Looks like the Fall happened without any new posts here.
On the way to the airport from my recent Christmas visit to CA, my parents suggested I let people who may read this know that it's done. I thought such a gesture a sensible and conscientious thing to do for the close friends and family who may be waiting next to their Google alerts for my muddled thoughts to be posted.
So, until further notice, my thoughts will not be posted here. May this blog be kept at rest until it is useful again.
However, I am still active on The Internet via Twitter (@Tay_Bark) and guest blogging for The Institute for Faith, Work and Economics' blog (blog.tifwe.org).
For those few who've faithfully supported my efforts to communicate through this medium, I thank you for your readership! It's always meant a lot to get feedback from someone who says they've read my blog. I look forward to interacting with you all through Twitter, the IFWE blog and wherever else our paths may cross!
Thanks all!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
The Ex-Patriot Act
This is ridiculous.
Eduardo Saverin renounces his US citizenship because of high capital gains tax and Sens. Schumer and Casey come up with legislation that would stick it to him anyway.
The articles say the legislation probably won't get out of committees, but it's a little crazy that things like are thought up in our Congress.
The thinking behind this Ex-Patriot Act seems to be that America made you rich, now you owe your country. Why? Do hyper-successful/wealthy people owe anything to the government? Sure, one can extrapolate all sorts of things: public schools, police, roads, whatever, that may have formed a foundation for success. But what's the true value of all that? Why does a rich person owe more than a "normal" person?
Rather than government institutions being a catalyst for human success, I think that informal institutions like culture, morality, community and personal attributes are far more influential than anything the government would contribute. All that mixed with a little right-place-at-the-right-time.
Eduardo Saverin renounces his US citizenship because of high capital gains tax and Sens. Schumer and Casey come up with legislation that would stick it to him anyway.
The articles say the legislation probably won't get out of committees, but it's a little crazy that things like are thought up in our Congress.
The thinking behind this Ex-Patriot Act seems to be that America made you rich, now you owe your country. Why? Do hyper-successful/wealthy people owe anything to the government? Sure, one can extrapolate all sorts of things: public schools, police, roads, whatever, that may have formed a foundation for success. But what's the true value of all that? Why does a rich person owe more than a "normal" person?
Rather than government institutions being a catalyst for human success, I think that informal institutions like culture, morality, community and personal attributes are far more influential than anything the government would contribute. All that mixed with a little right-place-at-the-right-time.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Commenting on Regulations
Ever wanted a direct voice in federal regulation formation? I'm sure you've had that thought many a time sitting at home with nothing to do. Well, know that you can!
Check out Regulations.gov to review upcoming regulations and submit what they call "public comments." It is required by law that they read all comments in the allotted time frame before regulation becomes law. If a salient enough point is brought up, amendments have to be made.
Now, while this public comment feature is a good thing, having all these regulations coming through the pipe in an ever increasing number may not be a good thing. Kind of like awesome cinnamon rolls in prison or something: it brightens your experience, but the experience overall still stinks.
Check out Regulations.gov to review upcoming regulations and submit what they call "public comments." It is required by law that they read all comments in the allotted time frame before regulation becomes law. If a salient enough point is brought up, amendments have to be made.
Now, while this public comment feature is a good thing, having all these regulations coming through the pipe in an ever increasing number may not be a good thing. Kind of like awesome cinnamon rolls in prison or something: it brightens your experience, but the experience overall still stinks.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The State of Those Republicans
In reading this Reason article on why conservatives should hope for a Romney loss this November, I found one of the last paragraphs particularly poignant and agreeable:
"The GOP is in a state of intellectual flux, illustrated perfectly by the ideological heterodoxy of its presidential field. Various strains representing different interests are fighting for the soul of the GOP: The neocons are duking it out with anti-war Paulistas. Social moderates are trying to wrest some space from pro-life religious conservatives. Deficits and debt worry everyone, but there is no consensus on entitlement reform. The GOP allegedly stands for the free market—but it has yet to figure out whether Bush’s financial bailout was right or wrong."
"The GOP is in a state of intellectual flux, illustrated perfectly by the ideological heterodoxy of its presidential field. Various strains representing different interests are fighting for the soul of the GOP: The neocons are duking it out with anti-war Paulistas. Social moderates are trying to wrest some space from pro-life religious conservatives. Deficits and debt worry everyone, but there is no consensus on entitlement reform. The GOP allegedly stands for the free market—but it has yet to figure out whether Bush’s financial bailout was right or wrong."
Monday, April 23, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Random Thoughts
Open Face Surgery by Cryptopsy is my latest favorite Over the Top Ridiculous Best Metal Song/Band Name Combo.
Buffett/Obama want rich people to pay more in taxes. Limited gov types say, "So send the government a check!" Progressives retort that's ridiculous because then the rich won't pay. Perhaps not all that ridiculous as the folks at the Buffett level of income probably all know each other and could peer pressure each other into voluntarily giving the feds 50% of their income (or whatever). I'd imagine when you're at that status you are not separated from anyone famous/exorbitantly wealthy by more than 2 degrees. It would be a spontaneously constructed sort of coercion, rather than state coercion, employing existent cultural norms/good behavior rather than threat of force from the state.
I watched a bit of the movie Death Race last night. Don't sue just yet: it was on TV, there were explosions, I was tired. The producers came up with the name "Criminal Island" for where the prisoners are imprisoned for the death races. Of course, Jason Statham's character was partnered with the one beautiful woman in the "Terminal" cases prison who shampoos her hair everyday. Additionally, while everyone else's partners are getting killed by stray gunfire, she's unhurt. I'd like to see a movie where the heroin that the hero is partnered with has a terrible personality, hygiene, and quite masculine looks due to the time they spend mastering the things the typical heroine is good at in movies (marital arts, tech stuff, decision making, etc). The two would then form a bond of friendship and mutual respect or at least a working relationship until they part ways.
Buffett/Obama want rich people to pay more in taxes. Limited gov types say, "So send the government a check!" Progressives retort that's ridiculous because then the rich won't pay. Perhaps not all that ridiculous as the folks at the Buffett level of income probably all know each other and could peer pressure each other into voluntarily giving the feds 50% of their income (or whatever). I'd imagine when you're at that status you are not separated from anyone famous/exorbitantly wealthy by more than 2 degrees. It would be a spontaneously constructed sort of coercion, rather than state coercion, employing existent cultural norms/good behavior rather than threat of force from the state.
I watched a bit of the movie Death Race last night. Don't sue just yet: it was on TV, there were explosions, I was tired. The producers came up with the name "Criminal Island" for where the prisoners are imprisoned for the death races. Of course, Jason Statham's character was partnered with the one beautiful woman in the "Terminal" cases prison who shampoos her hair everyday. Additionally, while everyone else's partners are getting killed by stray gunfire, she's unhurt. I'd like to see a movie where the heroin that the hero is partnered with has a terrible personality, hygiene, and quite masculine looks due to the time they spend mastering the things the typical heroine is good at in movies (marital arts, tech stuff, decision making, etc). The two would then form a bond of friendship and mutual respect or at least a working relationship until they part ways.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
LRA Responds to Kony 2012
Hat tip to my friend Divine for bringing my attention to this open letter from the LRA to...everyone?
They drop quotes from Jesus, Thomas Jefferson, US Secretary of States, generals. And it's really long.
They drop quotes from Jesus, Thomas Jefferson, US Secretary of States, generals. And it's really long.
Monday, April 9, 2012
The Titanic Centennial
I just read this great article in The New Yorker on our culture's fascination with the Titanic disaster. At first I took issue with the claim that the fascination is "unending." But by the end I can see what the author meant. It's a bit long yet contains one of the best endings to an article I've read in a while. Worth a read as it summarizes the key literature and films about the disaster over the last 100 years.
Growing up, I went through a phase where I read and watched all I could about the Titanic. I remember the National Geographic TV special my family had on tape that I watched dozens of times, even taking it to my friends' houses to show/watch with them. They usually weren't as into it as I was. Titanic and the story of the Bismarck (huge German battleship during WWII) were subjects of my pre-teen amateur studies. I liked sunken ships, I guess.
Growing up, I went through a phase where I read and watched all I could about the Titanic. I remember the National Geographic TV special my family had on tape that I watched dozens of times, even taking it to my friends' houses to show/watch with them. They usually weren't as into it as I was. Titanic and the story of the Bismarck (huge German battleship during WWII) were subjects of my pre-teen amateur studies. I liked sunken ships, I guess.
Monday, April 2, 2012
A Man Crushed
Our culture gives attention in spurts. Although that's not news to anyone. The Kony2012 campaign exemplified that characteristic.
I navigated over to Invisible Children recently to see what was up, since that whole subject has fallen out of the social media discourse for the most part. On their site was this post from Jason Russell's wife regarding his health and it seems he was emotionally destroyed by the attention he and his organization received. Apparently he will be in the hospital for weeks and will spend months recovering before he is deemed stable enough to return to work. This is a story that truly saddens me. Imagine pouring your life into a project to have a laser beam of global attention focused on you that goes from majority support to majority ridicule in a matter of a week.
Not only did the rise to fame, the critiques and then public collapse all get talked about as they were happening, most likely they will stick around for awhile for his children to read about, as things on the internet don't just go away. It has become a part of the Russell, IC history.
Invisible Children took advantage of a powerful force: social discourse through social media. And like any powerful force, it can do both good and harm. While I think most any situation can be redeemed, thus far, at least, it seems more harm than good has come from this case, especially in Russell's personal life.
UPDATE: Google search counts over time for Kony.
I navigated over to Invisible Children recently to see what was up, since that whole subject has fallen out of the social media discourse for the most part. On their site was this post from Jason Russell's wife regarding his health and it seems he was emotionally destroyed by the attention he and his organization received. Apparently he will be in the hospital for weeks and will spend months recovering before he is deemed stable enough to return to work. This is a story that truly saddens me. Imagine pouring your life into a project to have a laser beam of global attention focused on you that goes from majority support to majority ridicule in a matter of a week.
Not only did the rise to fame, the critiques and then public collapse all get talked about as they were happening, most likely they will stick around for awhile for his children to read about, as things on the internet don't just go away. It has become a part of the Russell, IC history.
Invisible Children took advantage of a powerful force: social discourse through social media. And like any powerful force, it can do both good and harm. While I think most any situation can be redeemed, thus far, at least, it seems more harm than good has come from this case, especially in Russell's personal life.
UPDATE: Google search counts over time for Kony.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
A Model of Rejoicing
Sometimes things are just worth getting stoked about. Especially as you walk across the South Pole.
Highlights at :45 and 2:10.
Highlights at :45 and 2:10.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
A Worthy Upheaval?
This editorial from the Detroit Free Press (of which I am not a frequent reader, it just appeared in Google, although I'm sure it's a fine paper) has a nice overview of the Affordable Care Act arguments going on in the Supreme Court right now.
My favorite bit however, was when they said a ruling against the ACA based on the individual mandate portion would go against past rulings and "invite constitutional challenges to everything from the Environmental Protection Agency to the federal laws guaranteeing occupational safety, food and drug purity, and minority voting rights."
Most of those things do deserve a second, third, fourth, etc. glance, I think. As for minority voting rights, I'm not exactly sure how that's connected, but that should be upheld as voting rights should not be predicated based on ethnicity, or whatever, except age. (Although there are some political theorists who would say voting is far too important of a thing to be left to the people. That's another issue).
Should the EPA have such broad power? Can the government "guarantee" occupational safety? Why is it the federal government's job to regulate food purity? What does "purity" even mean? A farmer down the road can't sell raw cow's milk, yet there is a Taco Bell in every city. Various parties would hesitate to call either raw milk or Taco Bell "pure."
Basically if the Court did have to review all that stuff, maybe it would be a good thing.
My favorite bit however, was when they said a ruling against the ACA based on the individual mandate portion would go against past rulings and "invite constitutional challenges to everything from the Environmental Protection Agency to the federal laws guaranteeing occupational safety, food and drug purity, and minority voting rights."
Most of those things do deserve a second, third, fourth, etc. glance, I think. As for minority voting rights, I'm not exactly sure how that's connected, but that should be upheld as voting rights should not be predicated based on ethnicity, or whatever, except age. (Although there are some political theorists who would say voting is far too important of a thing to be left to the people. That's another issue).
Should the EPA have such broad power? Can the government "guarantee" occupational safety? Why is it the federal government's job to regulate food purity? What does "purity" even mean? A farmer down the road can't sell raw cow's milk, yet there is a Taco Bell in every city. Various parties would hesitate to call either raw milk or Taco Bell "pure."
Basically if the Court did have to review all that stuff, maybe it would be a good thing.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Thoughts on Helium
No, I am not on helium. But this Acton blog post talks about how a government stockpile being released (har) into the market drove prices down so far that we've supposedly been squandering a precious resource.
I am slightly worried. We will see where this goes.
I am slightly worried. We will see where this goes.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Religo-enviro-capitalists
A friend forwarded this article to me about GreenFaith, a non-profit consulting company that works with religious groups of all faiths to help lessen their "environmental footprint." They market it by telling how it saves the churches, mosques, etc money and how it attracts young people who care most about these issues. I also believe it is fulfilling a moral mandate by encouraging believers to be good stewards of this earth. From the article, it appears they are effective. This is encouraging to me because they don't force folks to follow their principles (I'm assuming all this stuff is actually beneficial to people and the earth). It is a voluntary action, messaged in a way that gets people and organizations involved of their own accord.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The Cool
Here's one from the Way Back Machine. Oh, how things have changed. This was the peak of advertising at one point. I wonder what they 80s people would have thought about our current car commercials? I guess we can ask the 80s people, but they went the 90s and 2000s, so they've been corrupted. The jingle also confirms my belief that some Christian worship songs are still stuck in the 80s.
Fair Wages
May I posit that "fair pay" is undefinable? This is based on the fact that we cannot know what certain people are "worthy" of being paid. Any effort on the part of the government or unions to make sure employees "get their fair share" will result in unintended, ill side effects.
From the goodness in our hearts, we can look at those being paid the minimum wage or below and say, They should be paid X amount. X is typically propounded as a reasonable pay rate: not too little (of course) but also not too high. What I find interesting in that reasoning is that there is a perception of economic reality, but not actual follow through on economic reality. For example, we may believe the worker in such and such factory getting paid $10.50 an hour is being paid far too little. We wax eloquent on the greed of the factory owners and give speeches on the rights of the worker. Our solution is to push for a fair wage of $20.00 an hour so he can feed his four children. We have come to this solution by investigating the financials of the factory and think the factory's profit margin is too high and therefore the leadership can afford to pay their workers $20.00/hr.
For the same factory, I think a human being is worth $1000.00/hr. Think of all the good that would come of that pay rate! His entire family never has to work again, he can found charities, travel, and overall benefit himself and his neighbors. I say, forget the financials of the company and whether they can pay that rate for very long! We are talking about a human being here! He is worth $1000.00/hr based on his humanness.
Of course, the second scenario is completely unfeasible as it would put the factory and therefore our worker out of business but we assume the first is feasible (it's often not) because of the magic $20.00/hr rate we came up with. The defunct auto industry in Michigan illustrates what happens when third parties (unions) try to dictate a "fair wage." The Post Office is another example of lofty goals meeting with economic reality.
Both scenarios make their judgements not on the value the worker creates (his output, quality of output, attitude on the job, skill set, experience, etc.) but on the "merit" we assign to him from our perspective, which is a very slippery foundation. It is in the company's interest to pay him more as his experience increases so they don't lose him to another factory that does perceive his value and is willing to pay him commensurately.
Only the individual can decide what wage their skills are worth. Any attempt by third parties to dictate that wage is a mistake and leads to worse things than they were initially fighting against.
From the goodness in our hearts, we can look at those being paid the minimum wage or below and say, They should be paid X amount. X is typically propounded as a reasonable pay rate: not too little (of course) but also not too high. What I find interesting in that reasoning is that there is a perception of economic reality, but not actual follow through on economic reality. For example, we may believe the worker in such and such factory getting paid $10.50 an hour is being paid far too little. We wax eloquent on the greed of the factory owners and give speeches on the rights of the worker. Our solution is to push for a fair wage of $20.00 an hour so he can feed his four children. We have come to this solution by investigating the financials of the factory and think the factory's profit margin is too high and therefore the leadership can afford to pay their workers $20.00/hr.
For the same factory, I think a human being is worth $1000.00/hr. Think of all the good that would come of that pay rate! His entire family never has to work again, he can found charities, travel, and overall benefit himself and his neighbors. I say, forget the financials of the company and whether they can pay that rate for very long! We are talking about a human being here! He is worth $1000.00/hr based on his humanness.
Of course, the second scenario is completely unfeasible as it would put the factory and therefore our worker out of business but we assume the first is feasible (it's often not) because of the magic $20.00/hr rate we came up with. The defunct auto industry in Michigan illustrates what happens when third parties (unions) try to dictate a "fair wage." The Post Office is another example of lofty goals meeting with economic reality.
Both scenarios make their judgements not on the value the worker creates (his output, quality of output, attitude on the job, skill set, experience, etc.) but on the "merit" we assign to him from our perspective, which is a very slippery foundation. It is in the company's interest to pay him more as his experience increases so they don't lose him to another factory that does perceive his value and is willing to pay him commensurately.
Only the individual can decide what wage their skills are worth. Any attempt by third parties to dictate that wage is a mistake and leads to worse things than they were initially fighting against.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Trapped in an Elevator
You guys may of seen this video, but I had never until a few weeks ago. This guy was trapped in an elevator for 41 hours. It's all on this time lapse video. My assumption is that it is legit.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Institute for Faith, Work and Economics
If you sometimes enjoy my blog, you may enjoy the Institute for Faith, Work and Economics blog. They discuss the issues in their organization's name, trying to bridge the gap we've artificially created between the realm of work and the church.
It's a brand new organization as well, full of committed, intelligent people.
Check it out.
It's a brand new organization as well, full of committed, intelligent people.
Check it out.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Corvette That Couldn't
This post is dedicated to the Renos.
Recently I tweeted: Watching the Romney campaign is like watching someone drive a Corvette in only 1st gear. (Assuming there's an engine under the hood).
Romney is a candidate who looks and acts expensive but just is not moving as quickly as you would expect him to. He hasn't yet won all the states expected of him. He's still reeling from Santorum's three state win a couple weeks ago. However, tonight's debate in AZ was bad news for Santorum and may spell the end of his fad, thus continuing the pattern of this primary: each candidate in the spotlight then falling away. We will see what the sentiments are like in a couple of days and we will see what happens in the AZ and MI primaries to each.
Back to the analogy, he and his campaign have spent colossal amounts of money but just can't catch fire yet. They aren't taking advantage of many of his qualities/capabilities. While it's still early on, for the supposed front-runner he has not been doing much running at the front. Many pundits have said as much.
He needs to get better at explaining sound economics; he needs to demonstrate that he can be a real human being; his hair needs to be messy occasionally; he needs to aggressively fight against those who lambast him for being too rich; he needs to point to his record of turning around the 2002 winter Olympics; he needs to emphasize his management skills. Etc. There's a record there that is not being utilized. Maybe he's saving up for the big general election push. But why?
Another aspect that is hardly talked about: having a mormon in the White House would be historical. It's never happened before, it's a religion formed in America, it's a belief group persecuted vehemently at one point in recent American history, yet they overcame those odds and have been quite successful. I think there's something to that.
He did well in the debates tonight with concise, pointed answers. This was a good night for him. Maybe, after all, he is learning and the Romney will start zooming. I think the elements are all there. We will see.
Recently I tweeted: Watching the Romney campaign is like watching someone drive a Corvette in only 1st gear. (Assuming there's an engine under the hood).
Romney is a candidate who looks and acts expensive but just is not moving as quickly as you would expect him to. He hasn't yet won all the states expected of him. He's still reeling from Santorum's three state win a couple weeks ago. However, tonight's debate in AZ was bad news for Santorum and may spell the end of his fad, thus continuing the pattern of this primary: each candidate in the spotlight then falling away. We will see what the sentiments are like in a couple of days and we will see what happens in the AZ and MI primaries to each.
Back to the analogy, he and his campaign have spent colossal amounts of money but just can't catch fire yet. They aren't taking advantage of many of his qualities/capabilities. While it's still early on, for the supposed front-runner he has not been doing much running at the front. Many pundits have said as much.
He needs to get better at explaining sound economics; he needs to demonstrate that he can be a real human being; his hair needs to be messy occasionally; he needs to aggressively fight against those who lambast him for being too rich; he needs to point to his record of turning around the 2002 winter Olympics; he needs to emphasize his management skills. Etc. There's a record there that is not being utilized. Maybe he's saving up for the big general election push. But why?
Another aspect that is hardly talked about: having a mormon in the White House would be historical. It's never happened before, it's a religion formed in America, it's a belief group persecuted vehemently at one point in recent American history, yet they overcame those odds and have been quite successful. I think there's something to that.
He did well in the debates tonight with concise, pointed answers. This was a good night for him. Maybe, after all, he is learning and the Romney will start zooming. I think the elements are all there. We will see.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Being a Christian Democrat
Relevant Magazine continues their series, which I have enjoyed.
I anxiously await the Being a Christian Socialist article. It will probably regard being a Christian Independent though. Can't get too sticky.
I anxiously await the Being a Christian Socialist article. It will probably regard being a Christian Independent though. Can't get too sticky.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Joe Morello
In watching the Grammys, I noticed during their memorial section that drummer Joe Morello passed away this year. He was the drummer for the Dave Brubeck Quartet during the famed years. His drumming helped bring the swing to odd time signatures on their famous record, Time Out. Check him and the others out in this 1966 performance of Take Five.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Being a Christian [blank]
A couple articles from Relevant Magazine.
Why I am a Christian Republican.
Being a Christian Libertarian.
I assume the left side explanations are forthcoming.
Why I am a Christian Republican.
Being a Christian Libertarian.
I assume the left side explanations are forthcoming.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Iran Crazy
So I was reading this article, bemoaning the rhetoric that comes from the Iranian leadership, when I read the following paragraphs:
"Any Iranian military or commercial vessel easily could get right outside the U.S. coastline and in less than 60 seconds fire a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear payload and detonate it over U.S. skies in an electromagnetic attack that would plunge America back into the 18th century.
Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions."
That's a little dire. Are they really that sneaky? The Soviet Union had submarines everywhere and I could see that being a likely scenario, but Iran? Also, what "studies"? Starting any kind of conventional war or greater with America would be bad news for Iran. A good portion of our Cold War contingencies are still operational, I would guess, and therefore beyond the scope of Iran's capability to cripple us beyond retaliation. In such an unlikely scenario, they would be calling the President's bluff on a nuclear scale, risking their whole country becoming a radioactive glass sea.
"Any Iranian military or commercial vessel easily could get right outside the U.S. coastline and in less than 60 seconds fire a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear payload and detonate it over U.S. skies in an electromagnetic attack that would plunge America back into the 18th century.
Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions."
That's a little dire. Are they really that sneaky? The Soviet Union had submarines everywhere and I could see that being a likely scenario, but Iran? Also, what "studies"? Starting any kind of conventional war or greater with America would be bad news for Iran. A good portion of our Cold War contingencies are still operational, I would guess, and therefore beyond the scope of Iran's capability to cripple us beyond retaliation. In such an unlikely scenario, they would be calling the President's bluff on a nuclear scale, risking their whole country becoming a radioactive glass sea.
Romney and the Poor
You've all probably seen the clip or read about where Romney says he's not concerned about the very poor.
Yeah, that was bad.
He offers a poor explanation here of why he said it but simultaneously does a good job at saying he made a mistake. I'm not sure how one apologizes without setting the record straight, but he did. He's walking on egg-shells already since he's monster rich and then he said that. I was very disappointed. I sense the shock waves will have broad political repercussions. As does this guy.
Conservatives, libertarians, etc, need to be far better at communicating the fact that they DO care about the very poor. Because they view poverty as a "human" problem, there is not a "class focus" on the poor and hence a lack of focused language. The policies advocated by the limited government types are advocated because they do the most good for the most people (including the very poor). Therefore, the connection between capitalism and the poor is not explicit and therefore lost to this sound byte culture. Capitalism has shown to be the best structure we know of to help the poorest among us and that message needs to be communicated in language all can understand.
Yeah, that was bad.
He offers a poor explanation here of why he said it but simultaneously does a good job at saying he made a mistake. I'm not sure how one apologizes without setting the record straight, but he did. He's walking on egg-shells already since he's monster rich and then he said that. I was very disappointed. I sense the shock waves will have broad political repercussions. As does this guy.
Conservatives, libertarians, etc, need to be far better at communicating the fact that they DO care about the very poor. Because they view poverty as a "human" problem, there is not a "class focus" on the poor and hence a lack of focused language. The policies advocated by the limited government types are advocated because they do the most good for the most people (including the very poor). Therefore, the connection between capitalism and the poor is not explicit and therefore lost to this sound byte culture. Capitalism has shown to be the best structure we know of to help the poorest among us and that message needs to be communicated in language all can understand.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
How Engaged With American Culture Are You?
A classmate of mine linked this quiz, I took it and had to share. See how in touch you are with mainstream America.
I scored a 10 out of 20. Underneath your score it will describe what it means. I got something like, "even though I grew up in the upper class I was exposed to normal America."
If you take it let me know how you do.
I scored a 10 out of 20. Underneath your score it will describe what it means. I got something like, "even though I grew up in the upper class I was exposed to normal America."
If you take it let me know how you do.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Wealthy Presidents
As per some of my recent tweets, a discussion must be had regarding Romney's wealth. The links below prove there is some discussion out there and I'm glad it is putting some context around this issue.
For instance, Romney's wealth is calculated to be around $220 million, while Washington's wealth is rated at over $500 million. JFK comes in second according to some reports.
USA Today.
The Atlantic: "The Net Worth of the US Presidents"
And the Washington Post has a nice article on candidates and their wealth that I couldn't link because I don't want to sign up in order to read the article. Their loss.
On a similar note, here's a link to an article by a rabbi in the Wall Street Journal called "What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism."
For instance, Romney's wealth is calculated to be around $220 million, while Washington's wealth is rated at over $500 million. JFK comes in second according to some reports.
USA Today.
The Atlantic: "The Net Worth of the US Presidents"
And the Washington Post has a nice article on candidates and their wealth that I couldn't link because I don't want to sign up in order to read the article. Their loss.
On a similar note, here's a link to an article by a rabbi in the Wall Street Journal called "What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism."
Friday, January 27, 2012
A Thought
I just realized I did two mindless posts in a row.
So here's something I've been thinking about lately with a little more thought to it (although far from complete) than Star Wars dogs or wooly mammoths.
A few weeks ago, a pastor at my church was preaching on justice (“shalom” in Hebrew: the restoration of Creation) and how we as Christians must work towards justice (shalom) because restoration is the essence of the Good News (Christ coming to redeem humanity separated from God). It was a few weeks ago, so I don't remember all of the details, but I do remember at the end he gave a blessing to those in the congregation who work to end injustice through non-profits, government, law enforcement, etc. However, I noticed businesspeople were inadvertently left out his blessing. That omission is a symptom of the current conversation in the Church today--or perhaps lack of conversation--about the businessperson’s legitimate role in doing justice.
Scripture talks about businessmen and women, how the Lord both blesses them (the businesswoman described in Proverbs 31, Abraham) and takes away from them (Job). An entrepreneur is by definition someone who is others focused. Of course, what people call “needs” may be perverse, but that is the fallen nature of human beings and why the work of Jesus' death and resurrection was necessary. To be "little Christs" (Christians) means to work towards restoration in this fallen world in the context of His Grace. I fully believe business people can do that in their business.
So business in and of itself is not an evil thing. Just like any human endeavor, the content of our heart is what matters to God. In Matthew 7, Jesus talks of those who will meet Him after all is said and done, telling Him they did many miracles, cast out demons, prophesied, and He will tell them He doesn't know them. If doing something as "holy" as miracles isn't good enough, then surely that means our heart is what matters to Him. Likewise, merely being a non-profit employee, or even a pastor, does not automatically make one closer to the ideal of "justice worker" or a true Christian.
As the pastor said, God uses non-profit employees, government workers, et al to do amazing things for this world. However, I encourage you to think of all the needs God meets in your own life and other’s lives through business people: the clothes you wear, the food you eat, technology, etc, etc: The many things that can make our life more wholesome (closer to shalom). However, this is not to say our greatest Need is met in things. Physical restoration or need-filling is only a slice of the justice pie. Restoration is met through Christ’s work.
Both Scripture and experience demonstrate that Christians in business can be conscious and successful in their duty to do justice through trade. There may be many Christians who are missing out on living a more fulfilled life because the message the church so often gives is that business is somehow outside the realm of what it means to do justice.
A note: I don't consider business the end all be all of correct Christian living, but merely an aspect of what we were created for. Each person will be called to a different vocation as parts of "a Body with many members."
So here's something I've been thinking about lately with a little more thought to it (although far from complete) than Star Wars dogs or wooly mammoths.
A few weeks ago, a pastor at my church was preaching on justice (“shalom” in Hebrew: the restoration of Creation) and how we as Christians must work towards justice (shalom) because restoration is the essence of the Good News (Christ coming to redeem humanity separated from God). It was a few weeks ago, so I don't remember all of the details, but I do remember at the end he gave a blessing to those in the congregation who work to end injustice through non-profits, government, law enforcement, etc. However, I noticed businesspeople were inadvertently left out his blessing. That omission is a symptom of the current conversation in the Church today--or perhaps lack of conversation--about the businessperson’s legitimate role in doing justice.
Scripture talks about businessmen and women, how the Lord both blesses them (the businesswoman described in Proverbs 31, Abraham) and takes away from them (Job). An entrepreneur is by definition someone who is others focused. Of course, what people call “needs” may be perverse, but that is the fallen nature of human beings and why the work of Jesus' death and resurrection was necessary. To be "little Christs" (Christians) means to work towards restoration in this fallen world in the context of His Grace. I fully believe business people can do that in their business.
So business in and of itself is not an evil thing. Just like any human endeavor, the content of our heart is what matters to God. In Matthew 7, Jesus talks of those who will meet Him after all is said and done, telling Him they did many miracles, cast out demons, prophesied, and He will tell them He doesn't know them. If doing something as "holy" as miracles isn't good enough, then surely that means our heart is what matters to Him. Likewise, merely being a non-profit employee, or even a pastor, does not automatically make one closer to the ideal of "justice worker" or a true Christian.
As the pastor said, God uses non-profit employees, government workers, et al to do amazing things for this world. However, I encourage you to think of all the needs God meets in your own life and other’s lives through business people: the clothes you wear, the food you eat, technology, etc, etc: The many things that can make our life more wholesome (closer to shalom). However, this is not to say our greatest Need is met in things. Physical restoration or need-filling is only a slice of the justice pie. Restoration is met through Christ’s work.
Both Scripture and experience demonstrate that Christians in business can be conscious and successful in their duty to do justice through trade. There may be many Christians who are missing out on living a more fulfilled life because the message the church so often gives is that business is somehow outside the realm of what it means to do justice.
A note: I don't consider business the end all be all of correct Christian living, but merely an aspect of what we were created for. Each person will be called to a different vocation as parts of "a Body with many members."
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Presidential Standards
I saw a headline today on Twitter about Romney and how he gave a ridiculous answer to something about moose hunting. It reminded me of how people often get down on presidential gaffs. Candidates and presidents do say some silly things, I do not deny that. What I have issue with is our attitude toward them.
We Americans want our presidents to be men of the people, but completely flawless, all at the same time. So in other words, not really men. More like perfect angels. But not too perfect! Because then you end up with Romney Syndrome: your good looks/demeanor prove to be a detriment.
Inconsistent standards, I say.
Along those lines, I thought there was gross overreaction to Perry's gaff when he couldn't name all the agencies he'd eliminate. People called him an idiot and that forever stigmatized his campaign. Maybe he really is dumb, I'm not sure. I just know a little more about the atmosphere those men and women are in when they run for president is non-stop and incredibly high pressure. Candidates are rehearsed for hours on all the possible answers they can give in a debate. Lapses in memory are excusable, I think.
Also, from what I know of myself, if someone like the media were recording my words like they record for the candidates and presidents, I would look like an idiot. Statistics point to stupid things inevitably being said, just from sheer volume. So the Romney and moose thing, sure, it sounded stupid. However, he is a human being who will inevitably say dumb things. I wish for our president to be very intelligent, like anyone, but for us all to have a far more realistic attitude toward those flubs in language we are all prone to make.
We Americans want our presidents to be men of the people, but completely flawless, all at the same time. So in other words, not really men. More like perfect angels. But not too perfect! Because then you end up with Romney Syndrome: your good looks/demeanor prove to be a detriment.
Inconsistent standards, I say.
Along those lines, I thought there was gross overreaction to Perry's gaff when he couldn't name all the agencies he'd eliminate. People called him an idiot and that forever stigmatized his campaign. Maybe he really is dumb, I'm not sure. I just know a little more about the atmosphere those men and women are in when they run for president is non-stop and incredibly high pressure. Candidates are rehearsed for hours on all the possible answers they can give in a debate. Lapses in memory are excusable, I think.
Also, from what I know of myself, if someone like the media were recording my words like they record for the candidates and presidents, I would look like an idiot. Statistics point to stupid things inevitably being said, just from sheer volume. So the Romney and moose thing, sure, it sounded stupid. However, he is a human being who will inevitably say dumb things. I wish for our president to be very intelligent, like anyone, but for us all to have a far more realistic attitude toward those flubs in language we are all prone to make.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Eminent Domain and Columbus
Last night I went with some others to see this screening of "Battle for Brooklyn," a documentary about one neighborhood's fight against a large real estate developer and all the injustices that go along with eminent domain. It was a well done documentary that was filmed over a span of nearly seven years, following the salient characters of the story the whole way through. It was very gripping and rich story. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in issues of injustice because it was so blatant an abuse of government power. (That probably covers a wide swath of people).
At the end, during the Q&A with the directors, a lady made a statement along the lines of this eminent domain issue not being a current or modern problem of the last 100 years, but something that's been going on since 1492.
For some reason, when people diss on Columbus, it gets my blood flowing a little. To be fair, in the heat of the moment, that was probably the first date that popped into her mind, so I don't think she's a full-time Columbus hater. However I think it odd, perhaps unfortunate, that Columbus has been cast as the symbol of Western abuses. Eminent domain abuse (or loosely defined as taking other people's property) has been going on since way before 1492. And it's not just a Westerner problem but a human problem.
The documentary highlights the vast problems that arise when government colludes power and then private firms cozy up to politicians and encourage laws or acts of force in order to gain an edge in the market. Unfortunately injustice is rarely in such plain language and that was clear to see in the film. Check it out if you have the opportunity.
At the end, during the Q&A with the directors, a lady made a statement along the lines of this eminent domain issue not being a current or modern problem of the last 100 years, but something that's been going on since 1492.
For some reason, when people diss on Columbus, it gets my blood flowing a little. To be fair, in the heat of the moment, that was probably the first date that popped into her mind, so I don't think she's a full-time Columbus hater. However I think it odd, perhaps unfortunate, that Columbus has been cast as the symbol of Western abuses. Eminent domain abuse (or loosely defined as taking other people's property) has been going on since way before 1492. And it's not just a Westerner problem but a human problem.
The documentary highlights the vast problems that arise when government colludes power and then private firms cozy up to politicians and encourage laws or acts of force in order to gain an edge in the market. Unfortunately injustice is rarely in such plain language and that was clear to see in the film. Check it out if you have the opportunity.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Relgion and Politics
This article by a Cato scholar also appeared in the Huffington Post. I think it's balanced, and incorporates good history, economics and Biblical citations/theology.
Doubtless, having a person who seeks to obey God (in the fullest sense of what it means to obey, not just culturally moral uprightness) would be a good thing. However it is very easy for politicians to stretch the meaning of the phrase, "I obey God" or even lie about it, in order to attract votes. So it is therefore a shaky foundation on which to base one's voting decisions and can often lead us to make poor choices since we cannot know the heart of anyone.
Some excerpts:
"Yet today some Christian activists seek a Christian candidate. TV personality Jim Bob Duggar urged Iowans to vote for Rick Santorum: "We are asking all the Christians throughout America to get behind him so we can have a godly Christian man as president.""
Not a competent, smart, effective president. Not a realistic, thoughtful, or even principled president. Not a president with good policy answers for big questions, such as economic growth, international conflict, and social division. Just "a godly Christian man.""
"Good Christians should be good citizens. But being a good citizen (or good government official) does not require being a good Christian."
Doubtless, having a person who seeks to obey God (in the fullest sense of what it means to obey, not just culturally moral uprightness) would be a good thing. However it is very easy for politicians to stretch the meaning of the phrase, "I obey God" or even lie about it, in order to attract votes. So it is therefore a shaky foundation on which to base one's voting decisions and can often lead us to make poor choices since we cannot know the heart of anyone.
Some excerpts:
"Yet today some Christian activists seek a Christian candidate. TV personality Jim Bob Duggar urged Iowans to vote for Rick Santorum: "We are asking all the Christians throughout America to get behind him so we can have a godly Christian man as president.""
Not a competent, smart, effective president. Not a realistic, thoughtful, or even principled president. Not a president with good policy answers for big questions, such as economic growth, international conflict, and social division. Just "a godly Christian man.""
"Good Christians should be good citizens. But being a good citizen (or good government official) does not require being a good Christian."
Friday, January 6, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Cooking or Eating Your Money
Yesterday, as I was winding down at work, I felt like eating something else for dinner than my usual frozen fare. So I searched for some easy recipes on the web. No problem.
Saw a recipe for a tasty looking Mexican Lasagna: cheese, taco sauce, chicken, tortillas, cheese, what's not to like? I got stoked. Printed out the menu even so I could go to the store and buy the ingredients.
For those who know me or have read previous blog posts of mine on how much I dislike cooking, this is a huge step. I actually planned to cook and buy ingredients. I felt pretty good about myself.
All went well until I saw that ground cumin was $5.29 a thing. That was a buzzkill. I could buy a whole frozen pizza for that much, no preparation required. So I went to check to how much 2lbs of ground chicken was. That was like $10. Already the price tag was up to $15.29 for ground cumin chicken.
No gracias.
So I ate a frozen pot pie that night.
My experience was an indication to me that 1. there is a high entry cost into good cooking, such as buying a thing of cumin and 2. that utter culinary boredom with heat and eat foods will most likely drive me into actually cooking for myself someday. I will start saving now.
Saw a recipe for a tasty looking Mexican Lasagna: cheese, taco sauce, chicken, tortillas, cheese, what's not to like? I got stoked. Printed out the menu even so I could go to the store and buy the ingredients.
For those who know me or have read previous blog posts of mine on how much I dislike cooking, this is a huge step. I actually planned to cook and buy ingredients. I felt pretty good about myself.
All went well until I saw that ground cumin was $5.29 a thing. That was a buzzkill. I could buy a whole frozen pizza for that much, no preparation required. So I went to check to how much 2lbs of ground chicken was. That was like $10. Already the price tag was up to $15.29 for ground cumin chicken.
No gracias.
So I ate a frozen pot pie that night.
My experience was an indication to me that 1. there is a high entry cost into good cooking, such as buying a thing of cumin and 2. that utter culinary boredom with heat and eat foods will most likely drive me into actually cooking for myself someday. I will start saving now.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Rate of Disillusionment
While I don't have quantitative data to back me up, I believe I have anecdotal and qualitative data to back me up.
I think there are far more people disillusioned with the promises of Collectivism than Individualism. What do those words mean?
Collectivism being socialism, communism, fascism, nationalism, etc. The State (government) knows best. Individualism being capitalism, constitutionalism, limited government, etc. The individual knows best.
Think of all the most oppressive governments in history and they promised prosperity and well-being through coordinated efforts on the part of the government. The prosperity and well-being only lasted a short while at the cost of freedom and in the end, poverty and no freedom.
Think of the freest governments in history and they promised to protect life, liberty and property and you have the most prosperous, healthy populations in history. And they are free.
Even when the government is seemingly motivated by the best of intentions to use the force it has in order to secure "well-being" for the poor, 99/100 times it ends up back firing and creating a long running institution that does perpetual harm to the poor while rewarding those in power.
People knock capitalism all the time, but capitalism rightly understood and implemented works in reality while collectivism, even when rightly understood and implemented (!), does not work in reality. History shows that.
I think there are far more people disillusioned with the promises of Collectivism than Individualism. What do those words mean?
Collectivism being socialism, communism, fascism, nationalism, etc. The State (government) knows best. Individualism being capitalism, constitutionalism, limited government, etc. The individual knows best.
Think of all the most oppressive governments in history and they promised prosperity and well-being through coordinated efforts on the part of the government. The prosperity and well-being only lasted a short while at the cost of freedom and in the end, poverty and no freedom.
Think of the freest governments in history and they promised to protect life, liberty and property and you have the most prosperous, healthy populations in history. And they are free.
Even when the government is seemingly motivated by the best of intentions to use the force it has in order to secure "well-being" for the poor, 99/100 times it ends up back firing and creating a long running institution that does perpetual harm to the poor while rewarding those in power.
People knock capitalism all the time, but capitalism rightly understood and implemented works in reality while collectivism, even when rightly understood and implemented (!), does not work in reality. History shows that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)