What I've been up to

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

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

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

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

At what point is it division?

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

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

Just a few thoughts on my mind.

On implementing God's kingdom here on earth

Katherine Coble writes this concerning the Social Gospel:

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

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

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

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

The game last night

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

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

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

As if anyone cares about my bracket performance

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

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

Not looking like the world

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

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

Paul says

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

John continues this theme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a conflict between science and Christianity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is pretty scary

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

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

Unbelievable.

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

Why expand the field?

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

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

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

The tricky issue of immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of my pet peeves

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

I saw Rocky for the first time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia defines right to work laws as those

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

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

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

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

A cool radio station

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

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

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

Thanks to Neil for informing me of the site.

What's missing among conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My views of gun control

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inequality: Does it matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A difference between conservatives and liberals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, we agree abortion is bad, now what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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