Texas!

So, I've moved to Texas. I love it here. People are nice, it's affordable, the government is sensible (mostly), the economy isn't in a shambles. Lots of good things. Of course, Texans have their quirks. One of my favorites is when a Texas tells me, "You know Texas is the only state with the right to secede?" with a smirk on his face that says, "don't you wish your state could secede?"

This morning I decided I'd take a break from studying and research this one. I was a little dissappointed to find this:

Myth/Legend #5: The Texas Constitution grants Texas the right to secede from the Union....

Another popular legal myth is that the Texas Constitution guarantee the State’s citizens the right to secede. It does not. The current Texas Constitution states, in Article I, Section 1, that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” The U.S. Supreme Court rejected any idea that Texas (or any other state) had a right to secede in Texas v. White, when it ruled that, “[w]hen Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble union. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.”

Dang, I never will live in a state that can secede.

The article does go on to say, though, that Texas could divide up into five states. Think of the implications - five Texas states means ten Texas senators. That would shift the balance of power in the Senate.

In triumph doth wave...

Free Trade?

The United States is supposedly a supporter of free trade. But our agricultural subsidies are a painfully obvious exception. This article lays out pretty clearly some of the problems with farm subsidies:
(1) Farm subsidies don't help small farmers. Most of the money goes to agribusinesses.
(2) The subsidies go to specific crops, distorting the markets and making food that we don't necessarily prefer cheaper. It is possible Americans would be healthier without subsidies. Either way, our farms would be more efficient.
(3) Farm subsidies impoverish developing nations' farmers. The cheap exported food of the United States pulls down the world price, hurting farmers around the world. This results in the need for more aid from developed countries such as the United States. It's a cycle that can be avoided by cutting subsidies to U.S. farmers.
(4) Cheaper food is an illusion. We pay for it through taxes.

The article does make a serious error in thinking subsidies will do anything to the deficit and we should leave Medicare alone. I'll leave that bit of inanity alone.

To add further to this absurdity, not only do we pay our farmers to be inefficient, we pay Brazil's farmers to stop them from putting tariffs on our goods. These Brazil subsidies are to save us from tariff's on our goods because of the subsidies we pay our own farmers. Can we say government excess? We're paying Brazilian and American cotton farmers! All this while cotton prices are rising and American farmers don't even need subsidies.

One more article: This one addresses the human side a little more directly. While a lot of people are hurt by farm subsidies, the purpose of the subsidies is to help a smaller group. Farmers are subject to a lot of conditions beyond their control. So do we subject them to the forces of the market and climate or offer them some sort of insurance?

Here's my idea: Offer insurance subsidies. If farmers are operating at a loss, pay them some modest amount to help them keep going. If that loss continues for some length of time (set by someone who knows more about farming than me), channel that subsidy to some kind of retraining and funding to get the farmer into a different field of their choosing.

Volunteers?

For a class I'm in called Philosophy and Literature (a bit of a misnomer) we've been writing a script. It's tough work! It's been a good experience, though. I really enjoy it. Two of the greatest challenges:

(1) The script is based off someone else's book. This is good because we have material to start with. It's a challenge because the text actually serves as a distraction. I have to remind myself that it is more important for the story we're writing to be consistent than it is to be consistent to the book. I understand a lot of people have strong feelings about movies staying true to the books they are based on. Let me say, I have a lot more sympathy for the script writers now. I don't like it when movies stray very far from the book (saying the movie I, Robot was based on Asimov's short stories is a joke), but it's important to realize that the movie is a new work of art. It has to have it's own consistency and the fact is, books translated to movies must change. Two hours of largely visual material by necessity will be different from hundreds of pages in which an author can focus on all kinds of details difficult to portray in film.

(2) Working in a group. Producing a script in one semester is a lot of work and no undergrad with no creative writing experience would be able to do a good job. So, we're placed in groups. This is a big challenge, because we each have a different vision of how it should turn out. It's definitely a lesson in humility.

The challenges are big, but I think we're doing well. For anyone who may actually read this, I have a request: I need readers for the script. Anyone willing to audience test it? I've tried e-mailing friends and family, but only a few respond (thanks to those who have and to those who haven't, I know you're busy!). So, volunteers who have the time would be appreciated. Let me know ASAP. Thanks!

My favorite scripture

Joshua 1:9
I love this scripture. It gives me strength in times of weakness, confidence in times of fear, comfort
in times of pain.

Does a healthy democracy need religion?

I posted this as an answer to a Facebook Question:

The benefits of religion are demonstrated by a recent study released called "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us."

Here are several quotes from the study (obtained from http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/articl...):

"Any way you slice it, religious Americans are simply more generous." (454).

"Religion is the strongest predictor of altruism"; more than "education, age, income, gender, race, and so forth." (464).

"Religious people are both more trusting... and (in the eyes of others) more trustworthy themselves." (461).

"With the partial exception of socioeconomic status, religiosity is, by far, the strongest and most consistent predictor of... civic involvement." (454).
I argue that generosity, altruism, trust, and civic involvement are all vital to a healthy democracy. If this study is right and religion is a strong indicator that an individual will possess these attributes, than I believe it is vital.

To this I would add my personal experience. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), I have always been taught to be involved in my community, to vote, to obey the laws, and generally be a good neighbor and citizen. To a lesser extent I learned this at school, but I also heard and saw conflicting ideas from my teachers and peers. If it were not for my religion, I would not feel the duty I do now to participate in this democracy.

Religious Values in the Public Square

Religious Values in the Public Square

The Church occasionally releases these articles, which I love. This one states simply why Mormons should not be silent about our principles in public discourse. In a pluralistic society, no voice should be silenced simply because it is religious or because it is secular. If we silence anyone, society simply will not work. To silence any portion of society is to undo much of the good that was done in the 20th century with the women's rights and civil rights movements. We would reproduce the hypocritical society we lived in for more than a century, declaring that all men are created equal, yet denying equality to so many.

I cannot form an opinion without the influence of m religion. My religious values are a part of every major decision I make. Does this immediately decrease their value to society? Do my decisions - to be honest, to obey laws, to not drink, to only have children after marriage, to be kind to others - lose their value because they are tied to my religious beliefs? Few people would argue that. Then why should my political efforts be harmful because my beliefs determine them?

Some may argue that it is because those decisions affect others. Perhaps you can come up with situations in which my honesty, obedience to laws, sobriety, abstinence, etc. affect only myself; my consistently living them, however, has greatest value because they affect others. So the affect on others can't be the division between valid religious actions in public and invalid. Perhaps these actions and the way I vote differ because others disagree with my vote. Many people, religious or secular, agree that the actions I listed before are good to some degree. Why? Because they improve society. Because of their effects, not because of their source.

The best way to evaluate something is to consider not its source, but its effects. If we were to practice this principle more carefully, then political discourse would not only be less caustic, but far more productive. We would be able to truly live the promises and ideals of this land, in which we claim that the government is "of the people, by the people, for the people." Let none of those people - black, white, male, female, religious or secular - be silenced.