taught without making some statement on the appropriate time to even have sex.
The point is, value judgments are going to be taught one way or another. Many will argue that public schools are value free, or whatever values that are taught are okay, because disagreement with those values would only (supposedly) be based on religious reasons. But one thing I believe for sure, education cannot be value free.
2) Ideally, institutional education should be an extension of parental education. We, as Americans, have accepted the idea that there are different spheres of children’s education. There is the home, where the child is taught or exposed to religious values, political values, etc… then they go to school, where they are supposed to be taught in some neutral environment free of these values. Why does this have to be? Why does there have to be a dichotomy between what the child learns at home and what he/she learns at school? Who said that schools have to be value-free? Now, I understand that public schools cannot be this way. But parents should take this into consideration.
The point here, I am making, is that education should ultimately be up to the parent. The above paragraph could, I imagine, trigger several objections. When the parent’s ideas are a little off-kilter, some would say that public school would somewhat normalize what the child is exposed to. I believe that this can still happen, however, with a private school. I see the objections as reasonable towards homeschool, where the child is not exposed to a more diverse array of viewpoints, but even in this instance, many homeschools form co-ops. Even then though, I believe socialization of the child should be up to the parent, not the government.
Now, there are two main ideas being proposed as alternatives to the typical public school system, well, three if you consider the idea of throwing more money at the public school system.
1) School choice within the state system. This is currently done through the pushing of school vouchers, or through charter schools, in which parents have a more direct role in the school’s policies. Parents still receive state money, but they can simply choose where they direct this money.
2) Outright separation of school and state. A much more radical approach, no doubt.
Option 1) of course, ultimately means that education is still state-funded, but the money follows the parent. Some school vouchers are even transferable to private schools. Liberals have issues with this due to separation of church and state issues. Personally, I do not, because in this instance the child is not forced to attend a religious school. Since the child has a choice, I do not believe there is an “establishment of religion”, but this leads to a bigger debate.
Many conservatives support option 1), but many do not. There are liberal arguments and conservative arguments against vouchers, which can be summed up here.
Liberals typically reject options 1) and do not consider 2) as an option.
Libertarians, I believe, ultimately support option 2), for the same reason that they reject state involvement in anything. Some support option 1) because it is a transition step, or at the least, something more acceptable to the general American public.
So my point is, concerning the Christian's involvement in changing the education system, I really think they need to focus on school choice issues, and give less priority to reforming the public schools.
For right now, I support the voucher system. I don’t know what would happen if the state completely got out of education. As I said in a previous post, I am still a sucker for the poor in some instances, just because, like I said, we are used to government taking the responsibility for educating our children. I support using vouchers as an intermediate step, if anything.
Predictably, and understandably so, conservative Christians do not like this, and many are fighting it. In my personal view, whether or not someone is discussed in history textbooks should really depend on the contribution they made to history, not what their sexual orientation happened to be. Concerning the overall battle, however, I cannot help but wonder if the battle is being fought in the wrong way.
I believe that the best way for Christians to fight the culture wars is not through the public schools. I think many Christians understand that you can't teach exclusively Christian values in the public schools, but they want their children to be free of the secular philosophy pervading public schools. But I think conservatives and/or Christians need to think outside of the box. The battleground is not our public schools, but how our children our educated in general.
The idea behind public schools is that it is a secular state system, and it is available to all. In theory, socialized institutions appeal to a certain side of me, despite my libertarian nature. The idea of school for all, healthcare for all sound like a good idea. Unfortunately, I believe the empirical data shows that market health care works far better than socialized health care, and many conservatives who keep up with financial matters would agree. The idea of socialized schools is not so hotly contested, and really, only libertarians support the abolition of public schools. But I digress.
As mentioned above, public schools are secular, and ideally, suppose to remain value free. The idea is that the public school system is supposed to be immune from religious influences. Whether “freedom” from religious influences implies freedom from moral values is not so clear. Many claim that a school can teach grammar, mathematics, and even history without them being entwined with moral values. Some claim that schools can teach children values, just not those influenced by religious teachings, such as the value of diversity and tolerance and all the things public schools focus on these days.
There are several points I would like to make.
1) Schools cannot be value free. They just can’t. As with the gay studies, value judgments must be made on whether homosexuality is even an acceptable lifestyle or not, and public schools will say that it is, and to say otherwise would be due to an influence of religious values. And maybe this is the case. The same issue with intelligent design vs. “unguided” evolution. I say unguided to mean theories of evolution that reject the existence of a creator. Critics of ID argue that it is just creationism light. However, “unguided” evolution outright rejects an intelligent force, based on a materialistic view of science. I understand that current science is based on what can be observed, but I argue that science does not have to outright reject what cannot be seen, or even dismiss the unseen as a possibility. The materialistic view of science does not have to be the only way. Finally, I was having a discussion with my wife about sex ed. I realized the need for teaching sexual education in schools, but the problem I have is that this subject has to be intertwined with more value judgments. Should abstinence be encouraged, along with, or in opposition to safe sex? Should sexual education include the teaching and promotion of alternative lifestyles? Sex ed cannot be taught without making some statement on the appropriate time to even have sex.
The point is, value judgments are going to be taught one way or another. Many will argue that public schools are value free, or whatever values that are taught are okay, because disagreement with those values would only (supposedly) be based on religious reasons. But one thing I believe for sure, education cannot be value free.
2) Ideally, institutional education should be an extension of parental education. We, as Americans, have accepted the idea that there are different spheres of children’s education. There is the home, where the child is taught or exposed to religious values, political values, etc… then they go to school, where they are supposed to be taught in some neutral environment free of these values. Why does this have to be? Why does there have to be a dichotomy between what the child learns at home and what he/she learns at school? Who said that schools have to be value-free? Now, I understand that public schools cannot be this way. But parents should take this into consideration.
The point here, I am making, is that education should ultimately be up to the parent. The above paragraph could, I imagine, trigger several objections. When the parent’s ideas are a little off-kilter, some would say that public school would somewhat normalize what the child is exposed to. I believe that this can still happen, however, with a private school. I see the objections as reasonable towards homeschool, where the child is not exposed to a more diverse array of viewpoints, but even in this instance, many homeschools form co-ops. Even then though, I believe socialization of the child should be up to the parent, not the government.
Now, there are two main ideas being proposed as alternatives to the typical public school system, well, three if you consider the idea of throwing more money at the public school system.
1) School choice within the state system. This is currently done through the pushing of school vouchers, or through charter schools, in which parents have a more direct role in the school’s policies. Parents still receive state money, but they can simply choose where they direct this money.
2) Outright separation of school and state. A much more radical approach, no doubt.
Option 1) of course, ultimately means that education is still state-funded, but the money follows the parent. Some school vouchers are even transferable to private schools. Liberals have issues with this due to separation of church and state issues. Personally, I do not, because in this instance the child is not forced to attend a religious school. Since the child has a choice, I do not believe there is an “establishment of religion”, but this leads to a bigger debate.
Many conservatives support option 1), but many do not. There are liberal arguments and conservative arguments against vouchers, which can be summed up here.
Liberals typically reject options 1) and do not consider 2) as an option.
Libertarians, I believe, ultimately support option 2), for the same reason that they reject state involvement in anything. Some support option 1) because it is a transition step, or at the least, something more acceptable to the general American public.
So my point is, concerning the Christian's involvement in changing the education system, I really think they need to focus on school choice issues, and give less priority to reforming the public schools.
For right now, I support the voucher system. I don’t know what would happen if the state completely got out of education. As I said in a previous post, I am still a sucker for the poor in some instances, just because, like I said, we are used to government taking the responsibility for educating our children. I support using vouchers as an intermediate step, if anything.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Why are oil companies making more profits?
No, I won't let this issue die just yet. As long as Congress keeps considering measures to punish oil companies for making "windfall" profits, I will keep talking about this issue.
With the price of crude oil going up, it is obvious why the overall cost of gas is increasing, but it is not so clear why profits are actually increasing. Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute explains it this way
In other words, the oil company profits that are calculated are based on the price of the purchase of crude whenever it was purchased some time back (I'm not sure what the time period is from purchase of crude to finished product). It's not like Exxon Mobil uses all of their profits to go on fancy cruises or trips to Disney Land. If they want the company to actually last, they will have to reinvest their profit into the purchase of more inventory, in the form of crude oil. So, because the price of collecting inventory goes up, so do the profits needed to afford the inventory. But since the reported profits are based on the price of the crude oil used in the product being sold today, the profits will be high for some time.
Reynolds compares it to the selling of houses:
With the price of crude oil going up, it is obvious why the overall cost of gas is increasing, but it is not so clear why profits are actually increasing. Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute explains it this way
The oil industry holds a lot of inventory, and we should be glad it does. If an oil company stockpiled a lot of oil at $40 -- before it rose to $60 -- that will look almost as good (on the books) as the sorts of windfalls we've seen on home sales in Las Vegas. Since gasoline prices also rise when crude does (partly because crude accounts for half the cost), products refined from the cheaper $40 crude will also be unusually profitable for a while. But this is like making money on the house you sold but needing every dollar to buy a replacement home. Prices of oil likewise must reflect replacement costs, and the resulting one-time surges in inventory profits are not a problem but part of the solution.
In other words, the oil company profits that are calculated are based on the price of the purchase of crude whenever it was purchased some time back (I'm not sure what the time period is from purchase of crude to finished product). It's not like Exxon Mobil uses all of their profits to go on fancy cruises or trips to Disney Land. If they want the company to actually last, they will have to reinvest their profit into the purchase of more inventory, in the form of crude oil. So, because the price of collecting inventory goes up, so do the profits needed to afford the inventory. But since the reported profits are based on the price of the crude oil used in the product being sold today, the profits will be high for some time.
Reynolds compares it to the selling of houses:
If you sell your house for much more than you paid for it, you will receive a "windfall profit." When you take that windfall from selling your old home and go shopping for a new one, you'll discover prices of replacement homes have gone up, too. That may explain why the Senate has not yet contemplated an extra "windfall profits tax" on windfalls homeowners receive when selling their homes. Since 1997, in fact, couples can pocket half a million dollars of such windfalls tax-free.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Responsibility and Freedom go hand in hand
I have for a long time believed that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Examples are evident in everyday life, especially in the transition from childhood to adulthood. When you are a kid, people tell you what to eat, when to go to bed, what you do with your time... but you also have no responsibility. You have someone to feed you, buy you clothes, and as you grow up into a teenager, you take on more responsibility, and with that, more freedom. You have a car you can drive around, but this is an age where most have to get a job to support their time hanging out with friends. Finally, as an adult, you can spoil your appetite with cookies, you have your own place, and you can stay out as late as you want. However, you have to pay that rent or mortgage, and get up every day for that job to pay your rent or mortgage. Now, I am just referring to responsibility for oneself, when you take care of children, you have all the responsibility, and no freedom.
I have been trying to find a corollary on the national level. The government has taken more responsibility in feeding us, helping us save for retirement, educating us, etc... Now, I believe with this responsibility being shifted from our shoulders to that of the government, somewhere, there is a payoff in terms of personal freedoms. To be honest, however, I always had problems finding what that was.
The obvious thing is increased taxes. We take less of our money home. However, I have issues equating keeping more of our take home money directly with freedom. For one, saying that keeping our money is a right is a debatable statement, simply because we all have our own idea of what a fair amount is to give in taxes. Only those who believe "all taxation is theft" have a concrete line in the sand, but I disagree with this concept, simply because Christ and Paul affirm the right of a government to collect taxes, and by issues of practicality. The point is, how much we are taxed and what it is used for is so open to debate among people, that using the idea of less taxes as freedom is not always effective. Secondly, when I think of freedom, I typically think of liberty in choosing our own behavior and path for our life. Now, I am not saying that taxes are not a freedom issue, its just that I believe that when we give up our responsibility, we sacrifice freedom in the broader sense, not just in less take-home pay.
However, of late, I have found the payoff. When government foots the bill, they have more of an interest in our behaviors. Once simple example is helmet laws for motorcycles. This links to a news story in which politicians justify having a helmet law, since the state of Tennessee pays the medical bills of many of those injured. In the link, Glen Dean asks
So there you have it. As we pass the responsibilities for the choices we make onto government, our personal freedoms go as well. Now, many may ask, "Is the freedom to eat all the fast food we want and ride a motorcycle without a helmet really freedoms we want?" That goes along with freedom. Freedom includes the ability to make bad choices, as well as good ones.
Now, you do not have to believe in the abolition of welfare alogether, and that is not even what I am proposing, I am just pointing out that as the welfare state grows, our liberties shrink. The idea that when one loses responsibility, they lose freedoms, is a truism that cannot be denied.
I have been trying to find a corollary on the national level. The government has taken more responsibility in feeding us, helping us save for retirement, educating us, etc... Now, I believe with this responsibility being shifted from our shoulders to that of the government, somewhere, there is a payoff in terms of personal freedoms. To be honest, however, I always had problems finding what that was.
The obvious thing is increased taxes. We take less of our money home. However, I have issues equating keeping more of our take home money directly with freedom. For one, saying that keeping our money is a right is a debatable statement, simply because we all have our own idea of what a fair amount is to give in taxes. Only those who believe "all taxation is theft" have a concrete line in the sand, but I disagree with this concept, simply because Christ and Paul affirm the right of a government to collect taxes, and by issues of practicality. The point is, how much we are taxed and what it is used for is so open to debate among people, that using the idea of less taxes as freedom is not always effective. Secondly, when I think of freedom, I typically think of liberty in choosing our own behavior and path for our life. Now, I am not saying that taxes are not a freedom issue, its just that I believe that when we give up our responsibility, we sacrifice freedom in the broader sense, not just in less take-home pay.
However, of late, I have found the payoff. When government foots the bill, they have more of an interest in our behaviors. Once simple example is helmet laws for motorcycles. This links to a news story in which politicians justify having a helmet law, since the state of Tennessee pays the medical bills of many of those injured. In the link, Glen Dean asks
Isn't it convenient the way government justifies taking away your liberty? Can you not connect the dots here folks? Are you not able to see how a government's policies of taxing and spending ultimately makes you less free?Another example is fast food taxes or food restrictions, in which the government bribes us or penalizes us to eat healthy. After all, if they are paying our Medicare or Medicaid, don't they have an interest in reducing those bills by making sure we eat right. Walter Williams discusses the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and how they justify their actions:
CSPI has long called for excise taxes on fatty foods, cars and TV sets. Their justification is that obesity adds to Medicare and Medicaid health costs. They want some of the tax revenue used to fund exercise facilities and government fitness campaigns.Now, some may be okay with passing seat-belt or helmet laws for people's personal safety. But this is a slippery slope. Some of us are even fine with passing anti-smoking legislation, but then it gets into fast food and TV watching, and it makes us less comfortable. It can also get into the safety of our own home (John Stossel had a piece on 20/20 about regulations in at-home offices).
So there you have it. As we pass the responsibilities for the choices we make onto government, our personal freedoms go as well. Now, many may ask, "Is the freedom to eat all the fast food we want and ride a motorcycle without a helmet really freedoms we want?" That goes along with freedom. Freedom includes the ability to make bad choices, as well as good ones.
Now, you do not have to believe in the abolition of welfare alogether, and that is not even what I am proposing, I am just pointing out that as the welfare state grows, our liberties shrink. The idea that when one loses responsibility, they lose freedoms, is a truism that cannot be denied.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
What do people think of businesses in churches?
I am curious to know people's opinions on this topic. What I am referring to is not the operation of the church overall, but the church's operations concerning in-church stores.
The church I attend has a small coffee bar on Sunday mornings, and the Saturday night service for young adults has a drink and snack bar. The biggest church in town has a full-fledged cafeteria. I went there for a passion play for Easter, and I was amazed at the selection they had. They had a full-blown coffee and espresso bar, and you could get a full cooked lunch, such as a cheeseburger with fries. Large church bookstores are also very common.
Now, there have been several concerns with a church operating a business next to the sanctuary. Can running a business distract from the purpose of the church, even if the profits go towards the church's mission? Are churches becoming too commercial?
My own view is that this is okay, provided that it is handled properly. I think as long as the church is not too focused on the business, and that there are people devoted to running the business aspect, so that ministerial staff do not get bogged down with details.
However, I know there are varying opinions on this topic. I know my blog doesn't attract a mass audience, but feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.
The church I attend has a small coffee bar on Sunday mornings, and the Saturday night service for young adults has a drink and snack bar. The biggest church in town has a full-fledged cafeteria. I went there for a passion play for Easter, and I was amazed at the selection they had. They had a full-blown coffee and espresso bar, and you could get a full cooked lunch, such as a cheeseburger with fries. Large church bookstores are also very common.
Now, there have been several concerns with a church operating a business next to the sanctuary. Can running a business distract from the purpose of the church, even if the profits go towards the church's mission? Are churches becoming too commercial?
My own view is that this is okay, provided that it is handled properly. I think as long as the church is not too focused on the business, and that there are people devoted to running the business aspect, so that ministerial staff do not get bogged down with details.
However, I know there are varying opinions on this topic. I know my blog doesn't attract a mass audience, but feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.
The trap of self-righteous politics
I'm as guilty of anyone of being self-righteous concerning my views, and this post is not addressed to anyone I know of, but it concerns myself.
Being libertarian-minded, I tend to hold some views held by a minority of people, or have views concerning issues that are not discussed heavily in the political arena (i.e. local or state licensing laws, state funding of ballparks, etc...). Now, in the past, I was a typical Republican, and I still am, but I now hold libertarian views on off-spotlight issues, or I take a more-libertarian approach to the majority of issues. As I became more interested in libertarian ideas, I began to develop an elitist type attitude. Fortunately, as I have matured, I have become more humble with these ideas. In fact, I am the most humble person I know! My humility would put yours to shame!
Anyway, anytime someone is really passionate about politics, they are more likely to be more obnoxious, self-righteous, or whatever. I always got annoyed at some of the liberals who have tons of bumper stickers on their car, or who make everything a political issue, or who wonder how one can watch a sports game while there are starving children in Sudan, or wherever, but really, as I grew passionate about my own beliefs, I was doing the same, at least in my attitude. Political passion is valuable, but it can make one undesirable to be around. A counter-example is one of my lifelong friends. He is someone who is passionate about politics but seems to keep a pretty level head.
Some of the extreme right, extreme left sites that I have come across in my time are very self-righteous, but some of the worst are the extreme libertarian sites (those that consider themselves anti-state, and some anti-war), including those with Christian commentators. While disagreeing with the government is a staple of limited government types, many of the anti-state sites seem to have a total disrespect, maybe even a hatred, for those in authority. I suppose that such a distrust of government (whether it be that of the opposite political party, or gov't in general) can easily lend itself to a judgmental, self-righteous attitude, but it does not have to.
Being libertarian-minded, I tend to hold some views held by a minority of people, or have views concerning issues that are not discussed heavily in the political arena (i.e. local or state licensing laws, state funding of ballparks, etc...). Now, in the past, I was a typical Republican, and I still am, but I now hold libertarian views on off-spotlight issues, or I take a more-libertarian approach to the majority of issues. As I became more interested in libertarian ideas, I began to develop an elitist type attitude. Fortunately, as I have matured, I have become more humble with these ideas. In fact, I am the most humble person I know! My humility would put yours to shame!
Anyway, anytime someone is really passionate about politics, they are more likely to be more obnoxious, self-righteous, or whatever. I always got annoyed at some of the liberals who have tons of bumper stickers on their car, or who make everything a political issue, or who wonder how one can watch a sports game while there are starving children in Sudan, or wherever, but really, as I grew passionate about my own beliefs, I was doing the same, at least in my attitude. Political passion is valuable, but it can make one undesirable to be around. A counter-example is one of my lifelong friends. He is someone who is passionate about politics but seems to keep a pretty level head.
Some of the extreme right, extreme left sites that I have come across in my time are very self-righteous, but some of the worst are the extreme libertarian sites (those that consider themselves anti-state, and some anti-war), including those with Christian commentators. While disagreeing with the government is a staple of limited government types, many of the anti-state sites seem to have a total disrespect, maybe even a hatred, for those in authority. I suppose that such a distrust of government (whether it be that of the opposite political party, or gov't in general) can easily lend itself to a judgmental, self-righteous attitude, but it does not have to.
Thoughts on democracy and equal rights
There is a discussion on Glen Dean's website about democracy, and universal voting rights. Glen brought up whether the right to vote should be limited based on being able to pass a civics test, then it was decided that it would be best not to limit the right to vote. That is an interesting question: Should voting be an unalienable right, or should it be something attained only by demonstrating some kind of knowledge about the government? However, this can potentially be a dangerous thing to consider. I suppose if some type of test was administered, it should be done so based on the Constitution. However, I think it best that voting be universal. Even if one knows the Constitution front and back, there is still some room for interpretation.
Considering democracy, it probably is the best form of government, simply because it keeps those in charge accountable to the people, and it tends to distribute power more evenly and fairly. Why should someone rule simply because of their bloodline? It seems natural to have a leader elected by the people, rather than simply being born to a prior ruler.
However, even a democracy can trample on people's rights, and that is why we have the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been stretched however, and many presidents, legislators, and a certain 1973 Supreme Court have stretched the Constitution to justify their actions, or have outright ignored it. Now, is this because of flaws in the Constitution? Should the Constitution have been written more explicitly in declaring the powers of government and the rights of the people? Maybe so. Or maybe, no matter how the Constitution was written, it would be abused, no matter how clear it is.
I suppose every man-made government is subject to corruption, and all we can try to do is to institute a form of rule the best we know how. I support limited government, because the less power in the hands of a select few, the less likely it is to corrupt. However, even in a government limited to only protection purposes (not saying this is the ideal, but I am using the extreme limited government case), corruption can still occur, and limiting the power of government is only one aspect of having a just form of rule.
Note: I had some other comments in here, but they veered of topic, so I will save them for another day.
Really, the only perfect form of government would be one in which Christ rules the people directly. Fortunately, this will happen someday.
Considering democracy, it probably is the best form of government, simply because it keeps those in charge accountable to the people, and it tends to distribute power more evenly and fairly. Why should someone rule simply because of their bloodline? It seems natural to have a leader elected by the people, rather than simply being born to a prior ruler.
However, even a democracy can trample on people's rights, and that is why we have the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been stretched however, and many presidents, legislators, and a certain 1973 Supreme Court have stretched the Constitution to justify their actions, or have outright ignored it. Now, is this because of flaws in the Constitution? Should the Constitution have been written more explicitly in declaring the powers of government and the rights of the people? Maybe so. Or maybe, no matter how the Constitution was written, it would be abused, no matter how clear it is.
I suppose every man-made government is subject to corruption, and all we can try to do is to institute a form of rule the best we know how. I support limited government, because the less power in the hands of a select few, the less likely it is to corrupt. However, even in a government limited to only protection purposes (not saying this is the ideal, but I am using the extreme limited government case), corruption can still occur, and limiting the power of government is only one aspect of having a just form of rule.
Note: I had some other comments in here, but they veered of topic, so I will save them for another day.
Really, the only perfect form of government would be one in which Christ rules the people directly. Fortunately, this will happen someday.
Friday, April 28, 2006
A Biblical View of Economics
A Biblical View of Economics by Kerby Anderson, Director of Probe Ministries International.
As the website states, "Probe Ministries
Probe's mission is to present the Gospel to communities, nationally and internationally, by providing life-long opportunities to integrate faith and learning through balanced, biblically based scholarship, training people to love God by renewing their minds and equipping the Church to engage the world for Christ. "
A pretty good site from what I've seen. It's a Christian site; it has some political articles, as the one I linked to here, but it has a wide variety of articles, and is hardly devoted to just politics.
This article deals with the moral issues surrounding economic systems. It takes the fallen nature of man as a given, and it focuses on the system that minimizes the sinful effects of man. As the article states
The article also focuses on pure economic criticisms, which include the question of monopolies and the issue of pollution. In Anderson's view, monopolies are the result of "too little government and too much government", with the latter being primarily responsible of late. He believes government should take action to break up monopolies. I don't know what to think of this currently, because I have also heard arguments that the free market naturally regulates against monopolies, but I have not done enough research in this area.
Concerning pollution, the author sums up my believes exactly.
The moral critique Anderson focuses on is that of greed, which is really the kicker for many people, and the primary Christian concern regarding capitalism.
Anderson states
This is a huge issue, and Anderson cannot possibly address every concern, and I certainly cannot. I think the relationship of Christianity with the proper economic system is an interesting and important topic that should continually be discussed among Christians.
As the website states, "Probe Ministries
Probe's mission is to present the Gospel to communities, nationally and internationally, by providing life-long opportunities to integrate faith and learning through balanced, biblically based scholarship, training people to love God by renewing their minds and equipping the Church to engage the world for Christ. "
A pretty good site from what I've seen. It's a Christian site; it has some political articles, as the one I linked to here, but it has a wide variety of articles, and is hardly devoted to just politics.
This article deals with the moral issues surrounding economic systems. It takes the fallen nature of man as a given, and it focuses on the system that minimizes the sinful effects of man. As the article states
Since the Bible teaches about the effects of sinful behavior on the world, we should be concerned about any system that would concentrate economic power and thereby unleash the ravages of sinful behavior on the society. Christians, therefore, should reject state-controlled or centrally controlled economies, which would concentrate power in the hands of a few sinful individuals. Instead, we should support an economic system that would disperse that power and protect us from greed and exploitation.I agree (no surprise), but not just with their conclusions, but with their approach. No economic system can ascribe value to mankind. We should assume that man is sinful and greedy, and look at the system that minimizes the affects. While I do not support greed, in a more socialist system, people of greed attain more money typically through government actions, such as transfer payments. In a capitalist system, people who are greedy have to attain their money by providing services to others.
The article also focuses on pure economic criticisms, which include the question of monopolies and the issue of pollution. In Anderson's view, monopolies are the result of "too little government and too much government", with the latter being primarily responsible of late. He believes government should take action to break up monopolies. I don't know what to think of this currently, because I have also heard arguments that the free market naturally regulates against monopolies, but I have not done enough research in this area.
Concerning pollution, the author sums up my believes exactly.
The second criticism of capitalism is that it leads to pollution. In a capitalistic system, pollutants are considered externalities. The producer will incur costs that are external to the firm so often there is no incentive to clean up the pollution. Instead, it is dumped into areas held in common such as the air or water.I agree with this view. I believe that the free market is not sufficient to regulate the environment, but the environment should be regulated within reason.
The solution in this case is governmental intervention. But I don't believe that this should be a justification for building a massive bureaucracy. We need to find creative ways to direct self-interest so that people work towards the common good.
The moral critique Anderson focuses on is that of greed, which is really the kicker for many people, and the primary Christian concern regarding capitalism.
Anderson states
Because people are sinful and selfish, some are going to use the capitalist system to feed their greed. But that is not so much a criticism of capitalism as it is a realization of the human condition. The goal of capitalism is not to change people but to protect us from human sinfulness.Anderson also differentiates between selfishness and self-interest and states "It is in our self-interest to accept Jesus Christ as our savior so that our eternal destiny will be assured." Now, such a heavy statement takes further examination, but I'll just through that in for now. Concerning socialism, he states
Capitalism is a system in which bad people can do the least harm, and good people have the freedom to do good works. Capitalism works well if you have completely moral individuals. But it also functions adequately when you have selfish and greedy people.
By contrast, other economic systems like socialism ignore the biblical definitions of human nature. Thus, they allow economic power to be centralized and concentrate power in the hands of a few greedy people. Those who complain of the influence major corporations have on our lives should consider the socialist alternative of how a few governmental bureaucrats control every aspect of their lives.Anderson states very affectively what I have been trying to say. There are selfish people in a capitalist society and a socialist society, but in a capitalist society, these selfish people have the power to do less harm. In theory, I honestly like the idea of socialism, where people are provided with the basic needs, such as food, shelter, and these days, oil. But history, in my view, as shown that this does not work out as planned. Socialism assumes that all the bureaucrats in charge are moral people. Capitalism allows for greedy people in charge of major corporations, but our interactions with them are more optional.
This is a huge issue, and Anderson cannot possibly address every concern, and I certainly cannot. I think the relationship of Christianity with the proper economic system is an interesting and important topic that should continually be discussed among Christians.
Reggie Bush not the number one pick!!!
Well, the news is out. NC State Defensive End Mario Williams will be the number one draft pick, chosen by Houston.
I'm totally surprised that Houston is passing on Bush, and I wonder if the fans will be angry. I know many fans wanted Houston native Vince Young, but were probably not terribly dissapointed when the person in his place was expected to be Heisman trophy winner Reggie Bush. Is Williams a good choice? I'll leave that up to the analysts to decide. I respect Houston for not going for the popular decision.
It's surprising with all the offensive talent, one super-hyped running back and three hyped quarterbacks, that a defensive end is going first. I'll be interested to see if Leinart actually falls out of the top 10, some experts say they don't expect it, but it's a possibility.
Now, I'm not actually going to watch this thing. For one, I don't have cable, and for another, I can simply look online.
I'm totally surprised that Houston is passing on Bush, and I wonder if the fans will be angry. I know many fans wanted Houston native Vince Young, but were probably not terribly dissapointed when the person in his place was expected to be Heisman trophy winner Reggie Bush. Is Williams a good choice? I'll leave that up to the analysts to decide. I respect Houston for not going for the popular decision.
It's surprising with all the offensive talent, one super-hyped running back and three hyped quarterbacks, that a defensive end is going first. I'll be interested to see if Leinart actually falls out of the top 10, some experts say they don't expect it, but it's a possibility.
Now, I'm not actually going to watch this thing. For one, I don't have cable, and for another, I can simply look online.
More on gas prices
I know I have been talking a lot about gas prices lately, but its on the news so much, I felt like talking about it some more. Also, there was an interesting discussion on another blog I visit about the morality of oil companies being able to set their prices. I think this is a good discussion, and if that person happens to see this post, I'm not hammering on your opinions, I think its a good discussion that I want to talk about on my blog. This discussion has seemed to take a slightly different direction than on the other blog, however.
Sure, with capitalism there is a concern about a company being able to set their own price. This is where competition comes in. Competition is what regulates unmitigated greed. It is a sort of checks and balances. The more a company charges higher prices and tries to own the entire market, the easier it is for another company to come in.
Now, there is concern that with mergers and such, that there is not sufficient competition, and this is a legitimate concern. Right now it is very difficult for a company to simply start up their own oil company. This can be made easier by decreasing regulations and taxation on refineries built. This is not to say that environmental regulations concerning pollution should not be respected, however, but there is a lot of red tape before anyone even considers the environment.
However, even with fewer regulations, starting up oil companies is still a costly venture, and I'm not going to say straight-faced that the only thing preventing more oil companies from popping up is governmental regulations. Maybe it is, but I don't know enough about it to make such a claim.
As gas prices go up, however, I believe there will be a push for alternative fuels. I personally do not support government measures to push towards alternative fuels (tax breaks, subsidies to car/oil companies, etc...), because I think that people's motivations to save is a sufficient impetus for the market. For example, I don't need a tax break to buy a hybrid car; I will already be motivated based on the money it saves me, if that is the case. If I decide the costs and benefits of a hybrid car is not worth it, it soon will be if the cost of gas climbs. Same with gov't standards for fuel efficiency. Companies are already motivated to build fuel efficient cars for customers who want to save on gas money. Sure, right now people are still buying SUVs, but there will be a breaking point eventually where people decide it is just not worth it.
So, maybe the oil company competition is not satisfactory, but there will be, I believe, increasing competition from outside the oil industry as mentioned above, and decreased demand through conservation methods.
Many complain about how much a CEO makes with such huge spikes in gas prices. The CEO's salary for Exxon last year was $38 million, out of 36.1 billion made, so his salary was about .1% of the total profit. Assume that gas is $3.00, $2.50 before taxes, with a 10% profit around $0.25. If the CEO worked for free, it would reduce that profit of $0.25 by 1%. So, the price of gas would be reduced from $3.00 to $2.9975.
Of course, there is still the other 36.062 million in profits. Now, nevermind the fact that anyone with a few extra bucks can invest in the oil companies themselves. People invest in the oil company to make money; with no promise of profit, oil companies cannot obtain the capital needed to operate. As the Cato Institute article in my previous post states: "Who would want to park their money in an industry like that? [with windfall profit taxes] If investors were discouraged from putting their money into the oil sector, where would the capital come from to put more oil and gas into a resource-starved market? "
Now, if one wants to claim that the oil companies are charging too much, that's a fair judgment, but one must consider that oil companies are competing with any other publicly owned companies in the promise of returning a profit. Also, this goes back to my statement that how much an oil company can charge is limited by competition. But, as I mentioned earlier, there is concern about sufficient competition in the oil industry, and this is a fair concern. Currently though, oil companies profit margins are not outrageous (around 10.7%), and the fact that gas prices have gone up more than this amount leads me to believe that much of the price surge has been other factors, other than shareholders wanting to make more profits.
Perhaps the toughest point to debate is the fact that oil is not really a luxury, and therefore should be less subject to market forces. While oil companies make less in profit margin than say Apple Computer, Citibank, Yahoo (again, referred to at Cato), oil is a necessity, whereas an internet search engines, a computer, or a credit card are more as a luxury.
This concern really lies at the heart of capitalism vs. socialism, that is, should basic necessities be guaranteed, or at least, be handled some way by the gov't so that people have easier access to it. This is not an either/or situation, where one has to go one way or the other. Many will claim that there is a balance in between. But the question of what to do with basic necessities is fundamental, not because someone must choose the side of Socialist or Capitalist (as I sometimes forget), but because how they feel about the question can often be indicative of how they feel about the free market and the government's role in the economy as a whole.
People who lean to the far right economically, such as myself, ultimately believe the free market can produce the goods better than a more government-controlled economy. The possibility of making oil a more socialized commodity may have the initial promise of being more accessible and maybe even guaranteed to everyone, but economic conservatives and libertarians believe that ultimately this is not the case, that a free market ultimately makes a good more accessible to everyone. This belief is based upon empirical evidence in comparing everyday market goods and services to those provided by the government, and through the belief that people's drive to make money will motivate them to do a better job in providing services (this second argument is more of a slippery slope because I do not believe that greed makes the world go round, as some objectivists believe).
Sure, with capitalism there is a concern about a company being able to set their own price. This is where competition comes in. Competition is what regulates unmitigated greed. It is a sort of checks and balances. The more a company charges higher prices and tries to own the entire market, the easier it is for another company to come in.
Now, there is concern that with mergers and such, that there is not sufficient competition, and this is a legitimate concern. Right now it is very difficult for a company to simply start up their own oil company. This can be made easier by decreasing regulations and taxation on refineries built. This is not to say that environmental regulations concerning pollution should not be respected, however, but there is a lot of red tape before anyone even considers the environment.
However, even with fewer regulations, starting up oil companies is still a costly venture, and I'm not going to say straight-faced that the only thing preventing more oil companies from popping up is governmental regulations. Maybe it is, but I don't know enough about it to make such a claim.
As gas prices go up, however, I believe there will be a push for alternative fuels. I personally do not support government measures to push towards alternative fuels (tax breaks, subsidies to car/oil companies, etc...), because I think that people's motivations to save is a sufficient impetus for the market. For example, I don't need a tax break to buy a hybrid car; I will already be motivated based on the money it saves me, if that is the case. If I decide the costs and benefits of a hybrid car is not worth it, it soon will be if the cost of gas climbs. Same with gov't standards for fuel efficiency. Companies are already motivated to build fuel efficient cars for customers who want to save on gas money. Sure, right now people are still buying SUVs, but there will be a breaking point eventually where people decide it is just not worth it.
So, maybe the oil company competition is not satisfactory, but there will be, I believe, increasing competition from outside the oil industry as mentioned above, and decreased demand through conservation methods.
Many complain about how much a CEO makes with such huge spikes in gas prices. The CEO's salary for Exxon last year was $38 million, out of 36.1 billion made, so his salary was about .1% of the total profit. Assume that gas is $3.00, $2.50 before taxes, with a 10% profit around $0.25. If the CEO worked for free, it would reduce that profit of $0.25 by 1%. So, the price of gas would be reduced from $3.00 to $2.9975.
Of course, there is still the other 36.062 million in profits. Now, nevermind the fact that anyone with a few extra bucks can invest in the oil companies themselves. People invest in the oil company to make money; with no promise of profit, oil companies cannot obtain the capital needed to operate. As the Cato Institute article in my previous post states: "Who would want to park their money in an industry like that? [with windfall profit taxes] If investors were discouraged from putting their money into the oil sector, where would the capital come from to put more oil and gas into a resource-starved market? "
Now, if one wants to claim that the oil companies are charging too much, that's a fair judgment, but one must consider that oil companies are competing with any other publicly owned companies in the promise of returning a profit. Also, this goes back to my statement that how much an oil company can charge is limited by competition. But, as I mentioned earlier, there is concern about sufficient competition in the oil industry, and this is a fair concern. Currently though, oil companies profit margins are not outrageous (around 10.7%), and the fact that gas prices have gone up more than this amount leads me to believe that much of the price surge has been other factors, other than shareholders wanting to make more profits.
Perhaps the toughest point to debate is the fact that oil is not really a luxury, and therefore should be less subject to market forces. While oil companies make less in profit margin than say Apple Computer, Citibank, Yahoo (again, referred to at Cato), oil is a necessity, whereas an internet search engines, a computer, or a credit card are more as a luxury.
This concern really lies at the heart of capitalism vs. socialism, that is, should basic necessities be guaranteed, or at least, be handled some way by the gov't so that people have easier access to it. This is not an either/or situation, where one has to go one way or the other. Many will claim that there is a balance in between. But the question of what to do with basic necessities is fundamental, not because someone must choose the side of Socialist or Capitalist (as I sometimes forget), but because how they feel about the question can often be indicative of how they feel about the free market and the government's role in the economy as a whole.
People who lean to the far right economically, such as myself, ultimately believe the free market can produce the goods better than a more government-controlled economy. The possibility of making oil a more socialized commodity may have the initial promise of being more accessible and maybe even guaranteed to everyone, but economic conservatives and libertarians believe that ultimately this is not the case, that a free market ultimately makes a good more accessible to everyone. This belief is based upon empirical evidence in comparing everyday market goods and services to those provided by the government, and through the belief that people's drive to make money will motivate them to do a better job in providing services (this second argument is more of a slippery slope because I do not believe that greed makes the world go round, as some objectivists believe).
Dow was highest since January 2000 this past Thursday
According to USA Today's Thursday, April 27 issue, The Dow was the highest since January 2000. I'm curious what type of news coverage this gets. I've been watching a lot of CNN lately (its all I get where I'm at currently), and I haven't seen anything about it.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
The thing with the immigration debate is...
...How do you decide who to let in and who to boot out? Obviously, we should not let people in who are a threat to this country. So, as unfair as it sounds, we should not let a huge influx of people in from Afghanistan or Iraq, Iran, etc...
But what about the others? Do you base it upon numbers, letting in so many people per month/year? How do you differentiate between those let in and those who are not?
For right now, I support open borders to peaceful immigrants, perhaps giving them a certain amount of time to find a job.
I would be curious though what ideas other people have, that is the best I have for right now.
Concerning the language issue, there is the issue with kids in schools, and with people out and about in the outside world. I would not say that adult immigrants necessarily have to learn the language, they just need to understand that not everyone is going to be able to accomodate them. They need to understand that their inability to speak language will affect them in getting a job or ordering a hamburger. I have a "door-swings-both-ways" philosophy. I don't care if you speak your own native tongue, just do not expect me to speak it as well.
The school issue is a trickier one. I suppose public schools should have teachers and classes for Spanish-speaking students, with the ultimate goal of having them learn English. Perhaps this is how its done now, but I would not be surprised if some schools handle Spanish-speaking students with no expections of teaching them English.
Concerning those currently in our borders illegally, perhaps Bush has the right idea. Many conservatives think he is being way too soft, but I think simply hauling back a ton of illegal aliens is unenforceable. And, let's be honest, having a softer approach to immigration will help the Republicans with Hispanics in the long run. That may sound tacky, but I say that so fellow conservatives won't give Bush such a hard time, and part of politics is fostering relationships.
But what about the others? Do you base it upon numbers, letting in so many people per month/year? How do you differentiate between those let in and those who are not?
For right now, I support open borders to peaceful immigrants, perhaps giving them a certain amount of time to find a job.
I would be curious though what ideas other people have, that is the best I have for right now.
Concerning the language issue, there is the issue with kids in schools, and with people out and about in the outside world. I would not say that adult immigrants necessarily have to learn the language, they just need to understand that not everyone is going to be able to accomodate them. They need to understand that their inability to speak language will affect them in getting a job or ordering a hamburger. I have a "door-swings-both-ways" philosophy. I don't care if you speak your own native tongue, just do not expect me to speak it as well.
The school issue is a trickier one. I suppose public schools should have teachers and classes for Spanish-speaking students, with the ultimate goal of having them learn English. Perhaps this is how its done now, but I would not be surprised if some schools handle Spanish-speaking students with no expections of teaching them English.
Concerning those currently in our borders illegally, perhaps Bush has the right idea. Many conservatives think he is being way too soft, but I think simply hauling back a ton of illegal aliens is unenforceable. And, let's be honest, having a softer approach to immigration will help the Republicans with Hispanics in the long run. That may sound tacky, but I say that so fellow conservatives won't give Bush such a hard time, and part of politics is fostering relationships.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Let 'em play
I usually don't find libertarian-minded, or even political, articles on a sports website, but here goes. I think Dan Wetzel makes a lot of sense.
Now, the NBA and NFL have every right to pass age restriction limits, as they are private organizations, tt's not like government stepping in and setting the age limits for them. However, Wetzel makes a good case why they (NFL, NBA) shouldn't pass the restrictions.
With the moving truck's brake lights still freshly glowing, questions abound whether Reggie Bush's family received use of a house – a house! – from a would-be middle man/marketing guy.
If true, it does beg another question: If Michael Michaels – who owned the $757,000 home, as Yahoo! Sports Charles Robinson first reported – didn't sign Bush, then what did agent Joel Segal and marketer Michael Ornstein do to get him?
Nothing? Anything? Everything?
At this point in the long history of dealings between sports agents and potentially high draft picks, nothing should come as a surprise. Perhaps everything is on the up and up. Or perhaps this is just another case of the vibrant underground economy of college athletics.
We do know Ornstein, according to the Sports Business Journal, employed Bush last summer as a "paid intern." Ornstein is a Reebok "consultant" frequently spotted on the USC sideline during games who, in November, admitted he was "assisting" Bush in the selection of his agent and in the end also advised Bush that his best choice for a marketing guy would be – surprise, surprise – Michael Ornstein.
All of this nonsense is possible because of the peculiar way America treats its young football and basketball players. The NFL and NBA employ unfair age restrictions for their entry draft with arbitrary numbers that have nothing to do with preparedness. Meanwhile, the NCAA's outdated amateur rules continue to put kids in near impossible positions.
The fact is, Reggie Bush should have been able to buy his parents that suburban San Diego home a year ago, had he so chosen. He should have been allowed to turn pro after his spectacular sophomore season, where scouts say he would have been a likely first-round pick.
Instead, he returned to the Trojans and won the Heisman Trophy. That's fine, if that had been his choice all along. But he should have had the choice.
Instead, Bush was also placed in a bizarro world where he was worth millions but forced to stay a pauper – not because he wasn't physically or mentally ready for the NFL, but because, we believe, someone else may not have been.
Meanwhile, everyone around him cashed in. Big time.
The USC athletic department earned revenues of $60.7 million last year, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Almost all of that came from football or from football-related revenue (i.e., merchandise and donations).
Bush's coach, Pete Carroll, is reportedly paid nearly $3 million per year. His athletic director, Mike Garrett, makes hundreds of thousands.
The Trojans, with Bush carrying the ball, became a team for the ages, scoring huge television ratings, selling newspapers and magazines, not to mention tickets, T-shirts and assorted trinkets. USC was Los Angeles' pro team, except the players weren't getting paid. At least officially.
To be Reggie Bush last year would be a most confusing existence. You live in one of the richest, most materialistic cities on earth – a place where everyone is on the take and gain as much fame as Hollywood actors – but you can't afford the designer clothes they wear, the tricked-out cars or the jewelry.
You are more talented at your craft than most of Young Hollywood is at theirs. Bush is certainly a better football player than Nick Lachey is a, well, whatever Nick Lachey purports to be, but Bush can't get paid and Lachey can because, well, just because.
Perhaps Reggie Bush never took a single dime or a single freebie. If so, he is one incredibly ethical person. We're talking Mother Theresa level. They ought to give him a trophy just for that.
USC was a powder keg waiting to happen for this kind of stuff. It is essentially impossible to control agents and boosters in one of those college towns surrounded by vast farmland. In L.A.? Forget it. With Snoop Dogg (let alone Michael Ornstein) on the sidelines, what message does a player get?
This is why young athletes should be able to turn pro when they want. After any year in college. After any year in high school. Yeah, it's radical, but not as radically ridiculous as our current system.
LeBron James could have been a multi-millionaire and a top-five NBA draft pick after his sophomore year of high school, but he had to wait solely because he hits free throws and not forehands and because he slam-dunked rather than sang and danced.
By the time Britney Spears would have graduated from Kentwood (La.) High School, she sold 19 million albums for Jive Records. No one suggested she should have been singing in the school choir, let alone forced to attend Louisiana State for three years before she was "ready" to embark on a career. (Well, maybe some of the frat boys at LSU would have argued that was a good idea, but otherwise, no one.)
Society's argument is that this is designed to "protect" kids from making bad decisions, which is patronizing, un-American and depends completely on your perspective (mostly college fans being selfish). For most athletes, cashing in while they can is the best decision. If someone wanted to legally make Bush a millionaire and train him in his career, how was preventing him that option a good thing?
In too many cases, young athletes are exploited most when they are handcuffed by NCAA restrictions, stuck with netherworld guys, store-front unaccredited high schools and college coaches who are flat-out liars.
Phoenix Suns star Amare Stoudemire went to six high schools, was nearly conned by his own convicted felon minister and was used by at least two dozen people as an "amateur." As a high school senior, he told me, "My life is part nightmare." Once he was able to turn pro and just play ball, all the bad pub and scandal went away. He's living a dream life now. His quaint view of amateur athletics might be a bit different than yours.
While the idea of protecting kids who think they are better than they are is, perhaps, an admirable goal, it is an uncomfortable double standard, especially since the vast majority of said athletes are poor and black.
No one seems to care about the gymnasts, the figure skaters, the singers and actors. No one cares about baseball or hockey players.
No one worried about the Olsen Twins missing out on the "experience" of starring in humble school plays.
In America, people have the freedom to chase their dreams and do nearly anything they choose, no matter how foolish. Adults make dumb decisions all the time. They start businesses that are doomed to fail. They buy real estate that is sure to bottom out. They marry Charlie Sheen.
If a kid mistakenly turns pro too early, it's his loss. If a team mistakenly drafts too young of a prospect, that should be its loss – pro teams make dreadful decisions on college seniors, too.
As long as we force young football and basketball players to make everyone but themselves money so the NCAA and the professional leagues can benefit from the marketing, the extra scouting exposure and all those millions in revenue, these stories of possible corruption will go on and on and on.
This isn't about Reggie Bush and a house. This is about the system that virtually assures such a thing will keep on happening.
Now, the NBA and NFL have every right to pass age restriction limits, as they are private organizations, tt's not like government stepping in and setting the age limits for them. However, Wetzel makes a good case why they (NFL, NBA) shouldn't pass the restrictions.
No windfall profit taxes!
From the Cato Institute
Exxon's Earnings: No Apology Necessary
by Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor
Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are both senior fellows.
Exxon Mobil announced this week that it earned $10.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005, up 23% from the same quarter in 2004. The company's earnings for the year totaled $36.1 billion, the most profitable year (in nominal terms, anyway) for any company in U.S. history.
Tar was gathered, feathers distributed, and the political mob undertook its predictable march.
Perspective, however, is everything. If we simply divide Exxon Mobil's net income by sales, we discover that the company reported a 10.7% profit margin in the quarter. That's probably a bit above the U.S. industrial average, but it is hardly remarkable.
For instance, the nation's moist prominent critic of "oil profiteering" - Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly — works for a company (News Corp.) that reported a 10.2% profit in the fourth quarter.
If you're after big earners, check out Yahoo (a 45.5% profit margin), Citigroup (33.4%), Intel (24%) or Apple (22.7%).
Returns on invested capital over a longer time frame are even more telling. Analysts at Goldman Sachs found that returns on investment capital in the oil and gas sector from 1970-2003 were less than the U.S. industrial average over that same period. The oil industry would have to earn record profits for some time before it would produce above-average returns for its long-term investors.
Political threats to impose windfall profit taxes are counterproductive for two reasons. First, they threaten to institutionalize a form of one-way capitalism in which investors are allowed meager profits, but more robust earnings are punished.
Who would want to park their money in an industry like that? If investors were discouraged from putting their money into the oil sector, where would the capital come from to put more oil and gas into a resource-starved market?
Second, the U.S. already has a corporate income tax in place to harvest a share of those windfall profits regardless of which sector produces them. Any policy that subjects income from particular industrial sectors to more onerous taxation because they are the villain de jure is bad public policy. In essence, it gets the government in the business of allocating capital to different sectors of the economy and sets up incentives for rent-seeking be- Whether Exxon Mobil is making good or bad decisions with its operating capital is not the government's business. Behavior on the part of corporations and their political patrons.
How Exxon Mobil's profit was earned and how that money will be used is also at issue. Some critics allege that the company's market power—augmented by mergers and acquisitions within the oil sector — gives Exxon Mobil (or some shadowy group of corporate conspirators led by Exxon Mobil) the power to set whatever price it wishes.
Nonsense.
World crude oil prices - and thus retail gasoline prices — are established in commodity spot markets. Exxon Mobil executives do not plot in back rooms to decide what to charge at the pump. Instead, Exxon Mobil's contracts with its own stations tie wholesale fuel prices to prices in the nearest spot market plus transportation costs.
Others attack the company's decisions about how best to employ this surge of revenue.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and many House Republicans complain that the industry is not investing enough in domestic oil refining capacity.
Consumer activists complain that too little is going into oil exploration and development.
Others complain that not enough is being "given back" to the poor in the form of free or low-cost energy assistance programs.
The entire conversation is misguided. Whether Exxon Mobil is making good or bad decisions with its operating capital is not the government's business.
Even if it were, politicians are not in a position to intelligently discuss the matter.
In a free-market economy, capital is best allocated by market actors disciplined by profit and loss, not by vote-maximizing politicians who are unlikely to know what they are doing.
Exxon Mobil has nothing to apologize for regarding recent earnings statements.
If consumers were better served by lower corporate earnings, we'd all be visiting Zimbabwe for economic advice.
This article appeared in Investor's Business Daily, February 2, 2006.
Monday, April 24, 2006
I've been tagged
I've been tagged by my friend Josh.
Four jobs you have had in your life:
1. Worker at Arby’s
2. Telemarketer
3. Math tutor
4. Software engineer
Four movies you would watch over and over:
1. Zoolander
2. Matrix
3. Return of the King
4. Austin Powers
Four places you have lived:
1. Claremore, OK
2. Tulsa, OK
3. Austin, TX
4. Colorado Springs, CO
Four TV shows you love to watch:
1. Simpsons
2. Scrubs
3. CSI
4. Joey
Four places you have been on vacation:
1. Kauai, Hawaii
2. San Diego, CA
3. Riviera Maya, Mexico
4. Eureka Springs, Arkansas
Four websites you visit often.
1. Glen Dean
2. Gabbatha University
3. Cato Institute
4. NewsOK
Four of your favorite foods
1. Steak medium rare
2. Pizza
3. Mexican food (preferably made by people with immediate Mexican ancestry, but On the Border will do)
4. Quizno’s
Four places you would rather be right now:
1. At home with my wife and cat
2. Eating at Quizno’s
3. Playing Halo
4. Culver's Ice Cream
Four jobs you have had in your life:
1. Worker at Arby’s
2. Telemarketer
3. Math tutor
4. Software engineer
Four movies you would watch over and over:
1. Zoolander
2. Matrix
3. Return of the King
4. Austin Powers
Four places you have lived:
1. Claremore, OK
2. Tulsa, OK
3. Austin, TX
4. Colorado Springs, CO
Four TV shows you love to watch:
1. Simpsons
2. Scrubs
3. CSI
4. Joey
Four places you have been on vacation:
1. Kauai, Hawaii
2. San Diego, CA
3. Riviera Maya, Mexico
4. Eureka Springs, Arkansas
Four websites you visit often.
1. Glen Dean
2. Gabbatha University
3. Cato Institute
4. NewsOK
Four of your favorite foods
1. Steak medium rare
2. Pizza
3. Mexican food (preferably made by people with immediate Mexican ancestry, but On the Border will do)
4. Quizno’s
Four places you would rather be right now:
1. At home with my wife and cat
2. Eating at Quizno’s
3. Playing Halo
4. Culver's Ice Cream
The Reggie Bush scandal
Yahoo Sports reports
Okay, let's look at the real issue here. The sports agent's name referred to in this article was Michael Michaels. I mean, c'mon, how ridiculous is that! Michael is a great name, but could his parents do no better than to look beyond their own last name to come up with a name for their son? Were the parents simply too tired after the birthing process to spend any amount of time going through a list of names. There are books for that you know! Or maybe they liked the name of Michael so much they wanted it twice. I wonder what his middle name is?
SPRING VALLEY, Calif. – In this sprawling hilltop community with a breathtaking view of Sweetwater Lake, it was no secret who lived in the 3,000-square-foot house at the corner of Apple Street and Luther Avenue.
That home, residents would tell you, was where Reggie Bush's family lived.
That is, until this weekend, when the family abruptly packed up and vacated the residence – less than 24 hours after Yahoo! Sports approached Bush's mother about information linking the property to Michael Michaels, a man who is alleged to have tried to play a role in steering Bush toward an agent and who also has ties to a sports marketing company.
Okay, let's look at the real issue here. The sports agent's name referred to in this article was Michael Michaels. I mean, c'mon, how ridiculous is that! Michael is a great name, but could his parents do no better than to look beyond their own last name to come up with a name for their son? Were the parents simply too tired after the birthing process to spend any amount of time going through a list of names. There are books for that you know! Or maybe they liked the name of Michael so much they wanted it twice. I wonder what his middle name is?
Absolutely Disappointed with Republican Leadership
Obviously, the Republicans do not believe in a free market.
I admit high prices for gas suck, but as a link points out "Oil company profits have increased over the past two years but are still not particularly impressive," Taylor and Van Doren say. Warning that denying investors profits, but allowing them to book losses, amounts to one-way capitalism, the scholars argue: "Denying the industry the opportunity to make substantial profits when supplies are tight is both unfair (unless their losses are likewise alleviated during low-price periods) and counterproductive in that it will discourage investment in the oil business."
It could be that I am not compassionate, but with price controls and windfall taxes, there will be gas shortages. When neither the rich or poor will even have gas to buy, then there will be a reason to have compassion.
Also, in my copy of USA today at the hotel, one of the headlines reads "Drivers switch to public transit". This makes perfect sense. I'll say the same thing I always say, As gas prices climb higher, people will take measures to conserve gas. The higher the prices, the more measures will be taken. People will start to carpool, take mass transit, etc... People do not need the government to dictate how energy supplies are used, I believe individuals are smart enough to do so.
I admit high prices for gas suck, but as a link points out "Oil company profits have increased over the past two years but are still not particularly impressive," Taylor and Van Doren say. Warning that denying investors profits, but allowing them to book losses, amounts to one-way capitalism, the scholars argue: "Denying the industry the opportunity to make substantial profits when supplies are tight is both unfair (unless their losses are likewise alleviated during low-price periods) and counterproductive in that it will discourage investment in the oil business."
It could be that I am not compassionate, but with price controls and windfall taxes, there will be gas shortages. When neither the rich or poor will even have gas to buy, then there will be a reason to have compassion.
Also, in my copy of USA today at the hotel, one of the headlines reads "Drivers switch to public transit". This makes perfect sense. I'll say the same thing I always say, As gas prices climb higher, people will take measures to conserve gas. The higher the prices, the more measures will be taken. People will start to carpool, take mass transit, etc... People do not need the government to dictate how energy supplies are used, I believe individuals are smart enough to do so.
Neal Boortz Commencement Speech
From Neal Boortz site. I don't agree with every single word spoken here, but I do with most of it.
Excerpt
More here.
Excerpt
The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech
No, this speech has never been delivered at a college or a university. It was written to protest the fact that such an invitation has never been offered! It has only been delivered on my radio show, printed in my book "The Terrible Truth About Liberals" and produced on a limited edition CD. The irony is that this commencement speech has been more widely distributed, and has been the subject of more comment than any commencement speech that actually has been delivered at any college or university in the past 50 years. ©Copyright 2001, 2002, 2003 by Neal Boortz.
http://www.boortz.com
I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown your way today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration.
You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.
This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.
By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.
Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a Liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in. Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast .. including your own assessment of just how much you really know.
So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
More here.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
My favorite albums
Okay, I'm bored, so I'm going to list 5 of my favorite albums, not necessarily in any type of order. I am far from a music journalist, please forgive my lack of descriptive words aside from great, neato, and cool.
1. U2 - The Joshua Tree - Classic U2, not a bad song on the album. Most of the best of 80's U2 is in this album. I loved this album the first time I heard it. Despite having all the 4 most popular radio-played songs at the beginning, the 7 songs that follow are just about as good.
2. U2 - Achtung Baby - Joshua Tree may be the most "perfect" album U2 has done, but this may be the best. Where Joshua Tree is more easy listening, Achtung Baby is more abrasive - not quite as polished as JT, but more adventurous. It makes the album more amazing hearing the energy of "Zoo Station" and "Even Better than the Real Thing" when you know the turmoil the band faced while making it.
3. U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - Just an album full of great songs. If "Love and Peace or Else" was produced a little bit better, this album may be perfect.
4. The Innocence Mission - Glow - Every song is great on this album; I recommend checking this band out. I wish I had the musical vocabulary to do this album and this group justice. The lead singer's voice, a female, is extraordinary, and the guitar styling, somewhat reminding me of the Edge, is fantastic.
5. Belle and Sebastian - Dear Catastrophe Waitress - Not a complete album, about 9,10 out of 12 songs are great, but they are good enough to move it into my top 10. I don't really know how to describe this band; the closest thing I can think of is 70s pop. This band has 6 or 7 people, and the songs are driven by acoustic guitar, brass, and woodwind instruments.
6. Goo Goo Dolls - A Boy Named Goo - Fun energetic rock
7. Bleach - Again for the First Time - A Christian punkish rock band. My favorite Christian band, bar none.
8. Foo Fighters - There is Nothing Left to Lose - Great rock songs focused on search for meaning, contains the popular hit "Learn to Fly"
9. U2 - All That You Can't Leave Behind. Another great U2 album, slightly uneven, but U2 have managed to come up with a hit ranking along with their earlier works in "Beautiful Day." Even the songs that did not make it to mainstream radio are some of the best songs I have ever heard from any band, such as "Kite" and "In a Little While."
10. Fiona Apple - When the Pawn... - Rock and Roll music in Jazz format. Great instrumentation.
1. U2 - The Joshua Tree - Classic U2, not a bad song on the album. Most of the best of 80's U2 is in this album. I loved this album the first time I heard it. Despite having all the 4 most popular radio-played songs at the beginning, the 7 songs that follow are just about as good.
2. U2 - Achtung Baby - Joshua Tree may be the most "perfect" album U2 has done, but this may be the best. Where Joshua Tree is more easy listening, Achtung Baby is more abrasive - not quite as polished as JT, but more adventurous. It makes the album more amazing hearing the energy of "Zoo Station" and "Even Better than the Real Thing" when you know the turmoil the band faced while making it.
3. U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - Just an album full of great songs. If "Love and Peace or Else" was produced a little bit better, this album may be perfect.
4. The Innocence Mission - Glow - Every song is great on this album; I recommend checking this band out. I wish I had the musical vocabulary to do this album and this group justice. The lead singer's voice, a female, is extraordinary, and the guitar styling, somewhat reminding me of the Edge, is fantastic.
5. Belle and Sebastian - Dear Catastrophe Waitress - Not a complete album, about 9,10 out of 12 songs are great, but they are good enough to move it into my top 10. I don't really know how to describe this band; the closest thing I can think of is 70s pop. This band has 6 or 7 people, and the songs are driven by acoustic guitar, brass, and woodwind instruments.
6. Goo Goo Dolls - A Boy Named Goo - Fun energetic rock
7. Bleach - Again for the First Time - A Christian punkish rock band. My favorite Christian band, bar none.
8. Foo Fighters - There is Nothing Left to Lose - Great rock songs focused on search for meaning, contains the popular hit "Learn to Fly"
9. U2 - All That You Can't Leave Behind. Another great U2 album, slightly uneven, but U2 have managed to come up with a hit ranking along with their earlier works in "Beautiful Day." Even the songs that did not make it to mainstream radio are some of the best songs I have ever heard from any band, such as "Kite" and "In a Little While."
10. Fiona Apple - When the Pawn... - Rock and Roll music in Jazz format. Great instrumentation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)