Last Father's Day, the pastor at my church talked about how our perception of God depended heavily upon our relationship with our earthly father. (Disclaimer: I wasn't at church then, I can't remember why, but my wife relayed the central themes).
It's an interesting idea. What is our perception of God? Do we think of Him as some angry deity ready to smite us whenever we mess up? Or do we think of God as absent? Someone who cares not for the petty details of our life and leaves us to our own devices.
I think many of us Christians know in our head what God is like. A loving God slow to anger, forgiving yet just, and all that stuff. But I think sometimes in our hearts we picture Him much differently. Related to that picture is a desire that He be more this or that.
So what is our perception of God? It may illuminate our relationship with our father. Look at the relationship with our father, it may illuminate our perception of God.
I've got a big responsibility to ensure that my son will have a balanced and accurate view of God, not just in his head but in his heart.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
My idea for a reality show
I was watching a Simpsons episode called "Mr. Lisa goes to Washington", in which Lisa wins an essay contest about the greatness of America, but quickly becomes disillusioned when she sees the corruption in Washington.
The show made me think about politicians in general, and it seems that even the honest ones have probably made some moral compromises along the way. Not that I would consider going into politics, but even if I wanted to, I am afraid my Christianity would be compromised. But somebody's gotta do the job.
A common theme in various Christian men's ministries is that of accountability in many areas of life, including sexual purity. The idea is to have men keep each other accountable, where they can talk about their daily struggles and their progress in their spiritual life. Intertwined with accountability is the whole idea of openness, keeping one's daily activities and interactions in the light. The biggest thing tripping up many Christian men is the internet. I use a program called Covenant Eyes that keeps my surfing activities in the open.
I think Christian men should have at least one person keeping them accountable, and their are many verses supporting this idea. (As well as women, I am just speaking from a man's point of view).
So if accountability and openness is required to be a good Christian person, what about our elected representatives?
So this idea came to me. What if some, or every representative had their own reality show? The gist of most reality shows is that the camera follows a celebrity around and captures the inane details of their life. What if they did the same for politicians? The cameras would follow every lunch with a lobbyist, every interaction with their secretary, their involvement in each legislative session. Not everything would make the show, of course, but the juiciest details would.
I'm sure the idea would never go over. But if I ever wanted to be involved in politics, I would want all my interactions to be out in the open for everyone to see. I'm just not that virtuous.
The show made me think about politicians in general, and it seems that even the honest ones have probably made some moral compromises along the way. Not that I would consider going into politics, but even if I wanted to, I am afraid my Christianity would be compromised. But somebody's gotta do the job.
A common theme in various Christian men's ministries is that of accountability in many areas of life, including sexual purity. The idea is to have men keep each other accountable, where they can talk about their daily struggles and their progress in their spiritual life. Intertwined with accountability is the whole idea of openness, keeping one's daily activities and interactions in the light. The biggest thing tripping up many Christian men is the internet. I use a program called Covenant Eyes that keeps my surfing activities in the open.
I think Christian men should have at least one person keeping them accountable, and their are many verses supporting this idea. (As well as women, I am just speaking from a man's point of view).
So if accountability and openness is required to be a good Christian person, what about our elected representatives?
So this idea came to me. What if some, or every representative had their own reality show? The gist of most reality shows is that the camera follows a celebrity around and captures the inane details of their life. What if they did the same for politicians? The cameras would follow every lunch with a lobbyist, every interaction with their secretary, their involvement in each legislative session. Not everything would make the show, of course, but the juiciest details would.
I'm sure the idea would never go over. But if I ever wanted to be involved in politics, I would want all my interactions to be out in the open for everyone to see. I'm just not that virtuous.
Difference between big and small government folks
Big government folks, whether they be conservative or liberal, are optimistic. They put their faith in politicians, that they will always do the right thing. Limited government folk are different in that they prepare for the worst-case scenario, that the worst sort of people will be in charge.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Understanding the scientific origins of the universe is way overrated. Or is it? Let the parents decide.
There is an interesting discussion over at Glen Dean's blog about school choice. One of his money quotes is
I agree with Glen in that parents should have the primary role in what their children are taught. If a central federal office or court has the power to enforce teaching with which we agree, it has the same power to do so when we don't disagree. Liberals may think they have more to gain with a centralized school system, but there could still be governors or courts that think creationism is the way to go.
Additionally, let's say evolution does provide a sufficient framework for explaining the universe. Okay, fine, but is someone really going to miss out and not be able to function in society if they don't learn about it? From a scientific perspective, people give the origins of the universe too much credit. I went through a whole set of college coursework without touching a biology class, as it was not necessary or related to my major. But even in high school, when I did take a biology class, we didn't really touch on evolution too much, but that doesn't mean I didn't learn (and quickly forgot) the processes of mitosis, meiosis, photosynthesis, and all that other stuff. Not only is an understanding of evolution unnecessary to basic functioning in society, but someone can still have a good grasp of the sciences without going into the subject. In the case that someone wanted to go into academia in the life sciences,the desired college program can determine if evolutionary understanding is necessary. Already, college programs decide on entry requirements typically beyond high school graduation requirements anyway.
But I'm only looking at it from a purely utilitarian point of view. After all, reading classic works or learning the finer details of our American government are not things I apply everyday in my particular line of work, but I am still glad I learned those things, and I hope my children do as well.
The point is, I, as a parent, should determine if learning the scientific origins of the universe is even that important in the first place. The same should go for other areas of education as well.
Christians who believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and want their children to be taught that, are not necessarily the enemies of science. All they really ask is that they have a little say in what their children are taught. After all, the children do belong to them, not the state.. Another commenter made a reasonable point in the second paragraph
I disagree that the topic is freedom. I really am frightened by the prospect of millions of ignorant kids growing into adulthood completely lacking some basic knowledge about how the world works. Furthermore, the South and pockets of the midwest, seem to be havens for this sort of thinking. Left unchecked, the day will come when we'll have pockets of ignorance--sorta like how things were in the last century.I wanted to raise a couple of points.
Parents can teach their kids whatever they want, but there should still be certain standards of education. Kids need to at least be exposed to real science. What they choose to do with that knowledge is their own business.
I agree with Glen in that parents should have the primary role in what their children are taught. If a central federal office or court has the power to enforce teaching with which we agree, it has the same power to do so when we don't disagree. Liberals may think they have more to gain with a centralized school system, but there could still be governors or courts that think creationism is the way to go.
Additionally, let's say evolution does provide a sufficient framework for explaining the universe. Okay, fine, but is someone really going to miss out and not be able to function in society if they don't learn about it? From a scientific perspective, people give the origins of the universe too much credit. I went through a whole set of college coursework without touching a biology class, as it was not necessary or related to my major. But even in high school, when I did take a biology class, we didn't really touch on evolution too much, but that doesn't mean I didn't learn (and quickly forgot) the processes of mitosis, meiosis, photosynthesis, and all that other stuff. Not only is an understanding of evolution unnecessary to basic functioning in society, but someone can still have a good grasp of the sciences without going into the subject. In the case that someone wanted to go into academia in the life sciences,the desired college program can determine if evolutionary understanding is necessary. Already, college programs decide on entry requirements typically beyond high school graduation requirements anyway.
But I'm only looking at it from a purely utilitarian point of view. After all, reading classic works or learning the finer details of our American government are not things I apply everyday in my particular line of work, but I am still glad I learned those things, and I hope my children do as well.
The point is, I, as a parent, should determine if learning the scientific origins of the universe is even that important in the first place. The same should go for other areas of education as well.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
When it comes to regulation, we should look at all sides of the story
I was watching a CBS News report about the poor in Mississippi. It spoke about a poor black girl who had problems receiving Medicare due to some bureaucratic red tape. Because of some new regulations, she had to fill out additional paperwork and have a face-to-face meeting 30 miles away, and she had no care.
Fair enough. No doubt the regulations were probably passed to ensure that people were not bilking the system, but every action has unintended consequences.
But let's say the story was slightly different. Let's say this person, or someone similar, was fortunate enough to have a little money saved up and was trying to start a business, like a manicure shop or a restaurant. And let's say, due to some new regulations, she had to fill out additional paperwork, or go to some class 30 miles away to get her license at least once a year.
For some reason, I don't imagine many media news outlets would report on such a story.
Regulations affect every area of our life, but why do we primarily hear reports about it when it comes to things such as getting food stamps or Medicare? Why don't we hear about the endless regulations that get in the way of people who are trying to make a living for themselves? Regulations don't just affect rich white men running large corporations; they affect the black women in Minnesota who simply want to make money braiding hair without having to pay $15,000 in tuition.
Here are my points.
1) Many people, including the media, tend to have a certain bias when it comes to regulations. Additional paperwork or any work at all when it comes to getting direct things from the government seem to get the most attention.
2) With regulation, there are multiple sides to the story. Like the red tape of Medicare that makes it harder for people to get treatment, red tape that is done in the interest of consumer protection makes it harder for the average person to start a business. The Institute for Justice covers such cases. With every law there can be good and bad consequences.
3) Regulation on the local or state level can make it too difficult for the poor to start businesses. State licensing and the like are usually passed by established, large corporations already in power that make it harder for new, smaller competitors to get on their feet. Eliminating some of these regulations should be something with which conservatives, libertarians, and liberals can all get on board.
Fair enough. No doubt the regulations were probably passed to ensure that people were not bilking the system, but every action has unintended consequences.
But let's say the story was slightly different. Let's say this person, or someone similar, was fortunate enough to have a little money saved up and was trying to start a business, like a manicure shop or a restaurant. And let's say, due to some new regulations, she had to fill out additional paperwork, or go to some class 30 miles away to get her license at least once a year.
For some reason, I don't imagine many media news outlets would report on such a story.
Regulations affect every area of our life, but why do we primarily hear reports about it when it comes to things such as getting food stamps or Medicare? Why don't we hear about the endless regulations that get in the way of people who are trying to make a living for themselves? Regulations don't just affect rich white men running large corporations; they affect the black women in Minnesota who simply want to make money braiding hair without having to pay $15,000 in tuition.
Here are my points.
1) Many people, including the media, tend to have a certain bias when it comes to regulations. Additional paperwork or any work at all when it comes to getting direct things from the government seem to get the most attention.
2) With regulation, there are multiple sides to the story. Like the red tape of Medicare that makes it harder for people to get treatment, red tape that is done in the interest of consumer protection makes it harder for the average person to start a business. The Institute for Justice covers such cases. With every law there can be good and bad consequences.
3) Regulation on the local or state level can make it too difficult for the poor to start businesses. State licensing and the like are usually passed by established, large corporations already in power that make it harder for new, smaller competitors to get on their feet. Eliminating some of these regulations should be something with which conservatives, libertarians, and liberals can all get on board.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
More music reviews
Skillet - Comatose. Skillet is one band who hasn't watered down their sound, despite being at the forefront of Christian Contemporary Music. I like this album better than the previous one, Collide, which was more on the edgy side. The songs are a bit more accessible without being compromising. The album builds a little upon the song "Collide" in the last album, by incorporating stringed instruments in a few songs. Overall, a very good album. My one complaint about this album and Skillet in general is that they simply make their songs too long. They have a tendency to really hammer the choruses into your brain. I recommend this album for fans of hard Christian rock. Click here to preview their tracks.
Everyday Sunday - Stand UpAnother great CCM band with a fun punk-rock (that is, modern punk in the style of Green Day, Blink 182, etc...) style. They have actually released 2 albums since this release, Anthems for the Imperfect and Wake Up, Wake Up! which I will check out when I get the opportunity. Here are some track samples.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Hey kids, you like the rock and roll? Here are some album reviews
The Elms - The Chess Hotel. I became familiar with The Elms through hearing a couple of their songs on contemporary Christian radio stations. I had some free CDs to buy with my BMG account, and decided to give them a try. Even though I didn't hear a track from this album previously, I was told somewhere that this album was heavily influenced by 60s groups like the Rolling Stones. I had to give the album a try.
Any fans of acoustic and/or classic rock will love this album, as it is ripe with various influences. I thought I detected some Black Crowes and Tom Petty. Interestingly enough, their website states that the producer was "the engineering mind behind brilliant albums from Tom Petty, The Posies, The Black Crowes, and scores of others..." The album, like many in CCM today, is not overtly spiritual, but to me, I think a spiritually-neutral album is better than one spiritually corrosive. I highly recommend this album for any lovers of pure rock and/or roll. Click here to check out some of their tracks.
eHarmony being sued
Hat tip to Neil Simpson for this bit of news. eHarmony is being sued for excluding gays.
Here are a couple of my thoughts.
1) This is a prime, prime example of where we should let the market sort it out. If someone wants to start an all-gay dating service, so be it. That is their right. If someone wants to start an all-straight dating service, so be it.
As much as (some) liberals detest the free market, the free market is what allows people to live according to their own moral code. Think about it. All dating services could be forced to conform to a universal set of government laws, or they could all be free to operate as they wish, satisfying the diversity of consumers out there.
2) Many liberals are truly liberals, they believe that people should be free to live as they please. Other liberals, however, are not. They are all about coercion. These are the liberals who think doctors should be forced to perform abortions against their conscience, enforce campus hate speech codes, and in this case, force a business to accommodate lifestyles with which they disagree. Don't let the "live and let live" stuff fool you. These people are all about forcing others to do things against their conscience to accommodate their own lifestyle.
Here are a couple of my thoughts.
1) This is a prime, prime example of where we should let the market sort it out. If someone wants to start an all-gay dating service, so be it. That is their right. If someone wants to start an all-straight dating service, so be it.
As much as (some) liberals detest the free market, the free market is what allows people to live according to their own moral code. Think about it. All dating services could be forced to conform to a universal set of government laws, or they could all be free to operate as they wish, satisfying the diversity of consumers out there.
2) Many liberals are truly liberals, they believe that people should be free to live as they please. Other liberals, however, are not. They are all about coercion. These are the liberals who think doctors should be forced to perform abortions against their conscience, enforce campus hate speech codes, and in this case, force a business to accommodate lifestyles with which they disagree. Don't let the "live and let live" stuff fool you. These people are all about forcing others to do things against their conscience to accommodate their own lifestyle.
Funniest Quote of the Week (So Far)
Josh says in reference to Fred Thompson "he'll have the votes of every member of the cast of Law & Order, and that show's been on for a long time."
Thursday, May 31, 2007
For you computer nerds: Windows vs. Linux
I don't know how many of you out there use operating systems other than Microsoft Windows. For personal use, I use a Windows machine like most everyone else, but for work, I use Linux, since that is the platform on which our application runs.
It's interesting to compare the 2 systems because they seem to come from different cultures. The Windows environment is created by a large corporation in a proprietary format, whereas Linux is "one of the most prominent examples of free software and open source development; its underlying source code can be modified, used, and redistributed by anyone, freely."
I'm not a computer expert, but my smart computer friends tell me that Linux is more stable than Windows. That seems to be the case, as we can leave Linux running for days and weeks on end. Personally, I really like the Unix-ish command line interface, that makes it easier to move around in a file system, if I know what I'm doing. I also like the window management system better, as I can type on a window, even if it is partially covered by other windows, a major downfall of Windows.
The disadvantages is that, in many cases, you get what you pay for. With a Linux release, it's not uncommon to have parts of the OS that simply don't work. With SuSE 10.1, the update system was broken, along with several other bugs. Granted, they do have an Enterprise version that is supposed to be more tight. Windows is not free from bugs, but surface-level flaws are much more rare. Bugs found using some Linux versions would not make the first version of Windows software.
Also, Windows has been much easier for the common person to use. Programs internal and external to windows are installed with a few clicks of a mouse. Linux, however, is mostly designed by computer geeks for the computer geek. For many distributions, a Linux user needs to use the command line interface and deal with "tarballs" and "makefiles."
Some may look at the battle between Windows and Open Source as a microcosm of capitalism vs. say, socialism, but I don't know if the analogy is apt. Microsoft is, no doubt, an example of capitalism, but open source is not exactly a parallel to socialism, primarily because of its voluntary nature, although many advocate for open source to be the universal standard.
But perhaps, open source software may show why, in life, voluntary acts are better than coerced ones. I think open source software is great, but I would not want it to be the only thing out there. I would not want an environment void of any intellectual property or where the only software available was developed by unpaid programmers. But perhaps I am just attacking a strawman, as I am not completely familiar with all the objectives of the open source community. And maybe the lesson cannot be extrapolated so easily.
I can get on board with open source as long as the community respects the rights of other people to sell their software if they wish. If someone wants to offer their software for free, great, but don't feel like having a free operating system on your computer is a right. I suppose this matches with my life philosophy. I believe in generosity and not always being guided by a profit motive, but at the same time, we should not feel entitled to the work of others.
To me, open source software just shows that people can do creative work without being paid for it. Some people enjoy programming just like some enjoy building a table from scratch (and usually these two groups do not overlap). Like one must consider if they want a table a friend built or one from a store, they should consider operating systems.
By the way, here is an article comparing Ubuntu Linux to Windows Vista.
And yes, I also know that Macs exist, I just haven't used one enough to know anything about them.
It's interesting to compare the 2 systems because they seem to come from different cultures. The Windows environment is created by a large corporation in a proprietary format, whereas Linux is "one of the most prominent examples of free software and open source development; its underlying source code can be modified, used, and redistributed by anyone, freely."
I'm not a computer expert, but my smart computer friends tell me that Linux is more stable than Windows. That seems to be the case, as we can leave Linux running for days and weeks on end. Personally, I really like the Unix-ish command line interface, that makes it easier to move around in a file system, if I know what I'm doing. I also like the window management system better, as I can type on a window, even if it is partially covered by other windows, a major downfall of Windows.
The disadvantages is that, in many cases, you get what you pay for. With a Linux release, it's not uncommon to have parts of the OS that simply don't work. With SuSE 10.1, the update system was broken, along with several other bugs. Granted, they do have an Enterprise version that is supposed to be more tight. Windows is not free from bugs, but surface-level flaws are much more rare. Bugs found using some Linux versions would not make the first version of Windows software.
Also, Windows has been much easier for the common person to use. Programs internal and external to windows are installed with a few clicks of a mouse. Linux, however, is mostly designed by computer geeks for the computer geek. For many distributions, a Linux user needs to use the command line interface and deal with "tarballs" and "makefiles."
Some may look at the battle between Windows and Open Source as a microcosm of capitalism vs. say, socialism, but I don't know if the analogy is apt. Microsoft is, no doubt, an example of capitalism, but open source is not exactly a parallel to socialism, primarily because of its voluntary nature, although many advocate for open source to be the universal standard.
But perhaps, open source software may show why, in life, voluntary acts are better than coerced ones. I think open source software is great, but I would not want it to be the only thing out there. I would not want an environment void of any intellectual property or where the only software available was developed by unpaid programmers. But perhaps I am just attacking a strawman, as I am not completely familiar with all the objectives of the open source community. And maybe the lesson cannot be extrapolated so easily.
I can get on board with open source as long as the community respects the rights of other people to sell their software if they wish. If someone wants to offer their software for free, great, but don't feel like having a free operating system on your computer is a right. I suppose this matches with my life philosophy. I believe in generosity and not always being guided by a profit motive, but at the same time, we should not feel entitled to the work of others.
To me, open source software just shows that people can do creative work without being paid for it. Some people enjoy programming just like some enjoy building a table from scratch (and usually these two groups do not overlap). Like one must consider if they want a table a friend built or one from a store, they should consider operating systems.
By the way, here is an article comparing Ubuntu Linux to Windows Vista.
And yes, I also know that Macs exist, I just haven't used one enough to know anything about them.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Cheers and Jeers
Cheers to Boston Legal for only doing a 1 hour Season Finale. I don't know why, but it bugs me that every show feels that they have to do a 2 hour Season Finale Spectacular where something really special happens. Part of me feels like a 2 hour episode should be reserved for only special events. Maybe this is a holdover of my comic book days, where every 5 issues they felt they had to do a super-duper special issue (that also happened to cost twice as much).
Cheers to Lost for the twist they threw right in the end, and the manner in which they did it, and they did so without even throwing in yet another special character to advance the storyline. The last 2 minutes really left me waiting for the next season, as all good season finales do.
Jeers to American Idol. I like the show, and I'm okay with it taking 2 hours to announce the winner. After all, they have special guests and musical performances that entertain. I'm okay with 2 hours. But c'mon, 2 hours and 7 minutes! I don't know why, but the extra minutes really bug me. Can't you fit the show within 2 hours?
Jeers to On the Lot for trying to be like every other single reality show. On the whole, I think it is a great, original reality show. However, why does every reality show feel like they have to follow suit and take 5 minutes and a commercial break to announce who is going off the show? And, it's not really that suspenseful when you have 18 people on the show and are booting off 3. You don't need a whole hour, especially since we are not that far in the show anyway.
Cheers to Lost for the twist they threw right in the end, and the manner in which they did it, and they did so without even throwing in yet another special character to advance the storyline. The last 2 minutes really left me waiting for the next season, as all good season finales do.
Jeers to American Idol. I like the show, and I'm okay with it taking 2 hours to announce the winner. After all, they have special guests and musical performances that entertain. I'm okay with 2 hours. But c'mon, 2 hours and 7 minutes! I don't know why, but the extra minutes really bug me. Can't you fit the show within 2 hours?
Jeers to On the Lot for trying to be like every other single reality show. On the whole, I think it is a great, original reality show. However, why does every reality show feel like they have to follow suit and take 5 minutes and a commercial break to announce who is going off the show? And, it's not really that suspenseful when you have 18 people on the show and are booting off 3. You don't need a whole hour, especially since we are not that far in the show anyway.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
A short summary of my beliefs
As I said in the last post, I'm evaluating where I want to take my blog. I want to post more on areas other than politics, but as a last hurrah, I wanted to do one short statement of my beliefs, which is definitely not all-encompassing, but summarize what I have talked about the past year and a half.
In a spiritual sense, I am a Christian. I try to align my Christianity as close as I can to the Bible, but I don't think many people get it perfect.
In a political sense, I am pro-life. I won't go into this too much, except that I don't think there is a morally significant difference between a fetus and a born person. Therefore, I believe a fetus deserves equal protection under the law.
I am also free market. Now, I haven't worked out the finer points of where government should get involved, but for the most part, I believe this. If I have a product, I should choose the price for which I sell. If I am a laborer, I should be able to negotiate my terms without interference of a third party. I, as a consumer, should not be able to dictate the terms of a business. I can influence it by my consumer choices, however. For instance, if I don't like the fact that Apple produces their music in a certain format, I don't buy it. If I don't like the fact that a restaurant allows smoking, I don't go there. If I don't like the fact that a cable company sells channels in bundles, well, I'm really not entitled to cable. I know there are other issues involved, such as worker safety, and pollution. These should all be factored in, but I strongly believe that the government shouldn't dictate prices/wages and shouldn't dictate things that the consumers can.
I believe in school choice and decentralization of school curricula. I think parents should have flexibility in choosing schools for their children. Whether this is through tax credits or more privatization or whatever, I think we need school choice. We don't like monopolies in other areas, and we shouldn't want them when it comes to educating our children. I disagree with Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, because I don't think the federal government should dictate what every single school should teach/test. Colleges already have their own recommended high school courses for students that may or may not match what is necessary for a degree. Necessary coursework would be established by the workplace after school or the desired college.
When it comes to religion, I tend to follow the wording of the First Amendment, rather than the clause "Separation of Church and State." If one takes the latter without regard to the First Amendment, I believe the government can "prohibit the free exercise" of religion in the interest of keeping things separate. Schools should take extra care not to discriminate on clubs and/or extracurricular activities solely because of religious content.
Those are just a few things, but I just wanted to provide a short summary of the political issues I have focused on over the past year and a half.
In a spiritual sense, I am a Christian. I try to align my Christianity as close as I can to the Bible, but I don't think many people get it perfect.
In a political sense, I am pro-life. I won't go into this too much, except that I don't think there is a morally significant difference between a fetus and a born person. Therefore, I believe a fetus deserves equal protection under the law.
I am also free market. Now, I haven't worked out the finer points of where government should get involved, but for the most part, I believe this. If I have a product, I should choose the price for which I sell. If I am a laborer, I should be able to negotiate my terms without interference of a third party. I, as a consumer, should not be able to dictate the terms of a business. I can influence it by my consumer choices, however. For instance, if I don't like the fact that Apple produces their music in a certain format, I don't buy it. If I don't like the fact that a restaurant allows smoking, I don't go there. If I don't like the fact that a cable company sells channels in bundles, well, I'm really not entitled to cable. I know there are other issues involved, such as worker safety, and pollution. These should all be factored in, but I strongly believe that the government shouldn't dictate prices/wages and shouldn't dictate things that the consumers can.
I believe in school choice and decentralization of school curricula. I think parents should have flexibility in choosing schools for their children. Whether this is through tax credits or more privatization or whatever, I think we need school choice. We don't like monopolies in other areas, and we shouldn't want them when it comes to educating our children. I disagree with Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, because I don't think the federal government should dictate what every single school should teach/test. Colleges already have their own recommended high school courses for students that may or may not match what is necessary for a degree. Necessary coursework would be established by the workplace after school or the desired college.
When it comes to religion, I tend to follow the wording of the First Amendment, rather than the clause "Separation of Church and State." If one takes the latter without regard to the First Amendment, I believe the government can "prohibit the free exercise" of religion in the interest of keeping things separate. Schools should take extra care not to discriminate on clubs and/or extracurricular activities solely because of religious content.
Those are just a few things, but I just wanted to provide a short summary of the political issues I have focused on over the past year and a half.
At a crossroads...
I'm at a bit of a crossroads with my blog. I'm not sure how much more political posting I want to do. I feel that I've said just about everything I can say in the year and a half I've done my blogging. In a way, blogging about politics all the time is like talking about politics all the time with a close friend or wife with whom you disagree. If you do so, conversations tend to get heated, and you start to be annoyed with that person and not have pleasant conversations about things you have in common. I enjoy discussing movies and music and not arguing about politics all the time. This is not intended to offend those who do focus on politics, it's just an issue of my personality.
In a way though, this makes the blogging more challenging. By nature, I am a very analytical thinker. Instead of writing stories, I right about issues. Politics involves reasoning, and I'm better at logic than creativity. If I had chosen a path of ministry or such, I would probably specialize in the fine points of theology or apologetics.
So, I will probably post on politics from time to time, but I'm going to try to focus more on theological/philosophical issues somewhat removed from the realm of politics. Also, I will try to comment more on media, such as movies and music. The frustrating thing is, I state what I'm going to do, but may find myself doing the opposite. In the past I have announced a break from politics, but then an issue piques my interest.
In a way though, this makes the blogging more challenging. By nature, I am a very analytical thinker. Instead of writing stories, I right about issues. Politics involves reasoning, and I'm better at logic than creativity. If I had chosen a path of ministry or such, I would probably specialize in the fine points of theology or apologetics.
So, I will probably post on politics from time to time, but I'm going to try to focus more on theological/philosophical issues somewhat removed from the realm of politics. Also, I will try to comment more on media, such as movies and music. The frustrating thing is, I state what I'm going to do, but may find myself doing the opposite. In the past I have announced a break from politics, but then an issue piques my interest.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Big Surprise
Okay, so my "little girl" came with a couple extra parts. His name is Levi. More later...
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Changes about to come
As some of you know, I am going to be a father to a baby girl soon. It could happen anytime, and once it does, I probably will not be posting for a while. I will try to fit in a few posts before then when I can.
I also want to congratulate Josh on graduating from college. Way to go Josh!
With the responsibility of raising a child comes the realization that I am nowhere near the person I need to be. In some ways, I feel like I myself am still a child. Self-absorbed, focusing on what I need and want, easily frustrated at small inconveniences, to name a few. And I suppose that's the way it is for everyone to some degree. No one is perfect; nevertheless, we are given the duty to raise someone the best way we know how.
I think there is also some implied expectation that we, as adults, have all the answers, or that we will at some point. We will have it all figured out, and all our kids need to do is ask. But I guess that is part of growing up; at some point, we thought we knew everything; now we realize how little we know. Okay, this sounds too much like a high school graduation speech.
Anyway, I am really excited and honored by the awesome responsibility God has given my wife and I. I guess, at the risk of turning this into a cheesy spiritual/inspirational message, is to realize I don't have all the answers, and that is why I have to, at some degree, take myself out of the process. I am not perfect, but I think I will be successful as a parent if I point them to someone who is.
I also want to congratulate Josh on graduating from college. Way to go Josh!
With the responsibility of raising a child comes the realization that I am nowhere near the person I need to be. In some ways, I feel like I myself am still a child. Self-absorbed, focusing on what I need and want, easily frustrated at small inconveniences, to name a few. And I suppose that's the way it is for everyone to some degree. No one is perfect; nevertheless, we are given the duty to raise someone the best way we know how.
I think there is also some implied expectation that we, as adults, have all the answers, or that we will at some point. We will have it all figured out, and all our kids need to do is ask. But I guess that is part of growing up; at some point, we thought we knew everything; now we realize how little we know. Okay, this sounds too much like a high school graduation speech.
Anyway, I am really excited and honored by the awesome responsibility God has given my wife and I. I guess, at the risk of turning this into a cheesy spiritual/inspirational message, is to realize I don't have all the answers, and that is why I have to, at some degree, take myself out of the process. I am not perfect, but I think I will be successful as a parent if I point them to someone who is.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Today's Random 10
My Wife - The Who - Who's Next
Control - MuteMath - WOW Hits 2005: Silver Disc
Umbrella - The Innocence Mission - Umbrella
Don't Panic - Coldplay - Parachutes
Learn to Fly - Foo Fighters - There is Nothing Left to Lose
Until the End of the World - U2 - Achtung Baby
White Shadows - Coldplay - X&Y
Sail Away - David Gray - White Ladder
Love Ridden - Fiona Apple - When the Pawn...
For No One - The Beatles - Revolver [UK]
Songs About You - Peter Stuart - Propeller
This list has a lot of great, lesser-known songs from well known artists. I'm a strong fan of the album because there are many jewels missed when only the hits are downloaded. I think it is great 2nd-tier songs that make an artist.
"Until the End of the World" is definitely 1 of my top 10 U2 songs. Very interesting concept, as it is a song from Judas's point of view as he is talking to Jesus.
Control - MuteMath - WOW Hits 2005: Silver Disc
Umbrella - The Innocence Mission - Umbrella
Don't Panic - Coldplay - Parachutes
Learn to Fly - Foo Fighters - There is Nothing Left to Lose
Until the End of the World - U2 - Achtung Baby
White Shadows - Coldplay - X&Y
Sail Away - David Gray - White Ladder
Love Ridden - Fiona Apple - When the Pawn...
For No One - The Beatles - Revolver [UK]
Songs About You - Peter Stuart - Propeller
This list has a lot of great, lesser-known songs from well known artists. I'm a strong fan of the album because there are many jewels missed when only the hits are downloaded. I think it is great 2nd-tier songs that make an artist.
"Until the End of the World" is definitely 1 of my top 10 U2 songs. Very interesting concept, as it is a song from Judas's point of view as he is talking to Jesus.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The essential U2 album collection, or a guide for new U2 fans
This guide is written for someone who may want to get some U2 albums and may not know where to start. With iTunes and other music stores, I suppose people can just buy the songs they like, but I am personally still a fan of the album. I have all the studio albums of U2, minus October and Pop. U2 does have 11 studio albums, so it can be quite expensive to buy them all. Here, I will list the essential albums, or at least the albums to buy at first.
The albums you should buy depends on the U2 era you like. 80s, 90s, and 2000s U2 are completely different.
The 80s U2
I think someone can buy The Joshua Tree and The Best of 1980-1990 and have the essential U2 stuff of the 80s. The Joshua Tree is almost a "Best of" within itself, but with The Best of 1980-1990, the listener gets the essential songs from other albums as well, such as "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "Desire".
1990s - Present
While no lesser in quality, the last 2 decades have produced 5 studio albums, compared to 6 in the 80s. I would recommend:
Achtung Baby - includes "One" and "Mysterious Ways"
All That You Can't Leave Behind - "Beautiful Day" and "Elevation"
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - "Vertigo" and "City of Blinding Lights".
These are, in my opinion, the 5 essential albums. All are good, but you will get the essential U2 with these 5. One notable exception is the Pop album, which people either love or hate.
If you have a little more time/money, I would recommend:
War - Political, and at the same time, not that political. But a fierce album.
The Unforgettable Fire - This album isn't full of your typical songs, but more like soundscapes. "Pride" is the only song that has the typical verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure.
Zooropa - Just an all around weird and great album.
Update: Josh pointed out a major oversight. I forgot about the U218 singles album. If you want just one album that spans U2's career, then get this album. It looks like it has all the essential songs, especially from the 5 albums I mentioned.
So, if you want 1 album, get the U218 singles. If you want to explore them a little more, I recommend the 5 previously mentioned.
The albums you should buy depends on the U2 era you like. 80s, 90s, and 2000s U2 are completely different.
The 80s U2
I think someone can buy The Joshua Tree and The Best of 1980-1990 and have the essential U2 stuff of the 80s. The Joshua Tree is almost a "Best of" within itself, but with The Best of 1980-1990, the listener gets the essential songs from other albums as well, such as "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "Desire".
1990s - Present
While no lesser in quality, the last 2 decades have produced 5 studio albums, compared to 6 in the 80s. I would recommend:
Achtung Baby - includes "One" and "Mysterious Ways"
All That You Can't Leave Behind - "Beautiful Day" and "Elevation"
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - "Vertigo" and "City of Blinding Lights".
These are, in my opinion, the 5 essential albums. All are good, but you will get the essential U2 with these 5. One notable exception is the Pop album, which people either love or hate.
If you have a little more time/money, I would recommend:
War - Political, and at the same time, not that political. But a fierce album.
The Unforgettable Fire - This album isn't full of your typical songs, but more like soundscapes. "Pride" is the only song that has the typical verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure.
Zooropa - Just an all around weird and great album.
Update: Josh pointed out a major oversight. I forgot about the U218 singles album. If you want just one album that spans U2's career, then get this album. It looks like it has all the essential songs, especially from the 5 albums I mentioned.
So, if you want 1 album, get the U218 singles. If you want to explore them a little more, I recommend the 5 previously mentioned.
The essential U2 album collection, or a guide for new U2 fans
This guide is written for someone who may want to get some U2 albums and may not know where to start. With iTunes and other music stores, I suppose people can just buy the songs they like, but I am personally still a fan of the album. I have all the studio albums of U2, minus October and Pop. U2 does have 11 studio albums, so it can be quite expensive to buy them all. Here, I will list the essential albums, or at least the albums to buy at first.
The albums you should buy depends on the U2 era you like. 80s, 90s, and 2000s U2 are completely different.
The 80s U2
I think someone can buy The Joshua Tree and The Best of 1980-1990 and have the essential U2 stuff of the 80s. The Joshua Tree is almost a "Best of" within itself, but with The Best of 1980-1990, the listener gets the essential songs from other albums as well, such as "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "Desire".
1990s - Present
While no lesser in quality, the last 2 decades have produced 5 studio albums, compared to 6 in the 80s. I would recommend:
Achtung Baby - includes "One" and "Mysterious Ways"
All That You Can't Leave Behind - "Beautiful Day" and "Elevation"
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - "Vertigo" and "City of Blinding Lights"
The albums you should buy depends on the U2 era you like. 80s, 90s, and 2000s U2 are completely different.
The 80s U2
I think someone can buy The Joshua Tree and The Best of 1980-1990 and have the essential U2 stuff of the 80s. The Joshua Tree is almost a "Best of" within itself, but with The Best of 1980-1990, the listener gets the essential songs from other albums as well, such as "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "Desire".
1990s - Present
While no lesser in quality, the last 2 decades have produced 5 studio albums, compared to 6 in the 80s. I would recommend:
Achtung Baby - includes "One" and "Mysterious Ways"
All That You Can't Leave Behind - "Beautiful Day" and "Elevation"
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - "Vertigo" and "City of Blinding Lights"
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Blogs that make me think
I was honored by Josh from Gabbatha as a blog that makes him think. To continue the tradition, I will choose 5 blogs on my roll that make me think. All of them make me think to some extent, but here are 5 that come to mind.
Glen Dean - I once did a Google search for "Christian Libertarian" and his blog popped up. Glen and I agree on many things concerning Christianity and politics. He has a unique perspective on issues in that he is a conservative Christian yet is weary to use government power to accomplish Christian goals and ideals.
Katherine Coble from Just Another Pretty Face - Kat is one of the figures from the Nashville blogosphere, and I ran into her blog from her comments at Glen Dean's site. She also happens to be a Christian and a libertarian, so I enjoy her take on philosophical and political issues. That, and her analysis of Lost.
Dan Trabue at Payne Hollow - Dan is a man that is passionate about environmental issues, such as global warming and our consumption of natural resources. He has many well-thought out posts concerning nature and environment and all that hippy stuff (just kidding Dan). Even though we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, I do admire his concern for the earth. If I did some research on environmental issues, I'd probably agree with him quite a bit in that area.
Michael from the Levellers - Michael is a pacifist and a democratic socialist (correct me if that description is incorrect). He is very opposed to the war and believes in a progressive economic system. I am sure, at one time, we agreed on something. I think it was that Sam Adams is a great beer. Actually, I think we hold a lot of spiritual views in common, and we share the idea of not completely trusting those in authority. Despite our disagreements, his articles are always a great read.
Neil Simpson - Neil Simpson has many great articles on Christianity, including Christian apologetics. I also like his articles on Pro-life reasoning. Neil also posts on a variety of other issues, ranging from morality to barbecuing.
Here are the rules as explained at Gabbatha -
Should you choose to participate, please make sure to pass this list of rules to the blogs you are tagging. The participation rules are simple:
*
If you get tagged, write a post with links to five blogs that make you think
*
Link to the original post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme
*
Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.
Glen Dean - I once did a Google search for "Christian Libertarian" and his blog popped up. Glen and I agree on many things concerning Christianity and politics. He has a unique perspective on issues in that he is a conservative Christian yet is weary to use government power to accomplish Christian goals and ideals.
Katherine Coble from Just Another Pretty Face - Kat is one of the figures from the Nashville blogosphere, and I ran into her blog from her comments at Glen Dean's site. She also happens to be a Christian and a libertarian, so I enjoy her take on philosophical and political issues. That, and her analysis of Lost.
Dan Trabue at Payne Hollow - Dan is a man that is passionate about environmental issues, such as global warming and our consumption of natural resources. He has many well-thought out posts concerning nature and environment and all that hippy stuff (just kidding Dan). Even though we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, I do admire his concern for the earth. If I did some research on environmental issues, I'd probably agree with him quite a bit in that area.
Michael from the Levellers - Michael is a pacifist and a democratic socialist (correct me if that description is incorrect). He is very opposed to the war and believes in a progressive economic system. I am sure, at one time, we agreed on something. I think it was that Sam Adams is a great beer. Actually, I think we hold a lot of spiritual views in common, and we share the idea of not completely trusting those in authority. Despite our disagreements, his articles are always a great read.
Neil Simpson - Neil Simpson has many great articles on Christianity, including Christian apologetics. I also like his articles on Pro-life reasoning. Neil also posts on a variety of other issues, ranging from morality to barbecuing.
Here are the rules as explained at Gabbatha -
Should you choose to participate, please make sure to pass this list of rules to the blogs you are tagging. The participation rules are simple:
*
If you get tagged, write a post with links to five blogs that make you think
*
Link to the original post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme
*
Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)