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.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Saturday, October 07, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
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
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.
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, andLet 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.
the decision is fully predictive of the outcome, and not merely probable.
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.
Monday, September 25, 2006
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.
Are you a heretic? created with QuizFarm.com |
Go me! Again, another quiz I got from Michael.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
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.
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
A little poetic justice evening out the flaws of the BCS.
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.
Friday, September 22, 2006
At least we have more than 5 Bibles
A recent report says.
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.
(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.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
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?)
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.
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.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
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:
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.
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.
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.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,
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.
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.
Friday, September 15, 2006
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
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.
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.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
The End of Sunday School?
I am not here to bash anyone's ideal model of how a church's ministry system is set up. But as a layperson, I just wanted to provide a perspective on a trend I see in churches today, at least non-denominational ones.
Small Groups, or Life Groups, are the new craze in the non-denominational churches, and not just the mega-churches. Basically, people at church form small groups of, say 5-10 people or 4-6 couples, just to list an ideal size. These groups typically meet at a person's house some time during the week, and not necessarily Sunday.
I don't know the whole story or history behind it, but this way of doing extra-sermon activities became popular in the mega-churches on the West Coast, and the idea has grown more popular, at least in the area in which I live.
The idea behind small groups is that they allow members of the church to have more intimate and genuine relationships. I've heard it said as people "doing life" together. In some ways, small groups are preferable to the Sunday School model, because it allows (forces?) people to be more open and accountable with each other.
For the reasons listed above, I do see small groups as a great thing. I think many times we show up at church, and maybe even Sunday School, and do not form meaningful relationships. I believe Christianity has become, to many people, a place where we put on our best face on Sunday and pretend like everything is okay. Small groups allow people to get real.
But here is the issue I have. Small groups appear to be replacing Sunday School, not complementing it. Very few non-denominational churches in my city actually have Sunday School; they do just about any ministry beyond the sanctuary through the small group format.
So why is this a problem? When my wife and I moved to this city, we wanted to go to a church where we could connect with people our age. Now, I don't think we should choose a church solely for such a reason, but fellowship is important. We thought a church with a young adult Sunday School would be ideal. As a couple visiting a church, it is very hard for us to jump right into small groups, and I believe it is that way for many couples. For many, small groups cannot be a first step when it comes to connecting with people. How awkward is it to show up to some stranger's house? Furthermore, what if it turns out you do not even like the people? Here you are, starting a class at some person's house with people you with whom you do not connect.
That is why I believe Sunday School is necessary for people to connect. It provides a place to meet people in a less-intimate setting. From there, small groups can form more naturally. No, people should not choose a group based on where their friends are, but the Sunday School does provide a nice intermediate process between sanctuary and close relationships.
Here is a criticism I have heard against this model. People can spend their life attending church and Sunday School without forming close relationships. They just show up, without actively engaging in any way. With small groups, this is less likely to happen. That is true. But I believe the church can only do so much when it comes to encouraging their members to form close relationships. Also, those people who are not truly engaged in Sunday School are not very likely to enter a small group in the first place. When you give such a person the choice between a small group or nothing at all, they will stay home.
By having a Sunday School and small groups, a church can have a setup that is more welcoming to new people and have options available for people to engage in more intimate relationships. The church should encourage formation of small groups, but they can only do so much to encourage this, and eliminating Sunday School, in my view, is not a reasonable option.
I know a few of the readers of this blog are or have been involved in the ministry, or are close to someone involved in the ministry, or they may just attend church regularly. I would be curious to know what their thoughts are on this topic, and if it has even been an issue in their church at all.
Small Groups, or Life Groups, are the new craze in the non-denominational churches, and not just the mega-churches. Basically, people at church form small groups of, say 5-10 people or 4-6 couples, just to list an ideal size. These groups typically meet at a person's house some time during the week, and not necessarily Sunday.
I don't know the whole story or history behind it, but this way of doing extra-sermon activities became popular in the mega-churches on the West Coast, and the idea has grown more popular, at least in the area in which I live.
The idea behind small groups is that they allow members of the church to have more intimate and genuine relationships. I've heard it said as people "doing life" together. In some ways, small groups are preferable to the Sunday School model, because it allows (forces?) people to be more open and accountable with each other.
For the reasons listed above, I do see small groups as a great thing. I think many times we show up at church, and maybe even Sunday School, and do not form meaningful relationships. I believe Christianity has become, to many people, a place where we put on our best face on Sunday and pretend like everything is okay. Small groups allow people to get real.
But here is the issue I have. Small groups appear to be replacing Sunday School, not complementing it. Very few non-denominational churches in my city actually have Sunday School; they do just about any ministry beyond the sanctuary through the small group format.
So why is this a problem? When my wife and I moved to this city, we wanted to go to a church where we could connect with people our age. Now, I don't think we should choose a church solely for such a reason, but fellowship is important. We thought a church with a young adult Sunday School would be ideal. As a couple visiting a church, it is very hard for us to jump right into small groups, and I believe it is that way for many couples. For many, small groups cannot be a first step when it comes to connecting with people. How awkward is it to show up to some stranger's house? Furthermore, what if it turns out you do not even like the people? Here you are, starting a class at some person's house with people you with whom you do not connect.
That is why I believe Sunday School is necessary for people to connect. It provides a place to meet people in a less-intimate setting. From there, small groups can form more naturally. No, people should not choose a group based on where their friends are, but the Sunday School does provide a nice intermediate process between sanctuary and close relationships.
Here is a criticism I have heard against this model. People can spend their life attending church and Sunday School without forming close relationships. They just show up, without actively engaging in any way. With small groups, this is less likely to happen. That is true. But I believe the church can only do so much when it comes to encouraging their members to form close relationships. Also, those people who are not truly engaged in Sunday School are not very likely to enter a small group in the first place. When you give such a person the choice between a small group or nothing at all, they will stay home.
By having a Sunday School and small groups, a church can have a setup that is more welcoming to new people and have options available for people to engage in more intimate relationships. The church should encourage formation of small groups, but they can only do so much to encourage this, and eliminating Sunday School, in my view, is not a reasonable option.
I know a few of the readers of this blog are or have been involved in the ministry, or are close to someone involved in the ministry, or they may just attend church regularly. I would be curious to know what their thoughts are on this topic, and if it has even been an issue in their church at all.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
My Album Meme
1. One album that had the biggest impact on your musical tastes.
I would say The Joshua Tree by U2. Before then, I had listened to primarily aggressive alternative rock, which helped me be angry all the time. This album helped me realize I could listen to positive, uplifting music that was still actually good.
2. One album you would want on a deserted island.
Achtung Baby by U2. It is one of my favorites, and it has variety in the songs. Also, it is very repeatable, as mentioned in my previous post.
3. One album that pumps you up.
Again, For the First Time by Bleach. Bleach is my favorite Christian rock band. This album has 11 full-throttle songs. Only slow song is at the end.
4. One album you like to chill out to.
Birds of my Neighborhood by The Innocence Mission. If you like folk music at all, I would recommend this band.
5. One album you liked immediately.
A Boy Named Goo by the Goo Goo Dolls. High-energy punk rock that is instantly catchy.
6. One album that grew on you.
Feeling Strangely Fine by Semisonic. Not all songs are as radio-friendly as their one big hit "Closing Time", but they are really good.
7. One album you wasted money on.
This is a tough one, as I've learned to like just about any album I've bought. I would probably say Monster by R.E.M. with a caveat. I think R.E.M. is a great band, and their album Monster is probably pretty decent. But when I bought it I was much younger, and only listened to things that were catchy right away. I don't have the album anymore, but if I listened to it today, I may actually like it.
8. One album you wanted as a kid, but your parents wouldn't let you buy.
This may not apply to everyone, as some parents are more permissive than others.
Throwing Copper by Live. Yes, Live is pretty tame compared to something like gangsta rap, but I couldn't listen to any music that had many bad words when I was a kid.
9. One album on your wish list.
X & Y by Coldplay.
10. Tag people.
Whoever reads this and is interested, feel free.
I would say The Joshua Tree by U2. Before then, I had listened to primarily aggressive alternative rock, which helped me be angry all the time. This album helped me realize I could listen to positive, uplifting music that was still actually good.
2. One album you would want on a deserted island.
Achtung Baby by U2. It is one of my favorites, and it has variety in the songs. Also, it is very repeatable, as mentioned in my previous post.
3. One album that pumps you up.
Again, For the First Time by Bleach. Bleach is my favorite Christian rock band. This album has 11 full-throttle songs. Only slow song is at the end.
4. One album you like to chill out to.
Birds of my Neighborhood by The Innocence Mission. If you like folk music at all, I would recommend this band.
5. One album you liked immediately.
A Boy Named Goo by the Goo Goo Dolls. High-energy punk rock that is instantly catchy.
6. One album that grew on you.
Feeling Strangely Fine by Semisonic. Not all songs are as radio-friendly as their one big hit "Closing Time", but they are really good.
7. One album you wasted money on.
This is a tough one, as I've learned to like just about any album I've bought. I would probably say Monster by R.E.M. with a caveat. I think R.E.M. is a great band, and their album Monster is probably pretty decent. But when I bought it I was much younger, and only listened to things that were catchy right away. I don't have the album anymore, but if I listened to it today, I may actually like it.
8. One album you wanted as a kid, but your parents wouldn't let you buy.
This may not apply to everyone, as some parents are more permissive than others.
Throwing Copper by Live. Yes, Live is pretty tame compared to something like gangsta rap, but I couldn't listen to any music that had many bad words when I was a kid.
9. One album on your wish list.
X & Y by Coldplay.
10. Tag people.
Whoever reads this and is interested, feel free.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Crocodile Hunter
I am sure everyone heard the news by now, but the Crocodile Hunter, Steve Irwin, died this weekend. Apparently, he was punctured in the heart by a stingray.
The news is truly sad. I have to say, I was not completely surprised, but sad nonetheless. I have no doubt that Irwin motivated many people to study subjects like zoology. My wife has a zoology degree, so she was definitely a fan.
If anything, Irwin's life shows us that the point of life is not to simply avoid death. Yes, the Crocodile Hunter took risks, which ultimately led to an early death. However, he pursued his passion and spent his life doing what he loved. In doing so, he lived a much fuller life than most of us.
As Lee said, "There are worse ways to go."
The news is truly sad. I have to say, I was not completely surprised, but sad nonetheless. I have no doubt that Irwin motivated many people to study subjects like zoology. My wife has a zoology degree, so she was definitely a fan.
If anything, Irwin's life shows us that the point of life is not to simply avoid death. Yes, the Crocodile Hunter took risks, which ultimately led to an early death. However, he pursued his passion and spent his life doing what he loved. In doing so, he lived a much fuller life than most of us.
As Lee said, "There are worse ways to go."
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
On Occupation
Katherine Coble has a post which touches on how people value others based on their occupation. She writes
Many are well aware of the perception that occupations that make more money are always better than low-paying occupations. I do think there is virtue in gaining skills for the workforce, so that one is more valuable to the employer, but some people go to the workforce immediately after high school, and I know each person is different. I, for one, do not have good manual labor skills, so I could not go the Vo-Tech route, nor am I a genius like Bill Gates, who didn't have to go to college.
Anyway, back to my main point, I have seen this bias. But I have seen another scale, almost a reverse of the financial prestige scale. I saw this some when I was in college, and I will call it a scale of "nobility." The idea is that some occupations are more noble than others. Typically, majors in the liberal arts were considered "nobel", but majors such as engineering or business were less noble. The idea was that people who just cared about making money would go into business or engineering. People who cared about higher, transcendent things would go into the liberal arts. The deep, caring people would be a teacher or English professor; the greedy would be an accountant.
Now, this was hardly typical, and this is not an indictment of liberal arts majors. And I know that there was plenty in reverse, where business/engineering did not think you contributed something unless it was to the Gross Domestic Product.
Now, is there truth to either of these viewpoints? I think ultimately, a person has to do what they want to do, and what they believe God has called them to do. I think in many instances, these things are one and the same. Now, don't get me wrong; many times God will call upon us to do things that make us uncomfortable, things we do not want to do. At the same time, I believe God gives us a passion for certain things, which is usually related to our occupation and/or something else that composes a significant part of our life.
My wife switched from a chemical engineering major to zoology, eventually getting her degree in the latter. Zoology is not nearly as high-demand as chemical engineering, but she felt miserable in engineering, and she had a passion for animals and nature. She made the switch and she was much happier, and I am glad she did.
As for me, I was at a crossroads my sophomore year in deciding what to do. I was a math tutor at the time, so the idea of being a math teacher appealed to me. At the same time, I had a passion for the physical sciences, so mechanical engineering appealed to me. This was troubling, however. I liked the idea of being a math teacher because it meant I was in an occupation where I helped people. I felt at the time that simply being an engineer meant I would not do anything for anyone, other than help someone make money.
Ultimately, I had to go with engineering. I just felt like being a math teacher was not for me. It's hard to explain, but I just did not feel like it was my calling, at least not then. I would have gladly pursued that occupation, had it felt right. So here I am, as an engineer. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I feel like God gave me a passion for such a job, and even though I may not understand his plans, he wants me to be where I am.
I do not really feel this way now, where some jobs are better than others because of its altruistic implications. Part of my thought process then had to do with outside influences. I realize that ultimately, people have to pursue a career choice that makes them happy. I am not saying life's ultimate goal is self-actualization, but one should pursue a field where they are happy if it is possible. Some jobs appear to be more altruistic, or more noble than others. And others seem to be more important because they make more money. But God has different callings for each of us. Some will make a decent amount of money, some not. God can use us no matter what we do for a living.
What you do for a living isn't who you are. Making more money than another person doesn't make you automatically better than the other person. If you live in a big house, good for you. If you drive a big car, good for you. I'm glad for your success. But the fact that something isn't large or expensive or flashy doesn't mean that it isn't important.Good point. I'm going to bypass the topic of if someone can have too much material possessions, but I wanted to focus on the occupational aspect.
Many are well aware of the perception that occupations that make more money are always better than low-paying occupations. I do think there is virtue in gaining skills for the workforce, so that one is more valuable to the employer, but some people go to the workforce immediately after high school, and I know each person is different. I, for one, do not have good manual labor skills, so I could not go the Vo-Tech route, nor am I a genius like Bill Gates, who didn't have to go to college.
Anyway, back to my main point, I have seen this bias. But I have seen another scale, almost a reverse of the financial prestige scale. I saw this some when I was in college, and I will call it a scale of "nobility." The idea is that some occupations are more noble than others. Typically, majors in the liberal arts were considered "nobel", but majors such as engineering or business were less noble. The idea was that people who just cared about making money would go into business or engineering. People who cared about higher, transcendent things would go into the liberal arts. The deep, caring people would be a teacher or English professor; the greedy would be an accountant.
Now, this was hardly typical, and this is not an indictment of liberal arts majors. And I know that there was plenty in reverse, where business/engineering did not think you contributed something unless it was to the Gross Domestic Product.
Now, is there truth to either of these viewpoints? I think ultimately, a person has to do what they want to do, and what they believe God has called them to do. I think in many instances, these things are one and the same. Now, don't get me wrong; many times God will call upon us to do things that make us uncomfortable, things we do not want to do. At the same time, I believe God gives us a passion for certain things, which is usually related to our occupation and/or something else that composes a significant part of our life.
My wife switched from a chemical engineering major to zoology, eventually getting her degree in the latter. Zoology is not nearly as high-demand as chemical engineering, but she felt miserable in engineering, and she had a passion for animals and nature. She made the switch and she was much happier, and I am glad she did.
As for me, I was at a crossroads my sophomore year in deciding what to do. I was a math tutor at the time, so the idea of being a math teacher appealed to me. At the same time, I had a passion for the physical sciences, so mechanical engineering appealed to me. This was troubling, however. I liked the idea of being a math teacher because it meant I was in an occupation where I helped people. I felt at the time that simply being an engineer meant I would not do anything for anyone, other than help someone make money.
Ultimately, I had to go with engineering. I just felt like being a math teacher was not for me. It's hard to explain, but I just did not feel like it was my calling, at least not then. I would have gladly pursued that occupation, had it felt right. So here I am, as an engineer. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I feel like God gave me a passion for such a job, and even though I may not understand his plans, he wants me to be where I am.
I do not really feel this way now, where some jobs are better than others because of its altruistic implications. Part of my thought process then had to do with outside influences. I realize that ultimately, people have to pursue a career choice that makes them happy. I am not saying life's ultimate goal is self-actualization, but one should pursue a field where they are happy if it is possible. Some jobs appear to be more altruistic, or more noble than others. And others seem to be more important because they make more money. But God has different callings for each of us. Some will make a decent amount of money, some not. God can use us no matter what we do for a living.
When it comes to rock critics, nothing new under the sun
I used to read music magazines; I don't anymore. This was about from 2000 to 2004 or so. One recurring theme I noticed is that critics complained about how there was no good rock music anymore. They talked about how groups needed to come and save rock. When garage rock was popular, Spin or Rolling Stone would talk about how the Strokes or the Hives were the new saviors of rock (actually, it was new saviors of rock with a '?', I suppose to keep us in suspense.) They went on and on about how true rock was dead, and how certain groups were going to come along and revive rock 'n' roll.
I thought, man, music must really suck for this time period.
But then I bought an NME (a popular rock mag in Europe I suppose), which had a collection of all the articles about U2 that magazine had written since about 1979 or 1980 up to the All That You Can't Leave Behind album and tour, around 2001/2002. It was interesting to see them talk about U2, especially in their early days, not knowing how big they were going to be.
In this magazine, I got a sense of the same stuff I was reading in modern magazines. "Rock was Dead." "Was U2 the new savior of rock?" Same old stuff throughout the entire period of U2 (1980 - now). If there was actually a rock music crisis, I could understand. But when the same rhetoric about rock needing a revival is carried on throughout decades, their complaints seem less genuine.
So is rock music going through a crisis today? It is really hard to tell. It may be that I am getting older and am not with the latest fashions, watching MTV or the local radio station or whatever, but it seems that there is no coherent music scene. Or whatever music scene there is, it is centered around hip-hop, or pop heavily influenced by hip-hop. I could be wrong, but it seems that the most common groups I hear about are hip-hop groups, who I will not even try to name, because I will probably list groups no longer around.
There is good music around though. In a previous post, I expressed a satisfaction with the adult contemporary stuff they were playing on the radio. I did not realize though that it was mostly one station playing that stuff, until it went away. Now the radio stations where I live are total crap.
Many blame media conglomerates for decreasing radio quality. I think they are right. Part of this problem is due to more relaxed FCC regulations. However, I don't think the answer is to tighten these regulations again (after all, if an owner of a private station wants to make a lot of money and send his kids to college, more power to him, he should have that choice). But I think the downward spiraling quality of AM/FM radio has led to satellite radio. Yes, satellite radio costs, but who said someone is entitled to free music? Despite this, increasing satellite radio programming quality will provide competition for AM/FM radio stations, causing them to up their quality again. Or, one could start listening to country. There seems to be no shortage of those stations.
I thought, man, music must really suck for this time period.
But then I bought an NME (a popular rock mag in Europe I suppose), which had a collection of all the articles about U2 that magazine had written since about 1979 or 1980 up to the All That You Can't Leave Behind album and tour, around 2001/2002. It was interesting to see them talk about U2, especially in their early days, not knowing how big they were going to be.
In this magazine, I got a sense of the same stuff I was reading in modern magazines. "Rock was Dead." "Was U2 the new savior of rock?" Same old stuff throughout the entire period of U2 (1980 - now). If there was actually a rock music crisis, I could understand. But when the same rhetoric about rock needing a revival is carried on throughout decades, their complaints seem less genuine.
So is rock music going through a crisis today? It is really hard to tell. It may be that I am getting older and am not with the latest fashions, watching MTV or the local radio station or whatever, but it seems that there is no coherent music scene. Or whatever music scene there is, it is centered around hip-hop, or pop heavily influenced by hip-hop. I could be wrong, but it seems that the most common groups I hear about are hip-hop groups, who I will not even try to name, because I will probably list groups no longer around.
There is good music around though. In a previous post, I expressed a satisfaction with the adult contemporary stuff they were playing on the radio. I did not realize though that it was mostly one station playing that stuff, until it went away. Now the radio stations where I live are total crap.
Many blame media conglomerates for decreasing radio quality. I think they are right. Part of this problem is due to more relaxed FCC regulations. However, I don't think the answer is to tighten these regulations again (after all, if an owner of a private station wants to make a lot of money and send his kids to college, more power to him, he should have that choice). But I think the downward spiraling quality of AM/FM radio has led to satellite radio. Yes, satellite radio costs, but who said someone is entitled to free music? Despite this, increasing satellite radio programming quality will provide competition for AM/FM radio stations, causing them to up their quality again. Or, one could start listening to country. There seems to be no shortage of those stations.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Why is an Opinion More Offensive than Drunk Driving?
Yes I know, Mel Gibson is old news. But I found this article at Crosswalk titled "Alcohol and the Mel Gibson Saga".
The article states:
The article goes on about the evils of alcohol. It has a quote from Billy Graham:
So what should be done? Prohibition didn't work. Or did it? The article quotes William J. Bennet, who was "former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush." He states:
The article states:
James B. Butler, executive director for the California Council on Alcohol Problems, has said: "Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving, and during the arrests made a number of anti-Semitic remarks. It now appears that his Hollywood career may be in jeopardy -- not because he was drunk, not because he was driving and putting people's lives at risk, but because of his remarks. Interestingly enough, alcohol is not identified as a significant contributing factor..."Interesting point. Now, don't get me wrong, anti-Semitic remarks are indeed harmful. But so is driving drunk, something that gets so little attention. I think that driving drunk is worse, since it actually kills people. Hateful remarks can ultimately lead to violence at times, but drunk driving is more of a direct aggression against people. The tragedy of Mel drunk-driving has been overshadowed.
The article goes on about the evils of alcohol. It has a quote from Billy Graham:
Years ago, the famous evangelist Billy Sunday described the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages when he said:Hmm, convicting stuff. I do agree that alcohol has done so much damage in the lives of families and to our country.
"If all the combined forces of hell should assemble in conclave and with them all the men on earth who hate and despise God, purity and virtue -- if all the scum of the earth could mingle with the denizens of hell to try to think of the deadliest institution to home, church, and state, I tell you, the combined forces of hell could not conceive of or bring into being an institution that could touch the hem of the garment of the tavern to damn the home, mankind, womanhood, business, and everything good on earth."
So what should be done? Prohibition didn't work. Or did it? The article quotes William J. Bennet, who was "former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush." He states:
One of the clear lessons of prohibition is that when we had laws against alcohol there was less consumption, less alcohol-related disease, fewer drunken brawls, and a lot less drunkenness. Contrary to myth, there is no evidence that prohibition caused any big increases in crime .... The real facts are these: As a result of prohibition, 180,000 saloons were shut down, and 1,800 breweries went out of business. In ten years of prohibition, the death rate due to alcohol decreased 42%, the death rate due to cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 70%, crime decreased by 54%, and insanity decreased by 66%.I'm not sure I agree. But I have to consider the source of both arguments. Most people concerning this issue believe that prohibition was a mistake. Libertarians often point to the rise of organized crime when alcohol was prohibited and extrapolate that argument toward drug legalization. I have never actuallly looked at the numbers for this time period, but knowing human nature, I doubt prohibition had the desired effect.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Why doesn't every American speak English?
I thought I would go for an attention-grabbing title.
Actually, as a limited-government conservative, I do not believe the government should attempt to force anyone to speak a certain language, at least in the private sphere. People should be free to speak whatever language they want. If someone wants to open a convenience store or clothing store with signs in Spanish, that is their perogative.
At the same time however, freedom to speak a certain language should come without feelings of entitlement. Sure, you can speak Spanish, but don't expect the worker at the McDonald's to accomodate you. There is no national language - yet, but at the same time, understand that the large majority of the nation speak English. That may seem offensive, but if I moved to China or Japan, a country with little English, I would not expect to be accomodated by everyone.
However, typically, this problem of different languages seems to resolve itself. When I lived in Austin, many businesses were bilingual, simply because first generation Americans (well, some not in the legal sense) worked at these businesses. Or, businesses would understand that they needed to hire someone bilingual. Same thing I have seen in Southern California. The larger the Hispanic population, the more accomodations were made. Sure, it is annoying sometimes when people speak two different languages, but it is in the immigrants vested interest to learn English (or at least their children), and some English-speaking people will have a vested interest to learn Spanish.
Now, in the public sphere, it gets more complicated. As a limited government guy, there would be fewer public services, or at least smaller versions of them, in the first place. But the reality is, public services, whether it be schools or the Social Security Administration, will have a need to interact with new Americans. And yes, I do not believe illegal immigrants are entitled to the services that legal citizens can obtain. Bilingual schools will need to be a reality. Most of the time however, if there is a large Hispanic population, there will be a pool to draw from for bilingual workers.
So should schools teach children with the ultimate goal of teaching them English? Yes, I believe so. After all, the purposes of schools are to prepare kids to succeed in the real world, and the ability to speak English is vital.
So, in summary, we should have freedom to speak the languages we want, but with that should come a sense of non-entitlement.
Actually, as a limited-government conservative, I do not believe the government should attempt to force anyone to speak a certain language, at least in the private sphere. People should be free to speak whatever language they want. If someone wants to open a convenience store or clothing store with signs in Spanish, that is their perogative.
At the same time however, freedom to speak a certain language should come without feelings of entitlement. Sure, you can speak Spanish, but don't expect the worker at the McDonald's to accomodate you. There is no national language - yet, but at the same time, understand that the large majority of the nation speak English. That may seem offensive, but if I moved to China or Japan, a country with little English, I would not expect to be accomodated by everyone.
However, typically, this problem of different languages seems to resolve itself. When I lived in Austin, many businesses were bilingual, simply because first generation Americans (well, some not in the legal sense) worked at these businesses. Or, businesses would understand that they needed to hire someone bilingual. Same thing I have seen in Southern California. The larger the Hispanic population, the more accomodations were made. Sure, it is annoying sometimes when people speak two different languages, but it is in the immigrants vested interest to learn English (or at least their children), and some English-speaking people will have a vested interest to learn Spanish.
Now, in the public sphere, it gets more complicated. As a limited government guy, there would be fewer public services, or at least smaller versions of them, in the first place. But the reality is, public services, whether it be schools or the Social Security Administration, will have a need to interact with new Americans. And yes, I do not believe illegal immigrants are entitled to the services that legal citizens can obtain. Bilingual schools will need to be a reality. Most of the time however, if there is a large Hispanic population, there will be a pool to draw from for bilingual workers.
So should schools teach children with the ultimate goal of teaching them English? Yes, I believe so. After all, the purposes of schools are to prepare kids to succeed in the real world, and the ability to speak English is vital.
So, in summary, we should have freedom to speak the languages we want, but with that should come a sense of non-entitlement.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Distinguishing the Different Types of Occupational Licensing and Regulation
A pure, completely laissez-faire libertarian will probably say there is no type of occupational licensing needed; that the free market will regulate quality of product in every sense.
I don't know how I feel about that statement, but I think at the very least, we can sort occupational licensing into, say, three different categories: environmental, health and safety, and economic reasons (or the public good).
Environmental: I think regulations that protect the environment are reasonable. For instance, one wants to make sure that a business does not do unreasonable harm to the environment, or, if it does, that they pay some type of tax to remedy harm caused.
Health and Safety: Things in this category involve for instance, regulation of construction materials to ensure that they are safe, fire inspections, health inspections, to name a few.
Economic reasons: An example situation in one in which a person must demonstrate to the city council that their business will be profitable, or "needed." It also involves limiting the numbers of competitors in a certain area.
There are also moral reasons, I should add, such as outlawing prostitution and the drug trade.
An article at the Institute of Justice gives an example that highlights the differences between "health and safety" regulation vs. "the public good" regulations.
I never support economic regulations in the third category, or at least, I cannot think of an example right now. The idea that a city council can limit a business simply because it is not "needed" is not only anathema to free market ideals, but also the ideal of America being a land of opportunity, and the ideal of the poor and middle classes being able to make a name for themselves. It is also contrary to the right to "the pursuit of happiness". There are many words that describe the actions this city council, but my favorite one is tyrannical.
I don't know how I feel about that statement, but I think at the very least, we can sort occupational licensing into, say, three different categories: environmental, health and safety, and economic reasons (or the public good).
Environmental: I think regulations that protect the environment are reasonable. For instance, one wants to make sure that a business does not do unreasonable harm to the environment, or, if it does, that they pay some type of tax to remedy harm caused.
Health and Safety: Things in this category involve for instance, regulation of construction materials to ensure that they are safe, fire inspections, health inspections, to name a few.
Economic reasons: An example situation in one in which a person must demonstrate to the city council that their business will be profitable, or "needed." It also involves limiting the numbers of competitors in a certain area.
There are also moral reasons, I should add, such as outlawing prostitution and the drug trade.
An article at the Institute of Justice gives an example that highlights the differences between "health and safety" regulation vs. "the public good" regulations.
Erroll Tyler, an African-American entrepreneur from Melrose, Mass., who is battling for economic liberty, seeks to show that you can fight City Hall.In another quote from the same article,
After two years and two applications, Tyler still does not have the license he needs to start his amphibious vehicle tour service because City officials from Cambridge, Mass., decided that the City does not "need" him. In a sharp break from the American tradition of fair play, Cambridge is using the power of government simply to protect other tour operators from honest competition, hardly a proper use of government power.
[...]
Even though the only legitimate purpose of government licensing is to protect public health and safety in carefully tailored ways—such as requiring buses, for example, to be insured, well-maintained and operated by a qualified driver, in the transportation industry, an entrepreneur has to do more than satisfy objective criteria like these. To receive a "jitney" license, which is required to pick up and drop off passengers along a fixed route, State law and City ordinances require an entrepreneur to prove that his or her new venture also serves "public convenience and necessity." Unfortunately for entrepreneurs, a proposed transportation business is only "convenient and necessary" if the entrepreneur can prove to bureaucrats that there is a market for the new business that existing companies cannot satisfy. It is not enough, in other words, for an entrepreneur to show that he or she will provide consumers better service at a better price. He or she has to further show that existing companies cannot meet the demand. Typically, existing companies oppose the issuance of any new jitney license.
"This approach turns the ordinary principles of entrepreneurship upside down," Rowes said. "Instead of consumers and businesspeople deciding whether a new service is needed in a free market, bureaucrats, in close consultation with a start-up business's would-be competitors, make that decision. In practice, the public convenience and necessity standard is so arbitrary and so hostile to honest entrepreneurship that enterprising citizens are routinely prevented from pursuing their dreams."
Consumers, not city bureaucrats, should decide whether a business is "needed", said Jeff Rowes, an Institute for Justice staff attorney. Governments, like Cambridge, need to recognize that economic liberty is as much a part of our Constitution as the right to free speech. The constitutional right to earn an honest living is the basis of our independence as free and responsible members of society. This right is more important than protecting other tour operators from competition."I completely agree. I don't think it is unreasonable to have the government make some steps in the interest of public safety, at least, that is an issue I am dealing with right now. Regardless, if government regulation was limited to safety and health issues, that would be a vast improvement to our current situation.
I never support economic regulations in the third category, or at least, I cannot think of an example right now. The idea that a city council can limit a business simply because it is not "needed" is not only anathema to free market ideals, but also the ideal of America being a land of opportunity, and the ideal of the poor and middle classes being able to make a name for themselves. It is also contrary to the right to "the pursuit of happiness". There are many words that describe the actions this city council, but my favorite one is tyrannical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)