Government is not God's primary tool

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

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

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

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

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

What do I mean by "Free Market"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph, Father of Jesus

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

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

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

JP: What are Jesus' ambitions for the future?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph: Thank you.

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

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

5 Things You May Not Know About Me

I was tagged by Josh:

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

Okay, that last one I made up.

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

My favorite political post in the blogosphere...ever

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

Basic argument against gun control

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

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

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

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

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

Who Said the Democrats Can't Do Anything Right?

From ABC News

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

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

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

Update. Cato has their take on the issue.

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

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

College Football: Bring on the playoffs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat Tip: Neil Simpson

New York City Board of Health bans trans-fats

Story here.

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

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

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

I would like to note this in the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Favorite Christmas Songs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I'm still here...

Just been busy... I have a few ideas of blog posts, just have not had time to do them.

The cycles of political passion

My passion for certain issues, mostly political but sometimes theological, goes in cycles. Sometimes I feel inspired and want to post on topics such as abortion, affirmative action, economics, or more spiritual like biblical doctrine, i.e. Once Saved Always Saved, Predestination, etc... I haven't talked so much about the spiritual stuff because that was more of a passion before I started to blog. My blogging time happened to hit while I was interested in political issues.

Basically, I get in a mode where I feel strongly about the way I do; not that my convictions are weaker, but that my passion for defending them is. During this period, I may tend to blog more and comment on other people's blogs, especially remarking on opinions with which I disagree. This is not a bad thing, but it can get to the point where I actually get annoyed that people disagree with me. I mean, after all, aren't my opinions obviously correct? Why can't they see things the right way?

At this point, passion can turn into obsession. I find that I spend more time than I want debating with people. Someone says something I disagree with and I usually have to throw my own 2 cents in.

I have not been feeling like that so much lately. Sure, as Michael or Dan can probably attest, I still make comments on other blogs, but it seems to happen less frequently. And anyone can notice I blog here less often, and many times not on political topics.

The thing is, I kinda like this version of Chance. My convictions are the same, but I'm not spending all my time thinking about such topics. I think it is good to be passionate about things, but at the same time, during this phase I feel...for lack of a better word, content. Not content with the way things are in the world by any means...but many less sensitive to them. I am not sure. I still want to care about such things, and I know only those who truly care can make a difference in the world. But I'm happy to get less riled up when I see opinions with which I totally disagree. Sometimes I avoid commenting on certain blog posts altogether and not even reading the comment section. I like being less obsessed with political issues.

I suppose I have to examine my motivation for why I am passionate about certain issues in the first place. Is it simply because I want more control? Is it just a desire to shape the world as I see fit?

When I think of what I want to do at this moment, I think of taking care of my family. I think of working out certain things in my own life, things I can do as an individual. My focus at the moment seems to be less global. As I said in a previous post, we have certain convictions, and we have to make sure we live them in our own life, whatever our politics. Not that people who are involved in politics neglect their personal life in any way. I am just saying that, for some reason or another, I am less interested in discussing and thinking about worldwide topics. Not that I won't post on such topics, and I have a few ideas for such, I am just explaining what is going on with me at the moment. This does not mean I will stop commenting on other people's blogs, but I may be less likely to enter a heated debate or write some really long comment outlining my beliefs in the free market. I'll still post here on this blog, but I'll do so without the burning need to tell the world why I think what I think. Anyway, that is what is going on with me. I think it is all about balance, being interested in issues, but not being obsessed. If I lean on the opposite end of obsession, that is alright by me.

This week in college football

I was disappointed that the Texas Longhorns lost last weekend, but fortunately my Oklahoma State Cowboys dominated Baylor in offense and in defense, scoring two defensive touchdowns. USC is ranked 3rd, with Florida 1 spot behind, but I think Florida is better, because I think the SEC conference is better than the PAC-10. Look at the Tennessee-Cal game. A good PAC-10 team got throttled by an average SEC team.

If I get the chance, I'll be watching the Ohio State vs. Michigan game, but that's if I have nothing else going on. The top teams and players of this year just do not excite me as much as last year, or even the year before. This year we have Ohio State as the top team and Troy Smith as the top Heisman candidate. But last year we had USC and Texas which collectively included Matt Leinart, the highlight-reel star Reggie Bush, and the one-of-a-kind quarterback Vince Young. And even the year before, we had those same USC stars, and the running back Adrian Peterson(sp?) from OU. It was exciting to watch these people play, and these teams seemed unstoppable. I know Troy Smith is a great athlete and deserving of Heisman honors, and he is probably just as skilled as many of the previously mentioned stars. I even thought previously this season that if Texas and USC did happen to meet again in the final game, it wouldn't even hold a candle to last year's matchup. Probably the most exciting team this year is Arkansas. I think that's because any time a team comes out of nowhere to do so well, it is always an exciting thing. But the year is not over.

Once this season is over, or at least when the bowl games are announced, I will compare the results to my predictions at the beginning of the season.

Update: I said that the SEC must be much better than the PAC-10. Then again, I remembered that USC routed Arkansas 50-14. Simply early game growing pains? Possibly. But so could Tennessee vs. Cal. Point is, you can't judge two conferences based on one game.

Update 2: I think a team must be the conference champ to compete in the national championship game, with a possible exception for the case where the conference champion is your opponent.

Live blogging on "Face/Off"

7:36 PM - John Travolta and Nicholas Cage meet in a Catholic Church for a good old gunfight.

7:38 PM - Travolta and Cage shoot at each other a bunch of times and miss. Religious figures are shattered with bullets.

7:40 PM - Cage's character, who was actually Travolta's character before they switched faces,'s daughter shows up at the church, for absolutely no reason at all, except to ultimately serve as the chick leverage that bad guys always use against the good guys.

7:41 PM - Daughter goes through the confusing ordeal of not knowing who her father is. After all, Cage is now wearing Travolta's face (not really, but according to the movie - this would be less confusing if I knew the character's names, not the actors). Anyway, she goes through the dilemna in which their father's arch-nemesis stole the father's face, and the father stole the face of his arch-nemesis, and she of course, doesn't know who to shoot. This may have to do with why the CIA no longer engage in face-swapping operations.

7:43 P.M. - Daughter stabs Travolta (the bad guy, at least for now) in the leg, based on a trick that Travolta taught her earlier when a guy tries to have inappropriate relations with her. Oh the delicious irony.

7:48 P.M. - Somehow the battle has moved from a gunfight to a speedboat chase, but I missed exactly how this happened. Apparently two speedboats next to each other have keys. Now they are shooting each other while on speedboats. Will Cage go for the ram-the-speedboat-into-the-other-speedboat maneuver, or continue to shoot and miss?

7:51 P.M. - Their boats crashed while flying high through the air, so now they are in a shipyard punching each other. This fight has everything - a gunfight in a church, followed by a speed boat chase, and topped off by hand-to-hand combat with a harpoon involved.

7:53 P.M. - Cage, who was Travolta, finally kills Travolta, formerly Cage, with the harpoon.

7:55 P.M. - Travolta, who was Cage, is back, with the correct face. The weird part is that his wife and daughter first see him for the first time post-"return to original face" as he walks through their front house door. I would think that whenever I have a face transplant, that my wife would actually be at the hospital waiting for me, not waiting for the cab to drop me off. The daughter no longer has a nosering, which implies that her inner demons that have resulted from her previously neglectful father have been purged. Once more, Travolta brings home a new kid to replace the one that Cage had killed. Apparently the first time the rest of the family have met new kid. I think if I ever adopted, I would include my wife in the ordeal, but then it wouldn't have the same dramatic effect.

8:00 PM - Movie over, maybe watch "The Mummy Returns". Whatever happens, the night includes DiGornio's. (I'm on travel currently if you are wondering why I have this spare time. My wife's cooking usually rivals frozen pizza.)

U218 being released on 11/21/06

A new U2 compilation CD and DVD is being released Nov. 21, called U218. The CD has 16 of their greatest hits, plus 2 new songs. Here is the tracklisting from a UK store:

Disc One - CD

* 1. Beautiful Day
* 2. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
* 3. Pride (In The Name Of Love)
* 4. With Or Without You
* 5. Vertigo
* 6. New Year's Day
* 7. Mysterious Ways
* 8. Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of
* 9. Where The Streets Have No Name
* 10. Sweetest Thing
* 11. Sunday Bloody Sunday
* 12. One
* 13. Desire
* 14. Walk On
* 15. Elevation
* 16. Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
* 17. The Saints Are Coming
* 18. Window In The Skies

Disc Two - Live In Milan (DVD)

* 1. Vertigo
* 2. I Will Follow
* 3. Elevation
* 4. Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
* 5. All I Want Is You
* 6. City Of Blinding Lights
* 7. Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
* 8. Miss Sarajevo
* 9. Original Of The Species
* 10. With Or Without You

Looking at the CD tracklist specifically, I think it is a pretty good list, containing what I think are the essential songs in the U2 catalog. While we are talking about the greatest of U2's songs, I wanted to talk about what, in my opinion, are the essential songs of the U2 catalog, that is, songs that no complete U2 best of can be without. Not only that, but I think these are the songs that had a large role in making U2's career what it is.

1. Sunday Bloody Sunday - One of their first major songs and what established them as a band with a political conscious
2. Pride - Simply one of their classic anthems
3. Bad - Probably the least well known song, I include it because this song at Live Aid was a defining moment for their career.
4. Where the streets have no name - Perhaps their most famous live song.
5. Either "I still have not found what I'm looking for" OR "With or Without You" - I know it is strange to have an 'OR' here, but either song captures the era of the Joshua Tree. Maybe both of them should be included.
6. One - While all of Achtung Baby is great, this is the song that helped the album, and therefore, the U2 of the 90s, really take off. It helped U2 remain relevant.
7. Beautiful Day - U2 had a couple of strange albums, Zooropa and Pop. Not to say these are not great albums, but U2 did leave planet Earth for a while, and many U2 fans and music lovers in general were waiting for a return to classic U2. This song is simply amazing because it's right up there with their older songs in popularity. As "One" brought about 90s U2, this song provided a bright window into what U2 could and would bring in the 90s.

Some would say "Vertigo" is another of these songs, and while it is a great song, I cannot help but compare it to "Beautiful Day" in terms of impact to U2's career. Perhaps if the latter was never released, "Vertigo" would be more significant. That is not to take away the quality of the song, however.

Trying to put in old header

I'm trying to put in my old header, but I am an HTML dummy and don't know how to do it with the new Beta Blogger templates? Anyone know how to do this? Thanks.

The most elitest quote I have ever heard

This quote was on my personalized Google Home Page today.

"To be able to fill leisure intelligently is the last product of civilization, and at present very few people have reached this level. - Bertrand Russell"

This quote bothers me for several reasons.

For one, Bertrand Russell was a philosopher and mathematician, who happened to be an atheist (not really anything to do with my comments here). No doubt Russell thinks he is one of the fortunate few who had attained the level of intellectual pursuits, thereby saving civilization.

Secondly, judging what other people do in their pastime is one of the most common, yet most excused forms of snobbery. It is the person attending the opera wondering how the poor brute can pass his Saturdays watching football. (By the way, my brother-in-law is a fan of opera, this is no remark against him; he is one of the most down to earth people I know). It is the person who quotes a few lines of Frost and just assumes everyone knows what he is talking about.

Do not get me wrong, more intellectual pursuits in one's pastime is valuable. It is important to have a hobby in which gratification is not immediate, in which you have to work a little for it. One's life will be truly richer if they read an occasional book instead of watching TV all the time.

I was just annoyed with the way Russell worded his comment. One should pursue certain things to enrich their lives and quit worrying about how others spend their time.

On government and the direction of society

I found an interesting blog post about a pastor's experience with Jim Wallis. For those who are not familiar with Jim Wallis, he is author of the book God's Politics and a contributor to the Sojourner's website, a website that, like Wallis, focuses on "social justice" issues from a Christian perspective. Greg Boyd, the pastor who met with Wallis, had this to say

My conviction is that our target should rather be to motivate Christians to engage social justice issues in unique Kingdom ways, without relying on the help of government or politics. Jesus was all about transforming society, but never by political means. As much as people tried, Jesus never let himself get drawn into the political issues of his day. I believe we should do the same. While I’m of course not opposed to Christians voting and participating in politics however they feel led, the particular way a person does this isn’t part of their uniquely Kingdom identity. Of course Christians should vote their “faith and values” – and Jim encourages people to “vote all their values “ (in contrast to the Religious Right which he believes overly focuses on the pro-life and marriage amendment issues–at the expense of social justice issues). But what is uniquely Kingdom about this? Doesn’t everyone try to vote all his or her values? Does anyone intentionally try to vote against any of his or her values? (By the way, I strongly suspect these sorts of slogans arise because one group of people can’t believe that another group could share their faith and values and yet vote different then they do. So it looks to them like the other group isn’t really voting their “faith and values.”)

In any event, our uniqueness as followers of Jesus isn’t in how we vote; it’s in how we live, how we love, how we’re willing to sacrifice our time and resources for others. Following Jesus doesn’t give us any privileged wisdom on how to fix and run society by political means, but it should give us a greater willingness to transform society by Jesus-looking means – that is, through the power of self-sacrificial love.

In other words, a Christian society should start with ourselves. If we want a society that is moral and regards the sanctity of marriage, we should first look at our own lives, see if we have any sexual impurity in our lives, and we should look at how we regard our own marriage. If we want a society that regards the poor and needy, we should look at our own efforts to look at the poor and needy. As someone who is limited government, this post resonated with me. However, one does not need to be limited government to appreciate the idea that we should not rely on government to produce the type of society that we want. That does not mean we cannot vote our values, or that we must support limited government, it just means government should not be our first resort in producing the type of society we believe the Bible supports.

This post especially resonated with me today. As anyone who reads this blog knows, the Democrats believe in many things I disagree with. Any any time an election does not go our way, we feel, or at least I do, some degree of frustration because we have less control. Society appears to go a way different than our ideal one, and we wish we could do something to change it. However, as Boyd's post points out, somewhat indirectly, is that the way an election turns out does not dictate God's kingdom. Just because a party is in power that holds values contrary to our beliefs does not mean we cannot still act out those beliefs within ourselves and within society. Government is only one facet of society. And I say this to people of any party. It may not apply to the Democrats now, but it did 2 years ago and may 2 years from now. Just because the government at the time does not promote certain values, does not mean those values cannot become important in society by other means. All of us must make sure our vision of society is in line with God's, and we must ask ourselves what we are doing as individuals to ensure that happens. To what level government should be involved is another question. But we do know for sure that as individuals, we need to live out God's vision for our lives and society.

The point is not to discuss how horrible I think society with the Democrats gaining some power. The point is, that for myself, I see a party I disagree with gaining power, and when that happens, I fear society go in a direction with which I disagree. However, I am working on realizing that God has ultimate control over our lives and society, not election results.

Good News for Lovers of Limited Government

I am not the least bit happy about the events today, but Cato Scholars assert that divided government is better for the economy and for the size of government (which I would say are inversely proportional). Scholar Niskanen asserts:

Let's look at some statistics. From the dawn of the Cold War until today, we've had only two periods of what could be called fiscal restraint: The last six years of the Eisenhower administration, and the last six years of the Clinton administration, both intervals in which the opposition controlled Congress. Under Clinton, the average annual increase in spending was at about 1 percent, while, under Ike, it was negative. By contrast, our unified governments have gone on fiscal benders. Harry Truman, with the help of a Democratic Congress, sent the money flying, with spending increases of as high as 10 percent a year. Lyndon Johnson was almost as profligate. And today, unfortunately, George W. Bush, with a GOP majority, is the heir to their legacies. To put this in plain numbers, government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government. That's a hefty premium to pay for a bit of unity.

Power attained only leads to the desire for more power, whether it is Republicans or Democrats. I wouldn't even trust the size of government under control of the Libertarians. Some people think increased spending and government intrusion in our lives is a good thing (and yes, they do go together). I don't. So, a Democratic Congress may not be too bad as long as a Republican gets elected in 2008.

The conflict between liberty and democracy

In Woodland Park, a small community in Colorado, there was a debate on whether Wal-Mart should be allowed to build in the community. I think that the most current news states that Wal-Mart is indeed allowed to build. Now, let's put aside whatever our feelings on Wal-Mart may be. In fact, let's pretend it is a Target or Big Lots, or whatever - I don't want this to be a pro-Wal-Mart or anti-Wal-Mart post. The point is this: we see a conflict between liberty (Wal-Mart's, oops, I mean, Big Lots right to build wherever they please) and democracy (the right of the people of Woodland Park to shape their community however they wish).

This struggle between democracy and liberty happens in many other places as well. Consider speech that is indecent, like an adult video store. Should free speech be protected (the liberty side), or should the community be able to control standards of decency within the town (the democracy side)? I can see the merits of both.

Well, how do we resolve these issues? One thing that helps is the Constitution. Now, the Constitution primarily concerns state and federal governments. Should it even address local governments, or should local governments have more flexibility based on the will of the people?

Carl Milsted touches on these issues in the Free Liberal.

Consider a small city with 36,000 eligible voters. In a grueling 10 hour town meeting, each voter gets one second to speak on average. Obviously, we cannot allow equal speaking rights and still have meaningful debates.

If we are to have all governmental decisions (and many economic decisions as these Rolling Thunder activists advocated), we can expect many such grueling meetings. We can kiss our weekends goodbye. We can expect tempers to flare. Eventually, we can expect many absences, with government falling back into the hands of special interests.

These problems grow worse if we consider a large city.

[...]
Democracy does not scale up.

A better solution is to scale government down. If we are to have true democracy, then the term “local government” should be at a level much smaller than a city. For example, instead of having citywide zoning, each neighborhood could have its own zoning meetings. Let those who pay the price of having a busy store next door decide the zoning.

So, it seems that Milsted supports local governments having a say in the community, provided that these local governments stay small.

This also seems to fit well with the Constitution. Federal and state governments are limited in what they can do by the Constitution itself, but local governments have more flexibility.

I'm not advocating anything here. I still think local governments should be limited to some extent, because local governments can still do tyrannical things. But with smaller local governments, even if they pass oppressive laws, people have more flexibility in determining what type of community in which they want to live if these communities are smaller. And if a city passes a dumb law, it can affect hundreds of thousands of people, whereas smaller local governments affect fewer people. Should local communities be able to pass laws against certain types of speech? Should they be able to spend money on anything they please? I don't know. But in any case, Milsted and I would agree. Smaller is better.

What happened during the blizzard of '06.

Well, because of a huge blizzard going through Colorado this past Thursday, the wife and I were stuck home. Besides shoveling lots of snow and saving our trees, here is a breakdown of what happened that day.

Over at Port Charles, some lady named Laura was apparently in a coma for the past 3 years. Luke tried to save her with an experimental drug, and it seemed to finally work. Sonny's brother Rick is trying to bring his crime empire down, and Rick slept with his stepdaughter Sammy (sp?) which made things a little awkward around the wife, Sammy's mom, who I think is sick with cancer or flesh-eating bacteria or something like that. That also strained relationships with Sammy and Jason, but Jason is busy helping out Sonny with the empire. I think Sonny once said that he wanted to be legit, but I don't believe him. Sonny's ex-wife Carly used to be a short brunette with brown eyes, but now she is tall and blonde with blue eyes. I think next week she will be some black lady.

Over in Salem, Sami once again tried to crash Austin and Carrie's wedding. I didn't think Carrie and Austin would recover the first time when Sami showed up at their first wedding and announced she was pregnant with Austin's baby. But it wasn't Austin's fault, Sami had drugged him, but it still bothered Carrie since Sami is her sister. Anyway, Sami tried to crash the wedding, but Austin and Carrie's love marched through. Also, I tried to catch what Marlena was up to. It didn't seem like she was demon-possessed or killing people for no reason this time, so that is always a good thing.

A compromise for the stem-cell debate

The stem cell debate has been in the news a lot recently with Michael J. Fox doing an ad in support of it, and some celebrities opposing it. ( I didn't want to pick one article, but do a Google News Search.

To be honest, I don't know all the details about stem cell research, and how much of it actually destroys human life. I am not advocating it in this post in anyway, but I wanted to offer a compromise.

Allow stem-cell research to continue. Anyone at anytime and anyplace can perform the research. Hospitals, universities, whoever can do the research.

And not only that, states are allowed to fund stem-cell research based on a direct vote by the people.

Oh wait, that's the current situation we have now.

Stem cell research is perfectly legal. Not only can private sector companies do it, but state governments can fund it. The only restriction is that of federal funding for certain stem cell lines. But for some people, that is not enough. If anything is remotely a good idea, we must throw the federal government at it.

The thing is, many of those who claim that I shouldn't "enforce my morality" on them concerning the stem-cell research debate don't have any problems with forcing someone to pay for research that they find morally repulsive.

My main preference is that no research happens that destroys human life. Again, I don't know much about it, but I know pro-life groups have a problem with it. But at the very least, don't make people pay for things they find morally repulsive. Now, I know some will say "but what about financing war that I disagree with?" Okay, fine, I understand. Many people have to pay for things they find morally repulsive with government. But just because some have to pay for some things against their will, shouldn't open the door for everything else the government tries to fund.

But, an objection I anticipate is that letting people die is also morally questionable, and this is a good objection. The argument would be that we should do all we can do, and if federal funding is an option, so be it. Throw in all the guns. But I wouldn't say that federal funding is guaranteed to improve medical research. I think many of us take it as a given that federal involvement and money always improves things; it seems like the intuitive answer, but I have also heard arguments that federal involvement makes medical research less effective. I won't go into all of them now, but I think it is an assumption worth examining.

Update: Yes, preacherman, Rush Limbaugh is an idot.

Same-sex schools, classes okay

The Bush administration gave the okay for school districts to have more freedom in same-sex schools and classes.

I haven't had time to review all the details concerning the decision, but from my understanding, enrollment is voluntary. That is, students in a district will have the choice between a co-ed school or a same-sex school.

So, is going to a school with all the same gender a good thing? Or is going to a coed school better? Well, since enrollment is voluntary, it does not matter as much. It is up to the parents to decide. I can see possible complaints because it would supposedly open the door to segregated schools. Overall, I agree with the decision, simply because I believe in maximum flexibility when it comes to parents deciding what kind of school their child should go to.

This decision does have ramifications for school choice. If there does appear to be advantages of same-sex schools, even for some, but not all, I think it may show the advantage of having school choice in other areas as well. In fact, if school choice was more widely available, we would have probably more same-sex schools in the past.

Now, I am not advocating same-sex schools in any way. I don't know if that is something I would want for my child. I am just advocating parents having the choice of same-sex or coed schools.

Even if same-sex schools turn out to be a failure, that is something parents, and society, on a larger level, will learn somewhat quickly. Test scores will be compared between counterparts, and we may find that some students do better or worse. And that is really how school should work in general. Schools compete to get better.

Now, how school choice should be implemented is another topic entirely. Should families get vouchers; should their be charter schools; should parents simply have the choice of schools in their city the same way one has the choice of public colleges? One thing I do believe, is that school choice must be implemented somehow.

This is something I will have to think more about. These are just my immediate thoughts on the subject. The point is, parents should have more choice in their children's schooling than simply if they go to a coed school or not. If advantages are seen in having choice in this aspect, this may lead to choice in other areas as well.

How to make smoking cool again...

It seems that the act of smoking cigarettes has taken quite a hit concerning social standing in society. In older movies, and maybe even television shows, it was not a surprise to see anyone light up. However, smoking seems to be losing popularity. Most people perceive it as a nasty habit, or may even enjoy smoking but give it up based on health reasons. Smoking is something that was associated with a somewhat rebellious image, something cool, but that seems to have changed over time.

Smoking is something that has never interested me. I've just never had a desire to do it. I still don't, although, I must admit, a small part of me wishes I did. Why? Because there is a tiny side of me that wants to rebel against the anti-smoking zealots. Now, I am not even talking about the smoking ban, that is a much more complex issue involving property rights, and I don't want to unravel that right now. I am talking about censorship. I read an article sometime back about censorship concerning smoking. For some reason, I thought I saw it at Lee's blog, but it turns out it was at the Cato Institute Blog. The post says

Cartoon editors are painstakingly working through more than 1,500 episodes of classic Tom and Jerry, Flintstones, and Scooby Doo cartoons to erase scenes of characters - gasp - smoking. Turner Broadcasting says it’s a voluntary decision, but the move comes after a report from Ofcom, which has regulatory authority over British broadcasters. So in this case “censorship” seems a reasonable term.

It’s not the first time. France’s national library airbrushed a cigarette out of a poster of Jean-Paul Sartre to avoid falling foul of an anti-tobacco law. The US postal service has removed the cigarettes from photographs on stamps featuring Jackson Pollock, Edward R. Murrow, and Robert Johnson. And in the 20th-anniversary rerelease of ET, Steven Spielberg replaced the policemen’s guns with walkie-talkies.

On one level, this is just a joke: they are redrawing cartoons to make them more kid-friendly. And just to make the rules completely PC, Turner is allowed to leave cigarettes in the hands of cartoon villains.

But there’s something deeper here: an attempt to sanitize history, to rewrite it the way we wish it had happened. Smoking is a part of reality, and especially a part of history. Just look at any old movie. Everyone smokes: doctors, pregnant women, lovers. Real people smoked, too - people like Murrow and Pollock and Sartre. And some of them died of lung and throat cancer, which parents and teachers can point out. It’s Orwellian to airbrush historical photos in order to remove evidence of that of which you disapprove.

Franklin D. Roosevelt spent decades trying to conceal the fact that he was confined to a wheelchair. Historians say that out of more than 10,000 photographs of FDR, only four show him using a wheelchair. Those are the ones that are now used in textbooks and at the FDR Memorial in Washington. One victory for historical accuracy. However, the FDR Memorial removed the ever-present cigarette from FDR’s hands. Orwell’s ministry of truth would be proud.

The article has many good points, but I wanted to focus on the one about smoking. As I said previously, it seems like smoking is losing it's "cool" image. And that is mainly people deciding for themselves that smoking is a bad idea, and certain voluntary groups, I believe, are helping in the effort. Smoking is viewed as more "dangerous", but not in a cool way anymore, but in a "give you lung cancer" sort of way. However, when government steps in, I think it can have the reverse effect. Look at me. I am the least rebellious person I know. Even though I have many libertarian viewpoints, I consider myself a person with a conservative lifestyle and someone with few vices, other than the additional Hershey's bar from time to time. But also, when I see such nanny-state behavior, it makes me wish I smoked just to throw it in the anti-smoking zealot's face. If such actions affect me in such a way, how about the rebellious teenager?

How do we take care of the earth?

Let's take a look at Genesis 1:28-30.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

I bring up this verse because I want to look at mankind's role in taking care of the earth, and understanding this role is important in light of environmental issues such as global warming and energy sources. When talking to various Christians, two main viewpoints come about.

1. God has provided on this earth exactly what we need. God has told us to fill the earth and subdue it, and He does so without qualification. Also, I trust that the earth will have enough resources to last us until the coming of Christ.

2. We are supposed to be more wise in our use of natural resources and ensure that what we do to the earth will not strongly impact future generations in a negative way. While God does not explicitly command us to conserve energy, one would expect that God expects us to use wisdom in our care of the earth, in the same way that He expects us to wisely manage our finances or our property.

I can understand both points of view, and I do not really know where I am. I can see the virtues in both. The first places trust that God will give us exactly what we need, but the second viewpoint - which does not negate God's providence in any way stresses wisdom in management of the earth.

I don't have that much to say on the topic; I just wanted to present these two different viewpoints that I have seen in Christianity. I do not have any articles to link to, these are just the viewpoints I have gathered just by talking to people.

I do want to make a couple of points however.

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

2) The earth is here for us, we are not here for the earth. Again, this does not give license to reckless disregard for the earth, but I do think we should have our priorities correct. In my view, Genesis 1 seems to favor the viewpoint that the earth is here for us. It has an overall tone that man (I use man in the broad sense, not a specific gender) has dominion over everything else. Again, this viewpoint can easily encompass varying environmental views, I am just saying we should have our priorities straight.

Just a few thoughts.

Some basic philosophies in a nutshell...

I've spoken plenty on political topics throughout this blog. I have actually not been that involved recently in politics - not that I am actively involved, but I mean involved as in reading on political topics or actively thinking through various problems of a political nature. I wouldn't say I have lost a passion for political issues, but they haven't been the main thoughts of the day. I think to some degree, this has allowed me to step back and look at things in a gut level sort of way. I feel the desire to express some of my basic philosophies, not so much in political or philosophical terms, but more in a down-to-the-roots manner.

1. In general, people should have to pay for stuff. I don't think things should be free. I'm not entitled to anything, whether it is the song I download, the software I use, the books I read, the food I eat, etc... Most everything I have is something somebody else provided. I'm not saying to abolish welfare, but welfare should be temporary for those who can feed themselves.

2. Government is not the answer to people's problems. I believe the government should have as minimal a role in our lives as possible. Government is not some agent of God to make our lives better in any way. The more room government has, the less room for family and church. The transformation of a society can only be done through voluntary actions. We have learned this lesson with religion, you cannot force people to have a certain faith. In the same way, actions done through force cannot accomplish great change in our society.

3. Freedom is accomplished through negative rights, not positive. Positive rights will always come into conflict. The right to certain goods or services will conflict with the rights of the person providing it. The right to a microphone will conflict with the rights of the person providing that microphone. Freedom of speech means the government cannot interfere with my right to speak, it does not guarantee that someone provides the resources for me to be heard; doing so conflicts with the right of someone else not to support speech they do not like. Radio stations refusing to play the Dixie Chicks is not censorship. I touched on this before, but drug stores not carrying birth control is not an infringement on my freedom. Me demanding that they provide birth control is an infringement on theirs. A society truly respectful of others' rights will not have people insist that others accomodate their lifestyle.


That's about it for now. I'm sure there's more.

Some Changes

I am doing a few new things to the template. I plan to change back to what I had before, because I really like the header Josh gave me. I switched to blogger beta and am starting to add Labels to my posts. I had to upgrade the template to easily do the Labels links on the sidebar. However, I think I lost my old template, but I have one backed up on my other computer.

The changing landscape of TV

I find it somewhat ironic how formulaic reality TV has become. When reality TV started to explode in popularity, I would say the late 90s, it was successful because it was something new and innovative. But really, as soon as the format came out, reality shows really started to just follow a certain pattern. Many of the shows overall pattern is the same, in which someone gets voted out each week, or at least eliminated in some way, whether it is the Bachelor, Amazing Race, Big Brother, or the Biggest Loser. That's not so bad, but it does hurt originality somewhat. There are just particular patterns that really annoy me. The "let's show what's going to happen after the commercial break right before we go to commercial break" in which we see the same sequence over and over, or "let's go to commercial right before we announce who gets kicked off", or the announcer continuing to say this is the most exciting rose ceremony yet. For a television format that is supposed to be so innovative, all these shows are becoming so cookie-cutter.

I know these observations are way outdated, given that these shows have been out a while, and I know I am probably not saying anything original, I just wanted to point out in television, things that are supposed to be "outside the box" eventually just make the box bigger.

The new format of dramas, and even some comedies, have been interesting as well. This format is one in which each show builds upon the other. Many shows do this to some degree, but dramas are becoming more like a miniseries with no definitive end. "Lost" is the best example of this, and probably one of the first to take on this pattern. We know the show has to have an end, we just don't know when. People are stranded on an island from a plane crash, and we assume at some point they will escape. Other series, like "Jericho" or "The Nine" (which I haven't seen but can assume based on commercials) are basically one long story. The characters, and the view, find out more about what is going on as the story unravels.

This is a great format, but this is somewhat riskier. A standard type drama series, like CSI, one in which focuses on separate stories per episode, can go downhill, but it will not affect the earlier shows. Think of a movie or book that you really enjoyed for the most part. There were things to figure out, and certain mysteries were unraveled as you went along. However, the book or movie goes downhill, as certain explanations are somewhat contrived to fit the earlier half of the story, or they are somewhat anti-climactic. That is the issue here. Do the writers of "Lost" actually know where they are going with the show. It is exciting right now, but what if they disappoint us? If the ultimate ending or even later shows turn out to be disappointing, it will affect the entire series.

A letter to the fruit of my loins

So, last week sometime, I was writing a letter to my baby that will be born sometime next year. I wrote a little bit about ourselves and different things going in the world and what we hope to teach the child as he/she grows up. I know that for myself, it is always interesting to wonder what it was like for previous generations when major techological advances came about. For instance, the onset of television during my grandparents' lifetimes or the growth of the personal automobile in my greant grandmother's or ancestors' lifetimes. So, I just wrote a little bit about what it was like to have the internet come about in our lifetimes.

As I finish the letter, I thought "hey, it would be a great idea to look at the news headlines and jot them down for this date." Unfortunately, I go to cnn.com and I see stuff about the shootings in Bailey and people dying in Iraq. I realized this was not such a good idea...

I am a bit of an escapist. I do not like watching the local news because it is so sad. So, at 10 pm I flip to the Simpsons. I choose to immerse myself in something that makes me laugh, rather than looking at the tragic things going on in the world. Is this a character strength or character flaw? I am someone who wants to be happy and to enjoy myself. This can be a flaw in the sense that I can spend my life simply trying to avoid pain, ignoring the bad stuff around me. Also, I can tend to be self-centered as I become less invested in other people and just care about my own immediate happiness. However, given the choice between watching the news or laughing at the Simpsons, I will choose the Simpsons.

Predestination: An issue that really doesn't matter

Predestination is an issue that separates many denominations. Now, I am not going to discuss the merits or flaws of the theological idea of predestination, my purpose is to assert that in the larger scheme of things, the issue really does not matter.

I am not refuting that it is an idea worthy of discussion, because it is an interesting issue, and I don't see any problems with debating it, to some extent. But I will argue that, when it comes to a Christian's relationship with God, the issue does not really matter.

Wikipedia mentions that predestination teaches

God's decision, assignment or declaration concerning the lot of people is conceived as occurring in some sense prior to the outcome, and
the decision is fully predictive of the outcome, and not merely probable.

Let me try to offer my own definition. In the T.U.L.I.P. acronym, I think the key concept concerning predestination is the 'I', which stands for Irresistible Grace. This means that when someone is called by the Holy Spirit to repentance, they cannot resist that call. This ultimately means that a person has no choice in the salvation process. Those who receive salvation are those who God chooses; they have no say in the matter.

One aside: Many people have problems with this idea; it is not one in which I personally believe, but I don't think that affects the discussion here. But many people have emotional arguments against predestination, not sound theological ones. There are good theological ones that exist, but when you ask a random Christian about predestination, they will say that it just seems "heartless", that God would choose who to save and who not to save. However, just because the idea insults our sensitivities does not mean that it is not true. Many atheists reject the existence of God for a similar reason: the idea goes against their thoughts on how things "should" be.

Getting back on track...

Again, I am not arguing for or against predestination. My statement is that, concerning the salvation process, and, concerning one's relationship with Christ, the doctrine does not really matter. Some churches have one view or the other as part of their statement of beliefs, and I think that is fine, because I am not saying one cannot believe one way or the other on the issue.

A couple of points I would like to make:

1) One does not need to fully understand the metaphysics of salvation. I don't want to go into an in-depth study of salvation, but in short, I would say one is saved when they realize they are a sinner and accept the sacrifice Christ made on the cross. Some denominations would say that it is also necessary to make a lifetime commitment to Christ, and/or this salvation can be lost. Nevertheless, if I accept Christ, does it really matter how much say I had in the actual decision or not? Whether God overtly directs us or just tugs at us somewhat, do the underlying metaphysics of the decision really matter that much? God commands us to repent of our sins and to accept Jesus Christ as our savior, so we do that. Whether we do or have done so because of irresistible grace or resistible grace is not important, in my view. God tells us what to do on our end, how much free will we have in that is not vital in doing it.


2) One does not need to believe in predestination to appreciate the sovereignty of God. In light of the paragraph above, it is important to understand that salvation is indeed the work of Christ, not of ourselves. It is important to understand that God does have complete control and is sovereign, and some branches of Christianity that do not believe in predestination may tend to give too much emphasis on free will and the supposed ability to save ourselves. At the same time, not believing in predestination does not mean a disbelief in the total power and sovereignty of God.

3) One does not need to believe in predestination to avoid pride. Many of the Calvinist bent argue that not believing in predestination can lead to pride, because people attribute their salvation to themselves. They may also assert that one cannot truly be thankful for their salvation for the same reason. I disagree. Say that you are drowning and someone on a lifeboat comes to save you, offering you a life preserver. Is that person going to be prideful because they chose to grab the life preserver? In the same way, a Christian with the right perspective will realize they have absolutely nothing to be proud about, even if they believe that they can resist God's call to salvation. Even admitting that one needs salvation is a step toward humility.

4) Predestination, as well as many other issues, should not be what church is about. Again, I have no beef with a church putting predestination in their list of beliefs or core doctrines. The problem I have is when it becomes the main focus of the church. But, I feel that way with any other issue. Of course, this leads to a bigger discussion of how much a church should focus on core beliefs without leading to denominationalism, etc... My parents for some time went to a Reformed Baptist (Calvinist) church. Even though I didn't agree with their Calvinist doctrine (well, just indifferent, like I said, I don't really care about predestination), what did bother me is that it was the constant focus of their sermons, instead of focusing on someone named Jesus.

Again, predestination doctrine is a worthy discussion, and I am not saying it should be avoided. At the same time, I do not believe that an agreement or disagreement on the issue is essential to having a meaningful relationship with Christ. In fact, too much emphasis on the issue, either way, could detract from it.

Are you a Heretic?

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451. Chalcedon compliant 92% Nestorianism 50% Modalism 33% Apollanarian 33% Monophysitism 25% Adoptionist 17% Pelagianism 17% Monarchianism 8% Docetism 0% Arianism 0% Donatism 0% Albigensianism 0% Socinianism 0% Gnosticism 0% Are you a heretic? created with QuizFarm.com

Go me! Again, another quiz I got from Michael.

The gods of college football have their vengeance

Since the inception of the BCS in college football, there have been many controversies concerning who is chosen to play in the championship, where some questionable teams are let in, and other good teams are left out.

Berry Tramel from NewsOK.com points out something that happened last Saturday (Sep. 16) in college football. I have to say, this is quite a bit eerie.

Blessed: Oklahoma, LSU, Nebraska.

Cursed: Southern Cal, Oregon, Auburn.

In the last five years, BCS controversy has avoided us twice, with Miami-Ohio State and USC-Texas. In the other three seasons, college football has been faced with a square peg, round hole dilemma: three contenders for the two slots in the ultimate game.

2001: Nebraska, which didn't even make its conference title game, gets in the Rose Bowl; 10-1 Oregon is left out. Oregon routs Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl, and Nebraska is rolled by Miami in the national title game.

2003: OU, which didn't even win its conference, and LSU get in the Sugar Bowl. Top-ranked USC is left out. SC wins the Rose Bowl, and LSU beats the suddenly-flat Sooners for the title.

2004: OU and USC get in the Orange Bowl, unbeaten and untied Auburn is left out. Auburn wins the Sugar Bowl to finish 13-0; USC wins a non-competitive Orange Bowl 55-19.

What is so weird is that, as Tramel points out, 3 matchups last Saturday involved these very same 6 teams. LSU, OU, and Nebraska, formerly blessed teams, all last their games last week, and they all lost in matchups to the previously cursed teams, Auburn, Oregon, and USC, respectively. These matchpus were not in the same pairs as mentioned earlier (i.e. Nebraska playing Oregon, Auburn playing OU), but that actually makes it all the more strange.

As Tramel says

Many reports identify the infamous Gordon Riese [official who blew calls at the Oregon-Oklahoma game] as residing in the hamlet of Portland, Ore. We have found this to be untrue. Riese lives not in the Pacific Northwest, but somewhere in the stars. Somewhere the football gods assemble and right the wrongs of the college gridiron.

Think of Riese as Clarence, the bumbling angel who so many Christmases ago was dispatched to Bedford Falls to save Jimmy Stewart.

[...]
Riese, who apparently makes Clarence seem like an archangel, and his buddies in stripes blew an onside kick call every which way possible, giving Oregon the chance to rally in the final minute for a 34-33 victory over OU.

Some Southern Seraphim in Auburn ruled against LSU on a crucial fourth-down replay in the final minute, and Auburn survived 7-3. The call was less obvious than the Eugene pilfering, but LSU feels no less cheated than do the masses marching down the streets of Soonerville.

Out in Los Angeles, where perhaps Clarence was stationed, having earned his wings and able to fly in from the East Coast, no divine intervention was necessary. Nebraska, wearing surrender white, packed its give-up gear, took a 28-10 beating at the hands of SC and was glad to get out of town with a tour of Universal Studios.

Three big losers in college football's game of roulette exacted a measure of justice. The note came due on three big winners of past autumns.

What truly happened in Oregon? Gordon Riese earned his wings.

Not buying it? I didn't think so. But maybe this will make you feel better. Still, even after Pay the Piper Saturday, It's a Wonderful Game.

A little poetic justice evening out the flaws of the BCS.

At least we have more than 5 Bibles

A recent report says.

(New York-AP) September 21, 2006 - Televisions have taken over the average American home. Nielsen Media Research says the average home in the US now has more television sets than people to sit down and watch them.

The researchers say there are now 2.73 TV sets in the typical home, compared to just 2.55 people.

Nielsen says half of American homes now have three or more TVs, while only 19 percent have just one. In 1975, 57 percent of homes had only a single set.

Nielsen also says more people are watching more television, as sets are turned on for more than eight hours a day in the average home.

The average person watches four hours and 35 minutes of television each day.

I must say, somewhat red-faced, that I have 5 TV's in my home, for just my wife and I. Well, and a little one on the way (found out last week!). However, not that I feel I have to justify anything to anyone, I feel I have a good explanation. My wife and I each brought a TV into the marriage, with the bigger one being 19 inches. However, in a short amount of time, 3 TV's were given to us. My in-laws had a small TV they weren't using that they offered to give us. We decided to take it just to have another TV for when we move into a house, maybe something for the guest room. Well, the house we bought had a TV that the prior residents left in the living room; it is about 31 inches. Then, I have a friend who works for Ultimate Electronics who delivers television sets. Sometimes the person simply gives the old TV to him (usually it requires repairs of some sort). Well, someone gave him a 48 inch HDTV, which meant he had to do something with the 50-inch older TV he got from a customer previously. Well, I ended up with the 50-inch.

And that is the story of how our family obtained 5 TV's, only paying for 2 of them.

And all this time, I thought I was cooler than Michael.

Guess not. I am nerdier than 68% of the population.



Props to Michael, where I first saw the quiz. (See, I'm not a nerd. Nerds don't say "props" do they?)

Where Do I Go From Here?

I find myself burned out posting on political topics. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed posting, and the discussions in the comment sections that follow, including the debates with Dan and Michael. I still have a passion for political topics, but I think I just need to take a break from posting on such subjects.

But the question is, on what else do I post? I've been trying to post on other things the past few weeks, such as topics on music, sports, and topics involving the church. Still though, I like to have an underlying theme, and underlying philosophy behind my posts. For some time, I had a theme of liberty flowing through my posts and viewing different issues with respect to that. Anyway, I don't know what the future holds for this blog. And I could change my mind at any time. As soon as I post this, some topic could immediately come to mind. The point being, I don't really have a plan right now.

Freedom of Conscience and the Pursuit of Happiness Can Go Together.

The Cato Blog discusses how some people think doctors should be forced to perform abortions or pharmacists to provide birth control, even if it violates their conscious. The blog states:

Some doctors say it violates their conscience to perform abortions or provide artificial insemination for unmarried or gay people. Some pharmacists believe that the morning-after pill is a form of abortion, and their religious commitment forbids them to dispense it.

And now some patients and activists are demanding laws to force health professionals to dispense the care the patients want, no matter how it violates the health worker’s conscience. Activists who march for a woman’s right to choose want the government to overrule a pharmacist’s right to choose.

Now, some make the argument that no one is required to be a pharmacist or doctor, and that if they want to pursue those occupations, then they have to take on those obligations as well as those privileges. Okay, I understand that argument, but I don't think people have to choose one or the other: freedom to live by their conscious OR pursue their dream, whatever that may be. As David Boaz says,

In a country of 290 million people and 14 million businesses, we should let these issues sort themselves out in the marketplace. Chances are that major drugstore chains like CVS and Walgreen’s are going to insist that their stores fill all prescriptions. If they have more than one pharmacist on duty at a time, then they may be willing to tolerate pharmacists who avoid filling certain prescriptions. If they do insist that all pharmacists be prepared to fill any prescription presented by a customer, then pharmacists who can’t accept such rules will have to look for jobs elsewhere. And if customers encounter a pharmacy that won’t give them what they want, then they will have to find another pharmacy.

Now, some people live in small towns, where they do not have easy access to the doctors or pharmacists they want. But birth control, for instance, is a service, it is not an entitlement. We are not granted the right to have sex without the possibility of getting pregnant.

Boaz also points out some counter examples for liberal-leaning folk, just to bring the point home. Should anesthesiologists be required to take part in a state execution?

Boaz also brings up the issue of how state intervention leads to more state intervention.

this is an example of how one state intervention generates the demand for additional interventions. We say you can’t be a pharmacist unless you get a state license, and now you want to say that that license should empower the state to impose morally offensive obligations on those who were required to get the license.

I don't think the state should demand people to disobey their conscious to pursue an occupation that may be their life's passion. Some may argue that the state has a right to impose such moral expections upon people pursuing certain fields, but I don't think we even need to demand such a sacrifice from people. There are enough people in each field to meet the demands of a plurality. Yes, it may be more challenging for some people based on where they live, but we should not feel entitled to such services.

The Wal-Mart Dilemna

There are several posts about Wal-Mart.

Glen Dean: Loves Wal-Mart
Lee: Neutral on Wal-Mart, thinks it is another battleground for conservatives and liberals.
Katherine Coble: Breaks away from conservative fellows and hates Wal-Mart.

Each post makes good points. But one thing I want to discuss. Kat refers to another post that says

Sure Walmart has low prices that are good for poor people. But they also make people poor by refusing to pay what a decent price for the things they sell.

I want to address this particular argument. I know liberals (and Kat) have other good arguments, and I don't mean to ignore them, but I want to address this particular one. There are 2 extremes, it is really a sliding scale, but I will present it as 2 options for clarity.

Option 1) Pay people good wages, charge more for products.

Option 2) Pay people poor wages, charge much less for products.

Here is the issue I have. Wal-Mart critics point out the problem with Option 2, because of poor wages. But here is the issue. Option 1 also has a negative tradeoff as well. Wal-Mart critics have done a fine job of pointing out the problem with Option 2, but in my mind they have failed to demonstrate why Option 1 is a superior, even moral option. The fact that a certain option has a negative tradeoff is not enough to convince me to go another route, when the other option has a negative tradeoff as well.

This is what Wal-Mart critics must do. Demonstrate that it is better for the economy to pursue Option 1, rather than Option 2. Why exactly is it better to pay someone a certain wage, instead of selling cheaper products? The liberal will argue that everyone has the right to a decent wage, but one could just as easily argue that everyone has a right to groceries or toiletries at a "decent" price.

And this is really part of a larger economics problem. With free trade for instance, we can have cheaper products, but we run the risk of losing jobs, or have lower paying jobs for Americans.

I would argue that the burden of proof is on the Wal-Mart critics, because I believe on must make the case for government to intervene. However, I still believe that free marketers must make their case as well. Why is Option 2 better than Option 1? Will lower prices of products make up for lower wages? Will the gain of jobs in the lower classes compensate for loss of jobs in the middle class? Will there be a net loss of jobs in the middle class?

This is a complex issue. All I am saying is that criticizing low prices because they lead to low prices is not a sufficient argument; because high wages lead to high prices. Both sides, but especially those that want government intervention, must demonstrate why one option is better than the other.