Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A Moral Argument
Back to the same-sex issue. This is an issue of difference of morals. This is not about skin-color or gender or other natural, physical differences. This is about a moral difference. Same-sex couples must accept the fact that many people, in the fact, the majority of U.S. citizens, have a different set of morals then they do. It is not discriminatory. It is a fact they must accept.
Think of it this way. Say there are no absolute morals (I hope it's clear I do not believe this is true). It is all relative. We each individually choose our set of moral beliefs. So, same-sex couples have theirs, which of course support their practices. Traditional religious groups have theirs, which support only the traditional view of marriage. From a moral relativist standpoint, if same-sex marriage is banned, then same-sex couples are being discriminated against. Yet if same-sex marriage is allowed and religions must accept them (properties are open to the weddings, adoption agencies must adopt to same-sex couples), then religious groups are being discriminated against. One party or the other will have to sacrifice something. This is equality?
Say there is an absolute morality. Now the question is, how do we determine it? How do we decide if same-sex marriage is moral? This is the big question that makes this all so difficult. How do we determine what is moral? Can we turn to God? Many would say no because they do not believe in God. Do we turn to the practices of society for the much of recorded history? Well, there have been different understandings of marriage throughout history. Perhaps more damaging to this attempt is that many practices (slavery being a prime example) which were accepted for millennia but we do not consider moral today.
Not to say that there isn't an answer. I suggest that we look to what will create the most stable and long-lasting society. There is a lot to discuss and think about along these lines. I am not providing a complete argument here. But I believe it is common sense to promote heterosexual marriage. Only a man and a woman can have a child. Girls and boys are fundamentally different, not just physically but emotionally and mentally. Some would argue this. I wonder if they have ever spent time around boys and girls, though. From what I've observed of my nieces and nephews growing up, as well as the little I've read from philosophers and sociologists, it is blatantly obvious that boys and girls are different from the very beginning.
The ideal is that boys will grow up to be men and girls will grow up to be women. "Duh," you may say. But think about a few things. There are unique problems that girls face that two fathers would have difficulty helping their daughter get through. It doesn't matter how many books they have read, they have not experienced it and cannot provide the empathy a mother can provide. There are, of course, many other examples. Boys and girls are fundamentally different and the ideal is that every boy and girl has a man and a woman to guide and direct them through their development.
The fundamental differences in the man and woman, the mother and father, are vital for the children as well. I value highly the compassion my mother has taught me that I could not have learned in the same way from my father. My father has taught me how to be a man and how to deal with certain situations my mother would have difficulty helping me through. I can turn to my father and discuss with him subjects it would be difficult to discuss with my mother. These differences come from the fact that my father is a man - he is like me. My mother is a woman - she is different from me.
Like I said, I don't have time to fully develop these ideas. One more paragraph and I need to wrap up. Some would say that there are many children of single parents who turn out just fine. True, but how many children prefer this situation to having the mother or father they never had? Why should the non-ideal help us determine the ideal? Why should the failings of society determine how we shape our society? Those single parents have done incredible things and should be honored. But does that mean we just need to aim for single-parent households? Though there are successes, I feel it is common sense (common sense is not a very good argument, so research for yourself) from the things I have already written and more that a two parent-household, consisting of a mother and a father, is the ideal. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot accomplish the same thing.
I desire a strong and stable society. Society rests upon the foundation of the family. We should make that foundation as solid and stable as possible. A mother, father, and children is the ideal. There are those who have difficulty meeting this ideal. We should love them and help them. We should not hate them, ridicule them, reject them. But it is not love to weaken that foundation and change the ideal for them.
Think of it this way. Say there are no absolute morals (I hope it's clear I do not believe this is true). It is all relative. We each individually choose our set of moral beliefs. So, same-sex couples have theirs, which of course support their practices. Traditional religious groups have theirs, which support only the traditional view of marriage. From a moral relativist standpoint, if same-sex marriage is banned, then same-sex couples are being discriminated against. Yet if same-sex marriage is allowed and religions must accept them (properties are open to the weddings, adoption agencies must adopt to same-sex couples), then religious groups are being discriminated against. One party or the other will have to sacrifice something. This is equality?
Say there is an absolute morality. Now the question is, how do we determine it? How do we decide if same-sex marriage is moral? This is the big question that makes this all so difficult. How do we determine what is moral? Can we turn to God? Many would say no because they do not believe in God. Do we turn to the practices of society for the much of recorded history? Well, there have been different understandings of marriage throughout history. Perhaps more damaging to this attempt is that many practices (slavery being a prime example) which were accepted for millennia but we do not consider moral today.
Not to say that there isn't an answer. I suggest that we look to what will create the most stable and long-lasting society. There is a lot to discuss and think about along these lines. I am not providing a complete argument here. But I believe it is common sense to promote heterosexual marriage. Only a man and a woman can have a child. Girls and boys are fundamentally different, not just physically but emotionally and mentally. Some would argue this. I wonder if they have ever spent time around boys and girls, though. From what I've observed of my nieces and nephews growing up, as well as the little I've read from philosophers and sociologists, it is blatantly obvious that boys and girls are different from the very beginning.
The ideal is that boys will grow up to be men and girls will grow up to be women. "Duh," you may say. But think about a few things. There are unique problems that girls face that two fathers would have difficulty helping their daughter get through. It doesn't matter how many books they have read, they have not experienced it and cannot provide the empathy a mother can provide. There are, of course, many other examples. Boys and girls are fundamentally different and the ideal is that every boy and girl has a man and a woman to guide and direct them through their development.
The fundamental differences in the man and woman, the mother and father, are vital for the children as well. I value highly the compassion my mother has taught me that I could not have learned in the same way from my father. My father has taught me how to be a man and how to deal with certain situations my mother would have difficulty helping me through. I can turn to my father and discuss with him subjects it would be difficult to discuss with my mother. These differences come from the fact that my father is a man - he is like me. My mother is a woman - she is different from me.
Like I said, I don't have time to fully develop these ideas. One more paragraph and I need to wrap up. Some would say that there are many children of single parents who turn out just fine. True, but how many children prefer this situation to having the mother or father they never had? Why should the non-ideal help us determine the ideal? Why should the failings of society determine how we shape our society? Those single parents have done incredible things and should be honored. But does that mean we just need to aim for single-parent households? Though there are successes, I feel it is common sense (common sense is not a very good argument, so research for yourself) from the things I have already written and more that a two parent-household, consisting of a mother and a father, is the ideal. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot accomplish the same thing.
I desire a strong and stable society. Society rests upon the foundation of the family. We should make that foundation as solid and stable as possible. A mother, father, and children is the ideal. There are those who have difficulty meeting this ideal. We should love them and help them. We should not hate them, ridicule them, reject them. But it is not love to weaken that foundation and change the ideal for them.
Who is lying?
No on 8 said
Setting aside the fact that this is a same-sex couple, this is private property. The organization, church or not, has the right to rent the facility to whomever they choose. The court cannot decide that.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
- Fact: The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Setting aside the fact that this is a same-sex couple, this is private property. The organization, church or not, has the right to rent the facility to whomever they choose. The court cannot decide that.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Network Neutrality
Taking a break from finals, I found this article about Google backing away from a stance for network neutrality. At stake is the traditional rule that Internet carriers - AT&T and such - don't prefer one content provider - Google, Yahoo, etc. - over another. It seems the carriers want content providers to begin carrying some of the cost burdens. And content providers are seeking for fast tracks - they want to pay to have faster connections.
Here are the pros and cons as I see it:
First, the benefits of a pay-for-speed deal means faster connections for the most successful websites - the ones which we all use. Amazon.com, Google, E-bay, will have guaranteed fast connections. I don't know all the logistics, but I think this means that it will be less common for these websites to go slow. Second, it will increase the ability of AT&T and Comcast and other companies to build high-speed networks. Right now, as they carry all the costs, it is difficult and costly to build these networks everywhere they are needed. But if those companies that require high-speed access are paying for it, then the networks will be built more quickly and we will have faster internet. Third, the quality of the internet will increase. As companies compete for bandwidth, they will need to earn more to pay for it. To earn more, they will need to have higher-quality websites that meet the needs of their users better.
On the flip side of that argument, a lot of people may lose their voice. Right now anyone could make a website and have it seen by just about anyone. With a pay-for-speed system, then all those smaller organizations will load slowly and the big companies' websites will load quickly. People will favor the big and neglect the small. There is a possibility costs could go up, as well. As internet companies begin paying for bandwidth, their costs will increase. These higher costs will eventually end up on the bills of the users.
I better get back to studying, so I'm going to wrap this up. My initial conclusion is in favor of pay-for-speed. I'm in favor of a faster, higher-quality internet. Some people claim working for money kills innovation. Hm...an interesting argument considering the most innovative nation in known history has a market (money) based economy. Were our most innovative men working solely for the public good? I could go into history, but why not consider the topic of this article - Google. Incredible innovators, they have made incredible profits. Some may claim it is out of goodwill and wealth comes to those who do good for others, but I flatly and bluntly disagree (think Mother Theresa). Google is in it for the money. And that is not a bad thing, because as long as they abide by the rules (which they seem to be doing), we all end up better off.
Here are the pros and cons as I see it:
First, the benefits of a pay-for-speed deal means faster connections for the most successful websites - the ones which we all use. Amazon.com, Google, E-bay, will have guaranteed fast connections. I don't know all the logistics, but I think this means that it will be less common for these websites to go slow. Second, it will increase the ability of AT&T and Comcast and other companies to build high-speed networks. Right now, as they carry all the costs, it is difficult and costly to build these networks everywhere they are needed. But if those companies that require high-speed access are paying for it, then the networks will be built more quickly and we will have faster internet. Third, the quality of the internet will increase. As companies compete for bandwidth, they will need to earn more to pay for it. To earn more, they will need to have higher-quality websites that meet the needs of their users better.
On the flip side of that argument, a lot of people may lose their voice. Right now anyone could make a website and have it seen by just about anyone. With a pay-for-speed system, then all those smaller organizations will load slowly and the big companies' websites will load quickly. People will favor the big and neglect the small. There is a possibility costs could go up, as well. As internet companies begin paying for bandwidth, their costs will increase. These higher costs will eventually end up on the bills of the users.
I better get back to studying, so I'm going to wrap this up. My initial conclusion is in favor of pay-for-speed. I'm in favor of a faster, higher-quality internet. Some people claim working for money kills innovation. Hm...an interesting argument considering the most innovative nation in known history has a market (money) based economy. Were our most innovative men working solely for the public good? I could go into history, but why not consider the topic of this article - Google. Incredible innovators, they have made incredible profits. Some may claim it is out of goodwill and wealth comes to those who do good for others, but I flatly and bluntly disagree (think Mother Theresa). Google is in it for the money. And that is not a bad thing, because as long as they abide by the rules (which they seem to be doing), we all end up better off.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Good Math, at least for Wall Street
Ah, Dilbert. Greg Mankiw found some good commentary on the current mess.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Expensive Oil = Fewer Deaths
There are always more consequences to changes in our world than we expect. Take high oil prices, for example. We are all glad they have dropped back down. Especially at this time of year, it feels good to spend money on something other than filling up the gas tank.
But there is, of course, a bigger picture. Prices are low, but the economy as a whole is still falling. The additional good news and the unnoticed benefit? Deaths are down in car related accidents. So while many people struggle to make ends meet, there are a few thousand who can simply be grateful that they have the ability to worry about making ends meet.
But there is, of course, a bigger picture. Prices are low, but the economy as a whole is still falling. The additional good news and the unnoticed benefit? Deaths are down in car related accidents. So while many people struggle to make ends meet, there are a few thousand who can simply be grateful that they have the ability to worry about making ends meet.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
No Mob Veto
This is a great ad. We don't need to all agree. We simply need to accept that we have different viewpoints. Fundamental to this country is the ability to express those viewpoints. I have no problem with gay people speaking about their desire for marriage. I disagree with them, but I would never do anything to silence them. It's a pretty simple matter - I don't like being intimidated or hated for being Mormon. Obviously, they wouldn't want to be intimidated or hated for some of their beliefs. So, I will grant them the same respect that I ask for - to be allowed to express my opinions and views without fear.
Friday, November 21, 2008
A Rarity
An admirable CEO. I don't necessarily think every CEO should go to this extreme, but they certainly should take a page from his book. Here is a man who seeks success above wealth.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Mac vs. PC
I have little to say. Simply that not long ago I got a Mac.
I miss my more powerful, more versatile, more widely accepted, more interesting, supposedly more error-prone (not that I experienced many), but all-together more human PC.
I like my stable, sterile, somewhat artificial Mac. Few problems. Not much personality and not much versatility, but it's only frozen up once or twice and that was easily fixed.
I like Hal. But when I get my next computer, it will be Windows. Maybe I'll name him Prometheus.
I miss my more powerful, more versatile, more widely accepted, more interesting, supposedly more error-prone (not that I experienced many), but all-together more human PC.
I like my stable, sterile, somewhat artificial Mac. Few problems. Not much personality and not much versatility, but it's only frozen up once or twice and that was easily fixed.
I like Hal. But when I get my next computer, it will be Windows. Maybe I'll name him Prometheus.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Politics vs. Economics
Greg Mankiw's Blog: Auto Industry Bailout?
A great summary of the arguments on either side. I agree with Becker. I think the bailout is a wise political move, but a poor economic one. I believe propping up the auto industry in the days of Chrysler is part of the reason we are in this mess now. American auto manufacturers are simply not competitive with foreign manufacturers. They need to change. The lesson would be painful and hard for the auto industry in the short run, but in the long run it will be better for the economy as a whole.
Having said that, the plight of GM and Ford employees is a real one. Perhaps the best move for the government would be to provide retraining programs and other assistance to employees of the failed firms. That would be more effective, in my mind, than any bailout.
A great summary of the arguments on either side. I agree with Becker. I think the bailout is a wise political move, but a poor economic one. I believe propping up the auto industry in the days of Chrysler is part of the reason we are in this mess now. American auto manufacturers are simply not competitive with foreign manufacturers. They need to change. The lesson would be painful and hard for the auto industry in the short run, but in the long run it will be better for the economy as a whole.
Having said that, the plight of GM and Ford employees is a real one. Perhaps the best move for the government would be to provide retraining programs and other assistance to employees of the failed firms. That would be more effective, in my mind, than any bailout.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
Disturbing Trend
I noticed a disturbing trend on Facebook. Many of the Yes on 8 groups are shrinking while the No on 8 groups are growing. Yes, the measure passed, but this is only the beginning. We achieved a great success in defending marriage. Let's not back down now. They are not going to back down, so neither can we.
Where's the Hate?
I'm struggling to find the hate that all the No on 8 crowd says I have in my heart.
And while I have never called them names or vilified them, I(more specifically, all those who support traditional marriage the way I do) have been called every name under the sun. They have an interesting way of fighting for tolerance and acceptance. I would include links, but some of them are fairly offensive. And those who are back in CA have heard and seen a lot worse than me.
The Church's response is great. It's important that all of us who support traditional marriage do not allow hate or prejudice to build within our hearts. If we want to fight for what is right, let us live what is right the best we can. Love our neighbors!
And while I have never called them names or vilified them, I(more specifically, all those who support traditional marriage the way I do) have been called every name under the sun. They have an interesting way of fighting for tolerance and acceptance. I would include links, but some of them are fairly offensive. And those who are back in CA have heard and seen a lot worse than me.
The Church's response is great. It's important that all of us who support traditional marriage do not allow hate or prejudice to build within our hearts. If we want to fight for what is right, let us live what is right the best we can. Love our neighbors!
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
It's Time to Speak Up
The election is over, but the time to speak up is just beginning. We live in a representative democracy. Our representatives may vote directly on bills, but they are accountable to us. Whether or not we voted for them, they must answer to us. Write your senators! Write your representatives! If you do this, you will have a greater effect on the politics of this nation than your vote today did. The President does not write or vote on bills, but your senators and representative do. Speak up! We can have an influence. It is not over. This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. But it is only the people's government if we act. Now is the time to speak up. Don't wait 4 more years. If this country goes down the drain (which I don't think it will), it won't be Obama's fault, it will be ours. This is our country, so we must do our part.
Who Are the Bigots?
The views I express here are my own and, while I believe they are parallel, they are not the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
No on 8 supporters have made a commercial that erodes all credibility when they call for tolerance and acceptance. They say that the Yes on 8 campaign is full of lies and we obscure the facts. Then they create this commercial demonizing missionaries. When has the church demonized No on 8 supporters? When has the church attacked homosexuals in any way? If you actually read the literature the church has released regarding homosexuality, you will find that it is full of love and understanding. It strongly emphasizes the love God has for all his children, especially for those who struggle with situations like homosexuality. He knows it is hard. That is why he provided His Son to be there as a comfort and a guide through difficult times. There is nothing in the Church's position on homosexuality that is hateful or bigoted. In almost no other issue have I seen God's love emphasized so much.
God loves all, but He does not accept all we do. He has condemned specific acts because they do not fit in His plan, which is designed to bring the greatest happiness to those who choose to obey. It is not arbitrary. It is based on eternal truths that cannot be broken. Fundamental to this plan are a man and woman marrying and working together towards exaltation - life with God. Part of that work is having and raising children. There are situations in which this ideal does not work out. But that does not mean that we are not required to try. The possibility of failure is no excuse for making no effort. There are all kinds of obstacles placed in the lives of people. Homosexuality is one of these. Those who are homosexual are children of God with the same potential as all others, but along with that potential comes the same responsibility. There are not different requirements and rules depending on our circumstances.
The point of all that is simply to state my understanding of the Church's position. It is not one of misunderstanding, hate, prejudice, or bigotry. It is based upon a belief that No on 8 supporters do not share. I do not vilify No on 8 supporters or homosexuals. While there are, unfortunately, those who do vilify homosexuals, I do not and I have seen nothing from the Church that does.
Here is the Church's statement:
The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.
From the KSL website.
No on 8 supporters have made a commercial that erodes all credibility when they call for tolerance and acceptance. They say that the Yes on 8 campaign is full of lies and we obscure the facts. Then they create this commercial demonizing missionaries. When has the church demonized No on 8 supporters? When has the church attacked homosexuals in any way? If you actually read the literature the church has released regarding homosexuality, you will find that it is full of love and understanding. It strongly emphasizes the love God has for all his children, especially for those who struggle with situations like homosexuality. He knows it is hard. That is why he provided His Son to be there as a comfort and a guide through difficult times. There is nothing in the Church's position on homosexuality that is hateful or bigoted. In almost no other issue have I seen God's love emphasized so much.
God loves all, but He does not accept all we do. He has condemned specific acts because they do not fit in His plan, which is designed to bring the greatest happiness to those who choose to obey. It is not arbitrary. It is based on eternal truths that cannot be broken. Fundamental to this plan are a man and woman marrying and working together towards exaltation - life with God. Part of that work is having and raising children. There are situations in which this ideal does not work out. But that does not mean that we are not required to try. The possibility of failure is no excuse for making no effort. There are all kinds of obstacles placed in the lives of people. Homosexuality is one of these. Those who are homosexual are children of God with the same potential as all others, but along with that potential comes the same responsibility. There are not different requirements and rules depending on our circumstances.
The point of all that is simply to state my understanding of the Church's position. It is not one of misunderstanding, hate, prejudice, or bigotry. It is based upon a belief that No on 8 supporters do not share. I do not vilify No on 8 supporters or homosexuals. While there are, unfortunately, those who do vilify homosexuals, I do not and I have seen nothing from the Church that does.
Here is the Church's statement:
The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.
From the KSL website.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Why I Voted Yes
I voted yes on proposition 8. I did it for several reasons.
First, I believe in absolute truth and absolute morality. I do not believe morality is relative, depending on the circumstances of an individual's life. I believe there is a basic, universal moral law which brings consequences - good or bad - to people, depending on whether they follow it or not. This absolute morality is something that can be learned by all people, if sought after through both reason and faith. Don't stop reading! This is a big topic and one I have just begun exploring in my own mind, so I don't have flawless arguments, yet. But this absolute truth and morality, I believe, is a premise of pretty much all I do. So, i vote based on my moral views.
One of the truths I believe in is that marriage is the foundation of society. I'm not speaking of a loving relationship between two people. I'm speaking of a man and woman united together, often raising children. This marriage has been the basis of all successful societies. The family is the institution in which children learn about basic morality, justice, love, and all good things. True, this is the ideal and does not always happen, but no other organization or institution of man has been as successful at producing good people as the traditional family.
Many of society's recent ills show correlation with the falling apart of the family. Some may ask, "Have society's problems, such as widespread drug use, pornography, crime, increased anger and much more, been the result of the break-up of the family, or the cause?" I propose that the break-up of the traditional family is the cause.
With the family in such a precarious position, why do we want to experiment further? What evidence do we have that gay marriages will contribute to the well-being of society? I feel that the burden of proof lies with them. We know traditional marriage works. It worked for thousands of years. Only in recent decades, as our society has experimented with reforms, has the traditional family begun to deteriorate. Experimenting further is risky business.
Now to go from the slightly abstract to the facts. The legalization of gay marriages poses threats to both families and religious freedom. In Massachusetts, two events show this. First, the reading of a book about two princes marrying led to a lawsuit in which parents tried to control their children hearing about homosexuality. The court ruled that the parents cannot control what their children learn at school. When courts take away a parent's right over the education of their children, something is wrong. Public schools are there to assist parents in teaching their children, not to replace them or try to do the job better. Second, Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down because the state was forcing them to adopt children to gay couples, even though this is against the Catholic faith. Does this sound like freedom and tolerance to you?
Finally, people claim this is about equality, comparing it to the black civil rights movement. This argument is fundamentally flawed. First of all, one of the main arguments for black equality is that skin color does not mean a person acts, thinks, believes or is different in any meaningful way. It is simply skin color. But this does not work for homosexuals. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is wrong, it cannot be compared to skin color. Skin color does not affect behavior, but the definition of homosexuality is a type of behavior. This is not about equality. it is an issue of a type of behavior.
Proposition 8 takes nothing away from homosexuals. It preserves marriage as it has existed for all of Western society. Justice and morality, as well as genuine Christian love, requires that we treat homosexuals like all other people - with respect and dignity. I do not hate gays. They are people just like anyone else. But I do not accept their behavior and will not accept that preserving marriage, the foundation of society, is somehow bigotry and a hate crime.
Please, comment and help me refine my argument.
First, I believe in absolute truth and absolute morality. I do not believe morality is relative, depending on the circumstances of an individual's life. I believe there is a basic, universal moral law which brings consequences - good or bad - to people, depending on whether they follow it or not. This absolute morality is something that can be learned by all people, if sought after through both reason and faith. Don't stop reading! This is a big topic and one I have just begun exploring in my own mind, so I don't have flawless arguments, yet. But this absolute truth and morality, I believe, is a premise of pretty much all I do. So, i vote based on my moral views.
One of the truths I believe in is that marriage is the foundation of society. I'm not speaking of a loving relationship between two people. I'm speaking of a man and woman united together, often raising children. This marriage has been the basis of all successful societies. The family is the institution in which children learn about basic morality, justice, love, and all good things. True, this is the ideal and does not always happen, but no other organization or institution of man has been as successful at producing good people as the traditional family.
Many of society's recent ills show correlation with the falling apart of the family. Some may ask, "Have society's problems, such as widespread drug use, pornography, crime, increased anger and much more, been the result of the break-up of the family, or the cause?" I propose that the break-up of the traditional family is the cause.
With the family in such a precarious position, why do we want to experiment further? What evidence do we have that gay marriages will contribute to the well-being of society? I feel that the burden of proof lies with them. We know traditional marriage works. It worked for thousands of years. Only in recent decades, as our society has experimented with reforms, has the traditional family begun to deteriorate. Experimenting further is risky business.
Now to go from the slightly abstract to the facts. The legalization of gay marriages poses threats to both families and religious freedom. In Massachusetts, two events show this. First, the reading of a book about two princes marrying led to a lawsuit in which parents tried to control their children hearing about homosexuality. The court ruled that the parents cannot control what their children learn at school. When courts take away a parent's right over the education of their children, something is wrong. Public schools are there to assist parents in teaching their children, not to replace them or try to do the job better. Second, Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down because the state was forcing them to adopt children to gay couples, even though this is against the Catholic faith. Does this sound like freedom and tolerance to you?
Finally, people claim this is about equality, comparing it to the black civil rights movement. This argument is fundamentally flawed. First of all, one of the main arguments for black equality is that skin color does not mean a person acts, thinks, believes or is different in any meaningful way. It is simply skin color. But this does not work for homosexuals. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is wrong, it cannot be compared to skin color. Skin color does not affect behavior, but the definition of homosexuality is a type of behavior. This is not about equality. it is an issue of a type of behavior.
Proposition 8 takes nothing away from homosexuals. It preserves marriage as it has existed for all of Western society. Justice and morality, as well as genuine Christian love, requires that we treat homosexuals like all other people - with respect and dignity. I do not hate gays. They are people just like anyone else. But I do not accept their behavior and will not accept that preserving marriage, the foundation of society, is somehow bigotry and a hate crime.
Please, comment and help me refine my argument.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Hope in Capitalism
This is a pretty amazing article about the financial crisis and it's relationship with our market system. There are some great quotes in here, especially in the last paragraph.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
I'm Scared
We are in trouble.
I gotta admit, the stuff I've been reading on economists blogs, such as The Big Picture and Greg Mankiw's Blog, is a bit one-sided. but I don't see much praise of these moves from anyone that understands the economy. And from my evaluation of it, this is a bad move. As Luigi Zingales put it, the government is creating a system "where profits are private, but losses are socialized." That doesn't sound like a good system to me. I love to benefit from my work. And in all honesty, the idea of not paying for the things that go wrong around me or because of me is very attractive. But I don't want others to pay for it. If it's a case of them or me, I will say me. Hence, if I'm willing to pay for my mistakes, I ask that others pay for their own.
And more important than who pays for what is what happens when we pay for it. If I trip down the stairs and break my collar bone, rest assured, next time I'll walk down those stairs with extreme care. If I ride my bike without a helmet, crash, and get a concussion, next time I'll wear a helmet. And what encourages me? The pain. What if the pain were taken away? Well, I'd run recklessly down stairs and knock my brain around falling off the bike, and probably end up killing myself from all the injuries. The pain is a motivation to change. If we take the pain of this crash from those who are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen again, then they will not learn and we are in danger to face this again.
Of course, there is a degree to which I'll take on others losses and pains. I believe in service, in helping and loving my fellow man. I will work in soup kitchens, I will pay fast offerings, I will give time and money to help others. But that is on a personal, individual basis. I reject the government's right to force me to help others.
And this differs from my personal willingness to serve in another way. I reject the government's right to take my money and help not the outcast and downtrodden, but the wealthy. This money is not going to help the poor. It is going to help the rich.
We are in trouble. The capitalist system which has produced an incredibly wealthy and stable economy is being threatened by those who should protect it. But you can't trust politicians to think of the long-term. They are forced by short-term economic incentives (the need to get their constituent's vote in a month and a half) to think in the short-term.
The market's up, but at what price?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
I Like Your Thinking...
All right, now you can hear from someone who has a better idea what he's talking about:
So, here's the balanced idea. The government needs to step in to a degree. But it should do so in a way that limits the amount of our money it uses and it should let the market take care of bad business-men. Should we bail-out people who are bad at business? Does that help the economy in the long run?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
More Beauracracy?
Obama wants more regulation
So, Obama wants more regulation, while McCain wants a government study. My honest opinion, as a highly educated economist (a total of 3 basic econ classes), is that the government should have as little involvement as possible. Government involvement is part of the reason we are in this mess. Granted, it's a complex issue I hardly understand. Let me say what I know, or have been told.
First, this housing crisis was one foreseen years ago. I remember walking with my dad through the frames of new houses on the edge of Simi, talking about how these house prices are being driven up not by actual demand, but by speculation. And that's exactly what it was. It was an unsustainable surge, because people simply couldn't afford to live in the houses they were getting. The supply of nice, big houses exceeded the demand.
Second, the government, in an effort to help out the mortgage market, set up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their goal was to make it easier for people to get mortgages. The way it worked was, banks would sell people mortgages. Then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy bundles of mortgages from the banks and sell them as securities to investors. So, the banks had no accountability. They simply had to get the commission. They sold mortgages to people they probably never would have sold them to if the bank had to care for the mortgage. The government helped out the mortgage market, all right.
Third, there is a natural business cycle. Over all of recorded economic history, there have been ups and downs. Sometimes everyone gets more prosperous. Sometimes everyone gets a little poorer. But time has proven, at least in the U.S., that despite every downturn, Americans have consistently gotten richer. This cycle will end as well, and the prosperous days will return.
So, eventually, as has happened several times in the past, the bubble burst. People realized that they were paying far more than the houses were worth. Something sparked someone to start selling, then others started selling. Mortgages became worthless because so many had been sold to people who couldn't pay them. The market began to unravel.
Now, is this the government's fault? No. Is it the banks? No. How about the buyers? No. Whose is it? Well, I feel everyone shares the blame. There was a lack of responsibility, long-term thought, and understanding of markets on all sides.
The government made a move they didn't necessarily need to make. They stepped in on a market to make it more "fair." My opinion there? This should only be done very, very carefully, if ever. Despite my advanced economic understanding, this is a subject I need to study more about. I do feel, however, that if the market has driven prices up, there is a reason, and it has nothing to do with anyone taking advantage of anyone.
Banks made a big mistake. There were no short-term incentives to control who got mortgages, but they are now experiencing the long-term ones. Rest assured, no matter what the government does, banks and businesses will learn from the mistakes of their failed competitors and set their own regulations. It makes good business sense.
And of course, there is us - the consumers. It was consumers who began the speculating and bought things that they couldn't afford. Ok, maybe not you and I, but many people not too different from us. What this comes down to is simple advice that we have been told by parents, teachers, advisors, and even our modern-day prophet - don't buy what you can't afford. Stay out of debt. Homes are wise investments, but you have to be able to at least pay the interest rate. Spending money wisely would probably solve a lot of problems in today's economy.
The financial market is reeling. It is in the low part of the business cycle. Hopefully it doesn't get worse. But it will get better. And I don't think the government is going to get it better. I don't think my tax dollars are going to save anyone's butt. My hard work will save mine. And it will be the hard work of the average American that gets us out of this mess. Each man, working for his wage, for his personal profit. That is the solution. If we work hard enough to provide for ourselves, not only will we personally make money, but we will produce something. That thing which we produce is what we pass on to the next generation. It is what they will build off of to be far more prosperous than us. But if we sit on our butts and try to make money off others, then it will fall apart. Someone somewhere has to produce. Someone has to seek profit through their honest hard work. If no one does, then it falls apart.
So, what is my solution? Well, I have a lot to learn in my field. There is a lot I don't understand. But I don't think the government should do too much. They should do something. While the business cycle always has and always will exist, it hasn't been nearly as bad since the Great Depression, when the government began stepping in. But limited involvement is important. The simple reason is, I feel, because of the lack of information the government has. They don't understand the complex economy. No one does. So if they try to control it, it will be like building levees around New Orleans - doomed to failure. They can affect it, but they have to accept the fact that collapses such as these are inevitable - just like hurricanes. Of course, one big difference is that while people can't cause hurricanes, government regulations can actually cause economic problems. So, both McCain and Obama must be very wary of where they step. I'm sure they both seek a better economy. The fact is, it's very difficult to tell how to bring that about and impossible to force it. I think McCain's more cautious and careful approach is better because it won't accomplish much straight away. The slower it takes the government to step in, the better.
In the meantime, don't let your investments rely entirely on the stock market.
Monday, September 08, 2008
The Winds of Change
I think the nature of my blog might begin to change soon. I decided I want people to read my blog. People tend to be more interested in reading about other people's lives than they are in reading about politics and economics. Not that i won't write about those things - that's part of who I am. But there will be updates on my life here. Soon...
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The War We Wage
I have just returned home from the front lines of a war against ignorance and darkness. I spent two years doing all I could to bring the light I enjoy into the lives of others. I came home to find that the frontline extends to not only my home nation or state, but into my very community, home, and heart. Satan is relentlessly attacking and his efforts are accelerating. As new media tools come into play, there is no longer a sideline. The line has been drawn and the people of the world are taking sides. Whether it be on the topic of marriage or family or temples or truth, there are constant battles around us. Today I continue by battle for truth and light.
Mormons Exposed - Famous Mormons and Mormon Beliefs
Mormons Exposed - Famous Mormons and Mormon Beliefs
Monday, August 11, 2008
Home Sweet Home
Well, I made it home. After 2 years in Sydney, it's a little strange to be back. It's nice, though. I can do things like watch tv, get on the internet, and sleep in. I'm enjoying it a little now. The next step is to figure out a bit of a schedule so I can still get stuff done. How weird to be home...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)