A Budding Economist

Texas!

2011-09-16T09:10:00.003-07:00

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...

2011-05-01T22:59:00.000-07:00

Free Trade?

2011-04-26T10:45:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-03-15T22:14:00.001-07:00

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

2011-03-06T22:27:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-01-30T19:35:00.007-07:00

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

2011-01-11T22:35:00.000-07:00

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.

I Need God

2010-12-15T21:11:00.000-07:00

The fact is, I believe in God. I do, with every fiber of my being. Sometimes I doubt, wondering why He made things so confusing. I begin to ask questions. What blessed moments are these! For at these times, my old misconceptions break down. I see better who He is.

The intellectual life of the nation and the Western world has moved beyond God. They have progressed from point to point, watching the philosophical arguments for God collapse like dominoes. Galileo challenged the world Dante so vividly portrayed, centered on earth. No! Heresy, they cried! Yet God remained. Then Newton came along, challenging another precept. No longer did God keep the planets in their orbit, but gravity did. Fewer cries of heresy this time, for God remained. While, the earth may not be the center of the universe and gravity may explain a lot, but the fact is, God created the birds and the bees. Then Darwin comes crashing in with his theory of evolution. The cries of heresy begin to arise anew. God seems to be backed into the corner. Does God still remain? Einstein and the physicists of the 20th century come along and seem to tear to shreds the last few proofs. Where is God now?

It seems now that the intellectuals sing the song of Nietzsche, "God is dead." And we have killed him.

Yet I believe. I, who have grown up admiring Einstein, Darwin, Newton, and Galileo. I, who dreamed of being a paleontologist, a physicist, an astronomer, a boy feeding on the discoveries of the men who systematically pulled down the proofs of God. Why?

Because of the questions. Those doubts arise, and I begin to ask, as these brilliant men did, what is behind it all? I have not discovered any fundamental equation that describes the movement of the planets or of light. But I have discovered the equation that moves hearts.

Science is based upon observation. I observe my life and here I find my proof of God. The questions arise, so I do as He suggests. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself," (John 7:17) Why? Because He makes promises. "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10). What occurs when I do as he suggests? I abide in love. It surrounds me, enters within me, and then emanates from me. This is the hand of God, far more powerful an evidence than the words, "In the beginning" and all the follows after. This is no scientific truth ready to be peer-reviewed. It is intensely personal. And, yet, everyone of my peers can "review" this process. All can accept the invitation.

Perhaps this world wide era of intense doubt and questioning is like my periods of doubt. Perhaps the world is simply shaking off misconceptions about a deterministic God and other such nonsense. They realize now that God does not live in proofs. They do not need God to explain the origin of man, the planets, or light. But perhaps all will yet recognize the need for God as the origin of order, truth, and love.

To abide in love. For this, I need God.

Scientists propose one-way trips to Mars

2010-11-16T09:22:00.000-07:00

Scientists propose one-way trips to Mars

Imagine volunteering for this trip! I wonder if there is any organization on earth with the guts to pull something like this off? Of course, the scientists proposing it are a little...eccentric. One of them believes life on Earth came from rocks on Mars.

But is it feasible? The scientists claim early European colonists had little hope of returning to Europe. Well, sure, but they also went to a place that had air they could breath, liquid water, and temperatures that a human can survive in. Mars colonization isn't going to be a trip across the Atlantic.

The idea is still intriguing, though...maybe I'll see people on Mars in my lifetime.

Policy and politics: Maybe it wasn't worth it | The Economist

2010-11-09T09:06:00.000-07:00

Policy and politics: Maybe it wasn't worth it | The Economist

Perhaps a little economic reform would have improved health to a greater degree for the long run. I imagine whether or not a person is working has a significant effect on their health. And if our economy falters due to a large public debt, than what does health care matter?

Welcome back my good friend…

2010-11-02T08:15:00.001-07:00

Sore throat!

It’s been almost a month since you last visited. I have gotten to know you so well over the last 6 months. You have visited me at least every few weeks. This latest absence you were away for so long I thought you’d forgotten me.

Remember the month we spent together over the summer? The hours of rest and relaxation and LSAT study you allowed me? I should add you to the list of those I thank for help with the LSAT.

Perhaps today will only be a brief visit, though. I don’t mean to be rude, but I am rather busy. I have a Chinese essay due tomorrow and I have to apply to law schools. When you visit, I would prefer not to be distracted by all these other things. I must admit, it’s a little inconvenient that you visit me at such a busy time.

You aren’t offended are you? I wouldn’t want you to feel unwelcome, but I do have a great deal to do. In fact, I believe I may be busy for some time to come. If you would be so kind as to phone before you visit, or give me some kind of advance notice, it would be greatly appreciated.

The source of strength

2010-11-02T08:07:00.001-07:00

Back to those three numbers. I did well. Better than I dared hope. I won’t be heading to Harvard (students with a 4.0 and 180 – read perfect score - on the LSAT still only have a 5% chance of acceptance), but I have a good shot at some highly-ranked schools.

Why? Not because of me, definitely! I have a list of people to thank: my wife, my parents, good professors and teachers, good leaders in church and on the mission. All of them helped contribute to my abilities, to my faith in myself, to my ability to diligently study.

I cannot neglect my ultimate source of strength, though. I prayed hard for the Lord’s help in the months leading up to the LSAT. I tried to keep everything in perspective, remembering that the reason the Lord would help me is if my desires were in the right place. My motivation is to let Alisha come home and work and give my kids all the opportunities my parents gave me. Surely the Lord will help me in this?

And He did.

Those three numbers…

2010-10-30T20:24:00.001-07:00

Do you remember those three numbers? The ones that came from the three hour test? The ones that will determine the next three years of my life.

Today I received them. I opened my inbox and there was an e-mail saying, “Your October 2010 LSAT Score.” I knew I wanted to open it right away. I hadn’t expected to get it until Monday. I moved the mouse to the e-mail, then hesitated. Should I wait for Alisha to come home?

No. I opened it. And there were those three numbers.

And life is good…

Here I come law school!

Thoughts Upon Finishing the LSAT

2010-10-09T22:14:00.001-07:00

Today I took a 3 hour test that will give me 3 numbers that determine where I will be for the next 3 years of my life. And all those 3’s could have a fairly significant effect on the rest of my life. One pivotal moment….

But, it’s over! It’s so relaxing to be done. Unfortunately, I won’t find out for another 3 weeks.

I wish I could write something deep, meaningful, witty here. But my brain is pretty drained. I should be doing homework, but I just can’t focus…well, I’ll give it a shot.

End of Sabbatical

2010-09-10T08:13:00.001-07:00

I can thank my friend Scott for this post, along with those that will follow. He asked me the other day if I was still writing on this blog.

“I haven’t posted in months,” I replied.

“That’s too bad. I enjoy reading it.”

This morning I read about a writer’s inspiration from his father. After graduating from college, the aspiring writer sat down with his father and told him, “I want to be a writer.”

The father’s reply was simple and straightforward, “Did you write today?”

“Well, I played baseball and-“

“You’ll never be a writer.”

What that writer’s father taught him that morning is a lesson meaningful to another aspiring writer, philosopher, lawyer, servant of God. If we want to be something, we need to be it now. It reminds me of a talk President Boyd K. Packer gave some years ago about how the best preparation for being a missionary is to be one now.

In the spirit of that message, and thanks to a little praise from a good friend, I’m picking up my blog again. This is my outlet and my practice for what I want to be – I hope it interests you. I hope it causes you to think a little.

Slam dunk!

2010-04-16T14:01:00.000-07:00

I'm rewriting a paper on illegal immigration for my persuasive writing class. I tried to argue that getting rid of barriers to immigration will improve the economy. My first try lacked an important logical step: why immigration benefits the economy. I thought I had a good argument, but when I reread upon my teacher returning it, I wondered what I had been thinking. Here's the original paragraph:

This argument only works if legal immigration is beneficial to the economy. George Borjas, an economist at Harvard found that among Hispanics, a group made up largely of immigrants, wages are dropping from earlier years, due to educational differences. With falling wages, more immigrants are poor and poor people are a greater burden on society. They pay fewer taxes and use more services, such as food stamps and welfare. Douglas Massey, a sociology professor at Princeton, suggests that the picture is not this simple, though. Due to public opposition to immigration, many immigrants avoid using the benefits provided by the state. He states that “children [of immigrants] in U.S. schools fell from 35 percent to 19 percent, and food stamp usage dropped from 15 percent to 5 percent." In a study by Chojnicki, Docquier, and Ragot, French economists using U.S. data, found that immigration has a net benefit over the long term for all people within the U.S. economy. While they are poor, these people come to work. They have a higher labor force participation rate than native-born residents. As shown by Newburger and Gryn, 65% of native born population over 16 works, while 67% of the foreign born population works. From this conglomeration of numbers, it is clear that legal immigration benefits the United States.

Awful, isn't it? I needed some new and actual logical logic to prove my claim.

It just so happened that as I read the New York Times this morning, I came across this headline "Work Force Fueled by Highly Skilled Immigrants." It was about immigration, so it drew my interest. The content? Immigrants are as likely to work in highly paid jobs as poorly paid jobs. I checked out the report the article is based on and it is perfect for my paper!

The reason I'm posting this is two-fold. First of all, I'm stoked! How likely is it that the day you are going to revise a paper, there is a news article fits your argument perfectly? Second, the economics is interesting (and, I feel, obvious, though there are plenty who disagree with me).

America is a good place to live. We're rich, we're free, taxes are pretty low (for now), and we have plenty of room to grow. Lots of people want to move here. When I was a missionary in Australia, most of the people I spoke to were immigrants. Most of them had tried to get into America before ending up in Australia.

We have our problems, of course, but nothing compared to the corruption, wars, famines, and poverty that hold so many other countries in their grip. So, people want to come here. Millions do come. They do so legally, paying the fees, filling out the paper work, and jumping through all the other necessary hoops. And then there are the millions who come illegally. They cross the border with Mexico, sail into harbors hidden in cargo containers, and overstay visas. The problem is that these illegal immigrants are more likely to work in low-paying jobs, less likely to get an education, more likely to be paid under the table at below minimum wage, less likely to pay taxes, etc.These are all costs to our economy - we are creating an underclass of people who are poor and have no way to improve their condition.

What can we do? let more immigrants in. Make it easier and cheaper to enter the country. Get rid of arbitrary quotas on visas. If we allow more people to enter the country legally, fewer will enter illegally. With this shift of immigrants to legal status, the economy will benefit in numerous ways. More will work in high skilled jobs. They will pay more taxes and create growth. Less skilled workers will work at minimum wage, meaning legal residents need not fear businesses hiring illegal immigrants for lower than minimum wage. Poor immigrants will have greater access to health care. They will also have greater opportunity to move out of poverty due to greater access to education.

By making it easier for immigrants to enter the country, our economy will grow. If people are afraid of immigrants stealing jobs when times are tough, as growth ebbs, so does immigration. But, when times are good, immigrants can make them even better by being productive, spending money, developing new ideas. And, on a more humanitarian note, it improves their lives, as well. In all honesty, this is more important to me than the better economy. If immigration were more costly than beneficial, I would be ok with that. I could give up my iPod and laptop if it meant more people could escape the poverty and violence that has gripped their native lands.

So, I have to thank the New York Times for that article - a slam dunk in my immigration argument.

A Digression to Truth

2010-04-13T07:01:00.000-07:00

For a moment I will digress from politics and economics to a matter of truth, a matter important on this blog because it is the motivation for all I do. It is a thought extremely important to me and one I have been exploring for the last couple weeks.
I do not believe in God because of reason nor out of any necessity. I do not believe in God because He has to exist, based on some logical proof. Those grounds are like the deck of a boat: swaying and rocking; at any time, some big wave could come and capsize me. No, the firm ground on which I stand is that of experience. I know God lives because I have experienced Him. The scriptures have been passed down through the generations, sharing the stories of those who have experienced God - heard His voice, seen Him, felt His guidance - in their own lives. My parents and many others, who have experienced God in their own lives, have shared their experiences with me.

And so, having grown up hearing these experiences, I followed the pattern presented to me: I studied these experiences; I thought about them, long and hard; and then I got down on my knees and prayed. My own experience followed. His love filled my heart. A peace entered in that I have only felt in prayer and in His holy temple. I have felt His presence and His love. I know He knows me. I know He loves me. I know He lives.

Therefore, even should the scientists discover the source of the Big Bang, even should they explain the entire natural world without God, I know He lives, for this is not my foundation of truth. My foundation of truth is my experience, and I have experienced God. He lives! And for Him, I live.

Anti-vaccinationists

2010-04-06T20:37:00.000-07:00

I am working on a paper on health care for my persuasive writing class. In doing research, I came across this paper, which I think has interesting implications for the health care bill. Anti-vaccinationists are against mandatory vaccinations for a number of reasons, most notably because they believe it infringes upon individual liberties. While vaccinations are largely mandatory, laws were repealed in several states and exceptions were allowed. More to say, but I gotta work on that paper.

Healthcare Bill

2010-03-22T21:41:00.002-07:00

I imagine everyone has his or her own opinion and has posted it in some way, somehow. I've read the news articles, but not the Facebook status' yet.

Anyway, here are my thoughts. Something needed to be done. It is unjust for the wealthy to have so much and the poor have so little. This is true for many aspects of American society, but I will stay focused right now.

It is unjust and something needs to be done. But what? That's the part I'm a little unclear on. That's why I like representative democracy. Dangerous, I know. Incentive for me to allow my life to be governed by others. But it also allows me to focus on things I am good at while politicians focus on politics. Sorry, tangent again.

Healthcare: a few initial thoughts.

Exchanges. I feel like they may work. Creating markets is a good thing.

Mandatory Insurance. This is effective and efficient from an economic standpoint. Insurance works best when everyone that is at risk jumps in. It struggles when those who are more at risk buy in and those that aren't don't. That leads to higher premiums. Mandatory insurance can spread the risk and lower premiums. But is the federal government overstepping its bounds in mandating us to buy insurance? Is that power in the Constitution?

Employer Requirement. Why? Is it just easier to have employers offer insurance? This is the only explanation I have. Big companies have offered health care since World War II. It's part of our societal structure now. But, why not have individuals buy it? Wages will be higher (if employers are offering health insurance, this will increase costs, reducing the money available to pay workers) and we can spend our money how we want, on the health plans we want. I like having more control of my money.

These are some initial, basic thoughts. I support the idea of the "community" of the nation working together to increase the quality of life for everyone within it. I am not sure doing this on the national level is the most effective. Perhaps somehow encouraging states to do it, tailored to their different circumstances, would work better. But that may not be feasible.

Hopefully the national debate that will continue from here will be constructive and not obstructive.

Just another side rant, I do not like the Tea Party's position of "Kill the Bill." Just saying no is not helping anyone. Something needed to be done. Engaging in the debate rather than trying to stop it is far more effective, far more democratic, and far more moral.

The Peace Prize

2009-12-15T08:19:00.002-07:00

Obama's peace prize speech is another example of his powerful ability to share ideas and shape others perception of him. He is good at that. There has been a great deal of controversy over whether he deserved the prize. It seems obvious to me that he has not earned it and the prize was given to him because he is not Bush. But I think Obama agrees and acknowledged he has not earned it. He used his speech to promise he will do his best and do the work to earn it. God be with him. I hope he does.

Fire Alarm

2009-12-08T23:25:00.001-07:00

It figures. The night I have huge project to finish, the fire alarm goes off in the library, keeping me out for 40 minutes. I was going to be to bed by midnight....

Obama's Address

2009-12-03T10:28:00.001-07:00

Obama’s got me convinced. I did not vote for the man. Some of his policies I disagree with. But after reading this speech, I am a little more convinced that he is a man who thinks through the problems before him and deals with them rationally. That is the ideal I strive to live by and I admire any man or woman who does the same.

When I first heard that Obama was going to announce a time frame to withdraw from Afghanistan, I was very skeptical. I agreed with the many who ask, “What is to dissuade the Taliban from simply biding its time until we withdraw?” While Obama stated nothing that directly answered this problem, he point out very important factors to consider.

First, we do not have the resources to fight an endless war and spend time building up Afghanistan. We are stretched as it is. We do not have the political will or desire as a nation to do so. We have a recession to recover from.

Second, Afghanistan needs to stand on its own. We are not a conquering power. We are a nation that has turned away from empire-building. It is not a part of our constitution. A fundamental ideal that we declare is freedom, liberty, and self-determination for all people. Afghanistan needs to stand on its own. We cannot act as a crutch.

It is important, morally and practically, to pull out of Afghanistan. Not right away, but after we have done the best we can with the resources we have. I do not have the information to make that decision. Obama and his advisors do. His arguments seem sound to me. Therefore, I support President Obama in this decision and pray that God truly is with us.

Obama's Address on the New Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Health Care

2009-10-08T08:29:00.004-07:00

I'm posting again. It's been a while and perhaps no one will read this. We'll see.

Here's an interesting post about universal health care. The author points out a fact I had not fully realized until one of my economics professors pointed it out last week - the United States already has socialized health care. The problem is we are only half way there. We guarantee health care to the elderly, the non-working poor (I'm not entirely clear on this point, so correct me if I'm wrong), and our E.R.'s are open to anyone.

The sad state of our health care is obvious when we consider that "the United States... spends much more per capita on health care than any other country," yet "does not achieve better outcomes on many important health measures.." Why do we spend so much? I don't know, entirely, but it seems to be connected with the fact that we have allowed the government to make certain laws that hurt the efficiency of the market, but will not let it step in to help.

I believe setting up a system that guarantees health care to everyone is right and just. Can we do that without sacrificing other things? No. We may be a little less affluent as a nation, but is it right to have some healthy rich people and a lot of dying poor people? The fact is, if we do this right, we will reduce the costs of the health care system.

I am not arguing for socialized medicine. Private hospitals, private doctors, etc. will provide more efficient heath care. But we must change the system so more people have access to it at a lower cost. How? I do not know. Is the Congress on its way to doing so? I hope so. There are a lot of smart people up there debating this. The problem is the incentives are not necessarily there for them to do what's best for the country. The incentives push them to do what's best for their constituents.

I'm tempted to go on a tangent about a whether the system we have set up - called Congress - is effective or not. But, I'm out of time.

We have serious problems with health care. We need to do something. I am glad those in power are doing something. I hope as I research it, I find that it makes sense.

Free isn't Free

2009-05-24T11:32:00.003-07:00

The news business has produced an excellent example of a basic economics principle: There is no such thing as a free lunch. As the interenet boomed, there was an idea that online ads would be able to pay for everything. The dot-com bust and the struggles since then have shown this is not true. The problem is that people don't like advertsements. Those who know a few basics about the computer download firefox and adblocker. IE8 has an add-on to block ads as well. So a good portion of people never see the ads. And there's the fact that no newspaper or magazine, no matter how big, was able to give away its print version for free and profit from the ads. It is a model that seemed possible, but has been proven ineffective. So they need to and will start charging. Those magazines and newspapers that begin charging for their online content will survive. Those that don't, won't.

The fact is, free content is usually low-quality content. And any high-quality free content is not sustainable. It costs money to produce high-quality content. To pay the reporters, writers, editors, and website designers the newspapers will need money. TO get money, since the ad idea is not functional, that will need to charge money. It's not a complicated idea. As the article mentions, the Economist has been very succesful while charging money. The Wall Street Journal has been just as successful. While newspapers and magazines are declining left-and-right, these two publications are thriving on a model many people denounce. The simple fact is, people are willing to pay for quality. Money is a signal of value. If it costs more, there's a good chance it's higher quality. That is a price I am willing to pay.

Save the Auto Industry

2009-05-07T13:01:00.002-07:00

Here is a great op-ed column on the auto industry, or rather, the administrations plans on the op-ed industry. Not too comforting. But perhaps it will be a good thing. If the UAW has a large stake in Chrysler and GM, it will be in their best interest for the companies to run well. So the question is, will they use their new-found powr to bully the companies into giving them higher pay and greater benefits, or will they now have the incentive to only ask for that which will benefit the company as a whole? We'll see what happens.

Amendment I

2009-03-11T20:01:00.002-07:00

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

-United States Constitution

Recently, two Connecticut legislators seem to have lost their minds. In blatant disregard for the first amendment, they proposed a law which dictated who controlled the Catholic parishes in Connecticut. I don't know if I even need to comment on this, the contradictions and problems are so obvious. One of the legislators, McDonald, claimed, "A lot of misinformation has been spread about this proposal, and we ourselves are still learning exactly what its impact would be."

I read the bill myself. It's not ambiguous at all. It speaks of corporations formed by the Catholic church. These corporations are formed to control the assets of the parishes. "The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote." The bill quite clearly takes away the power of the archbishop or bishop to control his own parish.

How could any self-respecting U.S. citizen, let alone a legislator who is elected to represent the people, take this position? From what I have read, it's a complicated issue. Factors such as traditional anti-Catholocism in the Northeast to sex-abuse scandals to the debate of gay marriage all may have contributed to this bill. Whatever the causes, we are heading for a scary time if legislators are openly attacking churches in this manner.

Time for homework. Here are some good links, though:

Connecticut Legislators Come After Churches Who Stood for Marriage

Citizens Rally by the Thousands! Catholic Take-Over Bill Dies a Messy Death In Connecticut

Day of Prayer for Marriage

2009-02-27T19:06:00.000-07:00

February 27, 2009

Dear Friend,

Proposition 8 was put before the people of California, and by a wide margin of 600,000 votes became a part of the California Constitution (Article 1, Section 7.5). Next Thursday, March 5, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to determine whether the sovereign will of the people should be upheld, and whether marriage between only a man and a woman will stand.

This is the most important legal issue impacting families in a generation. The outcome of this case is “do or die” for traditional marriage. If the California Supreme Court were to overrule the vote of the people (for the second time) it would not be long before homosexual marriage is the law of the land across this country.

ProtectMarriage.com, the committee responsible for enacting Prop 8, urges you and all our supporters to take action. We are declaring this Sunday, March 1, to be a Day of Prayer for Marriage.

Proposition 8 was supported by over 7 million voters, and we call on those who support traditional marriage to pray for it to be upheld. Please ask the Lord for wisdom for the Justices of the California Supreme Court. Pray, also, for those who oppose this amendment to our Constitution, that they would understand our motivation is to affirm traditional marriage, not to offend any person or group.

Activists who oppose Prop 8 are organizing a candlelight vigil in several cities for March 4, followed by a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court building in San Francisco on March 5. Organizers against Prop 8 are calling for a march of 100,000 people to the Court building (click here to view their events list). It has come to our attention that many Prop 8 supporters are also making plans to appear at the steps of the Supreme Court building on the morning of March 5. We welcome your participation, but request that all messages on homemade signs affirm traditional marriage, avoiding offensive statements regarding alternative lifestyles. If you are in close proximity to San Francisco, plan to arrive by 8 a.m. at the court, located at 350 McAllister. We do not wish to provoke or permit any kind of confrontation with our opponents. Please avoid any such activity carefully. Our only purpose is to remind the media, Californians and Americans everywhere that support for traditional marriage is the majority position in the state. Twice now voters have supported traditional marriage and rejected gay marriage. We won the Prop 8 election. The constitution has been amended. The will of the people should now prevail.

ProtectMarriage.com is the only group that will appear before the Supreme Court to uphold the vote of the people enacting Prop 8 and affirm traditional marriage as the law of the land. The upcoming Day of Prayer will provide a vehicle for all our supporters to express their own support for traditional marriage and to call on God, the author of marriage, to bless the arguments our attorneys will present to the Court and to grant the justices wisdom as they consider the arguments.

Thank you for your support of Proposition 8. Please participate in the Day of Prayer this coming Sunday and, if you are in proximity to San Francisco, come to the steps of the Supreme Court building at 8 a.m. on March 5 to show your support for Prop 8.

To make a financial contribution to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, click here.

Thank you so much for your attention and support.

Very truly yours,

Ron Prentice
Chairman
ProtectMarriage.com, Yes on 8

www.protectmarriage.com

Trade and Protectionism

2009-02-05T17:18:00.004-07:00

Tonight I saw a bit of a news report on CNN regarding the "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus package before the Senate. The reporter stated that the Senate has betrayed American labor by caving in to special interest groups and foreign governments, softening the requirement for new infrastructure projects to rely on American steel.

This isn't central to my argument, but I would just like to point out, exactly why are those who promote free trade "special interest groups" while labor is not?

Also, apparently living up to the treaties we have made with other countries is not important when it comes to steel. Bush is lambasted by the media for hurting America's standing in the eyes of the international community by placing American needs first, but then the Senate is lambasted for "giving into foreign governments" by trying to abide by treaties. So which is it? Respect in the international community or placing America first? Thankfully in this case, we can have both. We can live up to our agreements and grow our economy.

There is a fairly simple mathematical argument regarding trade. This argument is called comparative advantage. It states that when two countries specialize and trade with one another, they will both end up with more than if they tried to produce it all themselves. This is not something anyone can argue. It is a logical proof. Trying to prove it wrong is like trying to disprove 2+2=4. It is always true in our world.

Adam Smith stated, "If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage." The fact is, we can get cheaper, better steel from foreign countries. With the money saved, we will be able to build up other industries. If we really want to create jobs, we need to pour our resources into industries in which we have a relative advantage. Steel may not benefit, but overall, the economy will create more jobs. We will use our resources more efficiently.

In addition, by buying foreign steel, we inject money into foreign economies. More specifically, we inject American dollars. What can they do with American dollars? Not much in their own country. They have to eventually spend that money to buy American goods.

We buy their steel. We don't waste our resources on a product we aren't very good at producing. The money that is not wasted is invested in things we are good at building, such as computers and airplanes. Foreign countries are helped by the money pouring into their steel industry. They expand and their economies recover as well. With a more stable economy and American dollars, they buy our goods. Everyone benefits.

Granted, it's not this rosy and it wouldn't happen quick. But to cut this off would result in losses we simply cannot afford. To put it bluntly, protectionism is economically stupid. It is one of the major factors in the severity of the Great Depression. We cannot recover from this quickly if we do not allow people to trade. If economic recovery comes from people buying products, why make it harder and more expensive for them to do so. Where is the sense in that?

Thankfully, the Senate has softened these restrictions. There is some sense out there.

Calvin and Hobbes

2009-02-02T15:27:00.002-07:00

One of the many reasons Calvin and Hobbes is my favorite comic strip.

A Twit?

2009-02-02T15:16:00.002-07:00

I've been called a twit. Too bad the person had no argument or anything. Just a name to call me. An intelligent argument would be welcome. My reasoning needs refining.

This Makes a Little More Sense

2009-01-27T17:57:00.002-07:00

Here is one reason why all politicians should study economics. Pelosi is trumpeting ideas long proven false. Fewer kids does not mean a wealthier nation. Granted, there is a short-term benefit. But what is the point of getting through the recession without another generation to hand the succesful economy to?

A Question for Pelosi

2009-01-27T15:48:00.002-07:00

Pelosi wants to enact legislation to limit climate change. Not many of us will live long enough to see any difference. Based on her other policies, exactly what future generation does she want to preserve the planet for?

This is Downright Scary

2009-01-21T21:39:00.004-07:00

We've elected a President who does not understand the basic underpinnings of society and is seeking to undermine those underpinnings. I am not exaggerating here. Read my previous posts. Society, every society, is based on differences between genders. There are different gender roles. This specialization happens naturally because of basic, fundamental differences between the sexes that are universal.

In every society, women are mothers. This is due to obvious biological factors. I believe it is also due to emotional and psychological factors. It is not a bad thing. Mothers do a great job at raising children. Men are fathers. They generally defend and provide for the home while the mother spends her time mothering. This has been the case in virtually every successful society. I'm no anthropologist, but I know of no major civilization in which this wasn't true.

This is true because it works. It is a successful system. From it comes good people who can do the same and raise more good people. This system means society is perpetuated. This is a good thing. Take away a mother and you lose a certain amount of compassion and womanly care. Take away a father and you lose a certain amount of judgment and certitude.

We must have men and women. One without the other is incomplete. We have become too individualistic as a society. A society cannot function without people working together and complementing each other. I'm studying economics. I'm good at it. I like to swim, but I'm not very good at it. Michael Phelps is a great swimmer, but he may be lousy at economics. Even if I would rather swim, I choose economics because that is the only way I'll survive in this world. If I tried to make a living off swimming, I'd probably fail. Michael Phelps does very well focusing on swimming, but if he tried to do economics, he probably wouldn't be all that successful. Even if he were better than me, it is better to have him swim. It will be more valuable (and entertaining to all avid swimming observers), to watch him swim than to watch me swim. Thus, I end up doing economics. There needs to be specialization. If we all do everything, then we won't get much done. We could try, but do we really want to give up computers, running water, electricity, cheap clothes, reading time, video games, etc? We need specialization.

Parents specialize. And men and women specialize. There are things that women are, in general, better at. I'm not talking about sewing or singing or any stuff that most people have figured out is just a traditional American view of women. I'm talking about empathy and compassion. Motherly things. Patience and understanding. Once again, women do not have a monopoly, but they have a relative advantage over men. Men tend to be stronger, more decisive, more objective. I'm trying to be careful. Having not studied psychology, I won't claim this is completely objective. But I will say these things follow from what I have observed. Men and women are different. It is better for girls to be raised with a woman in their life and boys to be raised with men in their life. And, of course, these traits balance each other. It is ideal to have a man and a woman in each child's life - a mother and father. Obama's scariest goal is to open up adoption to same-sex couples. This idea is going to mess up many children. It will blur and destroy gender lines. Along with marriage and gender lines and an understanding of what a family is goes society. Men and women need to be able to work together in this society. How can they do that if they don't know how a man or a woman should act? How do they know how to respond to sexual urges? How do they know how to treat another with respect if every man and woman is simply seen as an asexual individual? How are successful families created without any guidelines or boundaries?

Now, this won't n happeovernight. It will take years. But it will happen if we allow gender lines and rules to disappear. Society will collapse. There will be many other pressures and problems, of course, as there are now. This will not be the single cause. While sand under a part of the foundation may not cause the building to collapse when the earthquake hits, I would rather the entire foundation be placed upon solid rock. Marriage between a man and a woman is a vital part of that rock for society.

The Year in Photos

2008-12-31T12:27:00.001-07:00

Here is the link to the photos. They were too cumbersome for my blog.

A Moral Argument

2008-12-30T15:40:00.001-07:00

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.

Who is lying?

2008-12-30T14:43:00.002-07:00

No on 8 said

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.”

Yet New Jersey ruled that the Methodist church must allow a same-sex couple to be married on its privately owned property. No religion will be required to change its practices? It will not stop here. If so-called anti-discriminatory laws require churches to open up their privately owned property to same-sex marriages, what stops couples from suing to be married within the churches themselves?

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.

Network Neutrality

2008-12-16T16:55:00.004-07:00

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.

Good Math, at least for Wall Street

2008-12-13T11:58:00.001-07:00

Ah, Dilbert. Greg Mankiw found some good commentary on the current mess.

Expensive Oil = Fewer Deaths

2008-12-12T16:49:00.003-07:00

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.

Welcome

2008-12-07T01:13:00.000-07:00

To the End of the Internet. I'm going to bed now.

No Mob Veto

2008-12-07T00:48:00.002-07:00

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.

Woo-hoo!

2008-11-21T13:24:00.000-07:00

We all get a free Dr. Pepper.

A Rarity

2008-11-21T13:15:00.003-07:00

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.

Mac vs. PC

2008-11-18T14:47:00.002-07:00

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.

Politics vs. Economics

2008-11-17T17:29:00.000-07:00

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.

What About Free Speech?

2008-11-13T23:59:00.002-07:00

No on 8 Supporters stomp on cross

Disturbing Trend

2008-11-07T15:29:00.003-07:00

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?

2008-11-07T01:59:00.002-07:00

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!

It's Time to Speak Up

2008-11-04T23:37:00.002-07:00

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?

2008-11-04T15:50:00.002-07:00

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.

Why I Voted Yes

2008-10-28T23:57:00.002-07:00

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.

Hope in Capitalism

2008-10-14T22:43:00.003-07:00

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.

The Capitalist Manifesto

What should we base our votes on?

2008-10-05T21:42:00.000-07:00

Probably not the economy.

There's Good News Out There

2008-09-28T08:16:00.000-07:00

A Note of Optimism

I'm Scared

2008-09-19T22:49:00.002-07:00

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?

I Like Your Thinking...

2008-09-17T21:29:00.003-07:00

All right, now you can hear from someone who has a better idea what he's talking about:

Perhaps, It's Time to play Offense

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?

More Beauracracy?

2008-09-16T15:28:00.003-07:00

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.

The Winds of Change

2008-09-08T18:06:00.002-07:00

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...

The War We Wage

2008-08-19T10:23:00.003-07:00

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

Home Sweet Home

2008-08-11T13:57:00.002-07:00

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...

Sum of All Fears

2006-06-20T11:21:00.000-07:00

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test

One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test

2006-06-20T11:20:00.000-07:00

Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online

2006-06-12T09:37:00.000-07:00

Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online

Mitt Romney has the argument I've been looking for and slowly developing for 3 years. Marriage is about the children, not the adults. Here it is! Ac lear argument about the real issue at stake. I don't need to say much. Mitt Romney says it all.

Responsibility?

2006-06-10T17:39:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Europe | Fears of Poland's gay community

"I want to live in a country which respects human rights."

Ever heard of human responsibility? The liberals in support of gay marriage go off about human rights, but they ignore the fact that along with these rights come responsiblities. Or they do not recognize which responsibilities are necessary to preserve any human society. I can understand the anger against those who threaten homosexuals. That's a righteous anger against those who simply hate. but there is a failure to recognize that there are those who hate the action because it does not promote the continuance of the human race. It promotes sheer self-indulgence, nothing else.

There is a lumping together of those who oppose homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality. There is a difference it is an important one. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sickness. It causes to people to seek happiness in something that, ultimately, will not bring it to them. But this does not mean we need to hate them. They are making a mistake, but hating them will not save anything.

It's like alcoholism. I know someone who was an alcoholic. He struggled with it greatly. It was a deviant behavior that was ruining his chances of a happy life. But his family didn't give up on him. They recognized that there was a difference between the man and the problem. They knew that this man, after you got past the alcohol, was good. His family continued to love him and help him. This doesn't mean they accepted the problem. Loving him and rejecting the problem was possible and necessary. Eventually, he overcame the problem. He is no longer an alcoholic and today is a great man.

We need to look at homosexuality the same way. We can't just reject those who struggle with the problem. We can and need to love them. But this does not mean we accept the problem. It is still a problem. So, we love the person and do our best to help them overcome this challenge. This deviance is not a central part of their personality, their essence, their soul. it can be taken away and they will still be a whole person. In fact, they will be overcoming something that was holding them back.

The great crime of homosexuality is that it focuses a person on themself. It is all about fulfilling their own desires. That is why I believe the only time and place for sex is after marriage. At this point, it's no longer about the individuals involved. It's about the couple. Or, at the least, it is a great deal more likely. Many will point out that many get divorce, have affairs, or simply do not wait until marriage. But that's not the point. Giving up on loyal heterosexual marriage simply because not everyone met its requirements is stupid. The fualt isn't in the institution. It's in humankind. We fall short of the ideal. And destroying the ideal simply because not everyone can meet it doesn't solve the problem. it makes it worse. Now no one has anything to strive for. The rules and bounds that kept society in check, that limited teenage pregnancy, the spread of STDS. fatherless children, divorce, etc. have been abandoned beause they didn't work perfectly, because they were to restrictive. People ignored their true purpose and called it meaningless tradition based on the desire for rich men to gain power over others. And today we see the results. I can lay, with confidence, a great deal of the problems of today's world at the feet of liberals who sought greater freedom, ignoring consequences.

I want human rights, but let's remember that along with every right comes responsibility and consequence.

Family

2006-06-01T23:13:00.000-07:00

So, I was thinking about what we need to do to preserve this nation. Considering my audience, I probably don't have to explain what I mean. It's fairly clear that we're falling apart. So what's the solution? Well, I don't have one for many issues. Especially for things like Iraq, Iran, oil, nuclear weapons, Hugo Chavez, etc. Those are big questions that I don't know enough about, though I continually learn more about them and hope, someday, to have some ideas.

There is something more basic that needs to be done, though. All of those things, they're outside forces. They are all partially controlled or entirely controlled by other nations or forces that we can't control, no matter how hard we try. They present a danger and we need to do something, but we're limited in what we can do. And, most importantly, they are not the greatest threat.

The biggest threat, the most basic, is within our own society. It's the fabric that binds this nation together, that binds any nation together. It's the foundation upon which all communities, from the smallest neighborhood to the greatest nation, are built on. Once again, considering my audience, you know what I'm talking about. The family.

Our society is falling apart. I don't need to list what's happening. We all know it. We've seen it, we've experienced it. It's affected me deeply. Thankfully, I don't face any of the problems, but I've seen one of my closest friends struggle with the results of a shattered family. It's not easy and it's not pretty. He's in good shape now, but he will forever be changed by his experiences.

We don't want this. It causes too much pain. I hate it. I hate watching my friends struggle with divorced parents. I hate watching friends sleeping around. I hate watching friends lose brothers and sisters to drugs, alcohol, and whatever else is out there. I hate the excess of so much that is damaging this world. I hate the lack of everything this world needs.

What we need is a strong family for every person, for every child. Sure it's idealistic. So what? A 4.0 is idealistic. I bit more achievable, but idealistic. It's the ideal of every student. Those that don't strive for it, don't get it. Those who do, may not get it either. But are they worse off for trying? Usually, no, if they didn't sacrifice more important things for it. So, the ideal is a benefit. It is our goal and what we will strive for. Settling for anything less is failure.

So, the beginning? Strengthen marriage. You can't do much with any family without a good mother and father. That's right, mother and father. That's your only option. Mother and father. Anything else has nothing to do with the kids and is a selfish union for the sake of the ones entering into it. Anything else defies what is natural, good, and sacred. Here is the main reason that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a good idea. It strengthens marriage. Because of the wording of the amendment, some have expressed fears that any relationship between two people besides marriage will be discouraged. Ask any quality sociologist if this is a bad thing.

This is a great start. It is a reminder that marriage is about more than just two people being in love. Anybody can fall in love. That's easy. It's also easy to fall out of love. There really isn't a lot to it, alone. What makes it significant is when there is a commitment, a covenant between the two that fall in love. Then, there is something that will last. The commitment plus the love unite to create something that will last, in society, for all time and, in the church, for all eternity.

What this society has forgotten is the commitment part. They're all about falling in love. People fall in love left and right. And there's no discrimination in what they fall in love with. And as a result, we have millions of lonely, broken hearts, with painful ties that don't just affect the lives of the poor, disillusioned lovers, but also the children they conceived and the other lovers they betrayed and...well, you get the picture. It's not a desirable world.

So, this amendment can help remind the nation of the commitment. Define marriage officially. A lot of people complain, "well, there's not mention of marriage in the constitution." Well, duh. That's because up until the 1960's, people had enough common sense to know what marriage was. And then the experimenting started, walls that never should have been torn down were torn down, and the resulting flood washed away the firm definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history, with some notable exceptions (mostly notable because every society that allowed exceptions collapsed shortly after). So, with that public definition gone, we need to write it down more firmly than just in the public consensus. It needs to be in stone. Well, on paper and in computers. But, something tangible which cannot be violated. Namely, the Constitution.

Once we have this definition, we can move on. But, that's for another post. I hope you enjoyed my rambling. I just kind of laid out the thoughts as they came to me. Hope it makes sense.

A Sign of the Times

2006-05-26T20:55:00.000-07:00

Read these two links:

http://www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org/

http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23448,00.html

I'm pretty sure everyone who reads is a member of the church and will most likely hear on Sunday what these links say. I just want to add my emphasis, though. Write your senators. You have no idea the effect of a few, hand-written letters in the politics of this nation. Though one of my views is that representatives should vote with their own convictions of what is right, perhaps they lack the courage to vote their own will, if they think their constituents don't back them.

Maybe our letters won't make a difference. But, maybe they will. Maybe our senators have been blinded by the media onslaught against marriage. Maybe all they need is a few voices in support of what is right and they will awaken to the truth. Maybe our letters will make the difference in a vote that will change the course of this nation for all of history.

And have no doubt that it will. What the Congress of the United States of America decides about marriage will affect the future of this world. It will affect, for better or for worse, our futures, the future of our children, and the future of every child in this world. Have no doubt that if this amendment is not passed, marriage will continue crumble in this country. Have no doubt that as marriage crumbles in this land, the beacon to all the world, the city on a hill, it will crumble around the world. Families will fall apart, children will grow up, in the words of Ma Joad in Grapes of Wrath, "wild, like animals." Without reteaching this nation what marriage is, there is no hope for this world.

Write your senators and play your part in the flow of history, help restore this nation to a place where people can look to for hope, inspiration and refuge. Remind our senators that freedom and liberty, safety and security is not about us, it's about our children and the future of the human race.

Me, as seen through DOM and Dune

2006-05-24T12:10:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking the last few days about me. It may seem a little self-centered, but since I'm stuck for eternity as me, there are a few questions I need to answer. Well, more accurately, there are questions that need asking and I need to figure out which questions these are.

One thing I've particularly noticed is a love of reading things on the net. I love to explore sites with information. For example, yesterday when I got home from class I thought about something that I had heard about during the day called the Dominion of Melchizedek. It intrigued me and I proceeded to find out all I could about it.

First I learned that whoever ran the DOM had gone to the trouble to make a website with several links and a "constitution." They had a fancy seal at the top of the main website and the constitution copied many ideas from the U.S., with a few tweaks from the political and ideological leanings of whoever wrote it. From reading that constitution, I learned that they liked the U.S. system of government, or at least the appearance of it. Their personal tweaks concentrated all power into the hands of 24 men, who made all the laws and chose the president of the DOM. So, I had a feeling they wanted the appearance of democracy, but wanted the power to be concentrated in a few hands. Kind of like most European nations. I also learned that these guys didn't understand, first, economics, and second, the cost of running a government. They banned taxes (except an "inflationary tax," interpret that as you may).

Next I discovered a link to the "Melchizedek Bible." From here I read their introduction, which included a biography about the "translators" of the MB, who also happened to be the founders of the DOM. This was the fun part. It turns out the translators and founders are two men who have spent a great deal of their time in jail and in court, mainly on things related to schemes to make money. This biography kept saying there was no proof to any of the convictions, however, never were they jailed without going to trial, and every trial they had "wrongly" convicted the "innocent" men. Why they put so much obviously condemning information on this page, I don't know. They never explain exactly how two innocent men can be wrongly convicted so many times and they never explain how these men's schemes were legal.

I didn't bother finishing this "introduction" and went straight to the MB, their modern-day translation of the King James Bible. It was a joke. Literally, it made me laugh. They just made up their own meanings for what the Bible said, turning it into a laughable attempt to provide legitimacy to their crime-filled lives.

Finished with this website and its attempt to turn this absurd criminal tale into a story of misunderstood "prophets" stuck in a corrupt nation, I went to the web. I quickly discovered that the DOM was well known by the US government - as an attempt to legitimize phony schemes to fool people out of their money. My favorite story is of a man sold loans in Texas from an agency licensed by the DOM and funded by a bank licensed by the DOM and a University he had founded in Louisiana. The bank, of course, had no assets and neither did the university. Also, his company was never registered to make loans in Texas. Somehow he managed to get thousands of dollars from people, though. Amazing.

Anyway, this whole journey took a couple hours and thinking about it later, I think it's interesting that I invested so much time reading about this fake country. Really, I find many aspects of what I read fascinating, though I won't write any more here, out of respect for those of you who would like to return to your normal lives. But I have a thirst for knowledge and not just any knowledge. I know there is a specific type....I'm just trying to figure out what type it is. I like to read about countries, ideologies, corporations and the effects they have around the world. I like to see the trends of people and nations. Not trends as in fashion trends and who their favorite celebrity is, though in certain cases that may factor in, but...well, perhaps an example would be best.

Let's take religion. Religion shapes nations and nations shape religions. That is a trend I would love to explore. Think about the United States. Each trend is obvious. We are shaped by Christianity, specifically, Protestant Christianity. Look at the debates over prayer and Bible study in public schools. But at the same time, we have shaped Protestant Christianity. Evangelism is largely a US phenomenon. And commerce also factors into the equation.

A book that may define me is Dune. I've read a few books exploring how religion, politics, and economics intertwine, and this one has been definitive to me. It tells of a man who goes far beyond being a popular hero, but shapes the future of the entire universe. The hero, Paul Atreides, begins as a political figure. He is the son of a powerful Duke in the future Empire of man. But he and his father quickly become economic figures when they are given control of Arrakis, the economic center of the universe, as it is the sole source of spice, the stuff that allows interplanetary travel. Following an attack and defeat by a rival house, Paul is chased into the desert and becomes a religious figure. The book focuses all these factors onto this single man, in the process, allowing an exploration of how these forces interact.

Ok, anyway, I'm just babbling now. If anyone is still reading, I'm impressed. Maybe I'll continue this later, but for now, I need to do homework.

Redemption

2006-05-21T14:31:00.000-07:00

WanderingScribe

This is not a typical story. A woman finds herself homeless and jobless, living out of her car at the edge of some woods near London. Barely scraping enough together to feed herself, she walks into a public library to check her e-mail and decides to start a blog. Within a few months, she has readers around the world and is interviewed by BBC. Now she has a home and a book deal. Besides it being a fascinating story, her blog is a great read, thanks to her ability to write. That book deal is not just because of her sudden fame. Read it and, as she suggests, start from the beginning, as it is a story about her life and, as with any proper story, will have the greatest impact if you start from the beginning.

The Bible - In Chinese

2006-05-20T11:43:00.000-07:00

On the topic of the Bible: Immigrants Hear God's Word, In Chinese, via Conference Call. There really is a great deal of good being done outside the church.

The Bible in School

2006-05-20T10:15:00.000-07:00

In today's Wall Street journal, there is an article entitled Saving Souls at School. Two court rulings have made it possible for elementary schools to have Bible clubs on campus led by teachers. The article focuses mainly on those who support the idea, so the reaction against it isn't conveyed clearly, but it does mention a few who oppose the idea. Throughout the article, I wasn't exactly sure where I stood, but after reading it and thinking it through, I don't have any objection and think it is an excellent idea.

First of all, the clubs are after school hours and many of the teachers make it clear to the students that they are doing this not as teachers, but as private citizens. This distinction I don't believe is really that important. After all, the idea that public employees and representatives should separate their public lives from their private beliefs is a. impossible, b. unnecessary, and c. dangerous. Separating private beliefs from your public life means you must represent the majority view, or whatever view is common in the government at that time. This is not the idea of representative democracy. The idea is to select men and and women who the public believes are morally straight and mentally capable of the task. And no person can make any decision without considering using their own moral beliefs. It is not possible and should never be asked of anyone. Therefore, Christian teachers, or Jewish, Muslim, etc., should never be asked to leave their religion at the door. Though they should not proselytize, it is not a criminal act for them to speak about their religion in the classroom. Nothing is being forced upon anyone. It is up to the children to decide. And the parents will ultimately have a larger sway on the child's mind, if they are giving as much attention to the child as they should. If not, in most circumstances, that is their own fault and they are the ones who must change, not the teacher.

Anyway, back to Bible clubs. The Moab, Utah school district has allowed the meetings, but is concerned that they blur the line between church and state. The concern is that Christianity is being promoted over other religions. My question is, if a Jewish teacher started a Jewish club, would people have the same concerns? What about a Muslim teacher? Or a Buddhist? Some parents may have a concern, but I doubt anybody with any authority would. These clubs would promote diversity. Yet there is no, I repeat, no difference between these clubs and the Christian clubs, except that Christianity is the majority religion. The fact of the matter is, the state is not promoting the religion, the individual teachers are. And they are not claiming the school supports this religion, they are only saying that they, as individuals do. The school giving permission for this to happen does not constitute an endorsement for the religion, it constitutes an acceptance of people's religious beliefs, which is a fundamental part of the Constitution. Banning the clubs would be the exact opposite: it would be repressing individual citizen's rights to share with others their beliefs.

The claim that this blurs the line between state and religion is further proven baseless by the fact that no other religions are banned from starting clubs. This is the right of every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu out there. The Founding Father's intent was not to ban religion from the public sphere, an idea unthinkable at the time, but to allow everyone to freely practice their religion. By allowing "religious diversity" clubs to abound and banning Christian clubs, the state is repressing religion, something that is unarguably unconstitutional. Therefore, these Bible clubs, far from blurring any hypothetical line, are showing why our Constitution was written with that clause: to protect our ability to practice any religion.

Also, parents are required to give their permission. The strongest argument against these clubs is that these kids will be taught something their parents don't approve of. This is taken care of by the permission slips. If the parents are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to sign the permission slip and the matter is over. Since the clubs are afterschool affairs, the parents don't have to worry about the teachers "indoctrinating" their children during school hours. Some parents might fear that if all of their child's friends are in the club, the kid might not be able to escape talk of the Bible. Any parent that fears there child will give in to peer pressure regarding something so "dangerous" as beliefs about the bible, should be scared stiff about peer pressure regarding things that represent real dangers later on: drugs, alcohol, sex.

And finally, there is the fact that these teachers are teaching something that no one should be opposed to : good moral conduct, loving one another, being accepting, forgiveness. This is the message of Christ and the Bible. If anything wrong is taught, such as intolerance of non-Christians or other things that Christians are accused of, this is the fault of the specific teacher and the parent should complain about the teacher, not the Bible club. These Bible clubs, if they survive, will do a great deal in improving the morality of Americans. There are few things better than teaching children the words of Christ. At this time in their lives, when they are the most impressionable, there is nothing that could do a better job of countering the trash that fills the modern media, except the parents teaching the Bible. But, since many parents seem to decline the responsibility of this, then the next best place is in these afterschool clubs.

Here's to the future. May it be filled with millions of Bible reading and loving children.

The Actor

2006-05-19T12:50:00.000-07:00

Venezuela stages mock foreign invasion Reuters.com

Hugo Chavez really is a clever actor. In efforts to stoke anti-American sentiment and unite his people behind him, he holds mock invasions. He points to this as preperations for a future U.S. invasion that he claims is almost certain. Maybe to the poor and illiterate in Venezuala this works, or to those who will believe anything that is anti-U.S., but to anyone who can read the news and pays attention to the real U.S. government, rather than the imperial phantom Chavez has created, this idea is irrational and absurd.

With all the problems the U.S. is facing, why would we invade Venezuela? North Korea is a potential threat, with its likely nuclear weapons and the growing capability to launch them at the U.S. So is Iran, with its insistence on enriching uranium and its threats to Israel. And if it was all about oil, Iran seems like a much better target, since we would have reasons for invading Iran that would mask the drive for oil.

And besides all this, we are still having enough difficulties as it is with Iraq. Unless we had a compelling reason to invade any other country, such as the threat of nuclear reasons, I don't believe there is any possibility of it happening. Chavez is overplaying his own importance. I'm sure if he weren't using all this anti-American rhetoric, the government and media would largely ignore him. He's an actor who is using the stage effectively to solidify his grip on the country and though he is a threat to his own people, our country's best and most likely policy is to do nothing.

I know I've said he is a threat, but upon learning more about him, my opinion is changing. He is democratically elected and there is little we can complain about there. He may be misusing his power, but only Venezuelans can do anything about that. I pity them, but they seem to have brought it upon themselves. As long as his only tool is oil money and as long as all he does is use inane rhetoric, we are safe. We should, however, keep a close eye on him.

Um...logic?

2006-05-18T20:11:00.000-07:00

Vote in House Seeks to Erase Oil Windfall

So, I'm curious about something. We're facing a couple major problems. The first is that we are far too dependent on foreign oil. The second, which is partly a result of the first, is that gas prices are at a record high. So what's the House's reaction? Raise taxes on gas companies and continue the ban on further drilling. How is this a solution for anything? Sure, reactionists are happy because the "evil" oil companies profits are cut a little, but how does this affect the average American? Gas prices will go up even more. Yes, something needs to be done about tax cuts to the oil industry, but not now. Not when gas prices are the highest and not before we've found a way to decrease the pressure on the oil supply. The House is asking for one result: permanently higher gas prices.

Unbias

2006-05-15T10:09:00.000-07:00

Comment is free: Chavez is a populist, not a socialist

Here is an intelligent look at Chavez, less biased than my tirade below. Don't pay attention to the comments after the article, though. They are a joke.

My Rant

2006-05-15T09:59:00.000-07:00

CNN.com - Chavez: Imprison 'genocidal' Bush - May 15, 2006

Chavez continues to scare me. The fact that anyone listens to him with any seriousness whatsoever is surprising to me. This man calls the President of the United States an international criminal and genocidal. Hold on, exactly how is Bush genocidal? What people in the US have been killed as part of this genocide? Exactly what group of people have US troops been wiping out in Iraq or Afghanistan? How can anyone listen to this tripe? I can't believe the mayor of London sat down with this man! He doesn't use logic! Everything he says in sensational, designed for one purpose: to catch the media's attention. He doen't care about people. He offers low-priced oil to people in the US and Europe. To what purpose? To help people? There are thousands in his own country who are poverty-stricken! If he cared about anyone, he would help his own people first, not the far more wealthy Americans and Europeans.

Chavez, if he weren't such a danger, would be a joke. He claims he and the Iranians want peace. Right. So the Iranians, who have said Israel should be wiped off the map, want peace? The Iranians, who have sent men over to help the Iraq terrorists, want peace? Venezuela hasn't done anything to further any war, as far as I know, but I don't see anything that Chavez is doing to help any peace effort.

If anything, he's trying to incite war. He doesn't want any part in the goals of America. We want peace. We want freedom for others. But he claims not to see this. He claims that capitalism doesn't work and we are imperialistic. But where does the evidence lie? Capitalism vs. populism, socialism, communism, call it what you like. US vs. Russia. Who's left standing? US vs. China. Which country adopted the economic modeol of the other? US vs. Cuba. Which one are people fleeing out of? US vs. North Korea. Which one are people starving in? Now, tell me again that capitalism doesn't work.

And if we are imperialistic, we are the worst impirialists of all time. Conquering countries and then setting up parliaments and letting them choose their own leaders? Letting them train, no, training their troops. Hold on, what empire in all of history has ever done this? Name one.

Chavez...I can't use the words for what Chavez is, but he is wrong. Use a little bit of logic and all his arguments fall apart. He is after one thing: power. And he will do anything to get it.

Inspiration

2006-05-13T23:04:00.000-07:00

Just finished reading Rocket Boys, or October Sky, as it's now known. Rocket Boys was a better title. Anyway, I practically bawled. It's strange. I've read a lot of books already in my short life, many of them touching. I don't know if any single one of them has touched me the way this one has. Several times, my eyes teared up. More than once, those tears escaped down my cheeks. For heaven's sake, its a book about boys launching rockets! But at the same time, it's the journey of a boy trying to find his place in the world and trying to find out if his father really loves him, trying to earn his father's love. If there is something that gets to me, it's a father-son story.

Read it.

America's Potential

2006-05-12T22:32:00.000-07:00

Despite everything wrong in this world, there is good. Governments may be corrupt, beauracracies bloated, cities ridden with crime and families crumbling, but there is hope.

According to a recently published study called the 2006 Index of Global Philanthropy, despite whatever problems our government faces, it manages to give $19.7 billion a year in aid. And that is only official government aid. Religious organizations give $4.5 billion in aid. Not impressed? Corporations give $5 billion in aid. Ok, not too much more, but there's more. Private organizations gave almost $10 billion. Now here's the whopper: individual remittance, or the money from individuals within the US sent to those without, adds up to $47 billion.

"Wait," some might say. "How can you count money immigrants send to their families? That's not aid." I would strongly disagree. According to the Wall Street Journal article I have gained this information from, individual remittance is "arguably the most efficient..involving little or no overhead and filling people's basic needs directly." While the aid governments, religious organizations, and corporations is sifted through by governments and partly used to pay for employees, offices, paperwork, etc., individual remittances goes straight into the hands of those who need it most. There is no better form of charity. $47 billion. That alone is an argument that perhaps one of the most charitable things we can do for development in Mexico is allow temporary workers to come here.

All of this is evidence that there is hope. There are enough people in this country who care that we send at least $86.2 billion out into the world with the hope that that money will improve the condition of the huge numbers of those suffering. Of course, there is a great deal more we can do. So much of our money goes to things that really don't matter. Billions go into video games alone, and this is a part of the entertainment industry just hitting full stride. Imagien how much more we spend on well established forms of entertainment. What about all the money wasted in casinos across the nation? Imagien what the money people spend on lotteries could do if they instead spent it to help others! This is not a call for change in government policy. This is something government cannot do. This is a change that must come directly from the people. Our hearts must change. Our desires must change. Following that, the government will change to reflect our changed desire.

There is hope and there will be a great deal more if we set ourselves aside and serve others. This will save the world. Anything else will destroy it.

To Be Alone

2006-05-06T22:45:00.000-07:00

I guess it's been a while since I've written anything. I'd imagine not many people are checking this blog anymore. Oh well. This is for those of you who randomly happen by.

So, I'm back at college for the Spring after two awesome semesters. I can tell you, it's not the same at all. Really, it's pitiful here. It's actually kind of lonely. At the end of last semester, I was always with good friends. I never ate alone. I stayed up late talking to my roommate. We watched movies, went up the canyon, did all kinds fo things. And now I'm here and all my friends have gone home. But, I don't want to dwell on that. Life will improve. I'll make more friends.

It's interesting. Once again, the shell has been rebuilt and its ripped away, this time perhaps even more so. Yet, at the same time, this shell was closer to the real me. Though it's been painful, the pain isn't so much me having to rebuild who I am. This time its simply sorrow for what was. I miss my friends intensely. But I know who I am, to an extent.

It will be interesting to see where this term leads. Where am I going, exactly? Though I have a good idea of who I am, there are questions left, as always. Its difficult to place in words, and there's a great deal I can't say in this blog, but I am confused about certain things. Change will do that. In building that shell, you get used to one picture. You structure the world around you according to what you're used to. You organize things in your mind based on your daily experience. But then your daily experience changes. What is around you shifts. Perhaps the hardest thing is when only portions change, and not the entire thing.

I can easily remember when I first came up here. It wasn't too hard. I missed family and friends, but I was excited. And everything changed. I was in a completely new environment. There were challenges, but I was ready to meet them. I was prepared.

Things are different now. I'm not exactly sure what I expected, but I didn't expect it to be this hard. What makes it so hard is that just a portion of the picture has changed. I've moved to a different dorm, there's fewer peope on campus, but, most significantly, my closest friends, and most of the people I knew, have gone home. So much here reminds me of the great times we had, but I can't share those memories with them, but they're not here. Well, I guess I can eventually, but not in the moment.

Well, time will ease the pain. I'll get used to my new situation. I can keep in touch with my friends and I'll make new friends. And eventually I'll leave campus. I'll always miss my friends, but it will be easier when I'm not reminded daily of them and the things we did together.

TImes will be good again. Really, life is good. My friends may not be close, but I can still talk to them. They're still here. And I can always look to the future. They'll be there, in the future, always. And if anything should happen to prevent me from seeing that future with them, I pray that God will watch over us and know that we will see each other again, whether on this side of the veil or on the other.

So, here's to the future, which fills the present with light and hope.

2006-04-03T19:35:00.000-07:00

Cafe Hayek: Are 'Illegal' Immigrants Illegal?

This is one of the poorest arguments I have ever read. Law is what we actually practice? No! Law is what is on our books. if we don't enforce it, if the people disagree with it, then get rid of the law! If you say that what we do is law and what is on the books is meaningless, then lets get rid of the legislatures. What good are they doing?

Usually I respect this blog, but this post is inane. I'm glad this man is not a lawyer or involved in the government, because we would be in sad shape if he were. This country is a built on laws. Not social customs, which is is calling law, but the codes of law written in the books. Yes there are laws on the books we ignore, but that is simply because they are usually strange laws few people know exist and don't want to go through the effort of getting rid of. The vast majority of written law is enforced as best as humanly possible.

And regarding illegal immigrants. They are illegal. The law says they should not be here. So a lot of people aren't doing anything to get them out. That's because we are wealthy and the costs of those immigrants aren't having a big enough effect for us to do something. If most people don't mind them being here, rather than undermine the rule of law by redefining it, let's change the law. It is vital to the survival of this nation that we remain a nation of laws. If we turned to social custom, chaos will result. I guarantee it. The only way we can support our vast and complicated nation is by recognizing law as what is on the books. Sorry Don, but your argument is one of anarchy and chaos.

2006-03-20T23:55:00.000-07:00

Visitors Seek a Taste of Revolution in Venezuela - New York Times

Hugo Chavez has quite a skill. By doing lots of good things, he hides the bad things he's doing or the good things he could be doing that he is ignoring.
It's interesting that these people talk about an "alternative" to globalism and the "imperialism" of the U.S. They make it sound like a new idea. Yet everything Chavez is doing has been done before. The article makes numerous references to Mao, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other countries that have preceded Venezuela in revolutons that supposedly better the people's lives. Yet Mao killed millions. Thousands flee Cuba every year. Nicaragua is still a destitute country. WHy is this alternative worth anything? We have shown that ist does not work over and over and over. The Soviet Union. Fully communist China. North Korea. Cuba. No socialist government that has fought against capitalismand globalization has won. Always, always, the forces of the market have broken down the barriers people put up. Why? Because the market works. The people in all of the countries are still poor. Is it because evil capitalists in America and Europe are sucking up all the wealth? No! It is because oppresive governments have blocked the wealth we have created from getting into their countries, or have used the wealth to enhance their power and prestige. Hugo Chavez is no revolutionary. His ideas are as old, and older, than Marx. And he will fail. He will lose his power someday. Communism, no matter how watered down, and no matter what mask it wears, will never work. In a few years, the poor who support Chavez will still be poor, while he revels in hi newfound power. Or, they will be a little richer, while Chavez glories in his power and begins invading his neighbors. We've seen these patterns before. One is that of Soviet Russia and every other communist regime. The other is that of Hitler. Hugo Chavez has two things going for him: good PR people and lots of oil money. Don't let his tricks fool you. He is an evil man who does not care the least for his people. He is off his rocker (accussing Bush of wanting to invade Venezuela?) and a threat to th countries around him. To all those dreamers who call Chavez and modern Venezuela a success, wake up. That's all it is, a dream.

2006-03-19T00:42:00.000-07:00

French Protests Over Youth Labor Law Spread to 150 Cities and Towns - New York Times

Do they even teach economics in France? Does a single one of these students understand anything about how businesses run? "Anticapitalism and self-management"? What a joke!

Let's compare numbers.
U.S.: capitalist free-market country. Unemployment rate? About 5%.
France: Socialist masquerading as a capitalist country. Unemployment rate? About 10%.

Why? Job security. The French want job security. Of course. Eveyone wants that. Americans want that badly. But I think we see something else. We recognize that there is uncertainty in life. That businesses don't exist to employ people. That the market isn't a constant. We understand, for the most part, that businesses grow and shrink, that jobs come and go. The important thing is that they have the ability to. This way, we keep a low unemployment rate, yet have highly productive businesses.

The French think businesses exist to employ people. Sorry, but that is wrong. Busniesses exist to produce. They need the flexibilty to change as the market changes. If they can't do this, they will hire less people. Machines are much easier to replace and shut down if there are laws agianst firing people. Get rid of the bad laws, and more people will be hired. Maybe you'll have to switch companies every once-in-a-while. What's better, ten different jobs or no job at all?

What is probably most disturbing is that, according to the Wall Street Journal, an economics student organized these protests. What kind of econ major is he? What do they teach in French universities? Do they study socialism in their econ classes? Don't they understand how the market works? You make it more costly to hire workers and fewer workers will be hired. It seems very expensive to hire workers in France, so few are hired. Basic economics. And this fool, Razzye Hammadi, says that he is "totally opposed in principle" to tinkering with France's labor laws. They are broken!!! With unemployment double that of the country where "evil" market forces create a "precarious" situation for workers, I don't understand the reasoning. Once again, what's better, a "precarious" job which you only hold for a few months, or no job at all? Maybe someday someone can go to France and teach them what has made the U.S. the most powerful and richest nation ever to exist.

2006-03-11T15:18:00.000-07:00

InvisibleHeart.com: Home and Main Menu Page

I found this one interesting, since the Settlers of Catan is pretty popular with my friends and I.

2006-03-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

Cafe Hayek: The New Yorker and the Beatles

This article written by, I believe, an Economics professor, supports, with an economic argument, the stupidity of killing the Dubai port deal. It's a good read, with an excellent illustrative example.

Dubai Ports Deal

2006-03-10T00:21:00.000-07:00

     I found a great article about the ports affair. Unfortunately, it’s a Wall Street Journal article and you can’t view it unless you subscribe. But I can quote it.
     The article, entitled “Port Deal: Not a Foreign Idea,” it begins by stating, “Amid the political firestorm surrounding Dubai Ports World, one fact is often lost -- foreign companies already manage most of the terminals at American ports, the result of a longtime dominance of global shipping lines that often run the facilities that handle their cargoes.” I have read quotes by representatives saying that the ports need to stay in American hands. It’s a nice sentiment, but here’s the problem: according to this article, “more than 60% of the container terminals at the nation's 10 busiest ports are at least partly managed by foreign operators, and in some cases, companies controlled by foreign governments.” Our ports are already in the hands of foreign companies. Those ports that were going to be controlled by Dubai weren’t under American control in the first place. They were under British control.
     That in itself is a little scary, considering the amount of shipping that comes through our ports. Thankfully, the article goes on to say, “security -- such as the inspection of containers -- is conducted by federal enforcement agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection no matter who operates the terminal.” Besides reassuring us that our ports can still remain relatively secure, this fact also negates the argument that Dubai’s ownership of the ports threatens our security. If this company does not control the security of the port, then no threat to our security exists.
     So what’s the problem? I see it as two-fold. First, Congress is simply uninformed or the people who might re-elect them this November are, putting pressure on Congress to make an unwise, but popular move. Second, sheer racism. People see that Dubai is an Arab company and don’t look any farther. It’s Arab, so it’s linked to terrorism and it’s a threat to the nation. They ignore the fact that it is an international company, accountable to customers all over the world. They ignore the fact that it is based in a nation that is a strong ally to the U.S. They don’t bother to look and see if the company has any real links to terrorism. They just assume there must be links because the company is Arab. It’s just like the old image in the south that all black men are eager to rape white women because one or two may have done so sometime in the past.
The racism is there and it is something we must root out and destroy. Racism tore this country apart in the past and it may again, if we let it spread. We cannot discriminate against a company just because it is Arab, just as we cannot discriminate against an individual because he is Arab. If I had heard any good solid arguments of exactly how Dubai could be a threat, I would support the fight against the port deal. I have hear absolutely no valid arguments, though; just outright racism.
Please, let’s fight this. America has come to far to sink to that level again.

     Of course, all of this is moot. Dubai announced today that it will hand the ports to an “American entity.” Racism wins, for the moment. But lets learn from this moment and not repeat the mistake. We lost an opportunity to show that we do not hate Arabs as a whole, just those who support terrorism.

2006-03-08T16:31:00.000-07:00

WSJ.com - Minding the Gap

I'd like to add my humble analysis.

Heather Boushey has a dangerous viewpoint. She believes that if people are going into debt to "keep up with the Joneses," or buy that nice car or boat or 50-in plasma screen, then the rich should be taxed and the money be provided to these people who are too poor to afford these luxuries. This is more dangerous than allowing these people to go into debt in the first place. If you let them go into debt, then eventually they will go bankrupt and, hopefully, learn their lesson. If, however, you fund their uncontrolled consumerism, the economy gets propped up on an unstable foundation: one that depends on the rich providing money for the middle-class to spend uncontrollably. I hope she knows how stupid this is.

From the little I know, it seems that the most dangerous thing socially and economically that she talks about is this debt. If we don't get rid of it by giving them more money, what do we do to limit the danger to society? This isn't an easy question to answer. I don't think the government can do much, except try to encourage a more frugal way of life. But how can our government encourage something it definitely is not doing? I think we must turn to other social institutions: churches, neighborhoods, clubs. By instilling a social responsibility to not go into debt, then the crisis would resolve itself. But this is a notoriously hard, if not impossible task. Not sees things the way I do and there is no one social institution that reaches everyone.

Well, I guess government does. So this leads to a familiar charge: get the government to spend less. Referring to my earlier question, I have to say, it was kind of dumb. See, we are the government. It's not some strange seperate institution. We elect citizens to offices. Citizens fill the ranks of the bureaurocracy. Every politician, every lobbyist, is a member of this nation, of some local community. Many have children going to schools with other people's children. So, if the government begins encouraging less spending, and we spend less, then the government will be spending less.

The problem is still not easy. Members of government have been trying to cut spending for years with little effect. The problem is that no one is willing to cut what he is spending. The farmers want their subsidies. The retired want their social security. The poor want their welfare. The scientists want their funding. Where do we cut spending? That is not a question I can answer. It is only a question this nation as a whole can answer, since we all have different priorities. Only by writing our congressmen can we let them know.

I think an excellent ides would be for everyone to do two things. First, those who are in debt, stop spending money and get out of debt. Second, everyone think about what they feel we don't need to spend money on and write their congressmen. This way, Congress would have a better idea of what the people are willing to give up and they would have a great deal of support for their arguments.

2006-03-03T00:22:00.000-07:00

Cafe Hayek

Government Ain't Us

in Reply

2006-03-03T00:17:00.000-07:00

     My dad once told me, “Perhaps the best way to soften your mind and strengthen your faith, is to spend a dark evening with the stars.” Last weekend, at the end of a date, we began talking about the stars. We looked up at the sky, trying to find constellations. We ended up finding a good stargazing spot and from there we entered a long and enlightening conversation. Using the stars a beginning, we discussed family, the church, society as a whole, the end of the world, temples, the priesthood, etc. These glimpses of heaven are needed to remind us that we are, “less than the dust of the earth.” Among our cities, walking and driving along the asphalt and cement we laid, working and studying in the buildings we raised up, sitting in the comfort of the couches and chairs we designed and built, it is easy to forget the beauty, splendor, majesty, and the awesome magnificence of God’s creation. This creation we cannot match; we must be reminded of it.
     Perhaps one of the dangerous aspects of city life is this separation from God’s creation. We become so focused on what we, as humans have done, we forget the planet upon which we walk, the planet the dwarfs all we have accomplished.
     So, star-gazing is an excellent pastime, as well as night walks. These things are just a little more difficult when it gets below freezing at night. But I cannot wait until its warm enough that the seep and dissipation is forestalled long enough for an enjoyable night-walk (the unique warmth the last few days made that star-gazing date possible).

The Shadow

2006-03-02T00:16:00.000-07:00

     Lying in the grass, I look up from my reading and watch the shadow of the building approach. Just inches away, the shadow represents the coming close of the day. With only a few hours left, this time of warmth and light, this momentary spring, will soon give way to a cold, dark winter night.
     Welcoming the time in the sun with flip-flops and t-shirts, a new optimism filled the campus during this warmth. Walking across campus, I cannot miss the many people taking advantage of it, studying, reading, and chatting outside. This afternoon, I studied in the sun, allowing its light and warmth to rejuvenate my spirit. I cannot help but enjoy this rare moment to lie in the grass and relax.
     Looking down at my biology book, I think of the glory of the sun, or rather one component of it – its light. I think of the beautiful processes by which this light enters plants, transforming into life giving sugars. Water, air, and sunlight, transforming into the wonderfully complex molecules from which all life derives its energy. I think of the path that energy follows until it enters us, driving our brains, allowing us to read, to write, to build, to fly, to know and understand this complex world, and finally, providing us with the heat that keeps us alive.
     The shadow draws closer now, almost touching the edge of the grass. I glance up to the cause of this shadow. The large glass building stands tall at the edge of the square. I squint at the bright sun, hovering just over the top edge of the building. My heart yearns for it to remain in that spot, providing the light and warmth that pulled me out of my dorm to study outside.
     It cannot last. Despite my deepest desires, the sun sinks lower and the shadow creeps closer. As this grey shadow begins to cover my body and the grass around me, a soft cool breeze picks up and the temperature drops noticeably. I do not yet need my sweater, but the time draws nearer.
     As I consider moving inside, I look around and realize some warmth, some hope remains. This long, cold shadow has yet to cover most of the campus. Many people still sit, enjoying the sun, not aware of the impending cold night. My gaze travels further, out of the square to the white peaks beyond the campus buildings. Long after the valley lies in shadow, the mountains will reach up into the path of the sun’s rays, continuing to receive light and warmth.
     Perhaps this is why holy places are always equated with high places, with mountains. The mountains receive the last light, the last glory from the sun. Though the light will remain for some time; though those tall, beautiful mountain peaks will be illuminated for hours longer, the night will come. The cold will set in. Even these mountains, thousands of feet above me, will fall under the shadow as the sun drops below the horizon. Even these, where light and glory remain the longest, a long, dark night will fall. And there at the peaks, the highest places in the world, the nights are the loneliest and coldest.
Without the heat and light from the sun, the warmth from the day will seep out of the ground, out of the cement and dirt and wood that make up this terrestrial sphere. It will seep out into an infinitely colder outer space, dissipating into virtually nothing.
     It becomes apparent that all that protects us from the irreversible seep and dissipation is the heat our bodies produce, a heat that cannot long battle the overwhelming chill of space. We use machines to produce heat, but machines use energy living things collected from the sun millennia ago; our clothes hold in our heat, but we produce it by consuming energy other beings collected from the sun. Ultimately, the source of all energy and heat is the sun. Without its return, our sphere, with all of its life, would become a cold, dead sphere, with all of its heat lost to cold space long before.
     But hope is not lost. Tomorrow, the sun will return. Tomorrow, that dissipated heat will be replaced. Tomorrow, those same peaks that were the last to lose the light and glory will be the first to receive them again. Upon this hope all life relies: that the morning will come, that the light and life of the world will return, spreading its glory over the face of all the earth.

2006-02-27T00:37:00.000-07:00

WSJ.com - Real Time

So, I was reading this editorial about blogging, and it made me feel bad about not posting. I want my blog to be read. There's one little problem: waht do I write? I'm really not sure.

Hmmm..?

How about the end of the world? Always an interesting subject.

For some odd reason this has been on my mind lately. See, this is the way I see it. The time isn't too far away when massive wars and rebellions will tear apart the modern world. Natural disasters will also wrack the earth. Why? Well, my main reason to believe so is prophecy. There is a great deal in Revelation, Isaiah, and the Book of Mormon that prophesies of these things occuring in the last days.

Once this occurs, life will be a little different. Without strong central governments and with the famines caused by wars and natural disasters, people are going to be starving all over the place. But you'll notice a few spots where people are organized and surviving. These spots, I believe, will be centered where there are LDS communities. Why? Well, prophecy. We've been told for 70 years to store food. Now, to be sure, not every LDS family is doing it, but the church as a whole is better prepared than most. So the LDS will have food.

The next thing I think may happen: the center of communities will be LDS buildings. Temples, bishop's storehouses, chapels. Three reasons for this. One, because these buildings are dedicated to the Lord, I feel he will preserve many of them. Second, they are being built and refitted in ways that will help them survive the natural disasters of whatever area they are located in. Third, the combination of the fact that the LDS people have been storing food and the priesthood leadership.

Which leads me to my last point. Some of the strongest leadership we will find in these dark days will be the priesthood leadership. The priesthood will become the government of the communities, in a way. Probably only in the times during and immediately after disasters, since leadership will be selected by the community as a whole in the long-term, but priesthood leadership will be very important to all communities, not just the LDS.

So, there's my speculation. Remember, it's only speculation. Not a shred of this, except for the fact that the end of the world will occur, is going to happen for sure. None of it is doctrine. It's just how I see things. There's more I could expand on, but I think I'll save that for another time.

2006-02-20T23:30:00.000-07:00

Every once in-a-while, someone tells me they read my blog and it spurs me on to write again. So, I'm just putting in this little blurb about what I read in the scriptures this weekend. If any of you haven't read the book of Acts, read it. It is a perfect example of the workings of the church without Christ on the earth. The entire church is lead by apostles and the local areas by elders and "overseers," or bishops, as we know them. Missionaries are called and preach the gospel wherever they go, being led by the spirit. Whenever they find believers, the believers are first baptised by immersion and then given the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, if the appropriate priesthood authority is held by the missionaries. It truly is amazing and builds my testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the restored Church of Christ. All right. Bed time.

2006-02-01T14:38:00.000-07:00

European Papers Publish Cartoons in Stand for Press Freedom - New York Times

Has the European media ever heard of the word respect? Do they have any idea that the beliefs of these Muslims they are so intent on angering are actually believed? The Muslims didn't just make up a bunch of lies and say, "Hey, this sounds good, lets do this." Islam is a religion that developed as a way to help explain the world and priovide social control. It is just as a viable, and perhaps more so, than the Europeans damnable secular beliefs. These newspapers claim this religious dogma conflicts with democracy. There is no relation! This has to do with treating fellow human beings, though they believe differently, with repsect. I could understand if this dealt with women's rights or something that had to do with society as a whole. There are things in the Muslim world that deserve criticism, just as there are in the Christian and secular worlds. This action on the part of the European newspapers, however, is criticising a religious belief that harms absolutely no one. It is a smack in the face to everyone who holds any belief, religious or not. It says that Europeans do not believe in respect for another's beliefs. They would rather have everyone keep their religious beliefs in their home. Well, why can these secularists hold their inane views up for the world to see while the religious must cower, shamed that they actually believe man is something more than a product of random chance in an uncaring universe?

The issue at stake is not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to offend. There are certain restraints that must be conformed to for any society to survive. With the increasing numbers of Muslims in Europe, Europeans will have to change their views or they face a bloody future. They say they don't want to fight over religion. They say they want peace and acceptance for all, yet every day they express racism and intolerance towards the Muslim world. I understand that these are deep-seated prejudices that have existed for centuries, but the Europeans sure didn't have to fight too long to get over the deep-seated belief in God they once had. I'm sure they can get over the belief that their way is the best way.

2006-01-30T14:24:00.000-07:00

World Social Forum

Let me paint a picture. Before a cheering crowd stands a man who sees the poverty of his people, a woman mourning the death of her son in a war she believes is unjust, and a
woman who grieves the death of her husband, who wanted independence for his country. Each of these people supports a cause. They want the U.S. to change. They want the U.S. to stop fighting foreign wars and stop interfering in foreign markets. They want the U.S. to allow other people to live the way they choose to live and accept that these people may have different values. They want peace and freedom.
But let's look a little deeper. First, the woman grieving hers husband. Though her husband did support independence, he was killed in an FBI raid. The FBI were searching for him because he stole $7.2 million from the U.S. Also, the country is Puerto Rico, a territory if the U.S.; a territory that I don't think many would consider exactly enslaved by the U.S. Now the second woman. Her son died in Iraq. Her son died as a volunteer in the military, fighting in a war to free a nation terrorized by its president and in which every intelligence agency in the world believed there were WMD. And finally, the man who claims to be fighting for the welfare of his nation. The man who is kicking out Christian missionaries, who threatens everybody who is American, whether they are good or bad, who fights against big business, taking away jobs from his people, who nationalizes industries, an economic move which has already been proven to devestate economies. A man who lies and threatens, who creates conspiracy theories to bring him sympathy, pity, and power. He is a man who seeks one thing - power at the expense of all else, even the welfare of his own people.
You can see these people as freedom fighters, who are fighting against a corrupt nation, or as villains who are spreading lies and deceit about a generally good nation. Or perhaps it is more complex than that. Maybe the people are bad, but the nation is also corrupt and they merely are feeding off that corruption. Or maybe the nation is good and these people are good and they are merely blinded by grief over the pain they see in those they love. The point is, I may be wrong.
Here is how I see it, though. Elma Beatriz Rosado was married to a criminal. He may have had good intentions, but he stole millions of dollars from the U.S. He broke the law and deserved to pay the consequence. He may have been killed before he could face trial, but I have serious doubts that the FBI shot without provocation. Cindy Sheehan is fighting not in support of her son, but against him. Rather than asking this government to structure an effective reconstruction scheme so that we can build up a nation and pull out without risking the civil war or having to return, she demands we pull out now and abandon the Iraqis to the terrorists who still have far too much control. She fights, blinded by her own grief, ignoring the fact that if we pull out now, her son's life would truly be a waste: Iraq would simply develop into a place either just as bad or worse than what it was like under Saddam.
Finally, Hugo Chavez. I do not have the words, and would not be willing to write them if I did, to describe my feelings about this man. He is truly a villaim who desires one thing: power. To get it, he plays off the unpopular actions of the U.S. He harnesses the traditional biases of the people against big business and the rich. He plays off racism: the battle between Hispanic and white Americans. To keep power and make it appear that he cares about the people, he tears apart the Venezualen economy. This man is evil. I have no doubt about this. He is doing things similar to what Hitler did in Germany. He is playing off the natural prejudices and the poverty of the people to, perfectly legally, place himself in power. The parallels are scary. In the early nineties, Chavez attempted a failed coup and was placed in jail. When he came out, he used the poverty of the people to catapult himself into elected office. Hitler attempted a coup. He was placed in jail. He came out, played off the terrible poverty of the Depression, and was elected into office. These moves do not mean Chavez is Hitler. But they may show that he thinks in a similar way. Let's not repeat history. Let's watch Chavez closely and be sure to defend the rights of his people, since so far he has not.

2006-01-28T20:28:00.000-07:00

You know youve achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Snow Angels

2006-01-28T00:09:00.000-07:00

“If you can talk, you can sing. If you can walk, you can dance.”
-African proverb

     Tonight I went to a church dance and had the time of my life. I don’t know what it is exactly that makes it so fun. It’s not like I can dance. I do the same thing over and over, just kicking my feet and swinging my arms. And I’m not a big fan of most of the music they play. In fact, outside of the dance, I usually hate to hear that stuff. Yet I’ve had more fun at dances, especially the two church dances I’ve been to up here, then I’ve had almost anywhere else. I can’t explain it.
     Regardless, my ears hurt. We danced next to the speaker. How dumb can you get? Here are two speakers on top of each other, blasting loud enough to be heard clearly outside of the church, and we danced right next to them. Well, it was fun.
     That’s the story of the dance.

Peanut M&M's

2006-01-17T23:28:00.000-07:00

     It’s been too long since I last wrote. It’s been good back at school, but a little weird. I’m still adjusting to having two different homes. I love it here, but I miss my home. When I’m home, I miss here.
     Leading a life like this has some interesting effects. I’m separated from my home, family, and old friends. Suddenly, I’m in new environment, facing new challenges, and some old one. Living away from home for college makes it impossible to live the same superficial life. I can’t base me, my personality, off of my friends, family or home. I don’t have those here. No In-n-Out, no beaches, I can’t wear sandals or shorts year-round. I spend time with people who are very different and have different interests from my old friends. Relationships take on a new character. No relationship here can take the place of the ones I had back home, the ones that helped me define who I was. Suddenly, the that was my life is taken away. Now what? Do I develop a new shell?
     I started to. Then I went home for Christmas. What happened there? The new, still fragile shell cracked. It didn’t hold up. I couldn’t figure it out. Who am I, exactly? It’s really not an easy question. But having two homes has helped me answer that question
     Living in two homes, as I already said, makes it difficult to live in a shell. Each time I move from one home to the other, the shell cracks and is stripped away. What is revealed each time is the person I truly am. That is the great benefit of living away from home, of traveling and experiencing the world. I am able to define myself by what I am inside, but what I consistently do wherever I am, rather than by what I wear, who I spend time with, or where I hang out. Suddenly, the importance of truly knowing who you are is apparent. If I didn’t know who I was, what would I do? I would seek out things that don’t matter. I would search for what I had before and always be disappointed because I can’t find it. But now that won’t happen. Though the journey is nowhere near over, I have come to this realization. I have made the first step.
     I know who I am. I am a child of God. I am a divine being, here on this earth, learning all I can so I can return back to my Heavenly Father and, if I live the way he has asked, inherit all he has. That truth provides me with a basis on which I can always act, no matter where I am. Wherever I am, I will seek out the way I can serve him best. Here, it is in class, learning of the universe he has created, and being a friend to those around me. This gives a purpose to my life; a purpose that is greater and deeper than getting the best grades or having the most fun possible or being popular or doing the best in video games. Though at times each of these concerns may cloud my mind and distract me, my understanding of who I am is at the root of my being, and it shines with a light that pierces through all the mists of darkness that stop me from finding my way.
     If I were all alone, in a new, unfamiliar place, without a friend, without the ability to do well in school, without the wealth that allows me to sit in privacy and type this entry, I would still have this truth. I am still a child of God and he has a task for me, wherever I am, and I will fulfill it. This is there core around which I build my shell and no matter what happens to the shell, that core will remain and guide me through all my life.

2006-01-08T17:52:00.000-07:00

Time to get back to blogging again. I took quite a break there. I hope somebody out there is willing to read this still.

Calvin and Hobbes commentary on TV is right in line with what I think. In case I haven't said it enough, I love this comic strip! Actually, I got the Complete Calvin and Hobbes for Christmas. What can I say, I'm obsessed.

2005-12-02T09:30:00.000-07:00

McCarthyism

The world can be a scary place, especially after reading this essay Orson Scott Card writes about journalists who are lying to us. Flat out lying. Really, a lot of this isn't terribly surprising. The French press lied about Israel. Well, they hate Israel, so that's understandable. The same for the Palestinians who staged the murder. And the fact that an American reporter twisted a quote to serve his purpose isn't surprising. but being presented with this concrete evidence and having the consequences laid out before you is scary. It's easy to just put it off when you're reading the newspaper. But Card has pieced it all together and opened my eyes to the implications. The press can destroy lives with the power they have. That is scary.

2005-11-30T19:50:00.000-07:00

"It does not respond to what the American people want." - Senator Kennedy

What's more important senator? What people want or what is right? Are you such a slave to public opinion that you will abandon millions to civil war and terrorism simply because some wealthy, ignorant Americans don't see the light? It seems so.

Victory, Mr. President? - Independent

Pull out?

2005-11-30T15:22:00.000-07:00

All those who want to pull out of Iraq now seem to want one thing: to protect their own hides. How is pulling out going to help the Iraqis? Didn’t the mosque bombing clue them in? These terrorists aren’t fighting a war against America. They are fighting a war against any form of freedom; freedom which the Shiites currently support; freedom that has taken power away from the minority Sunnis. And it’s not even the Sunnis. It’s a small faction within the Sunnis, combined with foreign terrorists. These are the killers in Iraq.

The fact is, no war is won by setting an end date. Every war is won by setting a goal, no matter the time or cost involved. Our goal should be a stable and democratic Iraq. This is Bush’s goal. The Democratic goal seems to be to beat Bush and the Republicans. I know no one is innocent here. There are lies, scandals, and partisan politics on all sides, but if I put that behind me and think of the Iraqis, I wonder what choice we have. Will we let petty politics condemn these people to losing their chance at freedom? Getting our troops out is a bad objective, if it simply means setting a timetable. It is a wonderful objective if it means making the war more effective by uniting behind the cause of a stable and democratic Iraq. It will require time, money, and, worst of all, lives. But freedom has always required lives. This should not shock anyone. It is hard, it is undesireable, but is unavoidable.

Forget the past for now. Finish the war. Unite and do what it takes to rid Iraq of the insurgency and allow our troops to leave the country. Then, and only then, when Iraq is stable and our troops are back home, should we look back and say, what can we learn from this? Doing it now is distracting us, diverting resources and support, and will drag us down in the end. I am not against questioning our government. I am against questioning our government at times when it will hinder such a delicate and vital process.

Guys with Heart

2005-11-29T18:17:00.000-07:00

Check out Café Hayek. After reading just a few of their posts, I’ve found that they are smart men. And they aren’t just smart, they care about people. They aren’t political for the sake of argument. It seems that they really want what they say to make a difference in this world. Check it out. The link will permanently be in the sidebar.

Rational War

2005-11-29T15:55:00.000-07:00

Sunk costs are irrelevant. This is a significant part of economics. It means that decisions made in the past should not affect decisions made now because you cannot change those decisions. What matters is the consequence of the decision that will be made now. So, if I am deciding on whether to write this post or do my homework, the fact that I chose to play computer games yesterday instead of doing homework shouldn’t affect my decision. Yes, the fact that I didn’t do homework yesterday means I have more homework to do today, but the fact that I chose to play computer games yesterday does not weigh into my decision today. The only things I consider are the importance of doing my homework now versus the importance of writing this post.

You’re probably wondering what I’m babbling on about. Well, I am saying that sunk costs are irrelevant and this applies not only in my private decisions, but also in the national and international arena. Many Democrats are calling for a set date to pull out of Iaq. They attack Bush on the muddled reasoning for invading the country. These two issues have nothing to do with each other. Whether or not we were justified in entering Iraq, the fact is, we are there and this country depends on us if it is to rise out of this mess without falling into civil war. Joe Leiberman wrote an excellent editorial regarding this subject. We are in Iraq and have an opportunity to save millions from tyranny. We are a nation founded upon this principle of freedom and we must unite to support it. We have made mistakes in Iraq. We made mistakes in every war, though. Our government and military are man-made institutions. If we look for flaws, we will find them every time. If we concentrate on those flaws, we will miss this opportunity and these people will once again lose hope.

Pulling out of Iraq is not an option. Yes, it will save our lives, but it will condemn millions to a life they have a chance to leave behind forever. If we back down from this challenge out of our own selfishness and pride, the blood of those people will be answered upon our own heads. Every life has a cost, but when that life is lost in fighting for freedom, than that life is not lost in vain. I salute the thousands of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq, attempting to bring one of the most precious of American ideals to a foreign land – freedom.