One Year Anniversary of Kelo

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

There are a few good articles on this topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My constant email faux paus

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

My personal CD wish list

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is God on the political map?

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

Smoke-free Colorado on July 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll Be Praying For You (I promise)

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

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

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

Music_fan: I love respectable and established band*.

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

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

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

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



* i.e. U2, Rolling Stones, Beatles

Who would be at your table?

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

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

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

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

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

Free markets don't always mean low prices

I like what Firey says about free markets.

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

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

Random Post

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

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

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

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

Vote now!!!

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

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

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

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

My monthly love song for the oil companies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of Religion (Separation of Church and State?)

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

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

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

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

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

He gives some examples

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

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

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

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

Secret Agent Music!

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

Thoughts on Freedom of Speech, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on Freedom of Speech, Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top 10 U2 Songs, according to my very professional opinion

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

Song - Album

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addition to the blogroll

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

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

This guy has some good ideas...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New template!

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