Cynicism and limited government

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

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

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

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

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 Jesus has been replaced by a faceless bureaucrat.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

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

Thoughts on capital punishment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a couple issues with this rhetorical question.

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

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

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

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

Balancing various ideals when it comes to Christianity and economics

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

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

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

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

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

Should government protect us from ourselves?

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

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

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

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

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

The new judgmentalism

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

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

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

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

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

What I've been up to

Sorry I haven't been posting lately, but I suppose you get what you pay for.

I've been busy the past few weeks. I took a trip to San Francisco for work for about a week, then my wife and kid and I visited family in Oklahoma.

Right now I'm trying to decide on stuff to write about. I am deciding if I want to pursue political topics or take a break from it right now.

Also, this post is meant as a jump start. Sometimes I have lots of ideas rolling around in my head and it's hard to know where to start. I always feel that posting on how I don't know what to post is extremely lame, but sometimes it is a good way to get the juices flowing.

At what point is it division?

Several verses in the Bible speak of the importance of unity of all believers. The reality is that there are many different denominations and multiple points of debate within the body of Christ. But does this necessarily mean the body of Christ has to be divided? God wants us to be one, but I do not think he expects us all to believe the same in every area.

Concerning debate among Christians, for instance, in the blogosphere, at what point does that become division? I think it is important to have discussions with believers with some different opinions, but does it only stir up contention? Is it when friendly discussion is no longer so?

Just a few thoughts on my mind.

On implementing God's kingdom here on earth

Katherine Coble writes this concerning the Social Gospel:

As a Christian Libertarian, I find myself frequently a more vocal proponent of what some call “Social Gospel” and others call “Pinko Liberal Commie Collectivist Bull.” I believe that Christ has called his Church to minister to the Least of these, an umbrella which includes everyone from those stricken with AIDS to those who live next door to you and are too busy at work to mow their lawn. Where I differ from many folks is that I believe the Social Gospel is absoluletly not to be confused with political socialism and active redistribution of wealth through forced means such as taxation. We as a church are supposed to do the going us therefore into all the world on our own. But of course, I’ve said this before and there’s nothing new in that idea.

I agree. God is an all-powerful being, but he typically interacts with us through free will. He let Adam and Eve freely eat the apple, Christ freely died for us, and we freely accept Him or reject Him. Despite God having a hand in the world and our lives, he typically gives us choice and does not rule us by force (I'm not sure how it will work during the End of this Age, I think we will still have free will, but there will be no sin...).

To me, forcing people to be generous seems to go against how God typically works. In the Mosaic law God did order that people give a certain percentage of their tithe, but the New Testament model seems to indicate freewill giving that is from the heart.

This doesn't have to be a matter of whether or not someone has a right to spend my money, although there is a worthy conversation there. I just don't believe actions from force can truly change the world, only actions out of love. Private initiatives involve something of the heart, simply more than a deduction from our paycheck. I do believe in some welfare, but I see the role of government here as providing a safety net to prevent people from starving to death. I don't see the role of government as our way of ensuring God's kingdom here on earth.

The game last night

The Men's Basketball Championship game was amazing. I have had the good fortune of seeing two college teams I like, teams in the Big 12, winning the national title. First, Texas in 05/06 in college football, and now Kansas in 2008. Both games were somewhat similar. Both games started out with the Big 12 team doing well in the first half, leading at halftime, only to see the other team dominate for the most part in the second half. Both teams made improbable comebacks to win the game, Texas being behind 12 points with 6:42 left, Kansas down 9 with 2:12 left to play.

The great debate in sports radio today is if Kansas won the game, or if Memphis lost it. I would say, for the most part, Memphis choked. Kansas did a lot of work themselves, however, and it took a miraculous 3 pointer at the end to tie the game up. I don't think Memphis gave Kansas the game by any means, but they gave the Jayhawks something to claw back with.

When overtime hit, I felt confident in Kansas' victory. It's never over until victory is mathematically impossible, but it's almost like Kansas won the game at the end of regulation and overtime was merely a formality. Looking at center Sasha Kaun, he wasn't stressed out, he was pumped up. The Kansas team was excited to play.

As if anyone cares about my bracket performance

I am 3 for 4 in the Final Four. I picked Kansas, UCLA, and North Carolina to go, who all made it. Instead of Memphis, however, I picked Stanford. Memphis is a team I greatly underestimated, and after seeing them dismantle Texas, who rolled over teams they played, I think Memphis is for real. Unfortunately, just about everyone in my group picked the same teams.

I picked UCLA to beat NC in the final. I am rooting for Kansas though.

Not looking like the world

One thing about Christianity is that I believe it is supposed to stand out from the world's philosophy. In the New Testament there is a continual theme of being set apart. Jesus said the world would hate us because they hated him.

18"(Y)If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but (Z)I chose you out of the world, (AA)because of this the world hates you.

Paul says

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

John continues this theme.

Some things in Christianity do, in fact, coincide with values found in secular circles. Feeding the hungry, taking care of the poor, loving your neighbor as yourself, these are not really controversial values. Applying them is difficult, but the concept is not.

But at some point, Christianity should deviate from the philosophy of the world. I'm not saying we should add things to it that purposely irritate non-believers, but I do believe there is plenty within Christianity that should irritate people already. Usually, Christians are blamed for people being turned off on Christianity, and yes, that can be the case many times. But could it be that sometimes people just don't like Jesus?

The reason I bring this up is that it seems, more and more, some of Christianity is being shaped to be conformed to the world. The parts about loving your neighbors, Jesus being a swell guy, all that stuff seems to remain. But other facets seem to be disappearing in certain circles. Miracles turn out to not really be miracles, but maybe just something that could be explained with science, that people only thought were miracles. Certain standards of morality that do coincide with the world seem to remain (take care of the less fortunate) while those peculiar to accepted norms seem to disappear. Now people can disagree on what the Bible states, I think there are honest people on both sides of certain issues, but I can't help but see general trends.

This seems to be happening with the stories of Jesus. Fortunately, most people in Christendom do in fact, believe Jesus died a barbaric death and rose again. But I do wonder if much of the focus is on Jesus being a swell person, maybe even a nice guy, telling us to love one another and telling off the religious establishment. But so much of Jesus' teachings focus on himself. Jesus had difficult teachings. He affirmed that he was the only way to the Father. Yes, he taught us how to live good lives, but so much hinged on his identity.

To the world in general, Jesus has been diluted. Jesus is accepted by the world at large as some good religious leader, a nice guy (and I don't think he was even that). But as Josh McDowell points in in More than a Carpenter, Jesus doesn't really leave such a lukewarm reception of himself available. The guy who says he is Jesus Christ, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, I haven't really heard his teachings, but the fact that he says something like that, that pretty much turns me off to anything else he has to say. It should be the same with Jesus. A guy who says he is God himself, who says that he is the only way to God, if we don't believe these things, he is either psychotic or evil. Saying that he is simply a nice guy is weak.

There is some reasonable agreement within Christianity, and there is someone who I have been conversing with concerning these issues, and believe me when I say this post is not really addressed to you (not completely anyway). I'm not saying we should try to make Christianity as controversial as possible, but if our whole philosophy is indistinguishable from the world's, we should reevaluate some of our core beliefs. All I know is this, it seems that in some circles of Christianity, the hard parts of the Bible, anything that doesn't jibe with the world are being dismissed: most anything remotely supernatural, the moral standards that don't coincide with today's cultural norms, the difficult teachings of Jesus, to name a few. Before you know it, you know longer have a book that talks about God's awesome displays of power, a book that tells us to be set apart from the world, the book that tells us about a man who was truly radical. Now you have some document that essentially talks about a nice guy who tells us to love other people. As if I couldn't get that somewhere else. This goes along with the world's philosophy just fine.

Is there a conflict between science and Christianity?

It is often assumed that the Christian must turn off their thinking caps when it comes to science, that they must reject cold hard evidence in favor of believing in their faith.

But I'm not sure such conflicts exist, at least not as often as people think. Nowhere does this conflict seem more apparent than in the area of evolution.

Now, when one asks, "do you believe in evolution", one has to consider that the word "evolution" is a loaded term. Does it mean evolution within a species, evolution across species, natural selection, etc... I think Christians can have a knee-jerk reaction to the term "evolution" and condemn it as evil, without considering what is meant by the term.

The real conflict is not necessarily between "evolution" and Christianity, but the Christian view of creation vs. the view of the universe being designed by random, purposeless forces. I do think there are parts of evolutionary theory that could be compatiable with Christianity. The point is, I know there is a divine being that created the universe, and that the Bible gives testimony to this God. Even with this belief, I believe there is room to believe that natural selection can hold true in the animal kingdom and that certain species have changed over time. Maybe even species have branched out into other species, who knows? I am not a biologist, so I'm not saying these things necessarily happened, I am just saying it is possible to believe in some aspects of evolution and not be a heathen.

That being said, I don't think man has evolved from the original design. At least not very much. If one follows the dating of the Bible, man is about 6000 years old. I don't think there would be much time for mankind to change on an evolutionary scale.

Unfortunately, evolutionists typically use the parts that are true or may be true to extrapolate to creation and mankind as a whole. For example, one may use the fact that a certain species changes to outside forces - natural selection on a small scale - and use it to conclude natural selection on a large scale. Small scale changes caused by random processes are used to infer that processes causing original life were also random.

I asked my wife, who graduated in Zoology, what the evidence was for evolution. The main pieces of evidence are the homologous structures (similar skeletal structures among different parts of the animal kingdom) and fossil records. I don't know a whole lot about the fossil evidence, someone can help me out if they wish, but I do think that if you find a collection of bones, you don't necessarily know if they were some primate or a less evolved version of homo sapien. Concerning bone structure, that could lead one to believe in evolution, but it can also be explained by design.

Christians are sometimes accused of looking for "God in the gaps." That is, something seems complex, so God must have done it.* But I feel that in the scientific community, the view of all life resulting from evolution has the same aspect. It's like "We don't think there is a God, evolution is the only possible explanation." The Truth Project by Focus on the Family says that science is no longer sticking to experimental observations, but it is trying to answer the fundamental questions of mankind. I think that is a valid point.

In short, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are reasonable and are not incompatible with the idea that God created the universe and man. However, I believe evolutionists take the noncontroversial parts and use them to push God out of the picture. I think that this worldview that is adopted by many in the scientific community simply doesn't hold water.

*I'm not saying that we can't attribute the fact that life is so complex to an ultimate designer, I think it is one of the evidences of the creator, I'm only trying to make a point here.

This is pretty scary

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.
[...]
"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Unbelievable.

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog. I heard it there first.

Why expand the field?

There's been a lot of talk about expanding the NCAA Basketball tournament from the present number of 65 teams (counting the play-in game).

My question is why? For those unfamiliar, teams are ranked from 1 seed(best)-16 seed, with four #1s, four #2s, etc... The lowest seed to win the tournament was Villanova as an 8 seed in 1985. Every once in a while a seed lower than that will win the tournament. Yes, maybe some teams more deserving were left out while others get in, as no system is perfect. However, when you get into the lower seeds, the odds are so small of running the tables anyway. Already, the lower half of the tournament has such a long shot anyway. If multiple low-ranked teams making it to the Final Four was a regular occurrence, I would think the seeding and the invitations needed quite a bit of work. But we see only see it as an irregular occurrence.

Probably the best argument in favor of expanding the field is that teams in the smaller school conferences have a smaller chance of getting in. Many times only the conference champ gets a shot. Is there any other good arguments in favor that I'm not seeing?

The tricky issue of immigration

Concerning immigration, I am far from an expert in this issue. But I wanted to pen down my thoughts on issues as I see them. There are three parts of the issue I see.

1) Who do we let in?
2) What do they have to do to be let in?
3) What do we do with the people who are here illegally?

Concerning 3) I'm really not sure. This has been a point of contention among the Republican nominees. I don't want to reward breaking the law. At the same time, there are issues of practicality to consider. How much would it cost, and how effective would it be to deport a large number of illegal aliens? I would think, a lot, and not very. I'm not saying we should do nothing, I just don't know what exactly.

2) Again, I'm not sure. I think it should be fairly easy for those who want to come here to actually come here. There could probably be some requirement that somebody in the family actually get a job within a certain amount of time.

Concerning the English language, well, that's a whole other ball of wax. I don't think there should be an official language, but at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that immigrants know some basic English for everyday tasks, i.e. passing a drivers test. Concerning schooling, a purpose of schools are to teach people to be somewhat functional people, so I do believe English should be taught to all students. I know this issue seems more complicated the more I talk about it, so I'd be interested in a teacher's or school administrator's perspective on this issue.

1) This is the one I have the strongest opinion. I think the primary concern here is national security. I would support not letting someone in if there was a reasonable concern about the person from a homeland security perspective. I tend to take the more libertarian/free market position that immigration should not be capped based on economic issues. Yes, there is a real human face to this issue that concerns people losing their jobs. However, I also believe that the market is self-regulating in this aspect in that we have the immigrant inflow because of a vacuum in parts of the work force. Also, I believe the net effect for the economy is positive, even for the everyday person.

Also, some people want to cap immigration for cultural considerations, but I don't think this is a fruitful, or even desirable exercise. From a Christian perspective, there are concerns about other religions or cultures contrary to Christianity seeping into America, and that is a legitimate concern. However, I just don't think turning away outsiders is the right approach. America has been the land of opportunity for those seeking a better life, and I think we should continue to be so. I like Ronald Reagan's vision of America being a "city on the hill."

One of my pet peeves

Why, at a red stoplight, do the people at the front scoot forward while they anticipate the light turning green? Does the extra half a foot or so really help them get a head start. Maybe it's the fact they are going 1 mile per hour as opposed to 0 when the light turns green. Who knows?

I saw Rocky for the first time

The original Rocky has been one of those movies that I've been embarrassed to say that I never watched. So, I moved Rocky and Rocky Balboa(the 6th movie in the series) to the top of the Netflix Queue.

I was surprised at how good both movies were. I dare say that the endless stream of sequels may have tarnished the legacy in some people's minds, especially those that haven't seen them. I didn't realize Rocky actually won an Academy Award until recently.

In both movies Rocky seemed like a real, believable character. Not every word he speaks is significant or even necessarily funny. He says nonsense things about "flying candy" and just goofball stuff that you'd expect from an everyday person.

I did notice some strong themes that were present in both movies, which included the ideals of America being a land of opportunity and being a place where people should be free to pursue happiness. In the original Rocky, Apollo Creed decides to stage a fight with an everyday guy (who ends up being Rocky), in order to show that anyone can make it in America. In Rocky Balboa, there is a particularly moving scene where Rocky applies for a license to fight. The board, in order to "look out for him", initially reject his application. Rocky points out the Bill of Rights down the road (in Philadelphia) and states that he has the right to pursue happiness, and that it is his choice to make to risk his life; it is not their place to stop him just because they are doing what they think is best for him. There's also a scene where he tells his son to stop blaming other people for his problems and to take responsibility toward his own life.

Most people say Rocky and Rocky Balboa are the best, unless you want to reminisce about the Cold War, then rent Rocky IV.

Why this conservative is against (some) right-to-work laws

Conservatives typically support right-to-work laws. On most issues I could be considered a conservative, albeit with some libertarian tendencies, and I'm a strong advocate of the free market. It is precisely this free market belief that motivates my opposition to (some) right to work laws.

Wikipedia defines right to work laws as those

...which prohibit agreements between trade unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

Now, I'm not really a strong fan of unions. However, I also believe in the employer's freedom to hire who they want. Here is an important distinction: if the government requires people to join a union to work certain jobs, or requires certain industries to hire only union workers, I am strongly opposed to that. If the employer requires union membership as a condition of employment, that should be fully within their rights. That is, as long as that requirement was made clear before hiring. While the common definition of "right-to-work" means the employer cannot choose to hire union-only, I would not be surprised if some variants are meant to repeal state government guidelines. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of these laws could help me out on this.

The common argument for "right-to-work" laws it that people should not be "forced" to join a union in order to get a job. However, if this is a requirement of the employee and NOT the government, no one is really being "forced" into anything. In the same way, just because being a Christian may be a requirement to work at a certain church, that doesn't mean I'm being "forced" into Christianity.

Another important note is that this swings both ways. A company should have the right to hire union only workers, and they should have the right to not hire union workers. Freedom works both ways.

A cool radio station

For those who listen to radio online, Pandora is a great website. The site asks you for an artist or song that you like, then creates a station based on that. You can add additional artists, and you can give a thumbs up/down for songs they play.

The site is similar to Yahoo's Launchcast radio, but less complex. If I remember correctly, Yahoo asked you to rate songs/artists from 0 to 5 stars. Pandora's interface is simpler.

The site does seem to repeat songs quite a bit. I created a station based on U2, and I'm only interested in hearing so many versions of "One."

Thanks to Neil for informing me of the site.

What's missing among conservatives

The other day at church someone mentioned how they liked Bush overall, but did not like his spending policy and how government has grown in size since he has taken office. He mentioned how he thought the Republican party had gotten away from small government principles.

This talk was refreshing to hear, as I don't think the scope of government gets enough attention. I think by definition, liberals are more embracive of large government, but conservatives are not supposed to be.

It is difficult to tell if people are inherently small government people or large government people. We all talk about the evils of large bureaucracy, we all hate going to the DMV, we spend time and/or money on paying our taxes, and almost any job is associated with red tape in some aspect. Yet, at the same time, the general populace seems to embrace any law that seems to make their life better on the surface, without considering the ramifications or if government should be involved in that aspect of life in the first place.

Consider smoking bans. I think reasonable people can fall on both sides of the issue. However, people tend to think "I don't smoke, I hate smelling smoke in a restaurant" and therefore, support a statewide smoking ban. Now, I'm not saying people who do so are ignorant or just not smart, I just think that one should consider any possible negative effects, and if regulating that sort of thing on private property is something government should be doing. My main point is not that people should agree with me, I'm just saying that when it comes to any law, one should consider if it should fall within the scope of government.

But I don't want to lose people with the smoking example. What I want to focus on is just an overall perspective concerning government. If gas prices are too high, we want government to step in and fix it. If the housing market takes a downturn, we want the President to act right away. If our local team owner wants a new stadium, we run to the polls to give millionaires our tax dollars. For those who have no problems with stem-cell research, it's not enough that our state dollars fund it, it is only humane that the federal government do it's part too. We also want the federal government involved in our schools; there was a time when conservatives believed the feds should not be involved.

My tone may sound somewhat mean or sarcastic, I don't intend it to. I just think we need to challenge our assumptions of what we expect government to do. A law may sound nice, but we need to keep count of just how many laws are being passed.

Conservatives tend to support their president and candidates based on their stance on certain moral issues, or whatever issues get the press for the day. Those things are important - my deepest political belief is my pro-life position. But I think we should also consider the person's views concerning the overall role of government. At the very least, it can be a nice tiebreaker.