Church and Sin

Hammer left a comment on my last post with a link to an article by Al Mohler about the need for Christians to truthfully confront the sin of homosexuality. Trinitarian Don also makes some very good points today about sin, objective truth, the Church, and homosexuality.

While I fully agree with the truth of what both Don and Al wrote, I don’t like how homosexuality often gets singled out by Christian leaders when referencing and discussing sin. Al stated, “The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin.” It sounds like Al hasn’t been to Church lately. Churches nowadays are packed with greedy, lustful, deceitful, proud, selfish, and sexually immoral believers who are quite comfortable in most of their sins. Pastors and other Church leaders are just as comfortable in some or all of these sins. I’m sure I also have blind spots in regard to my own sins.

Some sins are worse than other sins and all sins have gradations of evil. Homosexuality is no different. A homosexual relationship with one partner is different than a homosexual relationship with many partners. Advocating homosexual marriage is different than advocating acceptance of homosexuals. Struggling and failing to overcome a homosexual lifestyle is different than proudly proclaiming a deviant sexual orientation. If Christian leaders and lay believers wish to demonstrate the love of God towards homosexuals, they need to place homosexuality and the gradations of homosexuality on the list of all other sins where it belongs and quit singling homosexuality out as the worst of all sins.

Additionally, if Christian leaders and lay believers wish to be taken seriously when proclaiming the truth of homosexuality, they need to increase the references to the sins of greed, lust, deceit, pride, and selfishness. Perhaps they could start by proclaiming the truth in their own Church and make a few believers a little uncomfortable.

Truth and Love

Brad at The Broken Messenger has written today about the inseparability of truth and love.

What’s my take? Truth and love appear to be inseparable partners. At least until Paul places love over the great pillars of a rebirth in Christ: hope and faith (1 Cor. 13:13). But Christ proclaimed himself as the “truth” and also said that you “shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:34). Is that truth God's love? Absolutely, it must be according to Paul's defense of the absolute need for love in faith (1 Corinthians 13).

But I don’t have a firm position right now as to which is "higher", other than to say that I don’t think that I need one. In other words, I don’t think that my ability to properly order one over the other is critical to my faith in Christ. As long as I am embracing both and apply all revealed truth in love, within faith and for Christ, I obey Christ and glorify him.

What I can say with confidence is that love and truth are certainly are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I am convinced daily that the love of God is the greatest of all truth. Why? First, we have the great command to love God with all heart, mind and soul. Second, we have the command to love others in proof of our love for God:

Great work Brad, I love how you have revealed the truth.

Global Warming Fever

Debra Saunders analyzes Al Gore and Global Warming. I agree with her entire piece. Here are some excerpts:

There is a conceit among the American left that the American right cleaves to bad science out of deference to religion, while the left is all-science, all-the-time. Former Veep Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," however, shows how unscientific -- and downright faith-based -- the left has become.

Gore was wrong in 1992 when he wrote that 98 percent of scientists agreed with him on global warming. Witness the survey cited above. Now, he is wrong when he argues in his movie that there is a complete consensus on global warming today. As proof Gore cites a 2004 study that looked at 928 climate abstracts and found none that refuted global-warming dogma. That says more about the researcher than the scientific community.

There are a number of well-known scientists who don't believe that global warming is human-induced, or who believe that if it is, it is not catastrophic. Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years. Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Climate scientist Robert Lindzen of MIT believes that clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse gas emissions.

So you have to ask yourself: Why does Gore pretend that apostates do not exist? Scientists acknowledge contradictory data. But the faith-driven Gore argues that all scientists agree with him -- well, except for those who are bought and paid for by big polluters.

Because this is a crusade -- and not about science -- Gore is drawn not to the most reasoned scenarios, but the most apocalyptic.

I thought Gore's chart comparing carbon-dioxide increases to temperature spikes was dramatic. But because Gore omits what he does not want to see, I have to listen to former NASA scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, when he tells me: "It is an alarming chart, but there are so many alternative explanations for what he's showing. He's giving it one possible explanation and making it sound like the only explanation." Spencer says it is "more likely" that the higher temperatures increased carbon dioxide levels.

Spencer, who also writes for TCS Daily (which receives some funding from ExxonMobil), believes that some global warming is human-induced, but "I don't believe in climate catastrophe. And, "It comes down to whether you believe the climate system is fragile or resilient." It all comes down to belief -- and that is the problem. Global warming has become so politicized that scientists must believe in it. If they predict dire consequences, they win praise from true believers and grants for their important research. Scientists who question the prophecies of doom can expect to be marginalized.

Now Gore is the know-it-all teacher -- and woe to any scientist who does not agree with him, not just on global warming, but on a 20-foot rise in sea level. It is this alarmism -- this extremism -- that has led many a thinking person to question global warming. It's hard to trust those who believe only the most extreme scenario.
Besides, whenever the establishment says you have to believe something, you want people who question the establishment. Or as global cooling guru Gray once said, "Consensus science isn't science."

Values

Everyone has a certain single value of primary importance or a combination of several values of importance that affects their decisions, actions, and world view.

For some, good relationships trump all other values. For others, the accumulation of wealth is at the top of their list. Some people value achievement over everything else. Others dream of a high social status and will do whatever it takes for popularity. As for me, I value truth above all else.

By valuing truth above all other values, I sometimes have to sacrifice relationships, wealth, achievement, and social status. Likewise, those who value wealth will often have to sacrifice relationships, and truth in order to accumulate a high net worth and those who place the most importance on relationships will often have to sacrifice wealth and honesty.

Our decisions and our actions are mostly derived from our primary values. People who primarily value relationships will seek agreement, compromise, consensus, and peace. These people will be reluctant to take and express a strong position on most matters unless their social network is in agreement. The final agreement or consensus is as likely to come from feelings as it is to come from a rigorous discernment of facts. People who primarily value relationships are not leaders, but are often put in positions of leadership due to their ability to create peace through agreement and compromise.

For the most part, as I observe those who have achieved wealth or success, I don’t observe people I want to emulate. I observe people who are willing to do whatever it takes to attain what they value the most. Often times, family, friends, truth, and integrity are left in the wake. Success, as defined by most, is not for me.

Debate and the earnest pursuit of truth will always be difficult, if not impossible, on blog sites that value relationship above truth. Debate and the earnest pursuit of truth will always be difficult in Churches that value relationship above truth. Marriages where one spouse values relationship above truth and the other spouse values truth above relationship will experience many challenges.

I doubt very many believers would choose the life of Elijah if they had a choice. I certainly wouldn’t. Elijah had too much trouble, too much loneliness, too much difficulty, and too much doubt. However, I am very comforted by the life of Elijah as recorded in Scripture. He trusted God, declared the truth, considered everything else including relationships secondary, and he left the outcome of his ventures to God. I don’t have the truth from God other than my understanding of Scripture, but I am willing to place truth above all else and let God determine the outcome; trouble, loneliness, difficulty, doubt, and all.

Nitpicking

Facts are the building blocks of ideas; ideas are the building blocks of concepts; concepts are the building blocks of beliefs, views, opinions, and ideologies. It is impossible to have a rock solid opinion, belief, or view without accurate facts, clear ideas based on the facts, and clear concepts based on consistent ideas.

Last week I was told by a writer/blogger that the type of comments I leave at his site made him feel like I was only concerned with nitpicking his pieces. Therefore, he didn’t care to respond to my type of challenges. He assured me he wanted dialogue, but he didn’t want to get dragged into a vortex of challenging each other’s facts. He felt like my challenges were a hindrance to his ability to focus on what he was trying to achieve with his writing at his blog.

I don’t know that dialogue is possible without challenges to facts. If you say you are a Methodist and I say I am a Presbyterian, we don’t have dialogue. We may have learned something knew about each other, and we may have the start of a relationship, and we may even have a starting point for dialogue, but we still don’t have dialogue until we reach a point of disagreement in regards to some facts. There is no “iron sharpening iron” until and without challenges to the building blocks of beliefs.

“I am a Democrat” - “I am a Republican”, is not dialogue. “I am a Democrat because Democrats care about the poor” - “I am a Republican because the Republicans actually help the poor”, still is not dialogue. “I am a Democrat because Democrats care about the poor by creating government programs to assist the poor” - “I am a Republican because the Republicans actually help the poor by reducing taxes and government regulations”, is getting close to being dialogue, but it is still missing the challenge that is needed for dialogue. Up until this point, we have only made statements of belief. Dialogue begins when the Democrat challenges the Republican to demonstrate how reducing taxes has helped the poor and the Republican challenges the Democrat to demonstrate how government programs have helped the poor. Through the challenges, we may both reconsider the possible fallacy to our belief.

I like getting comments on my site and I like most of the people who comment, but I especially like the challenges I get from Hammer and Derek. Both of these men have impeccable integrity to go along with a professional ability to nitpick. I still have a long way to go, but I think I am a clearer thinker as a result of the challenges I have received from Hammer, Derek, and others. Without their challenges, I may have been able to improve my writing skills, but I would not have been able to improve my thinking or my communication skills.

Although I have a high tolerance for being nitpicked, it seems like most writers are offended when they are challenged. I don’t know why I like it and others don‘t, but it probably has something to do with being contrarian. I can see where nitpicking can go too far when criticism becomes the stubborn repeating of the same debatable point. Several months ago I had to tell an old friend to leave me alone. We couldn’t have a conversation without him claiming that “Bush Lied”. Of course I don’t believe President Bush lied to convince Americans of the need for war or even if he did lie regarding a few facts it would change what needed to be done. My friend is certainly entitled to an opinion and he is entitled, even encouraged, to express his opinion to me. However, he should have realized that at some point, I did not agree with his facts and it was time for him to give it a rest.

Occasionally I may cross the line of what is acceptable and I may become obnoxious. I hope my friends will honestly let me know when I have gone too far without telling me to leave them alone. I also hope all of my readers will nitpick with all of their energy and ability because I do still have a long way to go in writing and thinking clearly.

Haditha Hoax?

Evidence accumulates of a hoax in Haditha.

Is Al Gore a Brave Truth Teller?

Robert Tracinski did not have much trouble contradicting some of Al Gore’s claims.

Selected Excerpts:

Everyone knows that the global warming theory is the dogma of the entrenched establishment. We know this because we are relentlessly barraged with global warming hysteria from political leaders, the mainstream media, and the government-scientific complex. We are constantly told that we are in imminent danger of dying from everything as catastrophic as massive flooding or as trivial as runaway poison ivy.

What the general public may not have heard about is the courageous band of researchers who are the ones actually speaking up for science in the face of this global warming juggernaut. Ironically, some of the reporting prompted by Gore's film has allowed some of these scientists to be heard--and we ought to listen.

But the truth about this claim is very inconvenient for Al Gore and the environmentalists. The Washington Times published an article surveying a number of top hurricane scientists, whom it found to be "divided" on the merits of Gore's claim. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center even doubts that hurricane intensity has increased as much as claimed over the past thirty years, pointing out that scientists couldn't accurately measure hurricane wind speeds until 1984. We don't know how much of the increase in Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes recorded in recent years is due to an actual increase or whether it is, as he puts it, an "artificial increase," an illusion produced by our improved ability to measure hurricanes.

Meanwhile, Phil Klotzbach, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, points out that increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been balanced out by a decrease in the number of tropical storms in the Pacific. "When these two regions are summed together, there has been virtually no increase in Category 4-5 hurricanes."

So if the splashy movie-poster claim of An Inconvenient Truth turns out to be dubious and hotly contested--very far from an established "truth"--where does that leave Al Gore's status as the brave truth-teller? A fawning New York Times profile on Gore admits that he avoids "making direct causal links that most scientists say are impossible to substantiate" but instead "uses imagery and implication" to make his case. That's about the most tasteful description of the methods of a flim-flam artist I have ever read.

I guess some of the truth is starting to get a hearing--no matter how inconvenient that might be for Gore and company.

Electoral College

As a country, America should always strive to be better. Actually, most of the time, America needs to strive just to stay good. However, changing a Presidential Election system that has worked better than every other system on earth would not be an improvement.

The direct election of our President and/or higher voter turnout would probably give us worse government than we currently have. Countries with pure democratic elections of their President or Prime Minister are all more corrupt than America. Countries with higher voter turnout than America, and most countries do have higher voter turnout, all have worse leaders than America. I don’t think this is purely a coincidence. There is a correlation between direct elections, high voter turnout, and bad government.

With the Electoral College, there is no reason to cheat in most states. The outcome in California, New York, Texas, etc., is all predetermined. Cheating is constrained to the few competitive States where the outcome is uncertain. With less reason to cheat, fewer opportunities to cheat, and a greater focus on the States where cheating is suspected, the cheating can be identified, sometimes prevented, and usually fixed. However, without the Electoral College, cheating would happen up and down every state. It would be impossible to identify and correct all of the corruption.

We will never know with certainty who won the 2000 Presidential election. However, we do know it was a photo finish and it was so close that both candidates had a legitimate claim to the Presidency. Without the Electoral College, a legitimate President would not have been possible. President Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote, but he had the support of the majority of the population because of the Electoral College system, and for the most part President Clinton had a successful Presidency.

The Electoral College is a moderating force. Government, in my lifetime at least, has been very centrist. Johnson, Nixon and Carter moved the country a little to the left. Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II a little to the right. Eisenhower, Ford, Bush I, and Clinton maintained the status quo.

Sure, I would like better government. I would also like a model wife, perfectly obedient children, and a higher paying job. However, I’m not about to get rid of my wife, my children, or my job, because when I compare my wife, my children, and my job to other wives, children, and jobs, I realize I already have it pretty darn good.

Our Presidential election system is not perfect, but it is the best in the world. Changing it would be a mistake. Other countries should copy us.

To vote or not to vote?

The main reason there is so much money and therefore corruption in politics is because of the cost involved in creating and running television commercials and the cost involved in creating and mailing direct mail pieces.

I wish choosing to vote for a candidate was as easy as voting against the candidate who produces the most deceitful ads and literature. However, in most elections this is not an option because all of the serious candidates who have a chance to win are spending lots of money trashing their opponent.

Please do not let money in politics affect your decision to vote today and please do not ever vote if the only information you have is from television or direct mail.

Taxes

One of the best attributes of America is that America doesn’t have a permanent upper class like Europe. Ordinary Americans can still work their way into the upper class by hard work, disciplined saving, and wise investment. Without an inheritance tax, wealthy Americans will be able to use government to protect the “already wealthy” and make it harder for ordinary Americans to work, save, and invest their way into the upper class. Ever wonder why America doesn’t have a wealth tax?

Of all forms of taxation, the inheritance tax hurts the least number of people and has the least affect on the economy. It is much better to tax the dead who no longer need their wealth than it is to tax the living who are still climbing the ladder of success. Ted Kennedy hasn’t had to work a [honest] day in his life, but he is constantly advocating new taxes on those who work.

Of all forms of taxation, income taxes, including Social Security are the least fair. If we have to have taxes, and we do, although not at current levels, then it would be better to eliminate Social Security and increase inheritance taxes.

Children of the wealthy should not have a lifetime pass even if they are only inheriting a small business. If a business is big enough to owe the inheritance tax at the death of its principle owner, then it is large enough to be incorporated.

In addition to keeping the inheritance tax, I would prefer a wealth tax to an income or consumption tax.

Both income and consumption taxes hurt those generating economic activity by penalizing the industrious. If a person spends every dime they earn, they should pay no taxes. They have done their part for America by working and supporting the work of others. Reducing income taxes would also immediately make American workers more competitive in the world economy.

Furthermore, a wealth tax would prevent anyone from just sitting on a pile of money. It would also be the easiest for government to administer and the hardest for cheaters to avoid. Income and spending can be hidden from government; it is much harder, impossible even, to hide property and investments. A wealth tax would still be passed on to those earning income and those consuming goods and services, but earners and consumers would not have to worry about the burden of paperwork.

Tough and Sweet

Congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Hammer.

Contrarian Views could probably use a guest piece from Hammertime on certain holidays and special occasions.

The Rules of Golf

X-Prez playing by the rules.

"Woods 4, Clinton 3."

One Marine's Response

Michael Fay is supporting the opponent of Congressman Murtha.

Hummer-Years

Rick asks a very good question:

How many Hummer-Years does Al Gore consume?

Since we're talking about the environmental impact of greenhouse gases, it makes more to measure Hummer-Years in the amount of CO2 emission.

Marines

Some of the best people I have ever known were and are United States Marines. However, some of the most despicable people I have ever known were also United States Marines. The same elite fighting corps that attracts the most patriotic, courageous, honorable, sacrificial, and brilliant men and women also attracts some of the most cowardly, selfish, and ignorant people as well. Some are marines in every sense of the word, some want to be marines in every sense of the word, and some just want others to think they are marines in every sense of the word without ever having to be marines in every sense of the word. The pretenders are not just low ranking privates either. Pretenders span the ranks all the way up to those with stars on their collars.

There is a fine line between tough and mean. There is a fine line between discipline and obsession. There is a fine line between brilliance and insanity. There is a fine line between strong leadership and abusive control. The best marines approach all of these lines without ever crossing over any of them. Some of the worst do not have the will or ability to determine when a line is being crossed. Some of the worst know they are not up to the challenge and never even attempt to approach any of the lines.

I do not know what happened in Haditha anymore than what has been reported so far. My gut instinct is to be suspicious of what has been reported and my nature is to want to defend the accused marines. Reporters with an agenda could be getting the story completely wrong, good men could have cracked under pressure, but it is also possible the stories are correct and a group of marines did murder innocent civilians. Furthermore, cowardly officers may end up making scapegoats of the accused marines in order to save their own tail. Quite frankly, Haditha, though rare, is probably not an isolated incident.

I would like to believe every soldier was noble all of the time, but I know better. I would also like to believe every conflict could be resolved peacefully all of the time, but I know better. Those who commit atrocities need to be punished, but an atrocity during a military conflict is not a reason to abandon the military action. It is an almost unavoidable consequence of the world we inhabit. May God protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Rush and Hugh = No Landslide

Hugh Hewitt has a piece today titled Sustained Audience, Trust, and Rush about his appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz and the reaction to his description of Rush Limbaugh as America’s most trusted journalist.

Hewitt’s piece and all of the recent talk by the Democrats and the media about the likelihood of a Democratic landslide in the 2006 congressional elections similar to the Republican landslide in 1994 has reminded me of a major reason Republicans won big in 1994.

In 1990, I drove from Chicago to Arkansas to be with my family for Christmas. Once free of the Chicago radio air waves, I started scanning the AM dial and kept finding stations broadcasting a guy who was having fun ridiculing big government and the proponents of big government solutions. As I drove and laughed and listened, I realized I was hearing something I had never heard on the radio or seen on television before; I was hearing someone who shared my values of hard work, self reliance, honesty, and sacrifice. I was also enjoying what I was hearing.

Rush Limbaugh really struck a chord with me that day in 1990 and for the next three years he must have struck a chord with many Americans who had been voting for Democrats all of their voting life. Rush Limbaugh probably didn't persuade many voters to become Republicans, but he did give many of us the confidence to know we were not alone in distrusting what we were hearing from the media and he did persuade us to become former Democrats. By 1994, the majority of voters decided it was time to reverse the trend towards higher taxes and bigger government. Rush Limbaugh may only be a radio talk show host, but he did completely change the political landscape with his radio show in the late 80’s and early 90’s by being different from the mainstream media and by appealing to average voters in middle America.

Big-government Republicans and ignore-the-immigration-laws Republicans have increased the likelihood of a Democratic takeover in 2006, but there is absolutely no chance of a landslide in 2006 like 1994 because there is no change to the political landscape similar to Rush. The Democrats have a few new media stars, but they don’t have very many new voters because Democrats still advocate the same solution to every problem. The Republicans in congress have betrayed many of the voters who brought them to power and many deserve a one way ticket home from DC, but the offspring of Rush which includes Hugh Hewitt, Larry Elder, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity, and many, many others, will keep reminding voters of the failure of big government and the only solution ever offered by Democrats.

I don’t listen to Rush much anymore because I find other radio hosts more interesting, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is one of the most influential people in America for the last two decades. Thanks Rush. Carry on Hugh.

Update: Welcome Hugh Hewitt readers. Hugh’s comment focused on my secondary point regarding the likelihood of a landslide. My main point was, and is, that nothing significant has happened similar to the ascendance of Rush that will change the landscape enough for a landslide to occur. Political opinion on the internet (new media) has grow to maturity, but it seems to be divided between left and right so it will not tip the balance in either direction.

The Senate's 'Tough' Immigration Bill

Thomas Sowell doesn't think much of The Senate's 'Tough' Immigration Bill.

Some people are worried that amnesty will give illegal aliens the same rights that American citizens have. In reality, it will give the illegals more rights than the average American citizen.

Reba

I always did like Reba.

The show's host, country veteran Reba McEntire, drew the loudest applause when she took a shot at the Dixie Chicks. "I don't know why I was so nervous about hosting this show this year," she said. "If the Dixie Chicks can sing with their foot in their mouths, surely I can host this sucker."

Imigration Uncertainty

Most of the financial reporting regarding the recent stock market blames the fear of inflation for the sell off of stocks. I doubt it. Interest rates have been rising for 18 months with the fear of inflation a constant concern. Gradual increases in inflation will affect profits, but not cause a sudden sell off, especially when inflation has been assumed for quite some time.

The real reason for the sell off of stocks is the uncertainty regarding immigration legislation. The word “comprehensive” may sound reassuring to voters who are sure to get something they like along with some things they don’t like, but this word creates fear and uncertainty for investors who don’t have a formula for calculating the affects of all of the changes.

If comprehensive legislation regarding immigration becomes law, the stock market will recover slowly as the changes are evaluated and adjustments to corporate policy are made. If strong border enforcement becomes law without other changes, look for continued selling in the stock market. If a compromise can’t be reached and there is no new immigration law, look for a rapid recovery in the stock market.

Of all of the options, I prefer letting this effort pass without any new laws. From the beginning this has been a solution looking for a problem. People who come to America to work are not a problem. People who come to America to take advantage of government handouts are not a problem, but the government handouts are a problem. Stop the government handouts for everyone and the illegal immigrants will find jobs or go home. People who come to America to break the law are the same problem as people born in America who break the law. Building a few good prisons would be much more cost effective than building a wall and enforcing the American borders.

On immigration, it's time to get real.

Enforceable, Sustainable, Compassionate

BY MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG

The Real Iraq

The Real Iraq

Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe todays Iraq, the only one that has a ring of truth is messy. Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?

Dialogue

Most sources of information and opinion are one way communication. Newspapers and Television News programs present selected facts using words that convey value judgments in order to make a certain impression. Speeches, sermons, direct mail, on-line and dead tree publications are all very similar. One person or an organization of people tell others what they should know and think without ever being challenged on the facts or the conclusion of their message.

As someone who believes I can usually draw my own conclusions and as someone who believes most thinking people can draw their own conclusions based on the facts, I prefer dialogue to monologue. This is one of the reasons I find going to Church so difficult. Way too many Pastors include way too much editorial opinion in way too many parts of their sermons without giving listeners an opportunity to respond.

For me, talk radio and blogs are superior forms of communicating information and opinion because ideas and beliefs get challenged in ways that facilitate iron sharpening iron. Ideas, beliefs, and opinions that withstand critical challenges rise to the top while opinions that are refuted by thoughtful challenges get discarded.

Affluence and Its Discontents

Robert Samuelson confirms some of my points about poverty in Affluence and Its Discontents:

Advanced societies need economic growth to satisfy the multiplying wants -- public and private -- of their citizens. The social order depends on it. But the quest for growth unleashes new anxieties and economic conflicts that disturb the social order. Affluence liberates the individual, promising that everyone can choose a "unique way to self-fulfillment," writes historian Avner Offer. But the promise is so extravagant that it preordains many disappointments and sometimes inspires choices that have antisocial consequences, including family breakdown and obesity. Statistical indicators of happiness, Offer notes, have not risen with incomes.

Should we be surprised? Not really. We've simply reaffirmed an old truth: The pursuit of affluence does not always end with bliss.

Everything You Know Is Wrong

We need more John Stossel's in our world!

Everything you know is wrong.

But the main reason we think there is an epidemic is that the media, suspicious of technology, hype dubious risks.

Almost every week, there is another story about a potential menace. Reporters credulously accept the activists' scares: While I've been a reporter, I've been asked to do alarmist reports about hair dye, dry cleaning, coffee, chewing gum, saccharin, cyclamates, NutraSweet, nitrites, Red No. 2 dye, electric blankets, video display terminals, dental fillings, cellular phones, vaccines, potato chips, farmed salmon, Teflon, antiperspirants and even rubber duckies.

I refused to do most of those stories. If one-tenth of what the reporters suggested was happening did happen, there would be mass death. The opposite is true: Despite exposure to radiation and all those nasty new chemicals, Americans today live longer than ever.

So grab a bar of chocolate (it's healthier than you think, if you eat the right kind) and a copy of my new book, just out this week.

Everything you know is wrong -- and that's very good news.

Clouds of Global-Warming Hysteria

Finally starting to lift?:

"Some establishment scientists seem to be getting the message that they may have over-played their hands and become more parody than prophet. In just the last few weeks, two studies in major journals (Nature and Geophysical Research Letters) dump cold water on the high-end horror-story estimates coming out from politicized groups like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The articles, which cast a gimlet eye on climate-model predictions, show that more likely estimates for doubling of the world's carbon-dioxide level (which many argue will never happen) would produce a warming between 1.5 - 4.5 degrees celsius. Not a walk in the park, but not the stuff of Hollywood disaster epics."

Man-Friendly Church

David Murrow offers a few of his own suggestions for making Church more man friendly here.

Church Ladies

Church Ladies is another opinion piece based on David Murrow's book about why men hate going to church.

Intersting conclusion:

Although Mr. Murrow offers a useful diagnosis of the feminization problem, he overlooks a simple answer to the question of why church is more appealing to women than to men: its domesticating influence. Why else did pioneer women who helped settle the West make one of their first priorities the erection of churches? This leads to another observation, albeit an unpopular one in our age of gender egalitarianism: For as long as women have tried to tame and domesticate men, men have resisted. Understood this way, perhaps the lack of men in the pews is not so much cause for alarm as it is an affirmation of that unspeakable truth--men and women are different.

How We Got to $3 Gas

Robert Samuelson writes a clear description of gas economics in How We Got to $3 Gas.

Selected excerpts:

The United States has the energy policy it deserves, although not the one it needs. Having been told for years that their addiction to cheap gasoline was on a collision course with increasingly insecure supplies of foreign oil, Americans are horrified to discover that this is actually the case. But for all the public outcry and political hysteria, high gasoline prices haven't significantly hurt the economy -- and may not do so. Since 2003 the economy has grown about 3.6 percent annually. It's still advancing briskly. That may be the real news.

But first, how did we get to $3 a gallon? The basic story is simple enough. Oil was cheap in the 1990s. From 1993 to 1999, crude prices averaged about $17 a barrel. Low prices discouraged exploration and encouraged consumption. China emerged as a big user. In 1995 global demand was about 70 million barrels daily; now it's almost 84 million barrels daily.

Spare production capacity slowly vanished, meaning that now any supply interruption -- or rumor of interruption -- sends prices up sharply. An Iraqi pipeline is attacked; prices jump. Nigerian rebels menace oil fields; prices jump.

These pressures get transmitted quickly to the pump, because there are few fixed-price contracts in the oil business. At each stage of distribution -- from producers to refiners, from refiners to retailers -- prices are adjusted quickly. They're often tied to prices on major commodities exchanges, where oil and other raw materials are traded.

"A gas station will get a delivery every four to eight days at a different price," says Mary Novak of Global Insight. Even between deliveries, station owners may push prices up because they know that "for my next tankload, I'll have to pay the market price."

Of course, profits have exploded. Production and refining costs haven't risen in tandem with prices. To the extent that oil companies have their own crude reserves -- as opposed to buying from producing nations -- they've reaped a bonanza. From 2002 to 2005, profits for most U.S. oil companies more than quadrupled, to almost $140 billion a year, the American Petroleum Institute reports. But the really big winners are the oil-producing countries. In 2005 their oil revenue exceeded $750 billion, up from $300 billion in 2002. (Crude oil and taxes represent about three-quarters of the retail price of gasoline; refining, distribution and marketing account for the rest.)

It's conventional wisdom that big increases in oil prices usually trigger a recession -- or at least a sharp slowdown. Why haven't they? One oft-cited reason is that the economy has become more energy-efficient. True. Compared with 1973, Americans use 57 percent less oil and natural gas per dollar of output; compared with 1990, the decline is 24 percent. Cars and trucks have gotten more efficient, though not much more so since 1990. New industries (software programming, health clubs) use less energy than the old (steelmaking, farming). But there's a larger reason: The conventional wisdom is wrong .

This may explain the economy's resilience. One hopeful sign: most nonenergy companies aren't yet passing along higher energy costs to their customers. "Businesses have had wide profit margins," says Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. "They may be willing to eat the higher costs." In 2006, he expects the economy to grow 3.5 percent, with average unemployment of 4.7 percent.

Higher prices will slightly dampen demand, and added supplies will create some spare production capacity. Naturally, he could be wrong. Energy economist Philip K. Verleger Jr. thinks oil could be headed for $100 a barrel, with inflation going to 5 percent and inducing a recession. Continuing strong oil demand will collide with rigid supply (both production and refining). The conventional wisdom -- wrong in the past -- could be right in the future.

Whatever happens, the larger question is how Americans build on this episode. It may feel good to vilify the major oil companies and the oil cartel. But that won't help. We now import 60 percent of our oil; large imports will continue indefinitely. So far, we've escaped a true calamity. We may not be so lucky in the future. We could minimize our vulnerabilities to supply interruptions and price increases. We could open up more acreage (including Alaska) to drilling. We could orchestrate -- through tougher fuel economy standards and a gradually rising energy tax -- a big shift toward more-efficient vehicles. Once again, we've been warned. Will we continue to ignore it?

Bad Trend

The article I linked yesterday is a truly accurate analysis of the state of Christian churches in our time; especially Christian Churches in California. I don’t think the rest of America is as bad as California yet, but the trend is not promising for traditional Christian men or women.

I was in a Church on Easter where a husband and wife talked about their divorce and reconciliation. Neither spouse ever took responsibility for what led to divorce or even mentioned what caused the divorce. All they talked about was how they had grown apart and how they sensed God leading them back together. The husband ended by saying how he is now an Elder in the church.

Orthodox Christianity is right or wrong/good or bad behavior and knowledge, not right or wrong/good or bad feelings. This trend toward feelings will not change as long as head count is a determinate of a successful church.

The Feminization of the Church

Hat Tip: A Team

Why Its Music, Messages and Ministries Are Driving Men Away:

"Men’s absence is especially noteworthy, they said, given that men were a strong force in the early church."

"In America, among evangelical churches, 57 percent of members are women and, among mainline Protestant churches, 66 percent are women, according to a 1998 book American Evangelicalism (University of Chicago Press).

About 23 percent of married women attend without their husbands, according to Murrow.

The men who do attend show less commitment, including less participation in Sunday School, small groups and service activities, according to Barna. Men also report less practice of spiritual disciplines like tithing, Bible reading, evangelism and prayer."

"Yet, because churches have more women, Murrow believes their stereotypical strengths are more valued — and are even seen as more godly. Masculine strengths are often seen as unneeded or as threats to the peaceful status quo, he said.

Johnstone believes the feminization of the church reflects a feminization of the larger culture.

“Our whole society has tended to deprive men of their biblical and creational strengths and empower women,” Johnstone said.

As a result, many people think of church only as a nurturing place that addresses personal needs, Pearcey said. Think: sitting in circles, sharing feelings, holding hands, singing softly, comforting members."

Strange Monkey Doll on the Snow Job

Strange Monkey Doll has the best take on the appointment of Tony Snow as the new White House Press Secretary.

Chess or Checkers?

Anyone who claims that high gas prices hurt the economy probably plays more checkers than chess. Economics is not very difficult to understand, but economics does require a little more than one dimensional thinking and it does require understanding more than one cause and effect at a time.

Gas prices have risen because demand for gas has risen. Demand for gas has risen because more people throughout the world are working, needing energy to produce products, needing gas to drive to work, and buying cars and homes that require more energy.

As long as gas producers are making a higher than average profit, more producers will enter the gas producing business, more jobs will be created, and more money will be spent, creating a tremendously positive ripple affect throughout the economy.

High gas prices may hurt some consumers on a fixed income with a high dependence on their automobile, but only the one dimensional thinkers believe the economy is being hurt.

Schizophrenia

Californians want: to drive SUV’s with stadium seating; a coastline without oil wells; reduced carbon emissions; to bring the troops home from Iraq; no new refineries; and lower gas prices at the pump.

Life 101 seems too complicated for most Californians.

What About the Senate?

2006 politics must read by Jay Cost.

Solution to Gas and Other Problems

Shell, Exxon-Mobil, and every other gas producing company have every right to manage their inventories of oil and gas using a just in time (JIT) methodology similar to how General Motors and other automobile manufacturers manage their inventories of parts and manufactured vehicles. These gas producing companies also have every right to manage their business in a way that produces the greatest return on investment for investors by turning capital into profits. The profits from gas are just as beneficial to the economy as profits from any other product.

Profits mean that an enterprise has developed an improved or more efficient way to produce and deliver a product. Profits are capital that can be reinvested in a way that will create more profits for the company or profits can be spent in ways that will generate profits for other companies and investors. High profits by gas producing companies are an indicator that other companies have an opportunity to profit by moving investment capital into the gas producing industry which in the long run will help to lower the price of gas as more companies compete with each other.

In recent years the gas producing companies have also benefited from an almost monopolistic competitive environment. New companies and new investors are reluctant to invest the amount of capital necessary to be competitive in the gas producing industry because of the risk involved with government threats and regulatory restrictions. Republicans get most of the blame for this problem because of the tax breaks to the gas producing companies, but Democrats are just as responsible for the problem because of the way they constantly threaten gas producers. When it comes to the price of gas, just like everything else, anyone expecting help from the government better hold on tightly to their wallet.

The answer to the problem of high gas prices is for companies that are adversely affected by the price of gas to begin the process of vertical integration into refining their own gas. Companies like General Motors, United Airlines, and others need to step up and start investing in refineries. Both of these companies as well as many others are being hurt by high gas prices and both of these companies have the ability to deal with all of the government red tape and regulations in building new refineries. Both of these companies have labor problems that could be reduced by putting employees to work building and operating refineries. Both of these companies would profit from lower gas prices even if their refineries were not that profitable. Both of these companies could do a lot for their own profits and help to reduce the price of gas if they would be more proactive in creating a better market environment for their products and services by becoming gas producers as well as automobile manufactures and airline carriers.

Compared to what?

It is impossible to understand any issue without a having an accurate point of reference. This is why children who are capable of learning facts quickly and remembering facts at rates much higher than adults are not able to apply facts as wisdom as well as adults. Some children will draw the right conclusion from the facts occasionally, but most children, most of the time, and all children, some of the time, do not turn knowledge into wise decisions. Children lack experiences that help provide an accurate point of reference to make wise decisions.

Adults form a point of reference through personal experiences, education (both formal and informal), assumptions, and social norms. All four of these components are weighted and blended in different ways by different people in developing a point of reference. Confident people will rely more on personal experience and personal assumptions while humble people will rely more on education and social norms in developing a point of reference. Confidence, in the extreme, becomes arrogance when education and social norms are not considered and humility, in the extreme, becomes meekness when personal experiences and personal assumptions are ignored. Confidence can also become arrogance when the confidence is derived from the opinions of others based on the social status of the other person expressing the opinion.

In Science, when the compare group is defined and the experiment is conducted with a double blind study, there is always a precise point of reference for comparison, but in most of life, the point of reference is a little more difficult to determine. Therefore, “Compared to what?” is always a great question to ask oneself when being sold a product or being convinced of an idea or concept. The point of reference along with a fair comparison is what leads to a wise decision or position.

When I hear others expressing an opinion about the disaster in Iraq, I know they are basing their opinion on a faulty point of reference or a poorly reasoned comparison because I have been able to ask myself “Compared to what?”, in analyzing the situation in Iraq. Compared to Viet Nam? Well no, Viet Nam was a disaster where 50,000 Americans and over 2,000,000 innocent Asians were murdered by the Communists. Iraq is a tremendous success so far compared to Viet Nam. Compared to Korea? Well no, Korea was a disaster where the Communists were allowed to retain power and untold millions of people have suffered and died as a result. Compared to World War II? Give me a break, more Americans died on most days in WWII than the total number of Americans lost in Iraq since the invasion. Compared to California? Yes, this is probably the fairest comparison. A few people in California die every day from gang murders just like in Iraq, a country about the same size and population as California.

Climate of Fear

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

Key Excerpt:

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

Immigrant Economics

I keep reading and hearing about how big business benefits from illegal immigration and is therefore against any type of immigration reform. The assumption seems to be that lower labor costs equal higher profit margins. As usual, the assumption is simplistic and wrong.

Obviously, there are many business people who oppose immigration reform and who pay lobbyists to represent this anti-reform position to congress and who support politicians who will maintain the status quo. Some of these business people may even believe they are profiting from a low cost of labor, but most businesses are always in favor of the status quo when a change to the status quo involves considerable risk.

Business people are only in favor of changing the status quo when changing the status quo involves reducing risk. Immigration reform would create more risk to individual businesses because of the market turmoil that would result from modifying labor and pricing strategies. This turmoil would create a situation where some businesses would gain market share and some businesses would lose market share, but overall, the profits for all business would remain the same. The fear of losing market share is what motivates some businesses to oppose immigration reform.

The Fortune 500 companies that are most often villanized by the left are probably the least affected by current immigration policy or any change to the current immigration policy. Most Fortune 500 companies pay most of their employees in America way beyond minimum wage. At the same time, these big companies are moving manufacturing and other operations outside of America to reduce the cost of labor and avoid American regulation. Hilton Hotels at number 438 on the Fortune 500 list may be a slight exception because they do rely on illegal immigrant labor in the United States, but Hilton Hotels is still international enough to shift new development outside of the United States in the event of reform.

In America labor is a commodity that is sold on the open market. The more specialized the labor, and the more demand for the specialized labor, the higher the price for the labor. The less specialized the labor, and the less demand for the labor, the lower the price for the labor. If all of a sudden all of the illegal immigrants were removed from the available labor pool in America, the price for labor would rise and unskilled Americans at the low end of the salary scale would see an increase in pay. But guess what else would happen? The price of goods and services produced in the United States would also rise and the buying power of the increased wages would be reduced. Profits for individual companies might change, but overall profits for business would remain unchanged. Buying power should also remain unchanged, but buying power could be reduced if prices rise faster than wages.

An unfortunate side affect of increased wages will be an increase in tax revenue sent to the Federal government in the form of Income and Social Security taxes. This may help reduce the Federal deficit, but it will also be an incentive for the Federal government to authorize more programs that control our lives and reduce our freedom. Shouldn’t we be advocating more legal immigration and less welfare as a way to fix the immigration problem instead of advocating policies that make government bigger and more intrusive?

Paying Attention

More good news from Iraq.

Global Warming stopped in 1998

Facts keep getting in the way of Global Warming!

Selected Excerpt:

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

How AIDS in Africa Was Overstated

The Washingtom Post has a piece on How AIDS in Africa Was [exagerated] Overstated.

Selected excerpts:

But AIDS deaths on the predicted scale never arrived here, government health officials say. A new national study illustrates why: The rate of HIV infection among Rwandans ages 15 to 49 is 3 percent, according to the study, enough to qualify as a major health problem but not nearly the national catastrophe once predicted. The new data suggest the rate never reached the 30 percent estimated by some early researchers, nor the nearly 13 percent given by the United Nations in 1998.

Taken together, they raise questions about monitoring by the U.N. AIDS agency, which for years overestimated the extent of HIV/AIDS in East and West Africa and, by a smaller margin, in southern Africa, according to independent researchers and U.N. officials. "What we had before, we cannot trust it," said Agnes Binagwaho, a senior Rwandan health official.

Such disparities, independent researchers say, skewed years of policy judgments and decisions on where to spend precious health-care dollars. "From a research point of view, they've done a pathetic job," said Paul Bennell, a British economist whose studies of the impact of AIDS on African school systems have shown mortality far below what UNAIDS had predicted. "They were not predisposed, let's put it that way, to weigh the counterevidence. They were looking to generate big bucks."

On its Web site, UNAIDS describes itself as "the chief advocate for worldwide action against AIDS." And many researchers say the United Nations' reliance on rigorous science waned after it created the separate AIDS agency in 1995 -- the first time the world body had taken this approach to tackle a single disease.

"It's pure advocacy, really," said Jim Chin, a former U.N. official who made some of the first global HIV prevalence estimates while working for WHO in the late 1980s and early 1990s. "Once you get a high number, it's really hard once the data comes in to say, 'Whoops! It's not 100,000. It's 60,000.' " Chin, speaking from Stockton, Calif., added, "They keep cranking out numbers that, when I look at them, you can't defend them."

The Media and Reporting on the Environment

Here is a good piece by David Mastio about The Media and Reporting on the Environment.

Selected excerpts:

"Next time you read a magazine cover story like the one Time just published ("Be Worried. Be VERY Worried. Polar Ice Caps Are Melting ... More And More Land Is Being Devastated ... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame") you should remember one little fact: U.S. media companies, including Time Warner, donate more to the environmental movement than any other industry. Companies like The New York Times, Gannett, Tribune, ABC, CBS and NBC have donated more than a half-billion worth of ad space since the 1990s to raise money for some of the nation's most extreme environmental groups. And yes, that was billion with a B."

"Well, for some reason, no. The Ad Council has given us exactly the opposite: Their messenger is Environmental Defense (formerly known as the Environmental Defense Fund), a group with a reputation for crying wolf. Right now on their web page, ED asks parents to click to find out whether their children are in "danger" from dirty air. Nowhere can parents find the more comforting fact that, no matter where they live, kids today are breathing cleaner air than they did 50 years ago."

"It may be true that every single one of the environmental concerns raised to block hydro-power, wind energy, nuclear plants and natural gas development are all valid. But if global warming is really, really the "most serious environmental issue of our time," shouldn't environmentalists be willing to put their other concerns aside until we deal with the dangers of runaway climate change?

Maybe if our largest television networks, newspapers and magazines weren't the largest fundraisers for these same environmental groups, they'd be in a position to ask."

Steve Forbes on Africa

Steve Fobes starts his opinion piece about the changes that need to be made in Africa in This Money Won't Buy Happiness stating a fact that should be obvious to anyone wanting more African aid:

Alas, this emphasis on giving more money to benighted countries is mis-begotten. Most of it will be wasted, and despite "safeguards" all too much of it will be siphoned off by corrupt politicos and bureaucrats. Africa has received more than $400 billion in aid since 1960, yet per capita income has declined. No other area of the world has suffered such a regression. Blair, Bono et al. should be focusing on measures that would allow sub-Saharan Africa's existing entrepreneurial energies to put their countries on the path of rapid, India-China-Pacific-Rim-like economic growth. There are huge barriers blocking those who could catapult Africa's poor nations onto an economic fast track.

He then lists high taxes, unsound monetary policy, regulatory obstacles, and aids and malaria as factors in African poverty that need to be addressed in order to actually help Africans.

Becoming American

Real Estate is not a significant defining attribute of America. People may be awed by the Grand Canyon, the Pacific Coast, Pikes Peak, and the Great Plains, but none of these geographical locations have played a part in making America great. However, the freedom, liberty, and justice as defined in the United States Constitution, codified into American law, and practiced by generations of Americans are the most significant defining attributes of America and are the reasons for American greatness.

When Americans view their heritage as pieces of property, and when Americans consider land to be the defining attribute of their country, the concepts of freedom, liberty, and justice, become restricted and sometimes even unattainable for non-Americans who desire to live the American life because fewer immigrants are legally allowed to migrate to America.

There is more than enough land in America for everyone in Canada and everyone in Mexico to migrate to America if migrating to America is their choice. Let’s be clear, when Americans vote to limit immigration, Americans are voting to limit freedom, liberty, and justice for others. Is that the kind of country America wants to become? It’s not the kind of country I want America to become.

I Don't Get It

How can employers hire employees who have forged Social Security cards? Don’t employers have to send Social Security taxes to the Social Security Administration for each employee? Why is the Social Security administration accepting taxes for workers who are not listed in the Social Security system as having a valid Social Security number?

Is the hiring of illegal immigrants happening with the full approval of our Federal government and the Social Security administration?

In Favor of Immigration and Amnesty

In a just society, nobody should be unfairly advantaged or unfairly disadvantaged by the luck of their birth. Birthrights and caste systems are unjust because the recipient of a birthright becomes entitled to an unfair advantage throughout life while those stuck in a caste system have very little opportunity to succeed and very little control over their own individual destiny.

Immigration in America has suffered through years and years of bad immigrations policy that has created a birthright for some and a caste system for others. Most of the problems ascribed to illegal immigration are not caused by illegal immigrants. Almost all of the problems ascribed to illegal immigration are problems associated with the lack of enforcement and the manipulation of American laws and public policies.

There are many business and political leaders in America and Mexico who benefit from the current immigration system. The government of Mexico benefits from a system where some of its citizens can move illegally to America, find a job, receive a tax payer funded education, receive subsidized health care, and send parts of a paycheck back to Mexico in order to support remaining family members. This system of illegal immigration keeps American dollars flowing into Mexico, helping to support the economy of Mexico, and reducing the pressure on the government of Mexico to reform.

Construction, farming, hotels, landscaping, and many other businesses in America benefit from a system which supplies a never ending source of inexpensive unskilled labor. These unskilled laborers themselves are rarely able to afford the services of the businesses that utilize illegal immigrants. This system of illegal immigration keeps the prices lower, the profits higher, and maintains the growth potential of the businesses who utilize undocumented laborers. It is a system that also punishes all of the honest businesses that obey the law because it is more expensive for a business to follow the law.

Most Americans want to punish illegal immigrants and business that hire illegal immigrants either through existing laws or new legislation with even stiffer penalties. Some Americans, including President Bush, want to create a two tier system of caste for guest workers. At the same time, almost nobody is in favor of granting amnesty to any illegal immigrant regardless of how long they have been in America. The conventional wisdom is that a grant of amnesty will encourage more Mexicans to break the law and come to America illegally with the hope of eventually obtaining their own amnesty.

As American citizens, we have a right to vote for leaders and laws, but we should be very careful about supporting leaders and laws that change the basic nature of American freedom and American justice. Stricter enforcement of existing laws, new laws with stiffer penalties, a thirty foot wall separating Mexico from America, and a guest worker program do not represent a move toward more freedom and justice. All of these solutions would represent a significant turn away from freedom and justice.

It is time for the government of the United States, the government of Mexico, the businesses in America who hire illegal immigrants, and the citizens of America, to find the rectitude to begin making and enforcing an immigration policy that allows Mexicans who believe in America to live in America, work in America, contribute to America, and become American citizens without having the stigma of second class status. It is time for Americans to quit claiming a birthright that is fundamentally unjust and fundamentally un-American.

Real Simple

This is real simple. There is no need to complicate morality when a simple principle is all that is needed.

The obligation of a Christian is to always offer peace. This offer of peace must always be on the table for an enemy to accept when the enemy is ready to lay down their arms. If the enemy of the Christian refuses to accept the peace offer, it then becomes the obligation of the Christian to protect the innocent. Protecting the innocent sometimes involves killing the enemy.

The war in Iraq was not only a just war, it was one of the few real moral accomplishments by my country in my lifetime. The after-war in Iraq has had problems because some of the enemy still does not want peace. The enemy has chosen death over peace. We should oblige.

Curing the Conservative Crack-Up

Here is a good description of what Republicans in Washington need to do in order to return to Conservatism.

On Vampires, Zombies and Snake Oil Salesmen

Michael Fay has a way with words, too!

Fair Comparisons

The only fair way to evaluate the results of any action is to compare the results of the action to the results of other actions in similar circumstances. It is easy to compare the results of two runners running against each other in a 100 meter dash at the same time on the same day on the same track. One runner will finish in front of the other. We can know with certainty who was the winner.

We can also compare the accomplishments of other athletes who do not compete on the same track at the same time on the same day, but the certainty of our comparison will be a little less accurate. No two golfers have the exact same conditions or get the exact same breaks on each hole in a 72 hole tournament. However, the conditions are close enough for us to declare a winner once all of the golfers have completed four rounds because the scores of each golfer can be compared based on playing the same holes and the same amount of holes, on the same course.

Tiger Woods never played against Jack Nicklaus in his prime. Hank Aaron never played against Babe Ruth at all. However, the accomplishments of Tiger Woods can be compared to Jack Nicklaus and the Home Runs of Hank Aaron can be compared to Babe Ruth because all of these men competed against the best competitors in their sport in their time and each sport is mostly unchanged.

Presidential administrations throughout history can be compared to each other but with much less certainty than is possible in sports because no two administrations have faced the same challenges; some haven’t even faced similar challenges. It is possible to evaluate the results of an administration based on the stated goals of the administration, but it is not possible to do so with any accuracy or precision because different administrations also faced different levels of opposition.

When comparing the competency of the Bush administration to the competency of the Clinton administration, there isn’t a big difference. Objectively, if we consider one of the two to be competent, then we must also consider the other to be competent and if we consider one of the two to be incompetent, then we must consider the other to be incompetent. I happen to like the objectives of the Bush administration more than I liked the objectives of the Clinton administration and I happen to like the person George Bush more than I like the person Bill Clinton, but I don’t think either man was particularly good at running a government. However, I find it hard to completely blame either man for the faults of government because some of the attributes of government seem to be unmanageable no matter who is in charge.

When evaluating the results of a war, it is almost impossible to be fair, accurate, and precise in coming to any meaningful conclusions. The war in Iraq was the fastest and most complete victory in the history of the world. In several weeks the army of a country of 30 million was completely defeated by the army of a country of 270 million on the soil of the country with 30 million people. It really was unprecedented, but it was also expected because of the superior technology of the country of 270 million. Were the expectations realistic? Probably, but there is really no way to know for sure because there is no point of reference for comparison.

When evaluating the after-war in Iraq, it IS impossible to come to any meaningful conclusions at this point in time because the situation in Iraq has never existed before in the history of the world. In hindsight, most reasonable people will conclude that some of the decisions regarding Iraq were poor decisions and some actions were counterproductive. I can’t make it through a day without making a bad decision, and I don’t know of any leader in government, business, church, or any other organization who doesn’t make mistakes and then make adjustments based on the lessons learned. Bad decisions alone are not a measure of failure or success. Uncorrected bad decisions or corrected bad decisions will be the determinate in the final analysis.

Pundits who claim the Bush administration is incompetent in managing the rebuilding of Iraq, or who claim the invasion of Iraq was a big mistake, or who only see the deaths and not the hope and freedom, are basing their judgments on vapid analysis because there is no point of reference for a fair comparison. These pundits are only critics who are willing to exercise freedom in their own speech, but unwilling to pay the price for freedom and unwilling to let others determine their own destiny.

Natural Bias

When a consumer of News considers a News piece written or broadcast by a producer of News to be biased, either the producer of the News IS biased or the consumer of the News IS biased, or most likely, the consumer of the News and the producer of the News ARE both biased.

I’m not really sure why so many mainstream media organizations deny their bias or why so many otherwise intelligent people deny the bias in the mainstream media and defend the objectivity of the mainstream media. To me, the defense of the mainstream media seems to be based more on emotion than an honest appraisal of the reporting.

It is impossible for any writer, any editor, or any producer to completely remove bias from the stories that are chosen to get reported and the way the stories are reported. Some of the bias in the media seems very calculated, but most of the bias in the media is quite innocent and quite natural. For example, I can’t help but tell better stories and use better words when I am reporting on my delightful, accomplished, and well behaved daughters. Have I ever mentioned how beautiful both of them are? However, the stories I tell and the words I use when reporting on the devious little monsters being raised by other parents will be quite different.

Reporters, editors, and producers, who were educated in elite Universities, who are lifelong Democrats, who think President Bush stole the 2000 election, who are opposed to the war in Iraq, who don’t have any moral problems with the right to choose abortion, who believe it is the responsibility of government to help the poor, are surely going to choose different stories and report the chosen stories using different words than someone who has a different background and different beliefs.

An honest appraisal of the stories and the words used in reporting will confirm the bias of the mainstream media and and the bias of every other writer, reporter, journalist, columnist alive. The sooner consumers of News learn to accept, understand, and then filter the bias in reporting, the better the chance the consumer of News will learn and know the truth.

Crunchy Cons?

A Crunchy Con Manifesto

Better Than Dear Abby

Dear Joe

Cheap Talk

Talk is cheap!

In the corporate world, leaders are admired, leadership is honored, but followers get promoted. It’s almost comical how corporate executives can use the terms “leadership” and “standard practices” in the same sentence without feeling any sense of irony.

In the corporate world, customer service is proclaimed, the customer is the king, but the lowest paid employees are the ones who interact with the customers. If the customer really is king, why are the lowest paid entry level employees most responsible for handling customer matters? If the customer really is king, why does the corporate executive move further and further from the customer as he or she gets promoted?

In the corporate world, planning is essential for growth, executing plans the mantra, but cutting costs, especially employee costs, the most common practice. Why do the employees who are least responsible for poorly laid plans the most responsible for paying the cost of the poor plans?

Corporate talk really is cheap!

Expensive Math

Last week I mentioned how I had a little bagel fixing issue with my oldest daughter. At the time, I felt she needed to be taught the importance of doing for herself what she is capable of doing for herself in order to avoid being an unnecessary burden on others.

This week, she needed a different lesson. On Monday, as my wife was picking the girls up from school, some of the classmates of my oldest daughter ran up to my wife and told her how my oldest daughter had tied with another classmate for the highest score in their class on a math test that day. All of the students at her school were given a math test as a first step in determining who would represent their school in a city-wide math competition. On Tuesday, the two students with the highest score from each class competed against each other to determine the two students who would represent each grade of her school in the city-wide competition.

Would I be writing this if she didn’t get selected? Not only did she get selected, she had the highest score of all of the students in the third grade at her school. Nothing in life is free though, so on Tuesday night I ended up paying for my daughter’s success.

After I arrived home from work, she asked me to take her shopping for a pair of Heelys. Never heard of Heelys? Heelys are $10 shoes with $2 wheels that sell for $60 -$85. I don’t know how the third grade ever got by without them. Needless to say, demand for these shoes is high, and supply in my daughter’s size is low. By the second time a salesperson told us to check back next week, I was ready to go home and wait until next week, but my daughter with the persistence to master third grade math was not about to give up after only checking two stores.

On this night, my oldest daughter needed to see her dad being sacrificial in a way that modeled sacrificial behavior and in a way that demonstrated how much I knew and admired how hard she has worked at math in order to achieve the highest score in her grade at her school. At 9:30 PM, after sitting in Sports Chalet for 20 minutes waiting for a sales clerk to help, we got our shoes, and headed home ready to call it the day. I don’t remember the last time I spent $75 for a pair of my own shoes.

BTW, does anyone know what the sum of the smallest prime number and the largest two digit prime number is without looking it up?

06 elections test political physics

Here is an interesting article on the 2006 election by a John Kerry operative.

Myths of Iraq

Ralph Peters claims that during a recent visit to Iraq, he saw an enormous failure, on the part of Western Media. Read about what he discovered here.

Dependence or Independence

On Saturday morning my oldest daughter asked me to fix her a bagel for breakfast. I responded by giving her the same answer most good fathers would give to a 9-year-old daughter. I told her to fix it herself. You would have thought I told her to invade Iran all by herself.

After enduring the crying, and whining, and begging for about ten minutes, I was finally able to convince her to a least open the bag of bagels, get a knife, and start to cut the bagel in half. I helped her cut the bagel in half, but then after the bagel was toasted, I had to endure another five minutes of crying when I told her she needed to spread her own cream cheese. She ended up running to her room screaming that she didn’t want the bagel anyway.

So I turned to my 6-year-old daughter and asked her if she wanted the bagel. My youngest daughter walked over to the counter, took a knife, spread some cream cheese on the bagel and started eating it without saying a single word.

I don’t pretend for a second to understand all of the complexities of human nature. Most of my theories about human nature have been challenged and some of my theories have been changed as I raise two daughters. However, I am quite certain that people change and adapt based on situations and circumstances. I am also certain that the basic instinct of almost all people is to survive and to do whatever it takes in order to survive.

Throughout the drought stricken parts of Africa right now there are many people who would refuse help regardless of how dire their current situation was. There are also some people who are mentally and physically incapable of caring for themselves and who need assistance in order to survive. Additionally, there are many people similar to my daughters. Some of these people are like my youngest daughter who only need a little encouragement and possibly a little role modeling. Some of these people are like my oldest daughter on Saturday who need to be told they will no longer be helped because they are fully capable of doing for themselves everything they need to do in order to survive. These are the people who will be helped the most in the long run by learning self sufficiency.

The aid organizations and the aid programs to Africa are creating serious problems by not differentiating between the types of people who need aid and the types of people who want and expect aid. Until these organizations are able to discern and differentiate, it is time to stop all of the aid. It is time to stop creating problems where none existed before aid started.

My oldest daughter got up Sunday morning and fixed her own bagel. Amazing? No, common sense.

To Pay or Not To Pay; That is the Question

I have a question for both of my readers and perhaps anyone else who is passing through.

It seems to me that it is quite easy for someone without integrity to influence someone with integrity to behave in ways that are less than honest since there is much to be gained from not being honest.

However, it is much more difficult for someone with integrity to influence someone without integrity to start behaving in a more honest way because there is often a cost associated with being completely honest.

Perhaps my hypothesis is wrong. But if I am right, does anyone have any thoughts on how someone can be influenced to pay the cost of integrity?

Second Memo to the Rich

To: Anyone who is serious about helping the poor

From: Contrarian Views on behalf of the financially poor

Re: Helping the poor and making yourself a better person

If you occasionally eat at Burger King or any other fast food restaurant, treat the counter help where you are eating with the same dignity and respect as you treat your Senior Pastor. Those of us who are poor need to see evidence that you don’t think you are superior to us. Remember what you learned when you were four years old; “please” and “thank you” are always appropriate. In the process, you may become a kinder person.

If you are a member of a fancy Church, start treating your Senior Pastor the same way you usually treat the counter help at Burger King. Your Senior Pastor may not know how you actually act when you are not at Church. Your Senior Pastor may learn the truth about you, and you will be reminded to be more kind to others.

If you don’t normally eat fast food, go eat at Burger King or any other fast food restaurant. Practice being kind and respectful to those who are not your peers and have nothing to offer you other than fries and a burger.

If you own a Burger King or any other fast food restaurant, start paying your employees more than the competition and more than minimum wage. There is no Biblical requirment for you to make the same profit margin as all of your competion. A funny thing might happen though. Happier and more confident employees may just have a positive effect on increasing business.

If you have never taken an economics class or read an economics book, make an effort to do both as soon as possible. After you finish the first class or the first book, take or read a second. Economics is more than micro and macro supply and demand. If you are a Pastor, take a third class; you probably believe more myths about economics than the average person. Continue to take additional classes until you finally realize that Fair Trade Coffee is not the answer to third world poverty.

If you don’t shop at Wal-mart, Kmart, or Target, start shopping at at least one of these. All of these stores are lowering the cost of living for those of us who are poor as well as providing us with jobs and income. Don’t forget to say “please” and “thank you” while you shop. Wal-mart may be a blight on your pristine neighborhood, but it is one entity that is actully doing us some good.

If you are an employer, stop lieing to your customers and employees. If you are an employee, stop lieing to your boss. If you are a boss, stop lieing to your employees. Integrety is more valuable than money. Who knows, integrety might even be contagious if it weren’t so rare.

If you are working more than fifty hours or six days a week, start cutting back. You are probably kidding yourself with the extra work you think you are accomplishing and your family might even start to recongnize you again.

Sit down with a friend or two and drink a Budweiser or two. You don’t need to be rich to enjoy the good life.

Memo to the Rich

To: Anyone who is thinking about donating to a charity

From: Contrarian Views on behalf of the financially poor

Re: Charity

If you are thinking about donating to a charity out of pity for the poor, please reconsider. We don’t need your pity. In fact, many of us pity you for all of the misconceptions and lies you believe about the value of money and the nature of poverty.

If you think you are better, better off, or superior to the poor because of the size of your bank account, don’t bother donating. We may not be superior to you, but in many ways we are much better off than you.

If you have ever used the term “burger flipper”, you think you are superior to us even if you won’t admit it. We don’t need your condescending money.

If you have ever lied to a customer, lied to an employee, or lied to a boss in order to make more money, stick those dollars back in your wallet. We could have lied in order to achieve financial success just like you, but we chose our integrity over financial wealth.

If you worked late at night or on weekends when you should have been spending time with your children, put your bucks away. We could have also sacrificed our children for a little extra green, but we chose to be with our family instead of our checkbook.

If you think anyone is impressed with the type of car you drive or the house you own, you are truly pitiful. Keep your guilt money. We do not wish you to be relieved of your guilt.

If you think you are too good to shop at Wal-mart, we don’t want your money. You don’t have a clue about poverty since you are unwilling to support the one entity that is truly helping us.

If you made your wealth as a Pastor pleasing people when you should have been pleasing God, your money is very tainted. Keep it for yourself. We could have behaved the same way, but we chose to please God.

If you made a fortune selling music and concert tickets to drug induced kids, your money is worthless to us. The gangs associated with illegal drug trade have ravaged some of our neighborhoods.

If your wealth comes from Hollywood where the primary values are sex before the first date and gay sex without a date, keep your money. We already waste enough time protecting our children from you and your misguided values.

If you made of ton of money through insider trading, stock manipulation, or stock options not available to common folks, we don’t want any of this money either, it smells of cigar smoke.

If Budweiser is beneath you, go buy a more expensive beer with your money instead of giving it to us. Good taste is not a requirement for charity, but common sense is.

Purchase on a List

There is something inside of some people that makes them desire money and the things that can be purchased with money. Most people, the financially rich and the financially poor, the Christian and the non-Christian, believe that more money in their bank account will mean more happiness in their life. Despite what Jesus and Scripture have to say about money being a deterrent to Kingdom of Heaven matters, most people still place a high value on financial wealth. Despite what some people know to be true about money, they still have a desire in their heart for more money.

From 1992 until 1994, I had the opportunity to work as a Real Estate Appraiser in Southern California. It was a period when interest rates were dropping, home sales were increasing, and many other home owners wanted to refinance their mortgage and lower their payments. During this period, I appraised homes in all areas of Southern California from the poorest parts of Central Los Angeles and Riverside to the wealthiest parts of Palos Verdes, Malibu, and South Orange County. This experience allowed me to observe people in the complete range of financial situations who owned or wanted to own houses.

I think many of my observations would surprise a whole lot of people. From my observations, the people who owned the big houses weren’t any happier than the people who owned the small houses. Often times though, the people who lived in the multi-million dollar properties were downright miserable. Not all, but a good percentage of these wealthy home owners did nothing but complain from the time I met them and started appraising their house until the time I completed my appraisal and left. Some of the complaints were about money matters and some of the complaints were about other life matters from ungrateful children to poor lawn and pool service. If money buys happiness, why would these people in the big houses be so miserable?

From my observations, people with the small houses took just as much pride, and sometimes even more pride in home ownership than the people with the big houses. I can’t count the number of times a girl or boy in Riverside or Central Los Angeles would make sure I saw their immaculately cleaned closet-sized bedroom or how many times I walked into a house in Palos Verdes where an eight hundred square foot bedrooms was filled with junk and trash. If money buys dignity, why were these people in mansions so undignified?

I can tell you however, from my experience as a Real Estate Appraiser, there was a difference between the financially wealthy and the financially poor that was almost universally true. The people with the small houses in bad neighborhoods almost always treated me with more respect and more kindness than the people in the big houses in the good neighborhoods. The people in the small houses appreciated how I was able to help them lower their payments while the people in the big houses considered me as just another entity that could be bought with the money in their bank account.

My experience as an appraiser makes me wonder if the financially poor need the help of the financially rich, or perhaps in reality, it is the other way around. In many cases, it is the financially rich who are truly the “least of these brothers of mine.” My experience as an Appraiser makes me wonder if those who contribute and support some charities consider charitable donations just another purchase on their list.

My next post will be an open letter to the financially rich on behalf of the financially poor.

Charitable Results?

Back in the late 1980's, Cabrini-Green, one of Chicago's largest high-rise public housing projects, was in a state of complete disrepair. The buildings constantly smelled like urine, gangs took over and occupied all of the units on an entire floor, and some of the buildings were not even being managed or maintained at all. The Chicago Housing Authority needed the units to house the poor, but didn't have enough funds to pay for the renovation to make all of the units in the buildings livable. Several Chicago area Churches along with Moody Seminary got together and offered to provide volunteer labor to renovate the unlivable units if the Chicago Housing Authority would pay for the supplies. A deal was struck and the upgrades began.

I jumped at the chance to be part of this volunteer project. I loved spending my Saturdays wearing old jeans as I scraped and painted and laid tile. Most volunteers showed up once a month. I showed up every week. I would have showed up every day if I could. It felt great to be part of a team that was turning old dilapidated buildings into livable space for the needy. The difference in the buildings from the time we started the first unit until the time we finished the last unit was remarkable. I felt a sense of accomplishment along with a sense of joy that I was helping to make this part of the world a better place. I especially loved the children that would come running up to me with big smiles on their faces when they saw me walking toward a building carrying a paint brush and a paint bucket. These kids, in the middle of complete poverty, were some of the happiest kids I had ever seen. Why wouldn't they be happy since they had what every kid wants; lots of friends, lots of space, and little supervision. In many ways, they had a better life than what I had growing up. They would follow us up in the elevators to the units and we let them help paint until they got tired and wanted to go find something else to do.

For the first several months I was pretty oblivious to anything except the work I was doing and good feelings it gave me. But as the months went by, I started to make observations about what was happening around me, and I started to think about the affect my charity was having. I noticed that none of the residents of the units we upgraded ever volunteered to help upgrade other units and I especially started to notice that after the boys and girls passed a certain age, they quit coming out to greet us, and they weren't smiling anymore when I saw them. Then I had another one of those light-bulb-turning-on moments. The Chicago Housing Authority, Moody Institute, the Churches, and my charity was having the exact opposite of the intended affect. It was a Gremlin affect. We were turning good kids into monsters.

At six years old, everything in the life of Cabrini Children was good, but as they got older, they started to believe that their lack of money made them inferior to those of us who had enough money to show up and volunteer. The children who lived in Cabrini-Green didn't have a father to walk five dollars back across the street in order to demonstrate the unimportance of money. At six, they wanted to help. At six, they knew how to operate a paint brush, but by the time they turned ten, they no longer wanted to help and they were no longer willing to do something as simple as painting a wall in order to make their home environment better. Not only did the adults who lived at Cabrini not appreciate us, they hated us because they believed that they were inferior to us. We conditioned a whole segment of adults to need charity and those who received the charity hated those who were providing the charity. When we treat adults like house pets, is it any wonder we get the results of more disease, more crime, and more poverty?

Throughout the Middle East today, this same phenomena is taking place. An entire generation of Muslim Adults are growing up feeling inferior to people in the West and feeling inferior to the rulers of their own country who are financially wealthy. It is a complete misconception, even a lie in some cases, that money has anything at all to do with individual worth. Even most Christians and their Pastors believe that money makes a person better, better off, and superior to those without money. They may not say it with their mouths, but they demonstrate it by their actions. Pastors and Christians propagate this myth every day with some what they teach and some of what they do regarding charity. It is quite a shame that those who should know better, don't make more of an effort to understand the poor as well as teach and demonstrate the unimportance of money.

I can't tell you how happy I was to learn that Cabrini-Green has finally been demolished. I just wish that some of the ideas about helping the poor could be demolished along with it.

In my next post I will discuss some of the similarities and some of the differences between the financially rich and the financially poor.