One Year Anniversary of Kelo

The one year anniversary of the Kelo Supreme Court decision was actually a week ago, on June 23. For those unfamiliar with the case, the Supreme Court essentially said that the government had the authority to use eminent domain to transfer property from one private citizen to another. The government always had this power when it came to establishing public property, such as parks or highways. But now, the government can take away the property of a small-business owner and give it to Sears or Wal-Mart. The reason for this is because the state or local government can make more in tax revenue.

There are a few good articles on this topic.

The Institute for Justice has a collection of 5 pdf articles.
Cato Institute discusses the California Protect Our Homes Act.
Foundation for Economic Freedom states

No recipient of the fruits of eminent domain can honestly call himself a champion of individual liberty. Free-marketeers routinely support the big retail chain stores against their anti-corporate critics, but companies that lobby for privileges don't deserve support. How can they demand freedom to operate in the marketplace when they refuse to forswear the receipt of stolen property?

Of course, the New York Times thinks its a great idea.

Probably the most troubling thing about the Kelo decision is that it almost came with a whimper. A year ago, I did not even know about the decision until I happened upon the Institute for Justice website. It seems that no one really talks about it. Watching or reading the news, this decision seemed like it was hardly at the forefront of the headlines. This was one of the biggest decisions the Supreme Court has made in the last few years.

This is why politics is so frustrating. So much time is spent on emotionally charged issues, while many more important issues are on the back burner. To be fair, many state governments are taking steps addressing the Supreme Court decision, but the issue only receives mention in passing in the mainstream media. The flag burning amendment, whether one is pro or con, hardly threatens our liberty nearly as much as this violation of property rights. Gas prices are on the forefront of the news, because it affects everyone. So does the Kelo decision, but no one realizes it.

Politicians love to focus on the more emotionally-charged wedge issues. Some of these issues are worthy of the attention they receive, but so is the Kelo issue. For some reason, this case is not emotionally charged, and I have to wonder why. I guess people suppose it will not affect them. However, many do not know about this in the first place. The whole point is not "oh, people are so ignorant, they need to be informed like me." Not at all. I just happen to read articles of a libertarian persuasion. I just wonder why the politicians and media are not discussing this issue like they do others. As I said earlier, many legislatures are takign steps to address the problem, but there seems to be no voice from the leadership; any work is almost done behind the scenes. Why are more Republicans not outraged? They should hate big government stepping all over the little guy. Why are more Democrats not outraged? This is a case of big business running all over the little guy. It is an unholy union of big government and big business. Maybe each party's love of one supersedes the hatred of the other.

My constant email faux paus

Well, I keep sending my emails to the wrong people, using my work Outlook account. This has happened three times. I called one of my good friends "baby", I told some guy from another company that I loved him. So, I was determined that this would not happen again. I looked all around Outlook and Mozilla Thunderbird that would ask for a confirmation after I press "Send" to essentially ask me "do you really want to send your email to so-and-so", just so I am less likely to continue embarrassing myself. Apparently, I cannot be trusted with email without some safety switch.

As it turns out, I have found no built in features. But there is some VBA code coupled with Outlook. VBA is called Visual Basic for Applications, and it is a feature that is coupled with MS Office applications that allows you to customize certain things. The most apparent features are in Excel, where you can create your own formulates, in addition to sum(), average(), etc...

For Outlook, you can create a message box that pops up when you try to send an email. I found the original code here.

Mine is slightly adapted, so that it will ask you if you really want to send the message, then it lists the names of the people your email is going to.



Here is my adapted code:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Sub Application_ItemSend(ByVal Item As Object, Cancel As Boolean)
Dim prompt As String
prompt = "Are you sure you want to send message to:"


Dim Count As Integer
For Count = 1 To Item.Recipients.Count
prompt = prompt & Chr(13) & Item.Recipients(Count)
Next Count
prompt = prompt & "?"
If MsgBox(prompt, vbYesNo + vbQuestion + vbMsgBoxSetForeground + vbDefaultButton2, _
"Sample") = vbNo Then
Cancel = True
End If
End Sub

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, the question is, how do you actually use this. In Outlook, and it will only work in Outlook, go to Tools...Macro...Visual Basic Editor, and you should get a screen like this, but without the code. Make sure you click on "ThisOutLookSession" as in the picture. Copy the code in the blockquotes, and save it.

By default, Outlook has a high macro security, so you will have to go to Tools...Macro...Security to play around with your settings. For right now, I lowered my settings, before finding a better fix. You may have to restart Outlook.

My personal CD wish list

Here is my personal CD wish list. Not that I really need more CDs, I have plenty, and its typically not a good mental exercise to be thinking about things that I want to have all day. But I thought it would be just a fun post in the midst of my more serious ones. As I mentioned a few posts ago, musical elitism bothers me. I'll throw names around of less well known bands, but its not because I'm some musical expert or anything, I just happen to listen to a lot of online radio. In fact, I'll discuss some of the lesser known bands, instead of assuming you should have heard of them, like your popular music magazine does.


Belle and Sebastian - The Life Pursuit - This is the newest album by B & S. B & S is a band from Scotland who sounds like, well, probably not anyone. The closest thing I can think of is 70s pop. They rely on a lot of woodwind and acoustic instruments. They are a break from the 4-piece band. I have 2 of their other albums Dear Catastrophe Waitress and If You're Feeling Sinister. I recommend both, with a preference toward the former.

Coldplay - X&Y - What can I say? I love their song "Talk". The best song I have heard on the radio all year.

The Beatles - Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles were a band out of Liverpool, England who were around during the 1960s. I'd recommend listening to their stuff sometime.

The Beatles - The White Album - To paraphrase Hank Hill, this is when they "went nuts in India." While I would never rely on any Beatle as a spiritual guide, this album blows me away. It's hard justifying 30 bucks on an album (it's a double).

The Innocence Mission - Befriended - I talked about this band in a previous post. If you have a tendency toward folk music whatsoever, I would recommend checking out this band.

From Bubblegum to Sky - Nothing Sadder than a Lonely Queen - This is the strangest band I have ever, ever heard. I though the lead singer was a girl for the longest time, but it turns out to be some dude. They have some free mp3s floating around somewhere. I don't even know how to explain them.

U2 & Brian Eno - Passengers: Original Soundtrack - I may have gotten the official name wrong. This was a U2 & Brian Eno collaboration that is not really a U2 album.

So there you go. Josh, I think you may have my mailing address.

Where is God on the political map?

If that question could easily be figured out, I suppose all Christians would have the same political persuasion. I guess the ultimate question that should be asked is this: What brings the most glory to God?

This is really where the issue of freedom vs. more government comes into play. First of all, let's look at God wants. I like what James 1:27 says about true religion

27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

.

I like this verse because it really tackles the two dimensions found on most political maps, individual morality and collective morality. We know what God expects of us as individuals, but what about as a collective nation? This goes back to the original question: what brings about the most glory to God? Is a nation that passes laws respecting the laws of God more preferable? Or, is a nation full of individuals who obey God from their own initiative more preferable? Or, is it a balance of both? Does passing laws honoring Biblical morality glorifying to God if the individuals of the country do not respect the laws themselves? Should the country make a statement by passing certain laws, or grouping together as a democracy to honor God?

I've often heard the arguments that America honors God by letting the government serve as some type of moral guardrail. I've also heard the argument that, since God gives us free will to obey or disobey him, that government should give us this freedom as well.

What about giving to the poor? Should the government serve a role in helping the poor? Or is charity much more valuable when it is done voluntarily?

The answers to these questions, on a government scale, are not completely clear. I suppose for now, all I can do is apply God's word to my own life and be an example to others (not that I do this well by any means, but it is the goal). I have my own idea of the ideal government, but I am always questioning things. I think pondering the big questions of life are vital, but at the same time we should focus on serving God in our own individual lives. Like James says, I should try to live a Godly life, through depending on Him, and do what I can to help out those in need. If we do this, the type of government we have still matters, but it may not matter quite as much. While we try to figure out the big questions, God does give us a roadmap for living out our individual lives, and our lives as a Christian body.

Smoke-free Colorado on July 1.

On July 1 Colorado will ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

This is an issue in which I have previously been on the fence for a while. I believed that if a person smokes or not should be up to the owner of the establishment, while, at the same time, believing that someone should be free of second-hand smoke.

The issue is not one of smoker's rights vs. nonsmoker's rights, it is really a question of property rights. It seems that many Americans, probably most, believe the right of people to breathe clean air supersedes property rights. I can understand this argument. However, here is the crux of the matter. Is a customer entitled to the services of that business? I would say no. Radley Balko argues that a customer does not have the right to visit a business establishment and demand that the business establishment follow their rules. Balko states

You don't have the right to walk onto someone else's property, demand to be served food or drink someone else has bought, and demand that they serve you on your terms. Free societies don't work that way.

(His testimony may not have been stated in the most diplomatic fashion if you follow the link).

I know it sucks to go into an Applebee's and, even though you are sitting in the non-smoking section, have some of the fumes from the smoking section waft over. However, I am not entitled to enjoy an Applebee's burger. Entitled to breathe clean air? Sure. But not entitled to a restaurant.

It is essentially the same issue when it comes to movie and premium television content (public airwaves may be a different issue). If there is something in the programming that offends me, it is my responsibility to avoid it, not legislate it away. The same with restaurants in my opinion.

I'll Be Praying For You (I promise)

I always hate saying that. For one, sometimes it sounds corny, and sometimes it is said among Christians because it is the right thing to say. Also, how many times have I said I would pray for someone, and not actually do it? Countless times I am sure. Now, prayer is important and powerful, and I am not disregarding it. I had a friend who lost a job recently, and fortunately I was able to (possibly) help him out, by sending a resume to someone. In my email exchange, I thought about saying "I'll be praying for you", but decided not to, because it may not sound genuine. Praying for others is a genuine way to care for someone, but unfortunately, the phrase has been thrown around too much.

Things that annoy me (don't worry, this is not a political post)...

...is musical elitism. I used to visit several different forums often, some related to music. However, for blood pressure reasons, I stopped, mainly for reasons dealing in the political. One thing that would bother me is the following. Here is an example exchange.

Music_fan: I love respectable and established band*.

Elitest_Spin_Reader: popular band is just a rip-off of some band no one has heard of.

In other words, someone will mention their fondness for a certain band, and Elitest_Spin_Reader will throw around the name of some obscure older band, and suggest that if that person really appreciated music, they would have already heard of this band, and realize that their band is really a clone of the other. Such conversation produces a sense of elitism and self-satisfaction in Elitest_Spin_Reader, that they could know what true music really is, and throw around band names no one has heard (or really cares about).

For instance, some internet post, I forget where, suggested that U2 really ripped their sound from Echo and the Bunnymen. Okay...even if this is the case, U2 obviously did something that the other band couldn't do, since U2 has received worldwide acclaim, and no one knows who Echo is. Furthermore, when did U2 sound like this other band? Being that U2's sound has changed and evolved through multiple albums...did Echo also make a political album (War), followed by an atmospheric soundscape album (Unforgettable Fire), followed by a couple of American-influenced albums (Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum), followed by a harder electric guitar driven album (Achtung Baby), followed by a really weird experimental album (Zooropa), followed by a techo album (Pop), followed by a return to a more 4-piece sound (ATYCLB & HTDAAB) etc...? Also, U2 was influenced by other people. That doesn't mean they were a ripoff.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are many talented bands that don't get much exposure, yet influence more popular bands following them. But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the more popular, established bands that, most likely, took that sound to another level.



* i.e. U2, Rolling Stones, Beatles

Who would be at your table?

Danny Sims has a post that provides food for thought. If you could pick 9 people, dead or alive, to eat with, who would it be? They can be from history, sports, or music.

Since I ripped the idea off Danny Sims, feel free to post your thoughts at his blog, instead of mine.

I pick Jesus (and no, not because its the "correct" churchy-answer, I hate being asked questions like these at church), but, like a commenter said, I wouldn't want to talk to anyone else. So, to make my answer more interesting, I will limit my answers to mortals.

1. Abraham
2. King David
3. The Apostle Paul
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Ronald Reagan
6. George W. Bush
7. Bono
8. Albert Einstein
9. Euler, the mathematician.

But, I would trade them all for the previously mentioned person.

Free markets don't always mean low prices

I like what Firey says about free markets.

...more competitive markets do not guarantee low prices — they only guarantee that prices more accurately reflect costs.

I think that many, including myself, assume the opposite. I think that is why so many people, including Republicans, are losing faith in the free market when they see the sky-rocketing price of gas. Sometimes things actually cost a lot. Sure, gas prices can be regulated. A regulated economy can actually have lower prices than a free-market economy. However, as costs of production go up, and these prices stay fixed, producing that product is no longer a desirable option. That is why when prices are regulated, for gas, groceries, anything, shortages occur.

Random Post

Well, I wanted to post something, simply because I didn't want the top post to be my lame attempt at being funny. Since I have a short amount of time I'll just link to somebody else's blog.

Josh at Gabbatha University is celebrating his 2000th hit!!! Congrats Josh.

Lee at Digital Nicotine, or Nicottine, or Nicccotene, I don't remember, has a good post on why it is a bad idea to leave Iraq.

Even though Glen Dean is no longer posting for now, I recommend checking out some of his previous articles. My favorite is Why Christians Should Be Libertarians. Not saying that Christians should necessarily be anything, but it provides some good points on why Christians should not think government is their best friend.

Vote now!!!

Josh directed me to pollhost.com, so I can put polls on my blog, so here it goes.

I just want to mention that I will strive the best to have unbiased, fair polls, that allow for users to express a wide array of opinions. I hate polls that lead people to the answer that the poller wants to hear. So, here we go...

Who has the best ideas when it comes to running the country.
	Chance
	Al Qaeda
Free polls from Pollhost.com

What do you think of the Zoo Station blog?
	It is the best blog since the origination of the internet. I find myself continually captivated and stimulated by Chance's thought-provoking posts.
	I club baby seals for a living.
Free polls from Pollhost.com

My monthly love song for the oil companies

Yes, its that time of month, where, yet again I talk about how awesome oil companies are...
I was watching a clip of Tim Russert interviewing oil company CEOs, and asking them why they cannot take a 30% profit increase, as opposed to a 60%. While I disagree with Tim Russert's ability to know what a "just" profit margin is, I do see his point in essentially questioning why profits have increased by so much, when a smaller increase would supposedly be enough money for the company. See a previous post for my best stab at an explanation for oil companies profits. To sum that post up, essentially oil companies need more profits in order to build up crude oil inventory. When crude oil goes up, more profits are needed to purchase that inventory.

Anyway, I can understand consumers griping about high oil costs, but I believe the only thing that the government can do is back off oil production, as opposed to passing more regulations.

What truly troubles me is that politicians seem to genuinely care the oil prices have gone up. Many politicians, and not just Democrats, are continually lobbying for higher gas taxes. Last year, gas taxes (including state, federal, and local) average around 45.9 cents per gallon, and oil company profit is around 6 cents (although that has increased this year). Glen Dean provides the links.

So, why is it okay to put pressure on consumers at the pump through gas taxes, but not through prices caused by the free market?

Well, I can think of two possible (and reasonable) arguments addressing this.

1) Government taxes fund much needed programs (I'm trying to think through the eyes of someone more liberal than myself), whereas oil company profits go towards oil companies and fund the high salaries of CEOs.
2) Gas taxes are needed to regulate consumption.

1) Concerning point #1, it may take a huge debate to fully address. This is like asking, is the Republican way or the Democrat way better? But, let me take a quick swipe. Let's say gas taxes fund much needed programs for the poor. In my opinion, though, if the poor have to pay huge taxes at the pump, it kind of defeats the purpose for such a tax. I would imagine a higher proportion of the poor's income goes towards buying gas compared to the rich.

2) There is the argument that taxes are needed to regulate consumption. Here's the thing though, so do high prices determined by the market. And I would argue that market prices do a better job. When politicians argue for a gas tax, they can essentially pull a number out of the air. They may have derived the number through meaningful math somehow, but that number becomes less meaningful as the price of gas fluctuates.

For the market, however, gas prices have some basis in reality, due to supply and demand. These prices may not be perfect, but they at least follow a general trend reflecting the amount of oil available. As supply drops, and we use more and more nonrenewable energy, prices will rise. As prices rise, we will naturally conserve more. Isn't this what we want to happen? People won't drive their SUV for a single loaf of bread, in fact, SUVs will be less popular in general. People will carpool more. There will be bigger pushes for alternative sources of energy.

In my view, the government doesn't need to regulate oil consumption through taxes, or even subsidize alternative sources of energy. The market is sufficient for that.

Freedom of Religion (Separation of Church and State?)

I found a good article at Probe Ministries by Kerby Anderson titled Wall of Separation. I have previously discussed another of Kerby Anderson's articles titled "A Biblical View of Economics" in a previous post.

This article takes a good look at what Separation of Church and State really means, and it also examines the wording in Amendment 1, and how it came to be, which is

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The article mentions different ways of viewing the relationship between the church and the government: separation, sponsorship, and accommodationon. In Anderson's view, separation actually means a government atmosphere hostile to religion, sponsorship means a government promoting a particular religion. Anderson sees a middle way, calleaccommodationon, which he explains.

Between these two views is accommodation. Proponents argue that government should not sponsor religion but neither should it be hostile to religion. Government can accommodate religious activities. Government should provide protection for the church and provide for the free expression of religion. But government should not favor a particular group or religion over another.

He gives some examples

Proponents would oppose direct governmental support of religious schools but would support education vouchers since the parents would be free to use the voucher at a public, private school, or Christian school. Proponents would oppose mandated school prayer but support programs that provide equal access to students. Equal access argues that if students are allowed to start a debate club or chess club on campus, they should also be allowed to start a Bible club.

I think this accommodationon view makes sense (but I could see variance of opinion on the voucher issue), and it seems to go along with the wording of the first amendment, in which government does not establish a religion, nor does it prohibit the free exercise.

Personally, I have never liked to use the wording "separation of church and state", because it may not always have the same meaning, and may even have a contrary meaning to what the First Amendment states. When the phrase "separation of church and state" is used, I think it causes people to be overzealous in removing any possible religious activities or references from anything remotely connected to the government or state. For instance, a child drew a picture of Jesus on a poster for a class project that was related to saving the environment, and they didn't want to display his poster (I tried finding a link that had the actual news story, but I was bombarded with editorial links, I usually like to link only to the facts in this case). Now, under the view "separation of church and state", this could actually be acceptable. Remove any reference of religion or spiritually from the government funded and controlled classroom. However, looking at the wording of the First Amendment, the kid should have been able to display the poster, provided it did not violate any non-religious class policies (profanity, too big, sometimes these issues are involved as well, but not reported). The government, in this case, was prohibiting the free exercise of his religion. However, was the establishment clause being violated? From what I have heard regarding this story, no school employee pressured him to include Jesus in the poster.

I admit other issues are not so clear, such as some of the issues with the Ten Commandment monuments. Personally, I don't have issues with these displays, because I don't think it does enough to actually establish a religion, but is primarily a display of a historical artifact, but I understand the concerns that some people have. Not every issue is so clear. Fortunately, the state does not encompass more areas of our lives where these things come into conflict. But I think accommodationon is a good policy, in which government neither prohibits nor actively promotes religious practices. This seems to go along with the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.

Secret Agent Music!

Lately I've been listening to SomaFM's Secret Agent Online Radio Stream. If you work at a computer and have a high-speed connection, I recommend checking it out. It provides some nice atmospheric music; I believe much of it is taken from Bond movies, and I've heard stuff from Austin Powers as well. I also recommend it in the event that you are, in fact, a secret agent and you are trying to thwart an evil genius's plans from your office.

Thoughts on Freedom of Speech, Part 2

This post has evolved into one concerning freedom of speech, to that of speech and of lifestyle.

There is an interesting post at astrocoz.blogspot.com, which Josh directed me to, and a discussion in which both Josh and I participated. The main focus was the Dixie Chicks issue. She also said something else interesting though

We don't have freedom of speech anymore...that is unless all parties who are audience to it agree with it. Freedom of speech exists as a right in a document written centuries ago...however, it does not exist in practice. For instance, there are things I just don't write here...because if some superior from my company were to read this blog and see what I wrote, I could get fired for my views. I could lose my job over my right for freedom of speech. I can write whatever I want, according to the government, but Corporatism prevents me from writing some things that I would really like to say for fear of being canned or demoted. They wouldn't outright say I was fired or demoted for my views and opinions, but they would find some other problem with my blog and use that as an excuse...because if they said they were doing that because of an opinion I wrote on, I could probably sue...but then again, under contract, I probably waived my freedom of speech and my right to sue like a lot of people do inadvertently.

Our discussion was mainly on freedom of speech as a whole, but I wanted to touch more on the issue of her being fired for her views. These were my comments concerning that issue.

I think the whole issue of whether or not you can be fired or not hired for activities outside of the workplace is a very important one, and one I see becoming bigger as time goes on. Should a company base employment decisions on issues that are not directly related to the workplace? I could see some instances, where a church fires their pastor for doing things contrary to the teachings of the church, even if it is in "private". However, other issues are not so clear, such as a health club firing employees for doing non-healthy things in their pastimes. Then, there are the more insane examples, like the ones you provided.

If I had to make a choice right now, I would probably go more towards the businesses having more flexibility in hiring and firing (provided that the firing was done according to the contract terms), because I think if the company goes over the edge, people will be less likely to do business with the company. However, I can understand how someone can go the other way too. And I hate to see companies discriminate based on activities that have nothing to do with work.

Anyway, I think this issue is a very interesting and important one, and just wanted to discuss it on my blog. It seems like this issue and similar ones are not quite in the limelight, but will be soon. The ACLU has already taken up a lawsuit in a case similar to the one I mentioned in the quote above, in which people were fired from a health club for smoking. I predict whether or not people can be fired for doing things in their private lives, non-related to their job, will be a hot issue.

This is an issue of non-governmental entities providing rules for our lives. Another example is that of covenants for housing subdivisions, in which people are limited to what they can do to their house and property. Could these covenants become more invasive, such as requiring someone not smoke (property values could be tied to this), or not putting up certain kinds of Christmas decorations? What if a housing covenant decides that putting up Christian Christmas decorations is inappropriate for the neighborhood?

My last example is that of insurance companies. Health insurance companies can charge higher premiums on those who smoke or may generally have less healthy lifestyles. Home insurance can charge extra if someone has a certain type of pet, much to the chagrin of dog owners and animal rights activists.

For the insurance issue, I fully support the companies. After all, they make money by playing the odds. They assess the risk that a claim will have to be filed, and charge a premium accordingly. If someone does something that puts themselves or their property at risk, it makes sense they will have to pay more.

The hiring issue is not so clear. As I said in my quoted comments, for right now I support the right of businesses to hire who they want. Yes, there are some issues that are ridiculous, and I don't think Astrocoz should be fired for what she posts on her blogs. But other issues are more clear, when the employee is doing something that goes against the mission of the organization or company. The thing is, I don't think government has the ability to make these subjective judgments.

The important thing to mention here is that things should be done according to the agreement between the employee and employer. If there was nothing in the contract or handbook concerning improper blog posts, the employee would have a case for wrongful termination. At least to my very, very limited understanding of workplace law.

The housing covenant issue can be a very scary one though. Yes, moving into a region is optional, but what if you live in a city where everyone hates religious Christmas (or any religious holiday for that matter) displays? State freedom of religion does no good if no neighborhood allows it. However, I think this is an issue that the free market can regulate. Housing covenants that are invasive or overly restrictive would prevent customers from coming to that subdivision. Furthermore, opportunistic building companies would have much more lenient housing covenants, thereby exploiting the marketplace by appealing to those who love Christmas lights. Finally, a building company with anti-religious housing covenants would really get bad press, whether they be in the religious south, or the more religiously-private (that's a politically correct term, right?) New England.

Thoughts on Freedom of Speech, Part 1

There's some good posts discussing the Dixie Chicks, and how some do not play them on the radio at moorethoughts.com, Bill Hobbs (the first links to the second) and at Astrocoz's blog.

Now, is it right that the Dixie Chicks have suffered commercially (at least through radio airplay, I don't know about ticket sales). Well, morally, I don't think the radio stations have any obligation, but I understand how liberals feel. I know that if some secular artist said something that promoted Christianity or conservative thought, and the same thing happened to that artist that is happening to the Dixie Chicks, I am sure I would be annoyed.

From a freedom of speech standpoint, however, nothing is being violated. The first two blogs focus on the market aspect, pointing out that this is a market economy, not a command economy in which radio stations are directed by the government to play certain songs. I would like to approach it more from a freedom of speech issue. The third blog brings up some other issues in addition to the Dixie Chicks issue, which I will discuss in my next blog.

Many people cry censorship when things like this happen to the Dixie Chicks; that radio stations do not play their songs for their political views. A similar thing happened when Miramax, I believe it was (correct me if I am wrong), did not want to produce Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 911, even though they provided money for it. And it is not just liberals. I've heard conservative Christians say their freedom of religion was violated when a store did not say Merry Christmas to them. Not that I cannot understand their annoyance, but such an action does not infringe on religious freedom, although there are many valid cases to complain about (a kid not being allowed to draw a poster about Jesus for a class project, for instance).

But censorship only technically happens when the government restricts speech. A radio station that refuses to play a certain song is not infringing on the artists' right to free speech, no matter how good or bad the reason may be. Yes, it makes it harder for the artist to get their music out, but that leads me to the next point.

According to the Bill of Rights, free speech is a negative right, not a positive one. What this means is that the government cannot take actions to restrict freedom of speech. If freedom of speech was a positive right, it means that the government would have to provide the means for someone to get their voice out. I've heard the saying, "the government can't take your microphone away, but they won't supply you with one either."

If the government did grant freedom of speech as a positive right, then we would have contradictions and a clash of "freedoms" everywhere we go. If the Dixie Chicks were given the "right" to have their songs played on the radio, this would contradict the radio station's own freedom of speech. An editor of a newspaper would not even be able to control what was printed. While I hate bias in the media in any direction, if we ensured "fairness" through some government means, then the speech would not actually be "free." In fact, I think socialism is contrary to freedom of religion and speech, because if the government owned everything, it would be regulating the presses and TV to make sure every viewpoint would be represented. While this may be "fair", it is not "free."

Now, this may seem unfair, because the more money one has, the more access they have to speech. This is true, but I prefer this to the alternative, in which those who have government power have more access to speech, and unpopular opinions are truly censored. And, more and more forms of alternative communication come about as time progresses, as you are reading right now. Any person with an opinion and internet access can speak what they wish, even if all they say is complete nonsense.

Top 10 U2 Songs, according to my very professional opinion

While we are on the topic of U2, and yes, Josh, U2 does indeed rock, I figured I would post my 11 personal favorite songs (who said it had to be divisible by 5?), in no particular order. I don't know if this list will be interesting to anyone other than myself, but what can I say, I may be a little self-indulgent at times on this blog.

Song - Album

1. Where the Streets Have no Name - The Joshua Tree - The perfect song to get your adrenaline pumping. I don't think U2 has ever skipped this song in any full-length concert.

2. Running to Stand Still - The Joshua Tree - This song features some of what U2 does best. Instead of relying on a catchy tune, they start with a low key song that just builds and builds in momentum. Nice piano and harmonica.

3. Until the End of the World - Achtung Baby - Very interesting song. It is sung from Judas Iscariot's point of view, in terms of his relationship with Jesus. "Waves of regret, waves of joy, I reached out for the one I tried to destroy."

4. In a Little While - ATYCLB (All That You Can't Leave Behind) - Nice bluesy song. Doesn't sound like any other U2 song. Sounds more like an American classic 60s song, maybe something Van Morrison would have done.

5. Kite - ATYCLB - Nothing to say but great song. U2 did great with this song during the Elevation Tour.

6. Original of the Species - HTDAAB - (How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb) - Nothing much to say, just great instruments. A little awkward with the "do do do", but a great song nonetheless.

7. Promenade - The Unforgettable Fire - This song has a strange catchiness to it.

8. Your Blue Room - Passengers: Original Soundtrack 1 - U2 at their most non-U2. This could have gone on their Zooropa album. I'm not even sure U2 wrote it, since this was Brian Eno's project. Adam even gets involved with the vocals.

9. Angel of Harlem - Rattle and Hum - Great upbeat song. Love the brass, and Bono's voice is powerful.

10. Yahweh - HTDAAB - Great song about the one of the same name.

And finally...
11. All I Want is You - Rattle and Hum - Great love song. This made the list since it was played at my wedding.

Addition to the blogroll

I added a new site, Alex Forrest, to my blogroll. As you know, this is a very special blog, and only an elite few are worthy to be mentioned on this page. Seriously though, I ran across it thanks on Digital Nicotine's blogroll, and he had an interesting blog. It also helped that U2 is his favorite band. Enjoy!

So, if you want to be graced with my honorable mention, just say U2 is the best band ever. Heck, if you know Bono's real name, there's points already.

This guy has some good ideas...

At the Cato site, Arnold Kling lists what he calls a "libertarian approach to poverty.".

Like any libertarian, he emphasizes the importance of private charity, and its superiority over government services. However, he does propose a concept that allows tax dollars to go directly to charity.

Under our current tax system, donations to charity are a deduction from income. If your tax bracket is 25 percent and you give $1000 to charity, then this reduces your tax bill by $250, so that the donation only costs you $750 after taxes.

My proposal (which I suspect is not original) is that, on top of the current deduction for charitable contributions, we create a large charitable exemption, of, say $20,000. That would mean that you could donate up to $20,000 and have that amount taken off your taxes. Thus, the after-tax cost of your donation would be zero. For people whose annual tax obligation is less than $20,000, the income tax would essentially be optional. You could pay your taxes, or you could give an equivalent amount to charity.

A charitable exemption would have the effect of shifting resources from government to private charities. I believe that would be a net plus for people in need.

This may be a pretty good idea. Essentially, allow people to pay taxes or donate to charity, up to a certain amount.

This idea, however, would not stand up under scrutiny of the pure libertarian, since either way, people are forced to give money. I do like what Kling says though, which is really an essential piece of his article.

I describe myself as a pragmatic libertarian. If I had to give up a little bit of freedom in order to see a meaningful reduction in poverty, I would do so. My problem with government is that I see it doing harm on both counts.

I agree. I feel like such a tradeoff would be worth it, I just fear a slippery slope, as I mentioned in a previous post.

Kling mentions actually mentions that some programs, like the GI Bill, have been helpful, yet its policy towards public schools, have not. He states, however, that government does not seem to learn from which policies work well, and which ones do not. I would like to note however, that the GI Bill is really an extension of the military, which is a libertarian function of government; so any libertarian could justify the GI Bill program.

Kling also tackles the two prevailing theories about the roots of poverty. 1) The class oppression theory, and 2) that something is actually wrong with the poor, such as abuse, addiction, illnesses, etc...

A pretty good article. I've never really wanted to abandon the idea of welfare completely, and it seems like this guy doesn't want to either. I'm not saying I am completely aboard or opposed to his ideas just yet, but they are interesting to ponder.

New template!

Props to Josh for giving me a new format. Thanks!

Is American freedom just an old ideal?

Lee has a post called Fast Food Fascists which talks about how KFC is being sued by the The Center for Science in the Public Interest (ugh, just the name gives me chills) because the food is unhealthy.

Okay...so many emotions...I'm trying to avoid rant mode.

As a young lad growing up in America, I had always heard that one of the great things about America was that it was a free country. I was taught that freedom was so valuable, that it was something many countries did not have, and that we should thank God everyday that we live in a free country. Yes, I was taught that America was a great country because we loved God, but also, because we were free.

Now, I don't know what the deal is with these Public Interest people. Maybe they didn't grow up with the idea that freedom is so valuable. Maybe the particular government school they went to did not harp on the value of liberty and the Bill of Rights and other such things.

Or maybe they saw how ugly freedom was, and they decided they did not like it.

Yes, my friends, freedom can be pretty ugly. Now, as a conservative with libertarian tendencies, or vice versa, I'm always trying to figure out in my mind where the balance of freedom is, verses government enforcement of moral standards.

Freedom can be a terrible, ugly thing. It means that people can sleep around with complete strangers; it means that we can be a couch potato all day eating junk food, say hateful things, become an alcoholic, sell or eat fried chicken...you get the point.

But freedom can be a beautiful thing as well. I don't want to get too much in the issues of morality and law, but I have heard many limited government Christians say that freedom of choice is a prerequisite for virtue. Freedom means getting up off the couch and taking care of your body because you want to, not because there is some government bureaucrat taxing or regulating your every move. Freedom means being able to buy fried chicken because you have five kids to feed after working a 12 hour day and not having a lot of money in the bank. Freedom means being able to start a fast food fried chicken chain (say that 5 times fast), send your kids to college off the profits, and providing jobs for thousands of acne-faced teenagers across the country, without having to lobby to justify the chicken chain's existence.

I could go on and on about freedom, but for most of you I don't have to. Some may see the KFC issue as no big deal, but freedom is composed of the ability to make everyday choices.

Feeling uninspired...

I had a couple of topics in mind, such as the Marriage Amendment and school choice, but I don't know if I really feel like talking about politics right now. So... I'll post a few ramblings for my own self-indulgent purposes. Also, I have my large fan base to appease.

Apparently there is, or was, some hockey championship game going on right now. What teams are playing, I am not sure. I saw two teams were playing, and I think one was Edmonton.

Now, I do enjoy watching hockey...in person. It is a fun sport to watch; there are a couple of good college teams in this area. However, it seems less so on TV, but maybe I should give it a good try. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Colorado may have an NHL team.

Speaking of online radio, I found a pretty decent online adult alternative radio station called Alternate Current. I've been listening to it some for the past couple of days. I told myself that if they played Coldplay, I would be sold on the station, and wouldn't you know it, they started playing "Talk".

Josh is doing some postings about the 10 commandments at Gabbatha University, which are pretty good so far. I think if he was really committed though, he would do postings on the entire law, with all the 600-something commands in the Old Testament. I think its important to reiterate such commands as not marrying your cousin, etc...

On a more serious note though, while we are not bound to the ceremonial laws (or technically, any of the law, because of grace, but the moral law is still important), there are many that are applicable. The Maker's Diet (didn't you know, I'm doing paid endorsements now) is a book that recommends following the dietary rules found in the Law, not for theological reasons, but actually for health reasons. Many of the laws may seem inane or nit-picky, but God knew what He was doing, and put them in place when people did not have the technological advancements and science that we do now. (not that these replace God by any means, science just proves what God says).

I think Katherine Coble may feel somewhat the way I do, and her post actually inspired this one. For the moment, I am just tired of talking about politics, but that may change in a few hours. It is just that my best writing and thinking take place not in the artistic realm, but in the more problem-solving type realm.

That is all for now.

The iPod in Europe

Businessweek.com (not sure how long the link will remain active) reports that

The worldwide success of Apple Computer's digital media platform -- the iPod portable music and video player, and the iTunes Music Store -- is starting to catch the critical eye of consumer advocates and regulators in several European countries. Norway's Consumer Ombudsman, acting on a complaint by the country's Consumer Council, has found that Apple's practice of selling downloadable songs that can be played on only one portable player -- the iPod family of products and not other brands of player -- violates Norwegian law.

What's wrong with this picture? I don't even know where to begin.

For one, no one has to buy music from Apple. There are plenty of other online music stores in the market. But say that Apple is the only producer of online music. Not even considering the fact that any competitor can rise up, no one has the right to purchase online music in any format they wish. I don't have an entitlement to online music services. I'll admit that arguments concerning entitlement to health care and housing are more convincing, although I would ultimately disagree. But digital music? Apple provides a service to consumers. I don't have the right to set the terms of that service, other than through the free market, in which I determine what to buy or sell.

There is no law saying that Apple even has to provide their services. I think Apple should pull an Atlas Shrugged-type move and simply pull their product from those European markets, then see if they are so keen on regulating their product. Of course, some other company will simply move in and take their business, so maybe that is a bad idea.

Yet another political quiz.

I found another quiz, called the Enhanced Political Quiz...in 2D. This has a political map like the World's Smallest Political Quiz, but the questions have five possibilities, resulting in categories such as Liberal-Leaning Centrist, Moderate Libertarian, etc...

I don't know how accurate it is...Apparently I am a radical libertarian

Despite my criticisms...

...I am thankful for the country in which I live. Despite the stuff I have said in previous posts, which I still stand by, I am thankful that we do live in a free country. Though I believe this freedom falters in some cases, I know that we are fortunate and have opportunities many just dream about, and I have many things for which to thank God.

I just felt like ending my blogging session today on a positive note.

Foundations of a Free Market

What separates us from a communist nation? I always talk about the importance of a free market, but what does that really mean? Does a free market mean a society with a flat tax and less regulation, or does it simply mean a society in which people are free to buy and sell?

I am relatively young, and I highly doubt I can give the same detailed and logical explanation that someone from say, the Cato Institute or Foundation for Economic Education could give. However, I wanted to give a stab at it and give what, in my opinion, are important features of a free market.

Now, there are (at least) two categories of issues when it comes to the economy. The first is 1) taxes/regulation (safety or moral), and the second is 2) the freedom of the market itself, that is, the role of government in actually operating or controlling different businesses. Now, the second category is what separates the socialists/communists from the capitalists. It can also separate the American right and left when it comes to certain issues such as health care and higher education.

Now, many confuse category 1) with category 2), but one can believe in high taxes and more regulation but believe in a primarily free market. Yes, as any libertarian and most conservatives would argue, high taxes and regulation make the market less free, but in my view, those who believe in high taxes and regulation may not believe in deficiencies in the free market within itself, but rather, deficiencies of the free market in addressing other areas of life. For instance, I do not think the Left primarily believe that taxes make the free market operate better, but they believe they are necessary to remedy income inequalities, and that regulation is there to keep people safe.

I may not be completely correct, my point is that one can believe in high taxes and regulation, but these are somewhat separate from control of the market itself.

So what makes a truly free market?

1) The right of people to sell a product for whatever price they want. I suppose I would provide exceptions for state education, since it is already controlled by the government anyway. I am talking about the right of an oil company to sell gas for whatever price they want. People naming their price whether it be movie tickets or an essential need. For the most part, in America, people can do this. However, as anyone knows, there has been a big backlash against oil companies because the market is not working they way they want. This is what is so disturbing about that backlash: If people are complaining now, it seems that they have no faith in the free market in the first place.

2) The right of people to negotiate wages. Let me talk about the less controversial part first. If someone wants to pay a CEO a million bajillion dollars, that is the business of the company and their stockholders, if any. Who am I to tell someone else what to pay their CEO based on my own subjective opinions? Now for the most controversial part; the other side of this coin is the abolition of the minimum wage. Now, I know this is an unpopular belief, and I am definitely not saying that those who disagree with me are socialists. Most capitalist red-blooded Americans have no problem with the minimum wage. I think our market is still primarily free, because the minimum wage affects a small amount of people. I just believe that someone should be able to negotiate their wage, in case their work is not worth $5.15 an hour.

3) Freedom in choosing what products to sell. Now, this does not refer to issues of products banned by the government for social or moral reasons; that has to do more with the social issues axis, rather than that of the economy. The best way to explain it is through examples. The idea is that if someone sells a certain product, they are not required to sell another product. Here's an example. A person runs a pharmacy. If they have moral issues with birth control pills, they should not be required to sell them. Even though I personally have no problems with birth control pills, I don't feel like I have the claim on the pharmacist, demanding that he provide me with that product. (There are exceptions, I'm sure, such as a doctor denying someone life-saving care in an emergency situation). Another example is that of insurance companies. Many states, probably most, dictate what kind of coverage insurance companies can offer. Many have to offer insurance for certain things such as alcohol counseling or certain types of cancer. Such things limit consumer choice.

4) People having the freedom to start their own business. Now, this probably seems obvious to many, and probably a non-issue. However, many local governments simply say no to someone starting a business, for their own good. Now, this goes back into the 2 different categories. Many states or local governments require people to be licensed, or to go through some kind of training. These issues make the market less free, but they address issues of safety or consumer protection. What I am primarily referring to is government control for the sake of the economy itself. What I mean is the People's Republic of Austin giving a definite yes or no to someone wanting to start a cab company, based on the amount of cab companies already in town. I am talking about someone giving a presentation to the city council in order to determine if such a business is marketable. Yes, licensing and regulations limit freedom, but that is more of a balancing issue and makes it more difficult for someone to start a business; it does not completely stop them. I am addressing the issue of the local or state government replacing the free market in determining a worthwhile product or business.

In summary, government affects the economy through taxes, safety regulation, and moral regulation. While these issues are important in determining the freedom of the market, the most important issues involve regulation and control of the economy for the sake of controlling the economy. As government gets more involved in pricing and wages, in what is actually sold, and who can participate in the marketplace, government gets more involved in the means of production. The free market economy gradually, or quickly, becomes a government-controlled economy.

More on Welfare

This is a response to the article linked to in my last post from holisticpolitics.org. The truth is, I may not have a lot to say. Welfare is an issue that I am currently uncertain about. I suppose if I was a true libertarian, I would believe in the abolition of welfare altogether. However, while I believe the majority of charity should be voluntary, it's just hard for me to believe in ending welfare altogether. It's hard for me to say that the truly poor and needy are just out of luck. How do I know that some voluntary charity will take care of them. I know voluntary charity is better, but what if there is not enough volunteers out there to pick up the slack?

However, I realize that any type of welfare is a slippery slope. The nice thing about the libertarian view of government is that it sets concrete, qualitative boundaries for government. The idea is that government only exists for protection. Concerning how far the government should go when it comes to protection...that is the purpose of the Constitution. Once the door of government is open to provide goods and services to people, well, that door just swings wider and wider, and we have the system we have today. I would like it much better if government did indeed help out primarily the poor and needy. But so much of this money is doled out to special interest groups, farm subsidies, and corporate welfare. A baseball team can hardly exist today without asking for huge handouts from a local or state government.

So, perhaps in my own mind, I should just focus on the idea that welfare does exist, and since it does, what is the ideal welfare system. This is what Milsted does, by looking at the Mosaic law. Now, Israel was a theocracy, in a time where people have a direct pipeline with God, so it is unclear how much of Israel's form of government we can apply to our democracy today. However, Milsted admirably attempts this feat, not only in the area of politics, but in morality as well (which I have not read at depth yet and am unsure of all the ideas put forth).

So, in summary, Milsted suggests a 1) tax rate on property, so that those who have natural resources (land, broadcast rights, etc...)above the average pay in taxes proportionally, and those who have less would actually get money back. 2) More difficulty in filing bankruptcy in addition for lower interest rates from lenders, and those with less-than-average access to natural resources could get their dividends from 1) prematurely. 3) Finally, do various things such as paying the poor to clean up trash and providing extra hunting and fishing rights to those using primitive sources of technology.

1) Property taxes. I like the idea of property taxes in general, because they are much easier and less invasive to collect, as opposed to sales and income taxes, as the author states. Sales taxes involve record-keeping for most transactions, and income taxes, well, it involves the IRS. However, the bad thing about property taxes is that they are levied, regardless of the person’s income. Libertarians philosophically have an issue with property taxes, but from that end, I still see them as preferable to sales and income taxes. Milsted mentions that even though land is purchased today, at one point land was either conquered or stolen, and issues of “unjust distribution" existed at the time land was put up for sale.

Concerning the manner that Milsted suggests taxing the land, I am unsure about. I don't believe that everyone who owns less than the average share of land should actually get money back for their property. However, a normal property tax may still work, simply because most of the poor do not own a large amount of land, but there is still the problem of someone who happens to own much land but has little income. I do not agree with the idea that everyone deserves an equal share of resources (or a monetary equivalent). The fact that the Israelites had an equal share of land is a convincing argument, but I believe that it was the only logical way for the Israelites to split the land they had just recently conquered, and the Lord wanted to make sure that all of the Israelite descendants had a piece of the land.

However, MilstedÂ’s idea is worth considering, and it could be tweaked to be a suitable form of a taxation system. There are some aspects of the idea that I like. It would take a whole long article in itself to discuss this further.

2) The idea of low interest loans is something to consider, and as the author states, is implemented in college student loans and the GI Bill. As Milsted states, people are less likely to frivolously spend loan money that they have to pay back. Perhaps more government handouts could be replaced by loans to help people get back on their feet. This would be fine from a government lender for certain purposes. However, I adamantly disagree with requiring a merchant to have a certain interest rate, as Milsted implies. While interest rates are somewhat regulated today, I believe the free market should regulate interest rates, and that the government should not set prices for a service, including loans.
3) Milsted has some good ideas here. Since I believe in the government taking measures to protect the environment, perhaps hiring the poor to pick up trash is not a bad idea. However, I think such a job would be affordable at rates lower than the minimum wage, which is fine with me, its just a matter of working around that. While I am talking about the minimum wage, I think the abolition would make it easier for the homeless to find random jobs. I do not know enough about hunting and fishing rights to even comment.

In summary, I think Milsted is on to some good ideas, and he has obviously thought about this issue much more than I have. I like how he applies Mosaic law to the society of today, and I think he does it well. As mentioned in several places, I take issues with some of his ideas, but if there must be a welfare system, I think we could possibly use some of his ideas, which sound preferable to the system we have today.

God's Welfare System

I found an interesting article at holisticpolitics.org called God's Welfare System. I am not necessarily endorsing the views in this article, and I am not necessarily opposing everything said, it is just interesting enough to roll around in my head for a few days.

The article takes the Mosaic Law and examines how it handled the welfare system. Milsted, the author, points out that this form of government actually seemed the opposite of what libertarians and many conservatives desire. On page one, he mentions that there was no formal military or police, yet God called for a few welfare measures for the needy.

I will not quote much from the article to keep it short, but there are three primary ways the author sees applying the welfare system of the Mosaic law to the society of today. The author addresses three pillars of capitalism; Land, of which there is a fixed amount, Income, and Capital
1. The Year of Jubilee, asserted that the land belonged to God. Land was divided evenly among the tribes and passed to descendants. Land could be leased, but at the Year of Jubilee, it had to be returned to the original heirs (anyone correct me if I am getting it wrong). In the author's view, The Year of Jubilee also asserted that everyone had a right to an equal share of natural resources, in this case, land. Now, Milsted realizes that today this is impossible and undesirable for many reasons, and that unequal ownership of resources should be allowed. To apply the principles of Jubilee, however, he states that

Therefore, unequal division of natural resource ownership should be allowed, but those who own more than the per capital value of all such resources should pay rent in the form of taxes to those who own less.
The actual implementation would be a flat rate tax on the inherent value of land and other natural resources (before human improvement), and a per person rebate of the tax on the average share. That is, those who own less than the average would get back more than they pay – a citizen’s dividend.

. In other words, the more land a person owns above the national or state average, the more they would pay. Those owning less would get money back.
2. The Israelites loaned to each other at zero interest. Milsted sees equivalent applications in the forms of different bankruptcy laws, which allow lower interest loans in return for mordifficultyly in declaring bankruptcy. For those who are less fortunate, who are also less likely to own much land, and therefore, get money back, could require an advance on that "dividend" in order to help in going to school or opening a business. In biblical times, those who could not pay back their loans were indentured servants. The author does not recommend going back to such a system, but sees the GI bill as the closest example. What he does recommend, for those who cannot pay their loans, is not so clear.
3. The Israelites were told not to harvest every edge of their field, but leave some for the poor. Milsted sees modern applications in people donating their used goods to the Salvation Army instead of making money through a garage sale, or through people donating their bottle deposit money to charity. Where the government gets involved in this specific areas is unclear in this article. Update: Upon further reading of his article, it appears that Milsted suggests paying the underpriviledged to pick up trash, as an alternative to the bottle deposits. I simply was trying to read a lot of stuff and summarize it in a short amount of time. He does mention government getting involved, however, when it comes to encouraging more primitive ways of life, through hunting laws for example. Go to the article to read more about it.

Milsted mentions several advantages of these measures compared to a modern welfare system. He addresses method 1 the most clearly and vigorously. He argues that property taxes are much easier to implement that an income tax. He also asserts from a philosophical standpoint, that all land was conquered at some point, weakening an absolute right to property. He also argues that this sort of dividend system would not cause disincentives to work. Concerning 2), he implies that someone is less likely to frivolously use their loan money, which I imply he is comparing to a simple government handout.

I will address some of his points in my next post.

Greeting Cards from Ayn Rand!!!

Just to clarify, I am not an Objectivist, nor a supporter of many of Ayn Rand's ideas, though I share her fondness for capitalism.

I did find this hilarious link though, that Ayn Rand haters and lovers alike would enjoy!!!

Site Maintenance

I organized the links on the sidebar into general links, other blogs, and political quizzes. I posted some of the previous quizzes in an earlier post. I added another, and will probably add more as I find them.

Concerning links, I think it probably goes without saying that I do not agree with every opinion found on the links.

Public School and the Culture Wars

I said in an earlier post about how a unified public school system cannot be value free. One way or another, values somehow gets into the equation concerning an education system.

Coulson from the Cato Institute said it much more eloquently:

Whenever there is a single official school system for which everyone is compelled to pay, it results in endless battles over the content of that schooling. This pattern holds true across nations and across time. Think of our own recurrent battles over school prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, the teaching of human origins, the selection and banning of textbooks and library books, dress codes, history standards, sex education, etc. Similar battles are fought over wearing Islamic headscarves in French public schools and over the National Curriculum in England.

There is an alternative: cultural détente through school choice.

Historically, societies have suffered far less conflict when families have been able to get the sort of education they deemed best for their own children without having to foist their preferences on their neighbors.

I agree. Although we will always have culture wars in America, they would not be so heated if everyone did not have to be taught the same culture.

Edit to Add: As Christians, our ultimate goal should be the glory of God. Our first response to this concerning public schools may be to fight the culture wars through the public schools to ensure values are taught that, although may not be Christian per se, but what they see as Christian-compatible. However, I think maybe freedom is the best weapon in this case. If we have a society where our kids can easily be educated in an institution that reflects the parents values, I believe that it is in the best interest of Christianity, by assisting parents in "teaching a child in the way that they should grow." Yes, parents can also teach them non-Christian values, or values that go against Christian values, but I believe that is better than the current system, in which all kids must be taught certain things that are anti-Christian values. I believe our first priority as Christians is to educate our kids in Christian values (even pastors), everyone else's kids are not. I'm not saying we should not try to influence other people, including children, and be a light, I am just saying that any system that makes it easier for a Christian parent to educate their children according to Christian values, is a system in which I believe.

Random Thoughts While on Travel

I'm on travel now, so it means more frequent postings for a short time. I don't feel like posting anything overtly political at the moment.

Currently, I am entertaining myself on travel by reading Stephen King's book The Stand. I am about 270 pages into this 1100-something page book. So far, it seems pretty interesting; I like stories that are apocalyptic, even if not Christian, as long as it's not anti-Christian, which I have not found so far. To give a short summary so far, many people are dying because of a highly contagious disease that contains the same symptoms as a common cold. Later, there is supposed to be a grand battle between good and evil. It's engaging so far, and everytime I hear someone cough or sneeze I cannot help but to think nervous thoughts for a split second.

I am a member of BMG music, so I get CDs in large amounts. I recently bought Counting Crows - Recovering the Satellites, Fiona Apple - Extraordinary Machine, Audio Adrenaline - Underdog, and the new Goo Goo Dolls album - Let Love In.

Here are quick reviews.

Counting Crows - Recovering the Satellites - Yes, I know my CD collection is a little behind, considering this album came out in 1996. I've always heard the songs on radio, and always wanted to get the album, but never did until now. So far, it's a really good album, and I expect it to be an enduring album that continues to grow on me.

Fiona Apple - Extraordinary Machine - Fiona finally released a new album. Actually, it would have been a year earlier, but the record company doubted it's commercial appeal (It's just a side note, I don't hate record companies for wanting to make money in their investment.) This album is a grower too. Now, I do not want to be a music snob like those from Spin and Rolling Stone and say this album is too deep or complex for the pop-loving masses and only music intellectuals love this album. However, this album is not full of immediately catchy hits. You would have to like her previous two albums for the instrumentation as well as catchy melodies. Ironically (probably intentionally), her catchiest song says ("Please, Please, Please, No more melodies, They lack impact, they're petty They've been made up already "). May grow to be one of my favorite albums.

Audio Adrenaline - Underdog, - Audio Adrenaline is a Christian rock band that has been around since the early 90s. I always heard about them but rarely heard them, until their song "My Chevette." Typically, I don't like the pure-rock, rugged deep voice sound, but go more for a punkish-young guy voice, like Bleach. However, AA is the exception, and they are truly a talented band. AA actually play around with their sound, in the Latin-influenced "Jesus Movement", and the swinging "DC-10". And how many Christian bands cover Pete Townsend, as they do in "Let My Love Open the Door." I sometimes criticize Christian rock bands for not being experimental, but AA can put together a good record of their token sound, along with a little variety.

Goo Goo Dolls - Let Love In - The Goo Goo Dolls have actually been around for some time (this is now their 8th studio), and for anyone who had their 5th album, A Boy Named Goo (had the song "Name"), or less likely, any albums before then, such as Superstar Car Wash, know that their sound has changed quite a bit. They were more punk rock, up until Dizzy Up the Girl (Slide, Iris, Broadway). I suppose you can only do so much with one type of sound. I don't think the Goo Goo Dolls sold out, because of the VH-1 Behind the Music story of how "Iris" was written (one of my wife's favorite songs) almost instantaneously, and following songs have been in that same vein. I like their stuff now, but I also like their original sound as well.

The album itself seems pretty good. I have only listened to it completely through twice, as I bought it only a few days ago. Notable songs are their current single "Stay With You" and "Better Days", which has already gotten considerable airplay. Robbie Takac, who typically does about half of his own songs, only has 2 songs this album.

The songs on the album hint at religion, or Christianity, or something. John Rzeznik is or was a Catholic I believe, and I can't help but notice the number of secular artists I enjoy who have some tie to Catholicism.

In other news, there's nothing much to watch on ESPN during any months between the end of College Basketball and the beginning of College Football (with the exception of the draft to some extent). Maybe I can get myself interested in the NBA playoffs, which are less exciting than the NCAAs in which the winner is decided by a single game.

The Old Testament isn't just a snooze-fest after all...

Honestly, even though I have been a Christian for as early as I can remember, I was never a fan of much of the Old Testament, other than Genesis, the Psalms, and the Proverbs. Lately, though, I've been on a Bible Reading plan. It's kind of like the ones in which you complete the Bible in a year, except at the rate I'm going, it will be more like 3 or 4. Anyway, in order to do this, I have to read through the dreaded books of the Law, such as Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc...

While I won't do an about face and say that all these books are completely exciting, they do have relevance for today. The main theme that sticks out to me anyway is the relationship between God and Israel. In Exodus, God frees Israel from cruel slavery under the Egyptians to take them to the Promised Land. However, as soon as the Israelites encounter the slightest problem they want to go back to their slavery. For a good article on this, see Dissatisfied with Freedom at Gabbatha University.

This theme hits home with me, because God has delivered me from some crappy stuff. I won't go into too much detail, but I don't think I, for some time, truly appreciated this deliverance. We often forget about how crappy our lives were before. This theme continues within the book of Judges, where the Israelites fall into idol worship and other sin, which leads to oppression at the hands of their neighbors or people within their borders. After some time (20 years in some instances!), they finally cry out to God, and God sends someone to deliver them. After some time, however, they forget how God delivered them, forget their oppression and pain when God didn't protect them, and went back to their sinful ways.

As individuals, we can do the same thing as well. We forget about how our sins enslave us and how God delivered us. While I do not believe in obeying God simply so that we will be "happier" and avoid sin because it makes us miserable (our goal should be to glorify God, not for our personal happiness), these things can be reflections of our relationship with God. In other words, joy and misery in our own lives should not be our motivation to pursue God, but I believe they can be a reflection of our walk with God. Maybe the Israelites did not understand this. Perhaps their motivation was simply to be a free country and avoid oppression, instead of pleasing God. Having pure motivations is a challenging thing, and it is why we should focus on pleasing God, rather than simply not sinning.