Unity may mean hanging out with people who disagree with you

Conservatives and liberals alike are not fond of Obama's decision to have Rick Warren do whatever he is doing at Obama's inauguration. I can understand the concerns from both sides, but I'll choose to pick on the liberals because all this time they have talked about the importance of unity. When Obama supporters talk throughout the entire campaign about how important unity is for this country, then protest when he chooses someone to pray at his inauguration who shares views different from their own, it makes me think one of two things, both of them cynical. Either unity isn't that important, or, unity is important when it means getting conservatives to find common ground with liberals, but not vice versa. People of any political persuasion are free to say whatever they want about Obama's choice, but people have to show how "unity" is important, not just say it is. Believing in unity means, maybe from time to time, you hang out with somebody with whom you disagree.

Free markets and freedom of conscience go hand in hand

I was looking at the Auburn University newspaper online to see what they thought of Tommy Tuberville's firing from the head football coach position (correction, it appears that Tuberville stepped down to the surprise of the AD) and a I found an opinion piece concerning "right of conscience" rules, which allow medical workers to opt out of performing procedures they find morally objectionable.

Of course, the editorial staff thought these rules were a bad idea, and they use the following example:

Here is a hypothetical situation for you. You arrive at Outback Steakhouse with a desire for, you guessed it, a steak! You sit down, and as you tell the waiter you would like a 6 oz. ribeye, he interrupts you.

“I’m sorry, sir,” he says. “Our cook, Geoff, is a vegan, and he will not be cooking anything involving animal products tonight.”

You’re stunned, but you have to understand what you have just heard, so you inquire further.

“But you’re Outback STEAKhouse,” you say. “Steak is in your name. Well, could you at least tell us where we could get a decent steak around town?”

“No, sir,” he says. “Geoff is also acting as the manager tonight, and he has instructed the wait staff to only point our guests toward restaurants that also serve vegan items. Can I start you off with a Bloomin’ Onion, tonight? Nevermind, the batter uses eggs…”

To which I responded,

Your Outback scenario shows that you are completely missing one half of the argument. Outback would never hire a vegan cook. In the same way, hospitals and doctor's offices won't hire people whose beliefs get in the way of performing their job. Of course, for that to work, employers would need a little flexibility in who they hire, and that probably sounds a little too "free market" for you guys.

The editorial staff even allude to a free market solution, when they close with

If this rule becomes a reality, patients will have to do some major research before they select a doctor or pharmacist. But then again, the more open-minded doctors and pharmacists will make a killing.

Yes, a reality of the free market is that sometimes individuals may have to do a little bit more research to make an informed choice, an unfortunate side effect of having "choice" in the first place. And yes, some people will make more money than others, that's what happens when people provide something people want, that others don't. Granted, things get a little more complicated when it gets to the issue of medical emergencies and saving lives, so that's where legal action and medical boards get involved.

But again, I want to reiterate that for the free market to work, choice must be allowed in the customer/provider relationship AND the employer/employee relationship. Doug Bandow writes in the Foundation for Economic Education

According to the newspapers, pharmacists throughout the United States are refusing to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pill and other contraceptives because of religious objections. Fortunately,we can resolve this problem without getting into the birth-control or abortion controversies. In a free society, human relationships, including commercial relationships, must grow out of the consent of all the people involved. A forced sale is theft; forced service is slavery.
The owner of a drugstore, by virtue of the nature of private property, sets the rules. If customers don’t like them, they are free to go elsewhere.They can even shop
on the Internet. Similarly, if a pharmacist-employee with convictions opposed to the morning-after pill works for someone who thinks differently, he will have to find another job if he can’t work things out with his
boss.

No one talks to our President-Elect like that!

Like Lee, I am not a member of the Obama fan club. However, something about Al-Qaeda demeaning our President-Elect makes me want to rally around him. I feel like with some issues - like protecting America - we are all in it together. We all have a common enemy. Who knew Al-Qaeda could promote such a sense of unity?

Obama wants college football playoff system

Like most Americans, Obama wants a college football playoff system.

However, hopefully Obama will rely on his status and influence as a private individual and will not use government power to accomplish this. The government has no business dictating the rules of a sports association, provided that the association breaks no criminal laws. Let's hope the President and/or Congress don't see fit to be the governing body of sports.

My fear about the next four years

Despite the person I didn't vote for being elected, on the bright side, we've shown that a minority can be elected President. Not only that, but the Cato Blog notes that

all 42 of our presidents have been of British, Irish, or Germanic descent. We’ve never had a president of southern or eastern European ancestry.

So, not only is he the first black President, but he is the first one not of British, Irish, or Germanic descent.

So, on Inauguration Day many people will be celebrating, but not everyday will be happy about it. I fear that those people will look like "the bad guys" for not celebrating during a historic moment.

Also, I fear that when Obama is in power, dissent will suddenly go out of style. I haven't seen anything yet to support this, and I don't want to blame liberals for something they haven't done yet. At the same time, this blog is where I share my thoughts, and hopefully I'll be proved wrong. Throughout the whole election we have heard this theme of unity, how we need to work together, etc. These are all important things (actually working together is overrated, I'm happier when government does less), but I fear that dissent against the President will be tolerated less in the name of "unity." Granted, there are constructive and divisive ways to criticize the President, and there are divisive people in politics. I just don't want people who dissent to be labeled as people trying to tear America apart. I have this idea that people see Obama as the guy who is going to fix and save America and dissenters are those who are standing in the way of his mission. And to be fair, I suppose some liberals felt the same way the last 8 years. Unfortunately, in both camps, the respectful dissenters and the not-so-respectful dissenters get lumped together.

Some post election thoughts

Many conservative Christians, or simply Christians who didn't vote for Obama, find themselves in a different situation than the past eight years. I think certain duties of the Christian, primarily praying for the President and showing a certain amount of respect for the President, have come easy during this administration, but we must remember to do the same for the next four. Also, we need to find the line between dissent and disrespect.

As I said before the election, hopefully the GOP can gain their bearings. They have only stood for slightly less government than the Democrats. Of course, no one talks about limited government anymore, it is all about what the government can do for us. Nevertheless, it will still be interesting how the party changes the next two to four years.

I voted

I placed my vote this morning in Colorado. I arrived at the polling place around 7:40 and left about 9:40. My experience took about 10 minutes longer because there was a jam in the ballot box. My wife voted around 11:45 or so and did not wait in a line at all.

Even though this election will likely turn out how I don't want it to, Election Day is still exciting.

Living in a swing state (Colorado) has its advantages and disadvantages. My experience in Colorado leaves me hating campaign commercials even more. When I lived in Oklahoma and Texas, I never saw a Presidential commercial; I have seen them all the time in these past two months or so. However, I have a lot more power than the voter living in a solid red or blue state. And that is what is wrong with the Electoral College. I'm not even saying that we need to abolish the Electoral College, but have states split votes like they do in Nebraska (I think that's the one that does it). By still having some sort of Electoral College, people will still believe their vote matters, as each single electoral vote can be decided by a few votes. If we did a strict popular vote, this would be less likely to happen.

A more exciting part of voting is getting to vote on the numerous amendments, as opposed to voting on candidates. Honestly, my voting on candidates tends to be more party line. But I like voting on amendments and referendums because I do not feel like the issues are so cut and dry along party lines. Sure, the parties each have their own recommendations on certain issues (although I never did find the Republican stances for the ballot issues), but I feel like I vote more independently of the parties on these issues and my limited government ideals can come into play more. (Case in point: Republicans back Amendment 47, a right to work law, but I opposed it based on libertarian economic ideals).

Anyway, we are blessed in this country to be able to vote. If a couple hour long wait is the worst we experience, we are in good shape.

The thing about low taxes

McCain and the Republican party have talked about taxes and spending, but I don't think they have been framing the debate very well. McCain has talked about how Obama will raise taxes and how McCain will lower taxes, and of course the former thing is evil and the latter is good. I think what he and many Republicans have failed to do is to really get to the essence of why this is a good thing.

Democrats and swing voters are well aware that no one really likes to pay higher taxes, Biden's comments to the contrary.

First of all, I like the idea of lower taxes for other people making more money than myself because I think higher taxes for others affect me indirectly. I don't want to go too much into detail into the theory what more liberal people dismiss as "trickle-down" economics, but I sincerely believe that higher taxes on the rich can affect productivity, and therefore job creation for myself and for my children. Now, this argument can be taken to the extreme. Of course if we tax the rich .5%, we won't get very much tax revenue, but the same goes when we tax at 99.5%, simply because productivity would grind to a halt. So, there is an optimal point somewhere in between, and I tend to think it may be in the teens.

Secondly, though, is that I believe that the tax rate and amount of spending is a representation of how we view the role of government. If we believe in lower taxes and less spending, both in overall amount and where it goes, of course we believe that government should have a limited role.

Unfortunately, McCain and Republicans running for office in Colorado focus on the lower taxes and less spending, but they don't focus on why this is so important. As far as average voter knows, they are in the pockets of the rich people. They have focused on my first point, the productivity argument, but not so much on the idea of why limited government is a good thing. McCain did touch a little bit on this in the final debate concerning health care, but he hasn't focused on the overall principles of limited government that resonate with more voters than we realize. It seemed like Reagan did focus on this. Even though Reagan supported a sizable military, he still talked about the idea of the government leaving people alone and believing in the sweat and ingenuity of the average American person. McCain, however, is just focusing on the possible results of this, which are lower taxes and less spending, not the higher principles behind them.

Hopefully, this likely election loss for the Republican Party will help them rediscover and effectively communicate the ideals of a government that does less. Instead of pushing for lite government, they are currently pushing for Obama-lite government.

My wife

I thought I would talk about my wife.

We have been married for 5 years, and I have grown to love her all the more over time. She has not only proved to be a great wife, but a great person as well. My wife has a huge heart, and she is full of love and compassion for me and for others. She has also been very loyal to me, and although there were many times I deeply hurt her and been a crummy husband, she stuck right by my side. She is someone who loves God very much and wants to raise godly children. She is a very good mom to our son. She not only makes sure that he is fed and healthy, but takes time to say little prayers with him and teach him little things. He is very blessed to have a mom who loves him so much. She is no doubt very beautiful on the outside, but also on the inside as well. While no one is perfect, I know that God is very happy with the person she has become, as I am. I don't know that many people who are as pure in heart as my wife. Sure, we all get mad and upset with people, but there is very little in her that holds animosity toward anyone.

It is said that when we meet God in heaven, that we are accountable to Him for how we treat our spouse (as well as other people). If our spouse is difficult, we get rewarded all the more if we are still loving to that person. I can't see myself getting that many rewards because I have it pretty easy. So many times I feel that I don't deserve her, but I know we were meant to be together since she is perfect for me. I do feel like she is my other half, that she brings sunshine into parts of my life that would otherwise be dark.

Anyway, I don't talk about my personal life very often, but I do want people to know what a wonderful wife I have. I can only hope that I remain thankful for the blessing God has given me and come close to treating her how she should be treated.

On the precipice of political punditry

I've been somewhat hesitant to comment on the current political election, simply because there are so many things that I do not like about political punditry. Typically it is about spin, damage control, and scoring points against the opposition. They take their usual sides on the latest news in the election with predictable responses. Nevertheless, it is the stuff going on, and it's the stuff I want to talk about; I will just try to be as fair and even-handed as possible.

The Conventions (yes, I'm a few weeks late, but here it goes)

I only heard bits and pieces of the DNC. I thought Michelle Obama did well in her speech, tying in Barack the man and Barack the leader.

Concerning Barack Obama's speech, he has great delivery, but I don't feel like he offers anything new. His ideas pretty much amount to more government spending and trying to do the impossible. I know my opinion may be no surprise from a conservative, but if a liberal wants to point out how his ideas differ from the general Democratic party, I'd be willing to hear them.

Concerning the RNC, to me, the highlight was McCain's speech. The first two nights of the convention were what I feared, which was a focus on keeping America safe. While that is no doubt important, the general American populace seems to be concerned about the economy. I was more satisfied when McCain addressed these issues. I don't know if he did so convincingly, but at least he touched on them. I think Palin did a good job pointing out the lack of experience for Obama. They spent too much time exploiting McCain's POW experience. Also, low taxes are not enough to sway swing voters leaning to the left. We all know Republicans like low taxes and they provide a benefit to the individual, but explain how low taxes and smaller government benefit the country as a whole. As far as average voter knows, low taxes have no benefit beyond the individual taxpayer.

On Unity and Getting Things Done:

I don't understand why being "United" is such a big deal. Unity is a nice ideal, but the reality is that Americans hold drastically different values from each other. With respect to the general populace, I don't see the concrete benefits. I suppose being a unifier is important if we want a leader who "gets things done." But as a limited government conservative, I am actually happier when government does less. Why is government passing more rules for our daily lives and spending more of our money a good thing? And besides, I get the impression that McCain has gone across the aisle more than Obama anyway, but that may not be true.

Palin:
I like Palin, and I think McCain's choice was brilliant from a political campaign perspective, and in general. To combat Obama's celebrity, McCain picked someone who is a rising star in her own right (well, she is now anyway).

McCain:
Concerning McCain in general, he has a record of agreeing with Bush, but I believe him to be a much more competent person. I was not excited about McCain during the primaries, but I like him more and more. I hold fewer reservations about McCain than many fellow conservatives. My complaints against McCain are more of a libertarian nature (his Campaign Finance Reform Act, wanting government to get involved in alternative fuels), as oppose to conservative.

Why I will ultimately vote they way I will:
When it comes down to myself, I vote based on issues, the reason I have aligned myself much more with the Republican Party than the Democratic. I am pro-life, anti-gun control, pro-free market, etc... Obama's stance on the abortion issue is nothing short of frightening. (Sorry, using Roe vs. Wade to argue against BAIPA does no favors to Roe vs. Wade. You are telling me to support abortion rights even though with them you can't distinguish from baby already born to baby in womb) So yeah, people can talk about the experience a leader has or does not have, and they can talk about how I can financial benefit, but for me, it has always been about the issues. The disturbing thing about the Colorado local elections (and the major election to some extent), is that it focuses so squarely on how much I pay at the pump, which I feel is a self-centered way at looking at the elections. Yes, gas prices can be indicative of a larger problem, and I'm fine with people looking at those issues, but many people look at it much more in a black-box fashion. Gas prices are high, I'll vote for whoever lowers them. The offices at stake are so much more important than that.

To the guy who thinks everyone should ride their bike to work, regardless of their situation

Just a quick note: I think if you can ride your bike to work, that's great. You get exercise, you reduce pollution, it cost less money, there are numerous benefits. Dan, I believe, rides his bike to work, and I think that's great. Especially if you happen to like the environment ( I get along with the environment okay, we are occasionally on speaking terms, every once in a while, I say hello).

So I'm at work and this lady is complaining about the radio stations she has to endure while she drives to work (i.e. crappy morning shows). A guy who rides his bike to work states "if you ride your bike to work you wouldn't have that problem." Did I mention the lady lives 35 miles away from work? Look, if you are dumbfounded why someone who lives 35 miles away from work doesn't ride their bike, you have a problem. We think it's great you ride your bike, we just think it's annoying when it gives you a superiority complex. I'm trying to decide if this guy just wants to insert the fact that he rides his bike to work into everyday conversation, or if he actually thinks this lady's life would be improved if she rode her bike to work. Let's see, 40 minute commute to work vs. 2 hours ( assuming average speed 20mph). You are asking her to sacrifice an extra 2.5 hours a day, for what? Not to mention, this is on an interstate highway. I'm not saying we have to take the fastest way to work, but if you triple your commute time, I'm going to give you a pass. Again, if you want to ride your bike to work, more power to you. Just don't try to randomly insert it into conversation. Also, if you happen to be one of the green types, I know protecting the environment, conservation, and the like are all about sacrifice. But you have to understand that sometimes people don't want to sacrifice 2.5 hours a day with their family.

It's not that we hate the poor...

Economic conservatives are criticized because of seemingly heartless opinions, for instance, the stance on the minimum wage. But I don't oppose the minimum wage simply because I hate poor people, or I don't care about the least of these... just the opposite.

The Political Calculations Blog writes

This chart confirms that for teenagers, those between the ages of 16 and 19 years old, all of the jobs that disappeared in 2007 were minimum wage jobs. In essence, a total of 94,000 hourly jobs disappeared for this age group overall. This figure is the net change of this age group losing some 118,000 minimum wage earning jobs and gaining some 24,000 jobs paying above this level.

This represents what we believe to be the effect of the higher minimum wage level increasing the barriers to entry for young people into the U.S. workforce. Since the minimum wage jobs that once were held by individuals in each age group have disappeared, total employment levels have declined as those who held them have been forced to pursue other activities.

Now consider this: The minimum wage was just reset on 24 July 2008 to $6.55 per hour, a 27.2% increase from where it was in early July 2007. Our best guess is that a lot of additional teenagers will be pursuing those other activities.

Meanwhile, the lack of employment opportunities for the least educated, least skilled and least experienced segment of the U.S. workforce will likely have costs far beyond the benefits gained by those who earn the higher minimum wage. The government might be able to make the minimum wage earning teenage worker disappear, but they didn't do anything to make the teenagers themselves disappear.

Now, with any economic research there are tons of variables, but the conclusions presented are intuitive, simply because of supply and demand. If something is not truly worth the price at which it is offered, we don't buy it. Why would an hourly worker be any different? Companies with inferior products price them lower to increase demand. Why wouldn't an unskilled laborer be the same? Why should an unskilled laborer not have the option to negotiate their wage without government interference? Is a job with a low wage worse than no job at all?

Many politicians realize that raising the minimum wage does no good, yet they support it to pay lip service to their constituents. Others think they have the companies in a bind. They know Safeway needs workers, so they think Safeway has no choice but to pay them the mandated wage. But Safeway can hire fewer workers, create more self checkout lines, or raise the prices of their goods, which has the most dramatic effect on the poor anyway.

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog.

The role of incentives

OSNews links to a blog entry titled "Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it". Even if you are not a software developer, the article is interesting because it explores the roles of incentives in the overall quality of a product. Open Source software is developed mainly by volunteers, as opposed to Microsoft or Apple products that are developed by paid programmers and cost money.

Open source software is a noble idea, and there are many useful tools out there. However, getting paid motivates programmers to focus on aspects of software that make it more usable for the average person. Now, Microsoft is not a great example of this, simply because it does have many features of a monopoly. It is the software that everybody has and every hates. I think if distributors of Linux would focus more on the commercial market - and even keep the software open source - the computing world overall would be better off. Even if you aren't into software development and tools, one could probably see how the overall quality of a product could improve if someone has financial incentive.

Caring for the unborn after they are born.

I had talked about the topic of Conservatives supposedly not caring about babies after they are born, and Neil has this topic as well.

There is another thought about this argument, and I wonder what the point of it is. Let's say that I realize the liberals are right, that I should support more government programs, that I should vote Democrat, etc.... At the very best, these arguments would convince me to be pro-big government AND pro-life. So what's the point?

Cynicism and limited government

I was watching a Simpson's episode from the Season 2 DVD where Marge successfully bans violence from the Itchy and Scratchy cartoons. Her protests influence others to prevent Michelangelo's David from visiting Springfield. Marge regrets her actions and concedes "I guess one person can make a difference, but most of the time, they probably shouldn't." This statement resonated with me somewhat, and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

As someone who generally favors limited government, I actually prefer it when politicians do less. When people talk about how they want to change the world and make the world a better place, part of me cringes, because usually what they mean is that they want to pass more laws, raise taxes, and spend more government money.

When I think about the people I went to college with, I think of those who got involved in a lot of activities such as student council and the like, and those who simply went to class, did their homework, and tried to have a little fun along the way.

I know that it is better to be involved with things and try to impact other people's lives, as opposed to being more self-absorbed and simply worrying about one's grades. However, the "involved" people are the ones more likely to get involved in politics and do the aforementioned things. The ones that are less involved are more likely to mind their own business and leave me alone.

I guess it all depends on how someone gets involved. It seems that government is typically the first route people take when trying to change society. But I think if people put the same amount of effort in non-governmental avenues, it could make more of an impact while keeping the average person's life free of rules and regulations. Also, when people talk about "changing society" and the like, I tend to associate it with liberal politics. And for some people, that's not a bad thing, but for those on the other side of the political spectrum, it is. I don't mean to bash Democrats or liberals, I am just saying how I feel. The idea of being compassionate and doing good is becoming less romanticized, as it is commonly associated with huge taxes and inefficient government programs. Doing good is losing its cool. Jesus has been replaced by a faceless bureaucrat. To explain how I feel to more liberal readers, think of how some self-righteous conservatives can turn people off from ideas such as "family values".

When it comes to changing society, I do believe there are times that government should be involved, but even then it should not be the only focus. Look at racism. Passing laws will not change people's heart, and it takes institutions such as the church to address the heart issue (unfortunately some of the church held people back). But just because it takes more than government doesn't mean government shouldn't be involved at all. People of all races should be treated equally by the government. The same thing with the abortion issue. Christians and others passionate about the issue should get involved in ministries that help out expecting mothers and help them to choose life. At the same time, I believe born and unborn people should be treated equally under the law.

Thoughts on capital punishment

Capital punishment is really an issue I'm not that passionate about, for whatever reason. Out of the things that keep me up at night, the thought that convicted killers get sentenced to death is not one of them. Maybe that makes me a bad person, at least in the eyes of those who are against capital punishment.

Probably the best argument against capital punishment is the fact that people are wrongly convicted. Libertarians for Life has the argument

If we imprison someone unjustly, we can repay our debt to that person to some extent and beg forgiveness. But how do we compensate the innocent dead? Given the fallibility of human beings, this is a fundamental ethical problem for capital punishment.

However, the Bible addresses this issue as pointed out at Neil's blog.

The Bible requires that accused criminals be justly convicted, and our system doesn’t take perjury very seriously. God loves justice. Here’s just one of many verses one could point to: Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Keep in mind that when I say He loves justice that doesn’t just mean he loves it when the innocent aren’t punished. He also loves it when the guilty are held accountable. This can help rehabilitate the criminal, protect others from the criminal and deter others from becoming criminals.)

The Bible required two or more witnesses for the death penalty: Numbers 35:30 Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

So, if implemented correctly, this problem would be addressed, at least somewhat.

Neil addresses other possible Biblical arguments against capital punishment in the post.

The main issue I want to address, however, is the method of arguing by opponents of capital punishment, which views the death penalty as equivalent to murder. The saying goes "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

There are a couple issues with this rhetorical question.

1) The government has authority that the individual does not. After all, many people support the right of the government to tax us and take our money, but that doesn't mean we support stealing. The government has the right to hold us against our will should we commit a crime, yet that doesn't give individuals the right to kidnap.

We see this distinction in the Bible. God said "thou shalt not murder", yet God commanded the death penalty for certain crimes, and he supported war against other nations. To my recollection, God never commanded an individual to act separately from their government in taking life, or to be a vigilante and get revenge. Now granted, I don't want us stoning people for worshiping other gods or committing adultery, or wiping out entire nations. The point I am making, however, is God obviously saw a distinction between one individual murdering another individual, vs. the government imposing the death penalty or going to war against another government. I am not advocating the extent of Israel's power in domestic/foreign policy; Israel was a theocracy run by God through Moses. My point is that just because murder is wrong, doesn't automatically mean the death penalty is.

2) There is a difference between killing an innocent person and a guilty person. Or, to say it another way, opponents of capital punishment need to work on establishing their argument that there is no difference. Again, opponents just take this as a given and run with it. Now, I will say the burden of proof is on those who are for capital punishment in this area. Like the abortion issue, the burden is on those who support death.

The point is, "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" is not an effective argument because it presumes a moral equivalence to murder and the death penalty, a presumption proponents of the death penalty do not share.

Balancing various ideals when it comes to Christianity and economics

At times, it seems like liberalism coincides more closely with Christianity than say, conservatism, because of caring for the least of these, feeding the poor and hungry, don't judge, etc... For a while, I myself was veering towards this idea, especially in my college years. However, when I saw how this ideal manifested itself in liberal politics, I got turned off of this. Basically, the idea that you wanted to help the poor automatically meant higher taxes and more government. If you even dared think that the top tax rate should be cut from 38% to 35%, then obviously you hated the poor. That, and my firm pro-life stance. I just couldn't buy a philosophy that was all about helping the "least of these", except when it came to abortion. It would be nice to adopt a philosophy that at least butted heads with the world's values every once in a while. If I was to become a liberal, it would be more of the Catholic type, yes, big government, but they would support the Catholic doctrine even when it clashed with the world's values.

The major obstacle for me embracing liberalism, Christian or any other, is that of the 10th commandment. "17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."" Now, when I talk to liberals, they say that they do not envy, they do not want to be rich, etc... and I believe them. But, the income redistribution system as a whole is envy, even if not everyone who supports the system is, in fact, coveting their neighbors stuff. The whole idea of progressivism/socialism is taking from the rich to give to the poor. Politicians appeal to the notion of class warfare, where he or she promises to tax the rich more and give more stuff to the poor. Folks, I cannot think of a more obvious instance of something that contradicts the 10th commandment.

So what does this mean? Have no welfare? Have no taxes? I realize the need for these programs. And I had the longest time trying to separate a system that has basic welfare vs. the system that we have now. I believe the the key to having an envy free society is a flat tax, a low income tax for everyone. By having a flax tax, there is no class warfare. There is no people voting to tax another group at no cost to themselves. By having a flat tax, we can still have democracy, where we choose how much to give, but we are all in it together. No more voting to raise our neighbors taxes and not our own.

I'm sure this idea sounds abhorrent to many, especially to those whose ideal government is much bigger than mine. But government spending needs some kind of check, and currently there is not much. There is no limit to how much government can spend when the majority choose what to do with the pockets of the minority.

So, when looking at Christianity and how it applies to economics and politics, I try to look at the entire Bible. Jesus advocated caring for the poor, but he never brought government into it (apparently Jesus' silence only counts when it comes to abortion and (supposedly) homosexuality). Paul discussed methods to take care of the poor, and he told churches to focus on those who truly needed it. The 10th commandment said don't try to take your neighbors' stuff. Even with the Mosaic law and Israel, that society looked very little like what is advocated now among the Christian Left, with tax rates much lower than what we have today, among other things that I'd like to get into later. In other words, I don't see a strong correlation between liberalism and what is taught in the Bible.

Should government protect us from ourselves?

Randy Barnett has a good post on payday Loan centers. His opinion is that we would be better off if they were closed down. I'm not a fan of payday loan places myself, but I'm hesitant to say that they should be outlawed.

Randy implies the comparison between crack cocaine and payday loans, and while that may seem dramatic, I think that's a fair comparison. And even if he didn't intend the comparison, I will. It made me realize that both topics are really part of a larger question. Should government protect us from ourselves? And to what degree?

It's many of the same issues with drugs as it is payday loans. Is it the proper role of government to prevent someone from doing something harmful to themselves? If that thing is outlawed, would the results be worse? For instance, is a black market of drugs more dangerous than the accessibility of legal drugs? Is somebody getting a loan from a sketchy character under the table worse than having Pay Day loans on every corner?

I posted on the issue of the Drug War in the past. While I still wrestle with the same issues, I'm inclined to not support the prohibition of payday loan centers, if for simply for the reason that it is hard to outlaw such a transaction. Giving a loan to a friend or casual acquaintance is quite easy. Yes, there is less contract work involved, but it is hard to monitor something as easy as loaning money. And yes, I do believe that if payday centers are outlawed, people may resort to worse measures, whether it is some shady character or somebody running up credit card debt. (There was a post on Market Power about this, but I can't find it at the moment)

Anyway, I don't know the answer to the question to what degree government should protect us from ourselves, but in this issue of payday loans, I don't think outlawing them is the way to go.

The new judgmentalism

For some reason today, it is acceptable to judge people based on how they eat. We respect their religious views, political beliefs, sexual preferences/habits, but if they get McDonald's for lunch or have a soda, many of us feel a need to express our disapproval.

The Evangelical Outpost had a post concerning the sin of gluttony. The article makes a good point in how gluttony is an oft-ignored sin, but I think it puts too much emphasis on comparing gluttony to sexual sin. While the roots of both sins may be similar (I'm honestly not good at understanding the psychological roots of sin), you cannot really treat them the same. As I commented there, and at Neil's site, which linked to the article, the area of sexuality has clearly defined boundaries, have sex only with your spouse (of a different sex) and don't lust after women (or men). Gluttony is not so clear-cut. God does not forbid eating a juicy cheeseburger. At the same time, God does not want us to abuse our bodies, so many times we have to do things in moderation.

I get annoyed at Subway commercials ( the ones that say I'll order the "make my butt look big" burger or something like that) and Kaiser Permanante commericals because they are all about making people feel bad for their choices, as opposed to encouraging them to make good choices. I feel that Christianity can easily jump on this bandwagon. "Not only is that cheeseburger unhealthy, it is a SIN."

Now, I don't know exactly the Christian way the sin can be approached, but I think it is important to realize that it is not a list of do's and dont's.

I also think that the writer of the article makes many good points and I don't think he makes any incorrect statements. When I read the article, however, it just made me think that people may not realize that moderation is really the key issue here, not a list of do's and dont's.

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.

Justice and Mercy

When people on the left talk about helping the poor, they often use the term social justice. I'm not sure I'm crazy about the term. Not because it's justice that people starve, but it does imply a bit of entitlement. Also, if everything is about justice, there is no room for mercy.

Many Christians, of any political stripe, believe that the true actions that change the world are those that go beyond what is required. The problem with a highly regulated economic system is that there is less room for voluntary actions. Liberals and conservatives alike believe that charity is great. Liberals will argue that charity does not do enough, therefore more government action is needed. However, people such as myself believe that more government action pushes out private charity. I think it does so in terms of resources and also opportunities.

Concerning the resources, I'm not naive enough to believe that if only we were taxed less, more people would necessarily be generous . At the same time, however, I believe that people who are generous will be all the more so with their resources. Also, one just has to look at the math. Tax rates of 90% will leave less room for charitable donations. Heck, how would someone give their tithe (if they do the 10% - but I don't think there is a specific number God requires) if 10% is all they have left?

Also, Christianity is all about doing beyond what is required and what is expected. When we have a system where all good deeds are required, there is less room and opportunity to do beyond what is required. There are many people who take Jesus' commands to help the poor seriously, but they look to do so primarily through government means. Every good deed is done out of "justice", and there is little room for mercy. Deeds that transform the world are done out of love an mercy.

Is there an evangelical center?

Jim Wallis and Ron Sider are famous names in evangelical left circles. Jim Wallis is author of God's Politics and is part of the group Sojourners, and Sider wrote Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. The Evangelical Christian Left is a group that has been growing recently, or, maybe it is the same size but I am just now aware of it.

My problem with both is that they seem to insist that they belong to either some group in the middle or some kind of group that consists of both Republican and Democratic elements.

Don't get me wrong. When it comes to labels, the lack of a label is not an issue, it is mislabeling. Labeling itself is not all that important. I don't say in each post I am conservative or limited-government conservative or libertarian conservative. The beliefs are more important than what those beliefs are labeled. However, if I was to say in this blog that I am somehow a moderate or that I am even liberal that would be mislabeling. Either I would be confused or be disingenuous.

In his blog, Wallis repeats one of his famous mantras, "God is not a Republican or Democrat". And I think the statement is true in the sense that we can't try to fit God into our own or any other political system. But I wonder if Wallis even believes this himself. A look at his writings and his friends reveals a political agenda that is overwhelmingly Democrat. And that's fine - that's how they believe, but I feel that Wallis tries to portray himself and the Sojourners as something they are not. No doubt, Wallis wants the same thing that many on the Evangelical Right do. But politics is almost all about the methods, and Wallis favors those on the left.

In one of the rare instances I watch PBS, I happened to catch Bill Moyers Journal where the topic was Christians United for Israel. Moyers showed video segments of John Hagee and other conservative Christians sharing their support for Israel. Moyers had a sit down with Ron Sider, mentioned previously, and M.J. Rosenberg, Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum. Interestingly enough, Moyers didn't interview any of the conservative Christians he had spent so much time talking about. Sider was talking about the shift of politics within the Christian population, but he mentioned that people were moving from the Christian right to the "Evangelical Center." From the transcript

BILL MOYERS: How many evangelicals are there in this country?

RON SIDER: Oh-- you know, with different polls and different studies that say different things. But a quarter of the American voters. Eighty, 90 million people. It's a huge segment. What's emerging in the present time, and it's huge in terms of change and impact, is that there's an evangelical center emerging. You know, the stereotype was that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, you know, the religious right represented the evangelical world. They never did. But now we've got a-- an evangelical center emerging that is much, much broader. It's saying that faithful evangelical civic engagement must have a biblically balanced agenda. And that means you've gotta be concerned about sanctity of human life but also the poor. With the family but also with racial justice and creation care.

This is a sensible viewpoint, but where is this "Evangelical Center"? I have no doubt that there are some politically moderate Christians, but for the most part Christians are either primarily on the right or on the left. It is almost uncanny, but the more a Christian talks about using the government to care for the poor and needy, the more likely they are to be pro-choice. I'm not saying that should be the case, but that is the way it is, at least in my observations. People typically do embrace one side of the aisle or another. Either Sider is seeing something I'm not, or he truly thinks the "Evangelical Left" truly is the "Evangelical Center." Based upon this article he wrote though, maybe it is the former.

I think both of these men are good people. Maybe Wallis truly believes that his political beliefs actually fall outside the Republican/Democrat dichotomy. I think his writings say otherwise. Sider could actually be correct in his view of the emergence of an "Evangelical Center." It's just not anything I'm seeing. It could be that the political landscape leaves no choice but to latch on to one part or the other. But I tend to think that people cling to one side or the other for the same reason we have the emergence of the two parties we do. There are fundamental philosophical differences between the two groups, even within Christianity.

Yet another blogger talking about the campaign

Right now I'm not sure who to endorse. Originally I liked Ron Paul, but I've heard him say a few things that bother me. I do like Thompson because of his federalist views, which serves in stark contrast to people of both parties who want to take all of their problems - and therefore all the power - on their back.

Lee gave his endorsement for McCain. McCain may actually not be that bad, I just don't like him because of his role in Campaign Finance Reform, which I believe - at least his version - limits free speech.

During the debates in NH this past weekend I liked Thompson's answers to many things. Paul and Guiliani spared over what caused 9/11. According to the debate, Paul thinks 9/11 has everything to do with foreign policy, Rudy thinks 9/11 had nothing to do with foreign policy. I think both views are wrong. Even if America was more isolationist, I do think radical Muslims would have problems with us. At the same time - I haven't followed our foreign policy in the 80s and 90s to say it was good or bad - I think it's dangerous to say foreign policy had nothing to do with why some people hate us. Paul did clarify somewhat on Leno last night his viewpoints. He does believe foreign policy was a factor, but he lays blame on those who actually carried out the attacks.

I will have to research the candidates again and decide who I will endorse. If McCain ends up winning the Republican nomination, it will be a great comeback. For my election prediction I think Obama will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

As Glen said, even though he is wrong on so many issues, Obama is a likable, energetic young man. So who has the best shot against Obama? I thought Guiliani would, as he is more socially liberal, pulling in people in the middle. However, many who would vote for Guiliani would also vote for Obama. I think McCain would stand a chance because he is many things Obama is not - conservative, older, more experienced, and less naive. Where Obama has weaknesses, those are McCain's strengths. Sometimes being a polar opposite is advantageous.