A conversation on abortion

With the diversity of political beliefs on this blog, I am always hesitant to post on abortion. It is an issue I am passionate about, but I know it is a very heated subject, and I don't want to make the atmosphere of this blog too serious. However, as with any topic, it is helpful that both sides understand each other.

I was visited Neil Simpson's blog, and he had a post regarding Barack Obama's position on abortion. A pro-choice commenter posted a comment here . (Note, no offense against the commenter, but I know many pro-choicers can be more considerate and diplomatic in their comments, this is not the typical commenter, but just one slightly overcome by emotions, as I can be).

Here is Neil's response, along with mine.

The gist is this. Pro-lifers such as myself believe that the fetus is a person. Therefore, any talk of personal freedom or "my body, my choice" in reference to abortion falls on deaf ears. Because we believe the fetus is a person, we do not believe other people, whether it be a person shooting a pregnant woman, or the mother herself, has the right to harm the fetus. We do not believe there are any significant scientific factors that separate a fetus from a born person. If pro-choicers want to convince me that abortion should be legal, they need to quit the "libertarian" arguments, especially since I have libertarian viewpoints on many things. The crux of the argument is whether or not the fetus is a person. If the fetus is not, then the libertarian argument would follow that abortion should be legal. If the fetus is a person, then the libertarian argument would demand that abortion be outlawed.

Again, the purpose of this point is not pro-life proselytizing, but to simply point out the central issue of the debate. And no, I don't think there are two classes of humans, as people who opposed women's right to vote and abolition of slavery often argued.

I am Dr. Doom

Your results:
You are Dr. Doom

Dr. Doom 40% Green Goblin 36% Lex Luthor 32% Mr. Freeze 32% Riddler 29% Kingpin 27% The Joker 26% Venom 24% Apocalypse 22% Magneto 20% Mystique 16% Dark Phoenix 15% Catwoman 15% Juggernaut 12% Poison Ivy 11% Two-Face 0%

Blessed with smarts and power but burdened by vanity.

Click here to take the Supervillain Personality Quiz

I found this quiz at AndrewOlmsted.com

In politics, do we all want the same things?

I was in a blog discussion one time when someone asked if we all want the same things. That's an interesting question, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc all have their own ideal version of society. Is it that we all want the same things, but we just have different ideas how to get there?

Well, yes and no.

To illustrate my point, let us talk about the war on terrorism. Now, no one wants terrorist attacks, and we all want a safe society. In fact, ideally, we would have a completely safe society. However, where we differ is what trade-offs we want for a safe society, and how we prioritize this safety. Conservatives are typically more aggressive on the War on Terror, typically willing to sacrifice some civil liberties on the matter, as long as it keeps people safe. Liberals and civil libertarians, however, have been more cautionary the past 5 or so years and have emphasized the civil liberties aspect of the war on terror. It's not that they do not want a safe society, no one wants another attack, but they do not think our safety is worth a complete erosion of the freedoms we had in the first place.

I tend to depart somewhat from my conservative brethren. I am not saying I agree completely with the liberals and civil libertarians in all instances, but I do think it worth heeding caution and balancing our freedoms vs. our protection. It is not so much an issue of what policies I agree or disagree with, I see it more as an issue of attitude.In my view, conservatives can often put too much emphasis on protection without considering the costs in basic freedoms.

Again, it's not that conservatives want to prevent terrorist attacks and others don't, it is just that other groups tend to view protection measures in light of the issue of civil liberties.

So let's look at the issue of government programs and commerce. Liberals favor the regulation of commerce and the abundance of government programs to ensure that people have their basic needs. In a sense, they want a measure of safety for people when it comes to their groceries, health care, etc... And these are noble goals for the liberals.

Let's look at conservatives and, and their more extreme counterpart in the economic arena, the libertarians. Conservatives don't want people to starve. They don't want people to be poor. In fact, many conservatives want some government programs to avoid leaving people in the gutter. There are a few parts to the conservative/libertarian approach.

First of all, they believe that voluntary programs are generally more effective, and that too many government programs can do more harm than good. It's not that they don't want help for the poor, but that the government is not actually "helping" people in many cases. They believe helping the poor should be primarily (or completely in the case of some libertarians) the role of private charities. And Christian conservatives at least, back that up on a personal level.

Thirdly, as with the terrorism issue, they believe that the existence of programs should be measured in light of the loss of economic freedom. Now, many liberals may roll their eyes at the phrase "economic freedom", because it can often mean, simply having more money, less taxes, etc... I don't quite mean that in this case. What I mean is an allowance of opportunity. I was always raised with the idea that one of the reasons the U.S. is great is because it is a land of opportunity. People can start with nothing and make a name for themselves, whether it is being a scientist, a sports star, a businessman, etc... That notion always captivated me, and I grew up with the idea that literally, I could do anything, that there was no limit to my success. And I do not speak about success in monetary terms, but just in terms of having a goal and being able to go about it.

I believe that too much government in the area of commerce can limit this opportunity. By attempting to go for safety, we lose not only freedom, but our safety as well. We've seen societies that try to attempt a completely secure environment as far as people having enough to eat, having a guaranteed job, etc.. and it was disastrous. If someone wants to set up a hot dog stand, or become a plumber, or do someone's nails, they should do so with as little interference as possible. I am not saying there should be no regulations, I just don't think people should have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to make a living for themselves. People often complain that the poor have to take a low-wage job for some rich corporation and a jerk boss, well, to help with that problem, let us make it easy for people to start on their own. And let us also make it easier for people to be hired that do work for someone else.

Concerning the existence of government programs, I don't think people should have guaranteed groceries. People need to grow up with the idea that what they have costs something. It is not their entitlement, someone had to work to produce that food. I am not saying eliminate food stamps, but there is a wide line between a) having a few food stamps or free school lunch programs (like my wife received for a while) and b) having guaranteed groceries for everyone. It is not that I don't want people to have food on the table, it is just that I think such a program is an actual detriment to society. By fighting for so much safety when it comes to people's needs, I believe we make it worse for everyone.

So, in short, no, we don't want the same things. We want what is best for our country, but we disagree on exactly what that is. Again, we can respect the goals of other sides. Wanting a society safe from terrorism is noble. Wanting a society where people have their basic needs is noble. However, fighting terrorism can lose sight of its purpose if we no longer have any freedom to defend. Fighting poverty can lose its purpose when we make it harder for people to get out from under poverty.

How many kids should we have?

Last October I had a post about environmentalism and how there are two major views, one being that we should be cautious on using up the earth's resources, and one that the world was designed by God to have enough resources till the end of the present age. I mentioned in the post that

1) Humans are not parasites. Some of the more extreme environmentalists - not the norm - would be happy if most of the population was wiped out, due to consumption of natural resources. I will say that I do not believe overpopulation is a problem. Granted, one should not have more kids than they can feed, but God says "be fruitful and multiply" and He does so without qualification. Yes, the "subdue the earth" is without qualification as well, but we subdue the earth for resources, and one can argue that these resources are limited, so we do not subdue it as much. The point is, "subdue the earth" is open to more interpretation; "be fruitful and multiply" is less so. Anyway, humans should never, ever be seen as a liability, and I believe that any measure to discourage population growth encourages this viewpoint.

I don't simply want to nag on a point, but this is something that has been on my mind, and there was an interesting discussion primarily between Dan and I on the population issue. I had mentioned that people who have many kids tend to be less materialistic, but I just wanted to reiterate that I don't think the converse statement is necessarily true: that people who have fewer kids are more materialistic. I'm saying that previous sentence is not necessarily true.

I still stand by my belief that as long as we can afford to feed our kids, it is okay to have as many as we want. Dan argued that this should apply to a global scale as well, because globally we are supposed to be running out of resources, and that we should consider the amount of children in light of those issues. I don't know how to answer that, as I have little knowledge of sustainability issues. However, I still don't believe people who choose to have 5 or 6 kids are doing anything wrong. As I said previously, God said to "be fruitful and multiply", and He was addressing humanity in general. If God came to me directly and said "Hey Chance, be fruitful and multiply", I would have at least 3 kids. (I am not saying everyone should have more than 2 kids, because I think God's command in Genesis was to humanity in general, and I don't think people are sinning for not having children.) Psalms says that

4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.

5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.

Anyway, as I said, I don't have any logical argument against the overpopulation issue, I just don't think that people are doing anything wrong than having X number of kids. I have a coworker who has 5 children; I don't think he is sinning. Also, he has to continually make material sacrifices because of his 5 kids. He's not the type of person environmentalists have to worry about. Care for the environment and our resources is noble, but I'm afraid it can cause us to look at human beings as nothing more than consumers of natural resources.

I suppose this hits home for me because I have my first child on the way. To me, she is more than just a consumer of natural resources. If I want 7 more (which I don't) then I'm going to have them.

I am a wretch, and you are too

I frequent the Cato Blog, and this post by David Boaz, the president of Cato, got my attention. It describes how the song came about, which I think I had heard before but forgot. The opening paragraph grabbed my attention.

Amazing Grace is a beautiful song, but I’ve never been entirely comfortable with it. I didn’t like that line “saved a wretch like me.” I don’t think I’m a wretch. Nor are most of my friends.

It is the discomfort caused by that line that makes the song so powerful. Many times, the biggest obstacle to understanding why we need Jesus Christ is the failure to recognize our own sinful nature. Sure, many of us are not child molesters or murderers, but we still fall short of God's standard. David said

All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

Strangely enough, I was thinking about that post and the song while driving to work, and the song "Grace like Rain", by Todd Agnew, came on my iPod. It's a great remake of the original "Amazing Grace."

Who knew? Media reports on economy based on who is in power.

Thanks to Glen for finding this article.

In 1996, Bill Clinton ran for reelection as president. The U.S. economy was doing well at the time: unemployment down to 5.2%, inflation under control at 3%, and overall growth at 2.2%. And the press reported all this good news: According to the 2004 MRC study, 85% of all major economic stories on the economy in the summer of 1996 were positive.

Eight years later, George W. Bush was running for re-election as president. The U.S. economy in 2004 did much better than in 1996: The economy grew at a 3.9% pace, while unemployment and inflation roughly matched their 1996 levels (5.4% and 2.7% respectively). Yet this time, 77% of all major media economic coverage was negative. (For the full report, see www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2004/fax2004
1020.asp.) And since the 2004 election, the barrage of bad news has continued: reports of housing bubbles, warnings of an imminent collapse in the U.S. dollar, and so on.
[...]
Democrats are proposing higher taxation of energy companies--and making it clear that they will not vote to renew President Bush's cut in taxes on dividends and capital gains. Leading members of the new Congress have expressed strong protectionist views.

Democrats hope to push labour costs up faster than productivity--and to curb corporate profits they regard as inflated. If they succeed, profitability must suffer, and stock prices must decline.

And yet, bizarrely, at this very moment of maximum worry, the press reports--so negative, for so long--are suddenly turning positive again. On Jan. 31, Associated Press reporter Andrew Taylor filed a story from Washington that opened cheerily: "The House passed a [US] $463.5-billion spending bill Wednesday that covers about one-sixth of the federal budget as Democrats cleared away the financial mess they inherited from Republicans."

Don't get me wrong, Bush isn't perfect, as government spending has skyrocketed under his watch, but the market economy has many of the strengths that people pointed to when Clinton was president. Now, previous blogs have reported similar stories of the Clinton and Bush economies, and no doubt, people (liberals) will dig up some statistic speaking about how the economy is really not that great. That's fine, but those who bring up those statistics will speak as if unemployment and inflation didn't matter, and I did not see Clinton economics under so much scrutiny. Bad news is easy to find when you want it.

The government can't stop the church, but it can sure hinder it

I ran into this article, which I thought was amusing, in light of the discussion following my last post concerning if the government pushes church out of the way when it comes to taking care of the poor.

Mary Baker and Ruth Neikirk love to cook. What's more, they love to cook for poor people. They do it frequently, preparing meals at home and bringing them to their church in Virginia.
[...]
The people they cook for love it too. But there's a problem. It was "criminal activity." The Fairfax County health department points out that -- horrors -- Mary and Ruth are actually preparing food and serving it to people! Without a license!

That's not safe, said the health department. What if there's food poisoning? Hundreds of pages of regulation say that if you want to serve food to the public, you need a food-manager certificate, a ware-washing machine (with internal baffles), drain-boards, ventilation-hood systems, a sink with at least three compartments, as well as a hand-washing sink, can openers with removable parts, and much more, for page after page.
[...]
Rev. Fender added, "They've set up a situation that you have to have a $40,000 kitchen to feed someone who's going to get their food from questionable sources at best."

John Stossel, who wrote the article, asks Gerry Connolly, the county government official:

What if the health department had been around when Jesus was feeding the poor? "He might have been, you know, cited," Connolly replied with a laugh.

Fortunately,

So this story has a happy ending: Connolly exempted churches from the regulations.
[...]
The rules are well-intended. They're meant to make sure the public is safe. But rule-makers tend to forget that their rules have unintended consequences. And, as James pointed out, eating out of dumpsters is more dangerous than eating at a church without a three-compartment sink.

I still think the commenters making interesting points contributing to the discussion around the church and government's role in welfare, but I do think the article brings about things to consider on the topic. I really wasn't trying to disprove anything they said, I just thought the timing of finding this article was amusing and fitting.

Government is not God's primary tool

There is much debate about how much the government should get involved in morals, in the personal arena and the economic arena. No matter where we sit on this two dimensional spectrum of economic freedom vs. control and individual freedom vs. control, I believe that government should never be the primary means for enforcing morality.

For instance, no conservative should look to the government first to enforce Biblical morality. The church and the family should have the larger role in people's lives. Besides, the government is often going to get it wrong. I see this play out in the public school arena. Conservatives fight for the public schools to teach them what they want their kids to be taught. But conservatives need to realize that they need to work for a system that is easier for them to send children to school that reflects their own values.

Liberals should not look to the government as the primary means for feeding the poor and needy here on earth. I believe that the most effective charity is that done voluntarily. This has nothing to do with the "immorality of income redistribution", this has to do with what I believe is effective. I believe private charity is more powerful for the gift and the giver. Jesus did ministry for the poor and needy, and he usually accompanied it with spiritual healing as well. I'm not saying all charity has to make people ask Jesus in their heart, but at the same time, I think charity is less effective if it is done primarily by a government that, by the very Constitution, has to remain secular.

I suppose that is one of the many reasons I am not a liberal. As the government takes more control in the area of taking care of the poor, it moves the church out. I am not naive enough to believe previously ungenerous people will be more generous if they are taxed less, but I do believe that generous people can do more with 80% of their money, as opposed to 50% to 60%.

The government tries to take care of our kids and tries to feed the poor and needy. But whatever happened to the church and family? To how much the government should be involved separates the conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and populists, but for all Christians who want to perform Christ's mission here on earth, I do not believe government should ever be the primary means.

What do I mean by "Free Market"

I've done a post similar to this before, but I wanted to rehash some of my fundamental beliefs concerning the free market. I did a previous post called Foundations of a Free Market, but I wanted to state things in another way.

Basically, I believe that the economy should be based upon mutual exchanges between two individuals or parties. I think the price set should be discussed between those two people/groups, not regulated by a third party. That means that I believe wages and prices should be set between those two groups. I think that when wages and prices are regulated, it can hurt the weaker party as often as it hurts the stronger party. What if I cannot find a job for the minimum wage? Shouldn't I have the freedom to bargain for a lower wage if it is worth it to me? Why do we allow unpaid interns, but not interns making less than minimum wage?

Also, I don't think the person receiving the service should set the terms, but the person providing the product. For instance, it is unfair for me to demand that Apple provide their iTunes songs in any format I wish. It is there stuff. Who am I to say, "I want it like this." Apple doesn't even have to sell me anything. What if they didn't exist at all. Should I say that I am better off getting nothing from them, than getting something from them, but not in the format I like. The same goes for smoking bars and restaurants. The restaurant doesn't have to exist in the first place. Who am I to set the rules of their establishment? I'm not entitled to a non-smoking restaurant.

Furthermore, people should not be heavily restricted in being able to start a business. The government should not regulate the number of a particular business. For instance, if there are already plenty of insurance companies or taxi companies in a city, it is not the role of the city to say "No More!" Let the market determine how many of a business their should be.

Along with this, I don't think government should regulate excessively concerning the quality of certain companies. Now, this is a gray area. I can understand the government getting involved somewhat when safety or health is concerned, and that is an area in my mind that I am still trying to figure out. What I refer to is more quality apart from the safety aspect. In short, I don't think a professional should have to be licensed by the state or city, unless the license only includes issues such as safety and health. I don't think someone should have to go through extensive training to hold a job, as long as it is understood that they won't kill anyone. I believe the quality aspect will mostly be controlled by the market.

Oh yeah, and I do not believe in business subsidies, except for emergency cases (destruction of crops, airline closures due to terrorist threats.)

I would like to revisit the issue of negotiation of prices/wages. There are two reasonable criticisms I would expect from anyone of any persuasion.
1) Some people have much more power than others when it comes to negotiations. Corporations are a glaring example.
2) People may not receive their basic needs with a free market.

Concerning criticism 1. Yes, some have more power than others. But I do not believe this power balance is stagnant. People can attain more bargaining power as they go, primarily through work experience, and through education. A free market rewards those who work hard. Those who are just starting out have little bargaining power, but those who work over time gain bargaining power in their wages. I think it is just that one's wages match their accomplishments, education, and ingenuity.

Concerning criticism 2, I think this is an area for other institutions to get involved. I would prefer private charity, but remember, I don't call for the abolition of welfare. I prefer welfare to help those who help themselves. But if I had my choice, I would prefer a larger welfare system over a more regulated market. I think a less regulated market helps prices, so less welfare would be needed. Also, I think it makes sense philosophically. Things cost what they cost, and people's work is what it is worth. No amount of regulation will change that. I would rather someone receive a little financial help to buy a house, than regulate the price of the house. I would rather welfare give someone a little push, than making him work for a wage that is higher than what his current skills are worth.

There are other issues, no doubt. For instance, the morality of what can be sold, i.e. adult movies, drugs, etc... Also, another huge issue is the environment. But when I refer to the importance of a free market, I mostly refer to the negotiation of prices/wages, the freedom of someone to start a business, and the customer not dictating the terms of the negotiation.

Joseph, Father of Jesus

I sometimes wonder what it was like to be Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus. He was someone in a very unique situation. I wonder if anyone ever talked to him about how he felt about his responsibility. If he was interviewed, I suppose it would go something like this*:

Jerusalem Post (Pre-destruction of Israel edition): This is a part of a special series we are doing called MessiahWatch. Is the messiah among us today? Many are saying that Jesus, a carpenter out of Nazareth could be the one. Let's get to know those close to Jesus, we have his father, Joseph, right here. Joseph, what was it like raising Jesus as a child?

Joseph: He's always been a really good boy. He always seemed to stay out of trouble. He always minded his teachers at school, and hardly ever got detention. Well...now that I think of it, I don't think he ever got detention. Such a bright boy too, seems to know so much about the Law. More than I ever did. He is a bit of an iconoclast though, always seemed to have a few controversial ideas. Although I could never think of anything in the Law that he contradicted.

JP: What are Jesus' ambitions for the future?

Joseph: Well, everyone keeps expecting him to start some revolution against the Romans. I don't know. He never really talks about politics that much. Well, I'm not really sure exactly. When I ask, he says cryptic things like "the Son of Man must be lifted up like Moses lifted up the snake." Yeah, I'm not sure exactly. Whatever it is, it's going to be great. I think his Real Dad is in on it somehow.

JP: Oh, so you are not the biological father?

Joseph: Yeah, that's right. His Real Dad goes by several names. Yahweh, Jehovah...

JP: What's it like comparing with the Lord of Hosts as a father?

Joseph: Boy, let me tell you. His Real Dad is hard to compete with. He has this real oneness with his Real Dad that I can't explain. It's like they are the same person. Just the other day, he healed some blind guy, and his mother Mary said "he takes just after his Father." I see so much of His Real Father in him, more and more every day.

JP: Would you say His Father is emotionally available for Jesus? Does He do His part?

Joseph: Oh yes, definitely. Talk about someone who is always around! It's like He is everywhere! Jesus is always going off to the mountains or some place to spend time with Him. I can't recall if his Real Dad has ever dropped by unannounced. Usually Jesus looks for Him, but He seems readily available.

He's always helping out too. I thought Jesus was really in a jam last week when he was preaching to all these people, and he didn't have any food. Fortunately, his Father was there to help him out. He brought some bread and fish right away. Jesus never gives himself credit for anything he's done. He's always like "my Father helped me do this, or that..."

I've never really seen his Father, but I imagine he looks somewhat like Him. His eyes are always showing absolute peace. It's like there is a storm around him, but when you look into his eyes, there is a calmness I can't explain. And the love! Every once in a while the religious guys rassle him and give him a hard time while he is out preaching. And boy, does Jesus bite back! But even that whole time he seems to have a love for them, and at the same time, a sadness for them, I can't quite explain it. And you think a guy like that would give the prostitutes and the tax collectors a hard time. But you see so much love and compassion in his eyes for them.

JP: So do you feel inferior to his Real Dad?

Joseph: Well, no doubt I can't compare... But you know, I trust his Real Dad. He gave me an awesome responsibility, I mean, He trusted me with his only son, to raise him, teach him how to be a man. Not that I think Jesus needs my help by any means, but just the fact that I am in his Real Dad's plans.

JP: Okay, we've gotta run and report on the Barabbas trial. Thanks for your time Joseph.

Joseph: Thank you.

JP: Next week, we interview one of Jesus' most trusted companions. He is one of the elite 12 in Jesus' company, and he is also the treasurer. Join us as we interview Judas Iscariot.

*In reality, Joseph was probably dead by the time Jesus started his ministry. An interesting intellectual exercise nonetheless.

5 Things You May Not Know About Me

I was tagged by Josh:

- I worked as a math tutor for 4 years during college.
- I did not learn how to ride a bike until I was 13.
- The movie I have seen the most times in my life is either The Matrix or Happy Gilmore.
- I used to be afraid of circus acrobats.
- I also had an abnormal fear of vomiting. I was vomit-free for 7 years.
- I came straight outta Compton.

Okay, that last one I made up.

I tag...anyone who reads this and wants to partipate.

My favorite political post in the blogosphere...ever

I have nothing to add to Katherine Coble's post.

Basic argument against gun control

With increasing gun violence in neighborhoods and schools, at first, the obvious answer is to simply outlaw guns, at least, private possession of them. I wanted to give just a simple explanation of why the legality of gun ownership is important. Now, I don't want to get into the issues of what types of guns should be legal (semi-automatic, guns with safety locks, etc...) or the registration process, but more on if, on the whole, gun ownership should be legal.

Prohibition of guns, as with illicit drugs, would have debatable effects. It could curb gun ownership or have little effect at all.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that prohibition of guns would, in fact, curb gun ownership effectively. The fact remains, however, that gun ownership would not be completely eliminated. Such a step would create a dangerous differential between criminals and citizens who would use the guns lawfully, such as defending their homes. Although criminal ownership of guns would be curbed, it would not be altogether eliminated. There would be fewer criminals with guns, but there would be NO law-abiding citizens with guns. In effect, guns are an even larger threat.

Of course, this assumes that everyone disobeying the law and still owning a gun remains a threat. But say that some people who keep their guns have honest, good intentions. However, do we want the success of gun prohibition to rest on the idea that the right type of people will disobey the law?

There have been numerous studies concerning crime rates with respect to gun laws. However, there is another factor, and that is gun ownership. Not everyone exercises their right to own a gun, just like not everyone exercises their right to vote. Keep gun ownership rights in tact, but create harsher punishments for those who abuse that right.

Who Said the Democrats Can't Do Anything Right?

From ABC News

The House rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. Critics said the action would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports.
[...]
The legislation would impose a "conservation fee" on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico; scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks enacted by Congress in recent years; and seek to recoup royalties lost to the government because of an Interior Department error in leases issued in the late 1990s.
[...]
"The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. … There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Pump prices topped $3 per gallon last year as the oil industry earned record profits.
[...]

I don't know enough about the leasing issue to comment on it, but I do agree with the rolling back of subsidies. However, the Democrats will probably just redirect the subsidies to renewable energy sources, as the article implies.

I am against subsidies for any source of energy. People want to make money. If there are legitimate renewable sources, they will be found.

Update. Cato has their take on the issue.

...There is no identifiable market failure that might cause private actors to significantly under-invest in domestic oil production. In practice, however, the Democrats are simply transferring subsidies from one energy sector to another with no net reduction of taxpayer funds going to corporate in-boxes. Moreover, they are sneaking in energy-tax increases under the rhetorical cover of a war on subsidies. Accordingly, there is little reason for conservatives to get particularly excited.
[...]The case for oil subsidies is laughably thin. Proponents argue that the more you subsidize oil production, the more oil you'll get, and that, after all, is a good thing for consumers when gasoline prices are around $2.25 a gallon. Unfortunately, there's simply not enough unexploited oil in the United States that might be exploited as a consequence of those subsidies to greatly affect world crude oil prices.
[...]
In short, eliminating — or at least, cutting back on — federal subsidies to the oil and gas business is a fine idea. But that's not exactly what the Democrats have in mind.

The article also goes on to discuss the leasing issue, and you can follow the link if interested.

College Football: Bring on the playoffs!

Before the season started, I made a few predictions on who the champs would be, and who would go to the national championship. Concerning the conference champs prediction, I was 1 for 6, predicting that Florida would be the SEC conference champ. I didn't expect Texas to have the collapse they did at the end of the year.

Concerning Oklahoma State, I predicted a 7 and 5 regular season record, but they went 6-6 in the regular season, with a bowl win over Alabama for an overall record of 7-6. I suppose that is not too bad. Their marquee win was over Nebraska, and they played most opponents very well and were one last play away from beating many opponents, including OU.

I predicted that the national championship game would be Notre Dame vs. West Virginia. I didn't expect Ohio State to do as good as they did, with so many new people on defense.

The Oklahoma-Boise State game had to be one of the best college football games that I have seen. It was like watching a sports movie. At first, Oklahoma was the hero of said movie, rallying from behind to tie the game, then making an interception return for a touchdown with 1 minute left. However, it didn't take long for Boise State to become the hero of this theoretical film, as they tied the game with 7 seconds left with a trick play, then won in overtime with another trick play.

As many columnists have cried out after this game, college football should move to a playoff system. What if...What if Boise State is good enough to beat Ohio State, or at the very least, give them a good game? Even the USC-Michigan game made people wonder how well USC would do against Ohio State.

The main argument against a college football playoff system is the additional amount of games. But games are being added all the time, as a 12-game regular season was approved this year. Teams with a conference championship game can potentially play 14 games. Furthermore, CF playoffs exist in other divisions. If teams were limited to 10 (without a conf-champ game) or 11 (with a conf-champ game), there would easily be a 16 team playoff system.

There could still be bowls. Teams with winning records could play bowls in the post season right along the top 16 playing in the championship bracket.

As it is right now, the opportunity to play in the championship is based too much on subjective opinions. Sure, Ohio State won all their games, but so did Boise State. And we have already had seasons with three or more undefeated teams. The playoff system is only fair.

Post about Politics with a little bit of life happenings thrown in.

Well, I survived yet another blizzard in Colorado, yet I actually wasn't home during the blizzard, but was stuck in Kansas due to road closings. My wife and I rang in the New Year asleep at a hotel. Nevertheless, it is not where I was at on New Years, but who I was with. Although I did miss my cats.

I do not feel very assured looking at the candidates for the next Presidency. The Democrats, well for me, that goes without saying. The Republicans, well, McCain, he's well, he's so old. I would like Giuliani, as I think he would be a great administrator, but there are two things that as a cultural conservative I abhor, abortion and the eroding family structure. I don't like his stance on abortion and from what I've heard, he has treated past wives horribly. Divorce I disagree with (minus what Jesus allows), but I'm willing to look past, but horrible treatment of family, no.

Romney, well, he likes his government the way I like my McDonald's meal. Super-sized with a double-quarter pounder with cheese. That means he likes it big. His ideal government is so fat, let me tell you. It's so fat that when it sits around the TV, it sits around the TV. When his ideal government comes walking down the street wearing red, people shout, hey "Kool-Aid".

I wish I knew more about Ford. He seemed like a swell guy.

Looking for discussion and understanding, or maybe just looking for a fight

The House failed to pass a bill requiring abortion procedures to use anesthesia on the fetus. From the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives, in its last days under Republican control, failed on Wednesday to pass a bill that would have required doctors to offer painkillers for fetuses before they abort them.

The bill failed by a vote of 250 to 162, short of the two-thirds majority required under rules that limit debate.

It would have required abortion providers to give pregnant women a brochure stating that fetuses can feel pain when they are five months old.

It also would have required abortion providers to offer pregnant women anesthesia for their unborn children during an abortion.

As a pro-life person, it is understandable that I would want this bill to pass. But I would think, as a pro-choice person, I wouldn't mind a bill that provided anesthesia to the baby before being aborted. Although I disagree, I imagine Democrats wouldn't like the "It would have required abortion providers to give pregnant women a brochure stating that fetuses can feel pain when they are five months old." Perhaps that was the clincher, but I have a feeling, it is not. So, liberal guests, what would be the reason for rejecting a measure to provide anesthesia? Was it because the brochure was seen as an intimidation tactic, or should such a bill be rejected anyway?

Hat Tip: Neil Simpson

New York City Board of Health bans trans-fats

Story here.

Dec. 5, 2006 — Following the New York City Board of Health's unanimous decision to phase trans fats off the city's restaurant menus, experts say the move could be an important step in saving many people from heart disease.

Restaurateurs and others, however, say the decision could have a devastating impact on New York's restaurant industry, and it might not even make restaurant food that much healthier.

I don't think I need to add much to the story to point out how ridiculous it is.

I would like to note this in the story.

"Some opponents of this ban have characterized this as 'big brother in the kitchen,'" says Meir Stampfer, professor and chairman of the Harvard School of Health's department of epidemiology.

"To those I would ask, 'Do you oppose the regulations requiring employees to wash their hands? Do you oppose regulations limiting pesticide residue in food?'"

Big difference. Restaurant customers expect the workers to wash their hands, and they expect their food to not have poison. Also, customers know what they are getting into when they eat fatty foods. Unsanitary or poisoned food is a surprise, fatty foods typically are not. I'm sure someone from Harvard is smart enough to realize this if they thought about it long enough, but some people choose not to put on their critical-thinking hat when it comes to moves by big government.

The sad thing is, the only time the story mentions the idea that this move may not be the role of the NYC city council is in the quote above, from someone who brings it up, then quickly dismisses it. This is like a news article reporting on Planned Parenthood, and having the pro-life position summed up by a pro-choicer. So much for getting both sides of the story.

And speaking of "pro-choice", whatever happened to the opinion of "my body, my choice". Apparently not when it comes to choosing what kind of food we eat.

Update: Looks like it is the New York City Board of Health, not the City Council, as I stated originally.

Favorite Christmas Songs

I got tagged by Josh to list my favorite Christmas songs:

Here goes:
Angels we have heard on high
Rockin around the Christmas Tree
Away in a Manger
Anything from Amy Grant's Home for Christmas, but specifically "Breath of Heaven", and "Emmanuel, God with Us".
White Christmas by Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir

I tag, anyone who reads this and wants to do it.

Oh yeah, and my favorite "other" holiday songs are the "Hanukkah" song by Adam Sandler.

Protection vs. Preservation of Life, or "Why Pro-lifers don't care about kids after they are born"

A common criticism I have heard of those who hold a pro-life position is that they "don't care about kids once they are born." In other words, those who are pro-life are typically conservative. Those who are conservative typically favor less government action and involvement when it comes to things like welfare and health care. In a Texas Monthly a couple years back, an interviewer asked Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), why conservatives are pro-life, yet voted against funding in the state of Texas for health care for poor kids.

This is a reasonable question, and I will do my best to answer it in a few different ways.

1) Conservatives/libertarians believe government should be involved in the protection of life and less so in the preservation of life. In other words, the government must act to protect people from being harmed against others. However, libertarians believe government should not be involved in preserving life, because doing so will agress against the freedoms of other people (i.e. forcing people to pay for health care against other people). Conservatives may hold this belief, although, to a lesser extent. This is not to argue for one point of view over the other, I am just saying that philosophically, there is a difference between protection laws vs. preservation laws. Libertarians, especially, tend to view life as a negative right, not a positive one. As far as conservatives...
2) Many conservatives till believe in government actions to preserve life, just maybe not to the extent that liberals do. Most conservatives that I am aware of do not want to end welfare or government programs addressing health care, it is just that they do not support them to the extent that liberals do. Life-preserving measures are extremely open-ended, and it is a question of money and resources. It is, in my opinion, impossible to create a risk-free society in which people's lives are never in danger. That is not a good argument against trying, but the point is, at what point does someone "care about the kids." Is it when the government spends $1 billion, $10 billion?
3) Many conservatives/libertarians believe that the best way to preserve life is through less government involvement. The argument that if there are not more health care programs, kids will die seems to trump all other arguments. After all, who doesn't want kids to live. However, someone such as myself believes that less government involvement in health care makes health care better for everyone. It is not so much an issue of me paying higher taxes - if I thought universal health care was truly the way, I would support it. However, I genuinely believe a less constrained health care system is the answer.


The point is, I am not trying to argue for a pro-life position or justify anything, I am just addressing the reasonable question that many liberals have concerning the pro-life position. For one, one can be philosophically consistent by supporting life-protection measures and not life-preserving measures. Secondly, many pro-lifers do support the preservation of life to some extent, just not to the extent that liberals do. Finally, many conservative/libertarians believe that less government, not more, is the answer to helping people, especially in the health care arena.