It normally seems that around this time of the spring semester, my adviser, John Hitchcock, has to attend a conference or a meeting of sorts that takes him away from Laramie for a week or two, and I have the privilege of lecturing in his place.
I would like to do more teaching, but as our department has a hard enough time keeping all but the core classes open, and there aren't very many assistantships (due to our department nearly folding last school year), I don't have the opportunity. I might have the chance at a community college after Sara and I graduate--a community college since that will probably be the closest institute of higher learning in the area--but that's for the future.
Anyway, the class, COSC 4200: Computation and Complexity, covers some basic computation theory in the first half of the semester, focusing on regular languages and the associated finite automata, and context-free languages and their associated grammars and push-down automata; and then delving into Turing Machines and some complexity theory in the second half of the semester.
Since these theory topics are within my area of study, I'm always fascinated by them. Personally, I find playing with DFAs and PDAs quite enjoyable. I tried to describe them as the tinker toys of computational theory to my wife, but sadly she felt that meant that talking about them was a waste of time. Sigh.
I personally find it interesting how some very simple paradigms of computation can actually accomplish a fair amount of work. It is also interesting noting the closure properties of such languages. Regular languages, for example, are closed under union, intersection, complement, concatenation. Context-free languages are closed under union and concatenation, but not complement or intersection. More importantly, under regular languages, nondeterminism is not any more powerful than determinism, one of the few cases where we know this happens (one other being PSPACE=NPSPACE, due to Savitch's Theorem). Of course, we can argue that we can only make this assertion since we restrict ourselves to a finite number of states with no memory devices (like a stack or a queue), and that there is still an exponential blowup of states when converting from NFAs to DFAs. This exponential blowup is the reason why it seems that P is strictly contained in NP.
On the other hand, context-free languages are essentially defined nondeterministically, and CFLs are strictly more powerful than DCFLs, a case where separation between determinism and nondeterminism is known.
One of the neat things about playing with DFAs is that they are memoryless. They consume the input as they work, and what memory they have is a tiny, finite amount. For example, we can craft DFAs to remember the last c bits it has read, where c is some constant. Useful, but very limited, considering that most problems require us to have unbounded amounts of memory to solve them.
This limited factor of DFAs makes moving up to PDAs more exciting (at least for me), because PDAs are essentially NFAs with a stack. A stack operates on a LIFO (last in, first out) property, but has infinite capacity. This means we can remember what we've read--only when we try to re-read the input, we read it backwards.
One of the considerations I wondered about when I first learned about these was what would happen if we used a queue, instead of a stack. The answer is: we have the equivalent of a Turing Machine. So having a queue gives us all the computational capabilities (minus a speed factor) of the PCs we have in front of us.
I was rather pleased when the class thought to ask about that during lecture yesterday.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
Time Changes Strike Again
So Sara and I agreed to swap with Greg (our guitarist) and Janelle (our other pianist) this last weekend, since Greg and Janelle wanted to run to the slopes while they still could. Normally Sara and I play and sing at the Saturday 5:00 Mass, while Greg and Janelle take the 11:00 Sunday. We agreed to the swap, and even decided to show up for the 8:30 Mass, since it typically suffers without a pianist, relying instead on the player-piano.
However, we were not prepared for Daylight Savings Time. Perhaps we've been a little out of the loop on that, or perhaps we simply never worried about it, since our Sundays tend to be a little lackadaisical. But I had set my watch to beep at 6:30, giving myself time to shower and shave before waking Sara up at 7:00, and then heading over to St. Paul's Newman Center at 7:15 or so.
Well, as Sara worked her way through her morning donuts, she had a terrifying suspicion that something was wrong. So she checking on my computer, and the time was not 7:00, it was 8:00. Panicking, she checked our cell phones, and sure enough, they registered 8:00 as well. So we dressed in a hurry, threw things together, and hurried over to the Newman Center--15 minutes before Mass was to start, as opposed to 15 minutes before practice!
Ugh. It is a mess when there's no time to practice liturgy music prior to Mass. We're not quite coordinated, and there's always these little hiccups that make us feel sheepish--or even a little guilty for volunteering our time and subjecting people to our mistakes.
Oh, well. At least the 11:00 Mass went well.
However, we were not prepared for Daylight Savings Time. Perhaps we've been a little out of the loop on that, or perhaps we simply never worried about it, since our Sundays tend to be a little lackadaisical. But I had set my watch to beep at 6:30, giving myself time to shower and shave before waking Sara up at 7:00, and then heading over to St. Paul's Newman Center at 7:15 or so.
Well, as Sara worked her way through her morning donuts, she had a terrifying suspicion that something was wrong. So she checking on my computer, and the time was not 7:00, it was 8:00. Panicking, she checked our cell phones, and sure enough, they registered 8:00 as well. So we dressed in a hurry, threw things together, and hurried over to the Newman Center--15 minutes before Mass was to start, as opposed to 15 minutes before practice!
Ugh. It is a mess when there's no time to practice liturgy music prior to Mass. We're not quite coordinated, and there's always these little hiccups that make us feel sheepish--or even a little guilty for volunteering our time and subjecting people to our mistakes.
Oh, well. At least the 11:00 Mass went well.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Mental Illnesses
This little story reminds me of a discussion I was having with my wife a few days ago. We were talking about demon possession, or demon influence, especially concerning some friends of ours who are into Wiccan. So the question is: is there demonic influence in mental illnesses?
I proposed the following solutions:
1) Some mental illness are purely physiological in nature. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
2) Some mental illnesses are exacerbated by demonic activity.
3) Some mental illnesses are not mental illnesses at all, but are demonic activity disguised as mental illnesses.
Certainly having read an article at InsideCatholic about demonic possession, I am much more willing to believe that 3) actually happens.
I wonder which of the three is the case for this gruesome bus beheading and ensuing cannibalism?
I proposed the following solutions:
1) Some mental illness are purely physiological in nature. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
2) Some mental illnesses are exacerbated by demonic activity.
3) Some mental illnesses are not mental illnesses at all, but are demonic activity disguised as mental illnesses.
Certainly having read an article at InsideCatholic about demonic possession, I am much more willing to believe that 3) actually happens.
I wonder which of the three is the case for this gruesome bus beheading and ensuing cannibalism?
Ouch!
The dangers of French Kissing in Britain. Or a vindictive significant other. One of the two, I'm sure.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Who Is Responsible?
I just had a conversation with a friend who is in a "Gender and Society" Business Writing class. (I know--it just makes you want to say, "huh?") Apparently the class is one part writing (in the six or seven weeks of the semester they've covered the important topics of cover letters and thank-you's) and three parts bickering about how poorly society, mainly American society, treats women.
As a note, my friend is female, and she is absolutely fed up with the class. One of the "class discussion" topics of late was whether or not a woman in a miniskirt and a neckline down to her navel bore any responsibility for her rape. The general consensus was that, no, the woman wasn't responsible. Nor was she responsible if she was drunk and walking down a dark alley at night.
Now, that's somewhat flippant of me to say, let's look at the issue a little closer. First of all, rape is committed by someone against someone. The one committing the rape is fully responsible for all his actions. Ultimately, he bears all legal consequences for his actions. But is there any blame that can be attached to the woman?
This is where the argument gets tricky, and where most people simply want to duck their heads and mumble, "Of course she's isn't *muttermuttermutter*..." The reason for this sheep-like response is because it isn't at all politically correct to attach any blame to a victim, and the reason it isn't politically correct is because it appears hurtful to the one who has already been cruelly wounded. There's certainly understanding to be had there, especially since rape victims often carry a deep sense of not only shame, but guilty, for their violation.
But simply because something is painful doesn't make it false. That's a fallacy we fall for too often these days. So let's consider the situation. A woman dresses provocatively and enters a dangerous situation. It could be a party at the local fraternity, where there will be alcohol in excess, possibly some drugs, and of those maybe some of the date-rape variety. Or it could be the proverbial dark alley in Manhattan. It doesn't matter. The potential rapist sees her, identifies her as a potential victim, starts scoping out the situation. He concocts a plan in his head on how to rape her, and then goes through with it.
Okay, so far everything seems to agree with the lack of culpability on part of the woman. However, there's a catch, and this falls back on solidarity, and the partial responsibility of the community for the sins of the individual. First, there is such a thing as the profile of a victim. If you examine rapists and other sex offenders, you'll find that there's a type of person, a list of descriptions, that makes a person more vulnerable than others.
Now, one of the things about dressing provocatively is that it is meant to arouse sexual desire. A woman might try to couch it in simply "looking attractive", but the reality is that flaunting the body in a sexual fashion is meant to boost the woman's ego when men start drooling over her. Never mind that such an attitude merely reduces the woman into a sex object (a living centerfold, as it were), and thus the attraction is hardly genuine, or even the sort the woman wants.
Next, people insist that rape is about "power", but that's a rather broad statement, almost empty of meaning until it is put into context. In general, rape is about making the rapist feel better through sexual means. Sometimes the sexual aspects of rape are almost incidental--such as the desire to degrade a woman through the violation of intimacy--but other times rape is very, very sexual. Date rape, for example, is about the victory of "scoring" with a girl, either by getting her too drunk to say either "yes" or "no" to sex, or by using a date rape drug so that's she unconscious at the time of the violation.
I make this distinction because there are some profiles that one cannot help. Sometimes a rapist is simply turned on by, say, little boys, regardless of dress or situation. But other aspects one can help. And this is where responsibility comes into play.
When a woman dress provocatively, or flirts outrageously, or anything that is sexually arousing, she tempts. Now, our modern society views behaving in such a fashion a good thing, a harmless thing, and thus nothing the woman should be blamed for. However, temptations exist for one purpose alone: to weaken the will. We pray "...and lead us not into temptation..." (or more literally "...put us not to the test...") because we know that temptation weakens the will, makes us more readily accept sinful behavior.
Thus a woman is culpable for as much temptation she provided. Granted, this culpability is by far less than the terrible crime committed against her, but that crime does not expunge her own guilt in the matter. She made herself temptation, she weakened wills around her, and thus pulled down a mountain on her head.
So yes, there is some responsibility on the part of the woman for her rape. But now the caution. That responsibility varies from situation to situation. Sometimes actions for which she would be held culpable in one circumstance is completely irrelevant to another circumstance. Dressing provocatively means little if the rapist attacks her simply because she's a woman who wandered nearby. On the other hand, if the rapist picked her out specifically because she was dressed provocatively (as more tends to be the case), then she bears some small blame for making herself a temptation.
For those who think is incredibly unfair, misogynistic, bigoted, or whatnot, you need to stop and think. Our actions affect others. Our behaviors can lead others to sin (lead, not force, mind you), or at least make others more susceptible to sin. Thus we bear some partial blame for those sins. That is part of being the social creatures we are. That is part of not living in a void.
As a note, my friend is female, and she is absolutely fed up with the class. One of the "class discussion" topics of late was whether or not a woman in a miniskirt and a neckline down to her navel bore any responsibility for her rape. The general consensus was that, no, the woman wasn't responsible. Nor was she responsible if she was drunk and walking down a dark alley at night.
Now, that's somewhat flippant of me to say, let's look at the issue a little closer. First of all, rape is committed by someone against someone. The one committing the rape is fully responsible for all his actions. Ultimately, he bears all legal consequences for his actions. But is there any blame that can be attached to the woman?
This is where the argument gets tricky, and where most people simply want to duck their heads and mumble, "Of course she's isn't *muttermuttermutter*..." The reason for this sheep-like response is because it isn't at all politically correct to attach any blame to a victim, and the reason it isn't politically correct is because it appears hurtful to the one who has already been cruelly wounded. There's certainly understanding to be had there, especially since rape victims often carry a deep sense of not only shame, but guilty, for their violation.
But simply because something is painful doesn't make it false. That's a fallacy we fall for too often these days. So let's consider the situation. A woman dresses provocatively and enters a dangerous situation. It could be a party at the local fraternity, where there will be alcohol in excess, possibly some drugs, and of those maybe some of the date-rape variety. Or it could be the proverbial dark alley in Manhattan. It doesn't matter. The potential rapist sees her, identifies her as a potential victim, starts scoping out the situation. He concocts a plan in his head on how to rape her, and then goes through with it.
Okay, so far everything seems to agree with the lack of culpability on part of the woman. However, there's a catch, and this falls back on solidarity, and the partial responsibility of the community for the sins of the individual. First, there is such a thing as the profile of a victim. If you examine rapists and other sex offenders, you'll find that there's a type of person, a list of descriptions, that makes a person more vulnerable than others.
Now, one of the things about dressing provocatively is that it is meant to arouse sexual desire. A woman might try to couch it in simply "looking attractive", but the reality is that flaunting the body in a sexual fashion is meant to boost the woman's ego when men start drooling over her. Never mind that such an attitude merely reduces the woman into a sex object (a living centerfold, as it were), and thus the attraction is hardly genuine, or even the sort the woman wants.
Next, people insist that rape is about "power", but that's a rather broad statement, almost empty of meaning until it is put into context. In general, rape is about making the rapist feel better through sexual means. Sometimes the sexual aspects of rape are almost incidental--such as the desire to degrade a woman through the violation of intimacy--but other times rape is very, very sexual. Date rape, for example, is about the victory of "scoring" with a girl, either by getting her too drunk to say either "yes" or "no" to sex, or by using a date rape drug so that's she unconscious at the time of the violation.
I make this distinction because there are some profiles that one cannot help. Sometimes a rapist is simply turned on by, say, little boys, regardless of dress or situation. But other aspects one can help. And this is where responsibility comes into play.
When a woman dress provocatively, or flirts outrageously, or anything that is sexually arousing, she tempts. Now, our modern society views behaving in such a fashion a good thing, a harmless thing, and thus nothing the woman should be blamed for. However, temptations exist for one purpose alone: to weaken the will. We pray "...and lead us not into temptation..." (or more literally "...put us not to the test...") because we know that temptation weakens the will, makes us more readily accept sinful behavior.
Thus a woman is culpable for as much temptation she provided. Granted, this culpability is by far less than the terrible crime committed against her, but that crime does not expunge her own guilt in the matter. She made herself temptation, she weakened wills around her, and thus pulled down a mountain on her head.
So yes, there is some responsibility on the part of the woman for her rape. But now the caution. That responsibility varies from situation to situation. Sometimes actions for which she would be held culpable in one circumstance is completely irrelevant to another circumstance. Dressing provocatively means little if the rapist attacks her simply because she's a woman who wandered nearby. On the other hand, if the rapist picked her out specifically because she was dressed provocatively (as more tends to be the case), then she bears some small blame for making herself a temptation.
For those who think is incredibly unfair, misogynistic, bigoted, or whatnot, you need to stop and think. Our actions affect others. Our behaviors can lead others to sin (lead, not force, mind you), or at least make others more susceptible to sin. Thus we bear some partial blame for those sins. That is part of being the social creatures we are. That is part of not living in a void.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Paper Money
With Obama's announcement of a $3.55 trillion budget, which includes hundreds of billions for even more bailout projects, it seems to me that the connection between dollars and anything (be it gold, products, or even fiat) is broken. We're throwing monopoly money around now, with no end in sight. Obama's promise to reduce the budget deficit by half come 2013 is laughable at this point. Never mind that reducing the budget deficit he inherited by half still leaves us at deficit levels beyond Bush's wildest dreams. With all the money Obama and his Congress are throwing around, it doesn't seem possible that he'll meet that goal. With all the money they're throwing around, it doesn't seem possible that they're seriously intending to meet that goal. They seem to think the money will continue to be there forever, that the golden goose can keep laying eggs indefinitely.
Well, it can't. Soon this is going to catch up to us, and then we're going to be in serious trouble.
There has to come a time when our elected officials throw up their hands and say, "I'm sorry, but there's no more money we can spend. It just isn't there." That they haven't done so by now tells me that they're all out of touch with reality.
Our money is paper money at this point in time. It only exists in wishes and dreams.
Well, it can't. Soon this is going to catch up to us, and then we're going to be in serious trouble.
There has to come a time when our elected officials throw up their hands and say, "I'm sorry, but there's no more money we can spend. It just isn't there." That they haven't done so by now tells me that they're all out of touch with reality.
Our money is paper money at this point in time. It only exists in wishes and dreams.
Monday, February 23, 2009
I'm an Economist!
What is interesting (or scary) is that I predicted this months ago. You can ask my office mates.
This means one of two things. Either I'm an economic genius, or our top economists have no clue, either.
Which do you think it is?
This means one of two things. Either I'm an economic genius, or our top economists have no clue, either.
Which do you think it is?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Should Kids be Drug-Tested?
Currently a policy is in consideration in Goshen County regarding drug testing of students in extracurricular activities. The usual cries come forth: it is unjust to treat students as criminals unless they pee in a cup. It is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. It is cruel to do this to the students least likely to engage in drugs.
But is it? It seems to me that we once again facing the dilemma of what to do when general moral breakdown means abandoning the current rules for either no rules at all, or even harsher, more invasive rules. People don't seem to realize that this drug-testing policy wouldn't be in consideration if drug use wasn't already a problem, both among students involved in extracurricular activities, and those who are not. The problem has to be addressed somehow, and if students are willing to use drugs, the only fair way to go about this is by random drug tests. It seems to be a case of a few miscreants ruining the party for everyone, but there's two things to say to that.
First, it is a matter of solidarity. It is fair and just to treat all students like this because students are isolated beings that happen to congregate at the same place. There are social interactions involved both with students at school and the families outside of school. If we are so lazy about dealing with our neighbors--too afraid of confrontation to speak out against drug use and terrible conditions--then we reap the rewards of our cowardice. It isn't just that the druggies at school ruin it for everyone--everyone ruins it for everyone.
Of course, people will deny that, but gosh, isn't it nice when I can say I can do whatever I want and everyone else can roast in Hell for all I care? People should realize that our lack of involvement with each other is another one of those things that is causing dissolution in our society.
Second, getting irate over drug-testing is an overreaction. Peeing in a cup really isn't any big deal. It can be an annoyance (especially if you have to super-hydrate yourself just manage, and then suffer peeing every 30 minutes for the next few hours), but that's all it is. I think there's a definite problem when a student says that random drug testing would make him reconsider joining sports. Is this a matter of too much pride, or this a matter of hiding drug use?
Amazing how that wouldn't even be a consideration if we were more responsible as a society about drug abuse.
But is it? It seems to me that we once again facing the dilemma of what to do when general moral breakdown means abandoning the current rules for either no rules at all, or even harsher, more invasive rules. People don't seem to realize that this drug-testing policy wouldn't be in consideration if drug use wasn't already a problem, both among students involved in extracurricular activities, and those who are not. The problem has to be addressed somehow, and if students are willing to use drugs, the only fair way to go about this is by random drug tests. It seems to be a case of a few miscreants ruining the party for everyone, but there's two things to say to that.
First, it is a matter of solidarity. It is fair and just to treat all students like this because students are isolated beings that happen to congregate at the same place. There are social interactions involved both with students at school and the families outside of school. If we are so lazy about dealing with our neighbors--too afraid of confrontation to speak out against drug use and terrible conditions--then we reap the rewards of our cowardice. It isn't just that the druggies at school ruin it for everyone--everyone ruins it for everyone.
Of course, people will deny that, but gosh, isn't it nice when I can say I can do whatever I want and everyone else can roast in Hell for all I care? People should realize that our lack of involvement with each other is another one of those things that is causing dissolution in our society.
Second, getting irate over drug-testing is an overreaction. Peeing in a cup really isn't any big deal. It can be an annoyance (especially if you have to super-hydrate yourself just manage, and then suffer peeing every 30 minutes for the next few hours), but that's all it is. I think there's a definite problem when a student says that random drug testing would make him reconsider joining sports. Is this a matter of too much pride, or this a matter of hiding drug use?
Amazing how that wouldn't even be a consideration if we were more responsible as a society about drug abuse.
Capital Punishment
This story wrings my heart. Some will say that I'm being soft on a murderer and a drug dealer, that my namby-pamby left-bent feelings on the issue ignore the real truth that this man had murdered another man and deserved to die for it.
Yet I don't think having compassion on a man who was scared of dying is of any particular ideology. Part of it is that if I put myself in that man's place, I'd be terrified myself. I have utter faith that my soul will live on, and that one day the Resurrection will restore a body to me, but death itself scares me. No matter what assurances we have, death is a great unknown. We leave this life for a completely different one--one marked for a time by disembodiment (is that uncomfortable? is the transition painful? how utterly foreign will that be to us?), and then marked either by a return to the flesh, and then either eternal torment in Hell, or eternal bliss in Heaven. We're told time and again that "eye has not seen, nor ear hard, what God has prepared" for us.
Worse, in the case of this felon, is that this is a cold, premeditated process. This isn't the heat of the battle, where death is a possibility but still comes as a surprise. This isn't laying down one's life for a great cause. This is having one's life deliberately snuffed out for actions that can't be changed, for a past that is fixed, for sins that--while they can be repented of and forgiven--are an indelible part of the past.
Some will say that he deserves death for the pain and grief he caused his victim's family. Some will say that we should have no pity on him. Indeed, he proclaimed his innocence to the grave, which shows that he was definitely unrepentant of his deeds. (Although there will always be that grain of doubt. Did he really do it? I don't know the particulars of this case at all, so I don't know how compelling the evidence was.)
Yet I can help but feel compassion. He is still one of God's children. His soul was created at the moment of conception. God knew the extent of his life, and still chose to allow him to exist. God's love is so vast that we cannot even comprehend how great it is, yet we can at least try to fill our lives with that love. We know we are called to love our enemies, to forgive them their misdeeds, to help them. Of course we aren't called to be stupid about it. A criminal needs punishment and correction, and if he proves too dangerous to release from prison, he deserves to remain there. But we are still called to offer our love and our mercy.
May God have mercy on the soul of Edward Nathaniel Bell, and may His grace comfort Bell's family and friends, and bring peace to the family of Ricky Timbrook, whom Bell killed. May He move their hearts to love and forgiveness, and may He guide them back to His fold.
Yet I don't think having compassion on a man who was scared of dying is of any particular ideology. Part of it is that if I put myself in that man's place, I'd be terrified myself. I have utter faith that my soul will live on, and that one day the Resurrection will restore a body to me, but death itself scares me. No matter what assurances we have, death is a great unknown. We leave this life for a completely different one--one marked for a time by disembodiment (is that uncomfortable? is the transition painful? how utterly foreign will that be to us?), and then marked either by a return to the flesh, and then either eternal torment in Hell, or eternal bliss in Heaven. We're told time and again that "eye has not seen, nor ear hard, what God has prepared" for us.
Worse, in the case of this felon, is that this is a cold, premeditated process. This isn't the heat of the battle, where death is a possibility but still comes as a surprise. This isn't laying down one's life for a great cause. This is having one's life deliberately snuffed out for actions that can't be changed, for a past that is fixed, for sins that--while they can be repented of and forgiven--are an indelible part of the past.
Some will say that he deserves death for the pain and grief he caused his victim's family. Some will say that we should have no pity on him. Indeed, he proclaimed his innocence to the grave, which shows that he was definitely unrepentant of his deeds. (Although there will always be that grain of doubt. Did he really do it? I don't know the particulars of this case at all, so I don't know how compelling the evidence was.)
Yet I can help but feel compassion. He is still one of God's children. His soul was created at the moment of conception. God knew the extent of his life, and still chose to allow him to exist. God's love is so vast that we cannot even comprehend how great it is, yet we can at least try to fill our lives with that love. We know we are called to love our enemies, to forgive them their misdeeds, to help them. Of course we aren't called to be stupid about it. A criminal needs punishment and correction, and if he proves too dangerous to release from prison, he deserves to remain there. But we are still called to offer our love and our mercy.
May God have mercy on the soul of Edward Nathaniel Bell, and may His grace comfort Bell's family and friends, and bring peace to the family of Ricky Timbrook, whom Bell killed. May He move their hearts to love and forgiveness, and may He guide them back to His fold.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Dissent Is Important
I have heard from several sources that dissent is essential for a government, for a church, for any body that seeks to lead people. The reason? Dissent keeps people examining the issues, never letting them settle their heels and fall into complacency. To a large extent, that is why a two party system in our nation is so vitally important. We need each party to balance the other, to always challenge the other's beliefs. We've seen what damage can be done with an unquestioned Republican majority; we might be on the verge of seeing what damage can be done with an unquestioned Democratic majority.
Here we have an excellent story of a great dissenter in Congress. We need more men like H.R. Gross--not because he was a Republican, but because he was a voice constantly challenging his colleagues.
Here we have an excellent story of a great dissenter in Congress. We need more men like H.R. Gross--not because he was a Republican, but because he was a voice constantly challenging his colleagues.
Per Diem
Now there's some hoopla over Gov. Palin not paying income taxes on per diem she received as a governor living at home and commuting into the capital.
It seems that some people went and dug up some lines of tax code that now state that per diem is to be treated as "income" rather than "tax-free living expenditures." When I worked for TIC, I received about a third of my take-home from per diem, none of which was reported as income. I wonder if now that means I have to pay taxes on the roughly $6,000 I took home of what everyone said was tax-free cash. (Everyone also includes my father, who is a CPA.)
To me, this whole article is a bunch of hoopla about nothing. Someone, perhaps maliciously, perhaps because he's trying to be as scrupulous as he can about things so that Palin has a clean record (which do we believe, folks?), "discovered" that what most people expect to be tax-free income is instead taxable income, and now Palin has to pay thousands of dollars in taxes.
The reporting, gleefully attempting to lump Palin in with the other tax-dodgers we've heard about in the news, doesn't seem to realize that, even if this is a case of tax-dodging, it's non-news. If the other tax-dodgers get a pass due to errors of judgment or not knowing the laws, so does Palin. On the other hand, if Palin is to be lambasted for this, so should the other tax-dodgers.
What to do, what to do...
It seems that some people went and dug up some lines of tax code that now state that per diem is to be treated as "income" rather than "tax-free living expenditures." When I worked for TIC, I received about a third of my take-home from per diem, none of which was reported as income. I wonder if now that means I have to pay taxes on the roughly $6,000 I took home of what everyone said was tax-free cash. (Everyone also includes my father, who is a CPA.)
To me, this whole article is a bunch of hoopla about nothing. Someone, perhaps maliciously, perhaps because he's trying to be as scrupulous as he can about things so that Palin has a clean record (which do we believe, folks?), "discovered" that what most people expect to be tax-free income is instead taxable income, and now Palin has to pay thousands of dollars in taxes.
The reporting, gleefully attempting to lump Palin in with the other tax-dodgers we've heard about in the news, doesn't seem to realize that, even if this is a case of tax-dodging, it's non-news. If the other tax-dodgers get a pass due to errors of judgment or not knowing the laws, so does Palin. On the other hand, if Palin is to be lambasted for this, so should the other tax-dodgers.
What to do, what to do...
Skynet is Coming!
We have word that government officials are discussing the potential disaster of robots used in the military of turning on their makers, Terminator-style.
To this, I can only roll my eyes. People out there have way too much imagination on this kind of thing. Let me ask a question:
If I presented you with a robot that I had programmed, and I said I knew so little about how its programming would manifest, would you buy that robot from me?
I'm sorry, but these things do what we program them to do. They can only operated within the parameters of their codes. If they "turn" on their makers, it is because someone other botched his share of the programming. There will be no sentient maliciousness towards any robot "attacks" on their creators. Accidents, maybe; Terminator-style scenarios? Not in our dreams.
To this, I can only roll my eyes. People out there have way too much imagination on this kind of thing. Let me ask a question:
If I presented you with a robot that I had programmed, and I said I knew so little about how its programming would manifest, would you buy that robot from me?
I'm sorry, but these things do what we program them to do. They can only operated within the parameters of their codes. If they "turn" on their makers, it is because someone other botched his share of the programming. There will be no sentient maliciousness towards any robot "attacks" on their creators. Accidents, maybe; Terminator-style scenarios? Not in our dreams.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Bristol Palin Says Abstinence 'Not Realistic at All'
Which just goes to show that reporters like to latch onto key phrases and ignore anything else a 'celebrity' might say to expound on the situation. Apparently Bristol Palin was interviewed about her pregnancy and her views on teenaged sex. She gave the view that teenagers should refrain from sex, but that abstinence is not realistic.
There are two things to be said about that. First, we can't simply accept that just because Sarah Palin's daughter said it, it must be the end of the story. Second, there is much to be said about "realistic expectations regarding abstinence." No, it is not realistic to expect that abstinence-only eduction will somehow keep teenagers from having sex, or that even those teenagers who want to abstain will never have pre-marital sex. The temptation is obviously present, and people will act on temptation. Premarital sex has been around practically since human beings first started having sex, no matter how strict laws have been against it.
On the other hand, this is not suddenly a blanket approval of promiscuity. Just because it is not realistic to assume that abstinence will happen does not mean that we have to put in safeguards to protect people from choosing to have sex. It does not mean that we shouldn't teach that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, STD's, and lives ruined from the callous treatment of the opposite sex that is so markedly present in our culture today. Rather, I find that it means that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Really, the best thing of all would be teach people some theology of the body, and go from there.
There are two things to be said about that. First, we can't simply accept that just because Sarah Palin's daughter said it, it must be the end of the story. Second, there is much to be said about "realistic expectations regarding abstinence." No, it is not realistic to expect that abstinence-only eduction will somehow keep teenagers from having sex, or that even those teenagers who want to abstain will never have pre-marital sex. The temptation is obviously present, and people will act on temptation. Premarital sex has been around practically since human beings first started having sex, no matter how strict laws have been against it.
On the other hand, this is not suddenly a blanket approval of promiscuity. Just because it is not realistic to assume that abstinence will happen does not mean that we have to put in safeguards to protect people from choosing to have sex. It does not mean that we shouldn't teach that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, STD's, and lives ruined from the callous treatment of the opposite sex that is so markedly present in our culture today. Rather, I find that it means that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Really, the best thing of all would be teach people some theology of the body, and go from there.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Cloud Seeding in Wyoming
An interesting experiment going in Wyoming is cloud seeding, the attempt to yoke more snow out of passing clouds, especially important as we're trying to struggle our way out of a drought. It might not work--proof is very sketchy and hard to come by. Even so, it is nice that such experiments are going on here.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Hat Problems
I'm currently looking at the infamous Hat Problem devised (or at least reported in his PhD thesis) by Todd Ebert. Or, more specifically, I'm looking into the problem of autoreductions to random sets, but the whole process begins with the hat problem.
The hat problem goes like this: A group of N players are each assigned independently at random either black hat or a white hat. They can see the hats of all the other players, but they do not see their own hat. Nor can they communicate once they receive their hats (though they can devise a strategy before the game begins). Each person then either ventures a guess to what his hat color is, or passes, but has no idea how anyone else guesses. The goal is for at least one person to guess correctly the color of his hat, while none else incorrectly guess the color of theirs. (A pass does not count as an incorrect guess.) If there is at least one incorrect guess, the whole party loses.
Depending on how malicious one is feeling, one can add "There's $N million prize if the team wins, but everyone is executed if they lose" conditions, but that's besides the point.
Obviously, there's at least a 50-50 chance of winning. The strategy that easily attains that is simply: one person guesses white, while everyone else passes. But can one do better?
Part of the problem is that the hats are chosen randomly and independently from each other. So, a majority or minority of black hats does not mean anything about one's own hat. Thus it would seem that anyone's guess is at best a 50-50 shot, for the information of others' hats does not tell him anything about his own.
Now, in the completely unrestricted sense, there's no guaranteed winning strategy. The independent randomness guarantees that. However, if there is assurance of at least one black hat and one white hat (at at least two players), then there is always a winning strategy. But we won't worry about that now.
If we suppose there are three players, we can actually form a strategy that wins about 75% of the time. With three players, we have eight possible combinations of hats, two in which all hats are either black or white, but six in the case where two are one color, and one the other. Thus we can devise a strategy that makes use of that fact. Suppose, in that case, you are wearing the off-color hat. You'll see two hats of the same color, and it is fairly safe to surmise that yours is different. If you don't have the off-color hat, you'll see one hat of each color, and thus you really don't have any clue. In the first case, you'll announce the off-color, and in the second, you'll keep silent. A quick analysis shows that you only lose in the case of everyone's hat being the same color, or only 25% of the time. In effect, we've bumped up the winning percentage from 50% to 75%. (This is provably optimal, so that's about as good as it gets.)
How does this work for more players, though? It certainly gets more complicated. If we just move it up to four players, we can try to keep the same kind of strategy. If every hat you see is the same color, you declare that your hat is the opposite color. So, here again you lose if all hats are the same color, but you win if there's a 3-1 split. But about a 2-2 split? In that case, no one sees all the same color, so we have to add in some more analysis.
This would be easy if we could know how others guessed and figured in some kind of time delay. For example, if a person sees all one color, then within 10 seconds he would make his guess. Then, if no one has guessed after ten seconds, everyone would then correctly guess his hat color by guessing the color that would make a 2-2 split. However, that's not part of the rules. What else can we do?
It turns out that any strategy we assign to deal with the 2-2 split is going to overlap with our 3-1 split strategy. So we'll try to be a little creative. We're going to "designate" a few possible combinations that we'll automatically put off limits. For example, in our 3 man scenario, we designated WWW and BBB as off-limits--i.e, we act as those won't happen and go from there.
How do we choose these "designated" strings? We'll, there's a complicated way to describe these using the Hamming distances and error-correcting codes, but we won't delve into that just yet. But for starters, suppose (in our 4 man case), that the actual arrangement is BWWB. Player 3 then sees two blacks and a white, and so he know there are only two possible combinations the hat arrangement could be: either BWWB or BWBB. Notice these two combinations only differ in one place. Now, suppose we had previously "designated" BWBB as off limits. Then Player 3 has only one choice: he'll state that his hat is white.
In reality, we only have good means of "designating" combinations if the total number of players is N=2^k-1 for some k. Why? When you have this many players, you can "designate" small fraction of combinations such that every other combination only differs from exactly one of the "designates" in one position.
When we had 3 players (3=2^2-1), when we "designated" WWW and BBB, notice that three of the remaining combinations (WWB, WBW, BWW) fall only one place different from WWW, and the remaining three (BBW, BWB, WBB) fall only place different from BBB. (This is what is called having a Hamming distance of 1. The Hamming distance between two strings is simply the number of positions where they differ.) Thus every non-designated string has a Hamming distance of 1 to exactly one designated combination.
We reach N=2^k-1 by the following reason. The number of strings with Hamming distance of 1 to a particular string is N, where N is the length of the strings involved. If we form a ball of these, we have N+1 strings per ball (out of a total of 2^N strings). Now, we want to partition all strings into such balls such that every string is contained in exactly one ball. The number of balls we form is 2^N/(N+1), which is an integer if and only if N+1 is a power of 2: N+1=2^k for some k.
Now, there are methods in cryptology for determining how to properly form these balls, but we won't delve into that here. Needless to say, the centers of these balls will be our "designated" combinations, and our strategy will follow this line: when you observe your teammates, if one of the two possible combinations is "designated", choose the other one. If neither are designated, then pass. Our success probability becomes 1-1/(n+1) overall.
But how do we handle the 4 player case? Well, it should seem like we could designate 3 three strings (3 balls with 5 strings per ball is 15, one less than the total 16 strings), and go from there. However, it's not actually possible to form 3 disjoint balls. Consider this. Let the center of the first ball be WWWW (it doesn't matter what we pick, as the answer will be the same, but this is easier to work with). Now, the strings in the ball around it are every string with one B: BWWW, WBWW, WWBW, and WWWB. Strings with two or more B's will be outside the ball. Now, the center of the next ball has to have Hamming distance of 3 from WWWW. Why? If it has a Hamming distance of 2 (say it is WBBW), then the balls will over lap (in this case, the ball around WBBW will contain WWBW and WBWW, which are in the ball around WWWW). Well, we can find a string with Hamming distance 3 from WWWW, such as BBBW. But in order to find the center of third disjoint ball, we have to find a string with Hamming distance 3 from both of the previous centers. However, any string with a Hamming distance 3 from WWWW will have Hamming distance 2 from our second center! (Just compare BBBW, BBWB, BWBB, WBBB, and you'll see that's true.)
Well, this just means we won't be playing as optimally as we'd prefer. We could pick 4 designates, which would then cover the space with some amount of overlap, and then additionally specify that if our choices are two designates, that we pass, and we would then succeed in our strategy with probability 1-4/16=.75, which is 75% of the time (which is down from 1-1/5=.8, or 80% we would have hoped). That's still good odds, though.
The hat problem goes like this: A group of N players are each assigned independently at random either black hat or a white hat. They can see the hats of all the other players, but they do not see their own hat. Nor can they communicate once they receive their hats (though they can devise a strategy before the game begins). Each person then either ventures a guess to what his hat color is, or passes, but has no idea how anyone else guesses. The goal is for at least one person to guess correctly the color of his hat, while none else incorrectly guess the color of theirs. (A pass does not count as an incorrect guess.) If there is at least one incorrect guess, the whole party loses.
Depending on how malicious one is feeling, one can add "There's $N million prize if the team wins, but everyone is executed if they lose" conditions, but that's besides the point.
Obviously, there's at least a 50-50 chance of winning. The strategy that easily attains that is simply: one person guesses white, while everyone else passes. But can one do better?
Part of the problem is that the hats are chosen randomly and independently from each other. So, a majority or minority of black hats does not mean anything about one's own hat. Thus it would seem that anyone's guess is at best a 50-50 shot, for the information of others' hats does not tell him anything about his own.
Now, in the completely unrestricted sense, there's no guaranteed winning strategy. The independent randomness guarantees that. However, if there is assurance of at least one black hat and one white hat (at at least two players), then there is always a winning strategy. But we won't worry about that now.
If we suppose there are three players, we can actually form a strategy that wins about 75% of the time. With three players, we have eight possible combinations of hats, two in which all hats are either black or white, but six in the case where two are one color, and one the other. Thus we can devise a strategy that makes use of that fact. Suppose, in that case, you are wearing the off-color hat. You'll see two hats of the same color, and it is fairly safe to surmise that yours is different. If you don't have the off-color hat, you'll see one hat of each color, and thus you really don't have any clue. In the first case, you'll announce the off-color, and in the second, you'll keep silent. A quick analysis shows that you only lose in the case of everyone's hat being the same color, or only 25% of the time. In effect, we've bumped up the winning percentage from 50% to 75%. (This is provably optimal, so that's about as good as it gets.)
How does this work for more players, though? It certainly gets more complicated. If we just move it up to four players, we can try to keep the same kind of strategy. If every hat you see is the same color, you declare that your hat is the opposite color. So, here again you lose if all hats are the same color, but you win if there's a 3-1 split. But about a 2-2 split? In that case, no one sees all the same color, so we have to add in some more analysis.
This would be easy if we could know how others guessed and figured in some kind of time delay. For example, if a person sees all one color, then within 10 seconds he would make his guess. Then, if no one has guessed after ten seconds, everyone would then correctly guess his hat color by guessing the color that would make a 2-2 split. However, that's not part of the rules. What else can we do?
It turns out that any strategy we assign to deal with the 2-2 split is going to overlap with our 3-1 split strategy. So we'll try to be a little creative. We're going to "designate" a few possible combinations that we'll automatically put off limits. For example, in our 3 man scenario, we designated WWW and BBB as off-limits--i.e, we act as those won't happen and go from there.
How do we choose these "designated" strings? We'll, there's a complicated way to describe these using the Hamming distances and error-correcting codes, but we won't delve into that just yet. But for starters, suppose (in our 4 man case), that the actual arrangement is BWWB. Player 3 then sees two blacks and a white, and so he know there are only two possible combinations the hat arrangement could be: either BWWB or BWBB. Notice these two combinations only differ in one place. Now, suppose we had previously "designated" BWBB as off limits. Then Player 3 has only one choice: he'll state that his hat is white.
In reality, we only have good means of "designating" combinations if the total number of players is N=2^k-1 for some k. Why? When you have this many players, you can "designate" small fraction of combinations such that every other combination only differs from exactly one of the "designates" in one position.
When we had 3 players (3=2^2-1), when we "designated" WWW and BBB, notice that three of the remaining combinations (WWB, WBW, BWW) fall only one place different from WWW, and the remaining three (BBW, BWB, WBB) fall only place different from BBB. (This is what is called having a Hamming distance of 1. The Hamming distance between two strings is simply the number of positions where they differ.) Thus every non-designated string has a Hamming distance of 1 to exactly one designated combination.
We reach N=2^k-1 by the following reason. The number of strings with Hamming distance of 1 to a particular string is N, where N is the length of the strings involved. If we form a ball of these, we have N+1 strings per ball (out of a total of 2^N strings). Now, we want to partition all strings into such balls such that every string is contained in exactly one ball. The number of balls we form is 2^N/(N+1), which is an integer if and only if N+1 is a power of 2: N+1=2^k for some k.
Now, there are methods in cryptology for determining how to properly form these balls, but we won't delve into that here. Needless to say, the centers of these balls will be our "designated" combinations, and our strategy will follow this line: when you observe your teammates, if one of the two possible combinations is "designated", choose the other one. If neither are designated, then pass. Our success probability becomes 1-1/(n+1) overall.
But how do we handle the 4 player case? Well, it should seem like we could designate 3 three strings (3 balls with 5 strings per ball is 15, one less than the total 16 strings), and go from there. However, it's not actually possible to form 3 disjoint balls. Consider this. Let the center of the first ball be WWWW (it doesn't matter what we pick, as the answer will be the same, but this is easier to work with). Now, the strings in the ball around it are every string with one B: BWWW, WBWW, WWBW, and WWWB. Strings with two or more B's will be outside the ball. Now, the center of the next ball has to have Hamming distance of 3 from WWWW. Why? If it has a Hamming distance of 2 (say it is WBBW), then the balls will over lap (in this case, the ball around WBBW will contain WWBW and WBWW, which are in the ball around WWWW). Well, we can find a string with Hamming distance 3 from WWWW, such as BBBW. But in order to find the center of third disjoint ball, we have to find a string with Hamming distance 3 from both of the previous centers. However, any string with a Hamming distance 3 from WWWW will have Hamming distance 2 from our second center! (Just compare BBBW, BBWB, BWBB, WBBB, and you'll see that's true.)
Well, this just means we won't be playing as optimally as we'd prefer. We could pick 4 designates, which would then cover the space with some amount of overlap, and then additionally specify that if our choices are two designates, that we pass, and we would then succeed in our strategy with probability 1-4/16=.75, which is 75% of the time (which is down from 1-1/5=.8, or 80% we would have hoped). That's still good odds, though.
Common Sense Has Left England
An Episcopal Bishop was arrested for photographing his kids. The first thought that comes to mind is: were those kids naked? Is this a child porn case? Is this yet another example of Christian clergy run amok? (Never mind that the Bishop is not Catholic, and thus would escape the speculation of sexually repressive roles that can only find an outlet in molesting little boys.)
But no, it turns out that he securely harnessed his kids, took them up onto the roof of his house, and took pictures of them like that for a school competition.
So instead of being hailed as a model father--doing something creative with his kids, while taking all the necessary precautions to ensure their safety (this man could be a Boy Scout leader!)--he is arrested and accused of child abuse, though eventually no files were charged.
Has common sense completely deserted England?
But no, it turns out that he securely harnessed his kids, took them up onto the roof of his house, and took pictures of them like that for a school competition.
So instead of being hailed as a model father--doing something creative with his kids, while taking all the necessary precautions to ensure their safety (this man could be a Boy Scout leader!)--he is arrested and accused of child abuse, though eventually no files were charged.
Has common sense completely deserted England?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Liturgical Music Concerns
This is the body of the letter I sent to the coordinator of the music ministry at our parish, in regards to a particular piece of tripe we're to sing this weekend.
...
My gripe, this time so important that I feel have to e-mail you my concerns, is with "A Place at the Table" we've selected for our closing song this weekend. I know people know it and seem to like it, but to me it is very disconcerting theologically. I feel that it is a poor song to bring into Mass (or even to consider Catholic for that matter).
Let us consider the lyrics:
For everyone born, a place at the table
For everyone born, clean water and bread
A shelter, a space, a safe place for growing
For everyone born, a star overhead
Okay, that's how it begins, and already I have complaints. What table are we talking about here? The Eucharistic table? I think that message is clear from clean water and bread, but there's a grave difficulty here. Part of it falls back on the "for the many" and "for all" debate--in that Christ's redemptive sacrifice is offered for all but only efficacious for those who are willing to repent and follow Christ's commands--but the concern here is the confusion of what the offer really is.
Consider the parable of the wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14), which ends: But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, "My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?" But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, "Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth."
Consider also, from the sermon on the mount, when Jesus says "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers." (Mt7:21-23)
Note that there are conditions that have to be met before one is welcomed at the table. In the parable, the guest needed to be wearing wedding attire, but since he was not, he was refused a place. In the sermon, Jesus is even more explicit: only those who do the will of God will have a place. To simply speak of a place for everyone born to partake unconditionally of the banquet set before mankind is misleading and bad theology.
I also feel it is remarkably naive and outrageous to call the place at the table "a safe place for growing". True, we grow in grace by partaking in the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist, but we are hardly "safe" at the table. (I would digress at this moment that the table cannot be Heaven, if we are to speak of growing, and Heaven is the only place we will truly be safe.) Temptation abounds everyone, and the devil can act within the walls of a church, even at the altar, though it costs him quite a bit to do so. Moreover, to speak of the Eucharistic table as a safe place for growing casts a blanket over the fact that Jesus was crucified in this very sacrifice we're celebrating. When we're at Mass, we are re-presenting that very same sacrifice, the suffering and death Our Lord endured for our sins. Though that act offers to us a path to salvation, I'd hardly characterize it as safe. In addition, when you consider that our calling to the Eucharistic table demands that we be willing to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of the faith, as so many martyrs have in the past, and as so many people are do so even today around the world--to call the table "safe" spits on the sacrifices made throughout history. The only safety is the security of salvation, and that is only guaranteed if we persevere to the end.
The last line of the verse is simply inane, but has its own dangers. A star overhead? Well, if we are willing to interpret that star as the "bright morning star" that is Jesus (cf Rev 22:16), there's no problem. But there's a lot things this phrase could also mean, and the context is vague enough that the meaning isn't at all clear. There's the pagan notion that every time a child is born, a new star appears in the sky, that is the child's guardian star. Or there is the equating of the self with the divine in comparison to the Star of Bethlehem which marked Jesus' birth. Or are we somehow referring to the fact that every human alive has a guardian angel looking out for him? And the confusion comes: do we mean a distinct star for every person, or one star alone for all people? The former interpretation is probably the most problematic, but is also the most likely because the whole verse follows the line of: each person has his own place, each person gets his own food, each person gets his own space. Thus each person gets his own star. Taking the latter interpretation breaks the symmetry of the verse, and thus is much less likely. If it isn't clear from the text of the song, if you have to take time and do contortions in order to give a proper Catholic reading of the text, then there is something decidably wrong.
Phew. Cleared the first verse. Now let's look at the chorus:
And God will delight
When we are creators of justice and joy
Compassion and peace
And God will delight
When we are creators of justice... justice and joy
Now, there's nothing wrong with seeking justice, joy, compassion, and peace, but there's one word in there that runs sour: creators. We are most certainly not creators of justice, joy, compassion, or peace. All of these come from God. We can be ministers of justice, etc; we can be channels as such. (Think St. Francis' prayer: "Make me a channel of your peace".) But we do not create those things. The sheer hubris, the sheer deification of humanity in such a thought, should make any Christian shudder.
Second verse:
For woman, for man, a place at the table
Revising the roles, deciding the share
With wisdom and grace, dividing the power
For woman and man, a system's that fair
I'm sorry, but I struggle enough with the political hijacking of the liturgy with "inclusive language". I really struggle here with this blatant slap in God's face of the order He created. Now, I understand the intent, and that is ostensibly restoring the order that God created, but the lyrics around that notion are atrocious. We don't revise the roles--we conform to what God presented us. For the most important matters, there's no debate on this. Deciding the share? How is that part of being "at the table"? Coming to the table requires us to leave injustice and sexism and misogyny and power struggles and whatnot behind. It isn't settled at the table; it has to be settled in order to come to the table, else we are like the wedding guest without the proper apparel, who is tossed out. Dividing the power? What power are we even talking about? Political? Social? God's? I'm sorry, but this verse is so obviously agenda-charged and focused especially at the male-only priesthood that it isn't simply bad theology, it is dangerous.
Third verse:
For young and for old, a place at the table,
A voice to be heard, a part in the song,
The hands of a child in hands that are wrinkled,
For young and for old, the right to belong
I don't have too much to gripe about here, other than the last phrase. We don't have any "right" to belong whatsoever, and that's why in particular this song is so terrible. Our existence is completely gratuitous. We have no right to exist; we exist through God's love and by His grace. We have no right to salvation, either. God's offer of forgiveness is also completely gratuitous, and contingent upon our willingness to repent, have faith, love God, and keep His commandments. To suggest there is any "right" to any of this flies in the face of doctrine. It isn't just bad--it is flat out wrong and contradictory to our faith.
Fourth verse:
For just and unjust, a place at the table,
Abuser, abused, with need to forgive,
In anger, in hurt, a mindset of mercy,
For just and unjust, a new way to live
And the same ugly problems just keep rearing their heads. There is no place at the table for the unjust or the abuser. There is only a place when the unjust renounces the injustice, and the abuser repents of his abuse.
Fifth verse:
For everyone born, a place at the table,
To live without fear, and simply to be,
To work, to speak out, to witness and worship,
For everyone born, the right to be free
Once again, that whole "right" thing that is bad theology. The only freedom that fits with Catholic doctrine is the freedom from sin, the freedom to choose God. There's no right about that. We don't have a right to be free from sin--we have to deliberately choose not to sin. That's the whole point of the free will thing. We choose. There's no right to escape sin no matter what we happen to choose; if we choose to sin, we're going to suffer the consequences.
Ah, but you might argue that this is statement about escaping slavery and oppression and persecution. Well, I'm sorry, but we have no right to be free from those, either. God permits those things to exist for a reason, at the very least because we grow as people and in faith when confronted with dire challenges. Now, we know that it is wrong to enslave, to oppress, and to persecute, but that doesn't grant us any right to escape from them. Consider the final beatitude: "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven." (Mt 5:11-12) Indeed, we are warned several times that we will be persecuted, end of story.
Overall, this song is simply terrible. To quote Lucy Carroll (cf http://www.adoremus.org/0506LucyCarroll.html ), "sort of sounds like a campaign song, doesn't it? (A chicken in every pot!)". Rife with bad theology and inconsistent, contradictory, and confusing messages, it rates as the worst sort of music to use in our worship space. I know I'm being rather vehement about this, but I feel this is incredibly important. If we're singing about things that distort the message of our faith, that proclaim rewriting the order God has made, that claim in places roles that only rightfully belong to God, and that completely dispense with our obligation to our Creator (by making a "right" out of everything), then we're singing judgment down on ourselves.
There are many pieces we've sung that I've felt miss the mark or get something wrong theologically, but haven't felt concerned enough to object. This piece, though, is so contrary to our faith, though, that I cannot help but protest.
I would ask that this piece never be considered again for liturgy.
...
My gripe, this time so important that I feel have to e-mail you my concerns, is with "A Place at the Table" we've selected for our closing song this weekend. I know people know it and seem to like it, but to me it is very disconcerting theologically. I feel that it is a poor song to bring into Mass (or even to consider Catholic for that matter).
Let us consider the lyrics:
For everyone born, a place at the table
For everyone born, clean water and bread
A shelter, a space, a safe place for growing
For everyone born, a star overhead
Okay, that's how it begins, and already I have complaints. What table are we talking about here? The Eucharistic table? I think that message is clear from clean water and bread, but there's a grave difficulty here. Part of it falls back on the "for the many" and "for all" debate--in that Christ's redemptive sacrifice is offered for all but only efficacious for those who are willing to repent and follow Christ's commands--but the concern here is the confusion of what the offer really is.
Consider the parable of the wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14), which ends: But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, "My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?" But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, "Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth."
Consider also, from the sermon on the mount, when Jesus says "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers." (Mt7:21-23)
Note that there are conditions that have to be met before one is welcomed at the table. In the parable, the guest needed to be wearing wedding attire, but since he was not, he was refused a place. In the sermon, Jesus is even more explicit: only those who do the will of God will have a place. To simply speak of a place for everyone born to partake unconditionally of the banquet set before mankind is misleading and bad theology.
I also feel it is remarkably naive and outrageous to call the place at the table "a safe place for growing". True, we grow in grace by partaking in the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist, but we are hardly "safe" at the table. (I would digress at this moment that the table cannot be Heaven, if we are to speak of growing, and Heaven is the only place we will truly be safe.) Temptation abounds everyone, and the devil can act within the walls of a church, even at the altar, though it costs him quite a bit to do so. Moreover, to speak of the Eucharistic table as a safe place for growing casts a blanket over the fact that Jesus was crucified in this very sacrifice we're celebrating. When we're at Mass, we are re-presenting that very same sacrifice, the suffering and death Our Lord endured for our sins. Though that act offers to us a path to salvation, I'd hardly characterize it as safe. In addition, when you consider that our calling to the Eucharistic table demands that we be willing to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of the faith, as so many martyrs have in the past, and as so many people are do so even today around the world--to call the table "safe" spits on the sacrifices made throughout history. The only safety is the security of salvation, and that is only guaranteed if we persevere to the end.
The last line of the verse is simply inane, but has its own dangers. A star overhead? Well, if we are willing to interpret that star as the "bright morning star" that is Jesus (cf Rev 22:16), there's no problem. But there's a lot things this phrase could also mean, and the context is vague enough that the meaning isn't at all clear. There's the pagan notion that every time a child is born, a new star appears in the sky, that is the child's guardian star. Or there is the equating of the self with the divine in comparison to the Star of Bethlehem which marked Jesus' birth. Or are we somehow referring to the fact that every human alive has a guardian angel looking out for him? And the confusion comes: do we mean a distinct star for every person, or one star alone for all people? The former interpretation is probably the most problematic, but is also the most likely because the whole verse follows the line of: each person has his own place, each person gets his own food, each person gets his own space. Thus each person gets his own star. Taking the latter interpretation breaks the symmetry of the verse, and thus is much less likely. If it isn't clear from the text of the song, if you have to take time and do contortions in order to give a proper Catholic reading of the text, then there is something decidably wrong.
Phew. Cleared the first verse. Now let's look at the chorus:
And God will delight
When we are creators of justice and joy
Compassion and peace
And God will delight
When we are creators of justice... justice and joy
Now, there's nothing wrong with seeking justice, joy, compassion, and peace, but there's one word in there that runs sour: creators. We are most certainly not creators of justice, joy, compassion, or peace. All of these come from God. We can be ministers of justice, etc; we can be channels as such. (Think St. Francis' prayer: "Make me a channel of your peace".) But we do not create those things. The sheer hubris, the sheer deification of humanity in such a thought, should make any Christian shudder.
Second verse:
For woman, for man, a place at the table
Revising the roles, deciding the share
With wisdom and grace, dividing the power
For woman and man, a system's that fair
I'm sorry, but I struggle enough with the political hijacking of the liturgy with "inclusive language". I really struggle here with this blatant slap in God's face of the order He created. Now, I understand the intent, and that is ostensibly restoring the order that God created, but the lyrics around that notion are atrocious. We don't revise the roles--we conform to what God presented us. For the most important matters, there's no debate on this. Deciding the share? How is that part of being "at the table"? Coming to the table requires us to leave injustice and sexism and misogyny and power struggles and whatnot behind. It isn't settled at the table; it has to be settled in order to come to the table, else we are like the wedding guest without the proper apparel, who is tossed out. Dividing the power? What power are we even talking about? Political? Social? God's? I'm sorry, but this verse is so obviously agenda-charged and focused especially at the male-only priesthood that it isn't simply bad theology, it is dangerous.
Third verse:
For young and for old, a place at the table,
A voice to be heard, a part in the song,
The hands of a child in hands that are wrinkled,
For young and for old, the right to belong
I don't have too much to gripe about here, other than the last phrase. We don't have any "right" to belong whatsoever, and that's why in particular this song is so terrible. Our existence is completely gratuitous. We have no right to exist; we exist through God's love and by His grace. We have no right to salvation, either. God's offer of forgiveness is also completely gratuitous, and contingent upon our willingness to repent, have faith, love God, and keep His commandments. To suggest there is any "right" to any of this flies in the face of doctrine. It isn't just bad--it is flat out wrong and contradictory to our faith.
Fourth verse:
For just and unjust, a place at the table,
Abuser, abused, with need to forgive,
In anger, in hurt, a mindset of mercy,
For just and unjust, a new way to live
And the same ugly problems just keep rearing their heads. There is no place at the table for the unjust or the abuser. There is only a place when the unjust renounces the injustice, and the abuser repents of his abuse.
Fifth verse:
For everyone born, a place at the table,
To live without fear, and simply to be,
To work, to speak out, to witness and worship,
For everyone born, the right to be free
Once again, that whole "right" thing that is bad theology. The only freedom that fits with Catholic doctrine is the freedom from sin, the freedom to choose God. There's no right about that. We don't have a right to be free from sin--we have to deliberately choose not to sin. That's the whole point of the free will thing. We choose. There's no right to escape sin no matter what we happen to choose; if we choose to sin, we're going to suffer the consequences.
Ah, but you might argue that this is statement about escaping slavery and oppression and persecution. Well, I'm sorry, but we have no right to be free from those, either. God permits those things to exist for a reason, at the very least because we grow as people and in faith when confronted with dire challenges. Now, we know that it is wrong to enslave, to oppress, and to persecute, but that doesn't grant us any right to escape from them. Consider the final beatitude: "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven." (Mt 5:11-12) Indeed, we are warned several times that we will be persecuted, end of story.
Overall, this song is simply terrible. To quote Lucy Carroll (cf http://www.adoremus.org/0506LucyCarroll.html ), "sort of sounds like a campaign song, doesn't it? (A chicken in every pot!)". Rife with bad theology and inconsistent, contradictory, and confusing messages, it rates as the worst sort of music to use in our worship space. I know I'm being rather vehement about this, but I feel this is incredibly important. If we're singing about things that distort the message of our faith, that proclaim rewriting the order God has made, that claim in places roles that only rightfully belong to God, and that completely dispense with our obligation to our Creator (by making a "right" out of everything), then we're singing judgment down on ourselves.
There are many pieces we've sung that I've felt miss the mark or get something wrong theologically, but haven't felt concerned enough to object. This piece, though, is so contrary to our faith, though, that I cannot help but protest.
I would ask that this piece never be considered again for liturgy.
Scientology in Wyoming
I suppose it has to happen somewhere, but why does it have to be in my state? I suppose Wyoming has places that are expected to survive nuclear holocausts and whatnot, which makes it appealing as a storage place for copies of important documents and even a hiding hole in case of the apocalypse, but still.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Thoughts on RINOs
One of things that seems to avoid mention in talking about Republicans banding together to prevent the passing of bills, especially when it comes to the dissident RINOs, is: what if a Republican's conscience tells him that the bill should be passed? One of the things we should truly consider is whether party unity is more important than doing what one believes is right. Sure, I believe that any who voted for the stimulus package is wrong, but I think it is wrong to demand a person vote against his conscience for sake of party loyalty, as well.
Moreover, it wasn't the three Republican Senators that broke rank that passed the bill--it was the unanimous Democratic support for the bill. If anything, those Democrats deserve the censure of those who believe the bill is the absolutely wrong thing to do. Frankly, my concern about the politicking of placing party before conscience is just as stern for the Democrats. How many Senators decided to cave and not break rank, either because of internal or external expedience?
Granted, I think those three RINOs need to go. But it isn't because they broke rank; it is because they voted for something that shouldn't have passed. So in a similar vein, I'd like to see all those current Democrats out of office, as well.
The public deserves better.
Moreover, it wasn't the three Republican Senators that broke rank that passed the bill--it was the unanimous Democratic support for the bill. If anything, those Democrats deserve the censure of those who believe the bill is the absolutely wrong thing to do. Frankly, my concern about the politicking of placing party before conscience is just as stern for the Democrats. How many Senators decided to cave and not break rank, either because of internal or external expedience?
Granted, I think those three RINOs need to go. But it isn't because they broke rank; it is because they voted for something that shouldn't have passed. So in a similar vein, I'd like to see all those current Democrats out of office, as well.
The public deserves better.
RINOs strike again
The stimulus bill passed the Senate. Now our only hope of its defeat is that the differences between the House and Senate versions prove so irreconcilable that the bill goes down in flames. (Primarily, I'm hoping Pelosi will fight so hard for her odds and ends that even the RINOs in the Senate, or maybe a few dissident Democrats, will block the bill from passing.)
Monday, February 09, 2009
My Wife Could Find Employment Here
If it makes the news, it must happen, right? The paper reports that the proposed gassification plant planned for between Elk Mountain and Medicine Bow will start construction in 2010 and be online in 2013. This is a scaled down version of what a full plant could do, but with hope it will actually happen and start this nation on the road to oil independence.
Of course, environmentalists still have the chance to kill this plant, and our wonderful national legislature can wreak all kinds of havoc on the economy before the fourth quarter 2009, when the company producing this plant will seek public funding.
But here's to hoping.
Of course, environmentalists still have the chance to kill this plant, and our wonderful national legislature can wreak all kinds of havoc on the economy before the fourth quarter 2009, when the company producing this plant will seek public funding.
But here's to hoping.
Wyoming Fails in Legislation
And so two of the important bills facing the Wyoming legislature this spring have failed: the bill to improve the reporting doctors are required to make when performing abortions, and the bill to propose an amendment to Wyoming Law so that only heterosexual marriages are recognized.
I had so much hope for this legislative cycle, and they're slowly being crushed.
I had so much hope for this legislative cycle, and they're slowly being crushed.
Keeping Teachers We Need
One of the most prominent memories of high school for both my wife and myself, other than the fun extracurricular activities we engaged in, were the poor quality of a number of the teachers we had. We each recall English teachers that were particularly ineffective. Sara will speak at length about her teacher that taught in this fashion: read along in the book while the audio tape plays, and then watch the movie based on the book; take a test; if you don't know the answer on the test, ask the class favorite to ask the teacher, and receive the correct answer as it filters back down from the class favorite; and try not to be on the teacher's bad side, else you'll receive low marks for a work identical to another classmate's (yes, this was tested). I'll regale people with stories of how the Honors English Class in 10th grade was the easiest class in the entire school, where we weekly regurgitated vocabulary words and made stupid little 5 minute speeches that never received anything less than an A; yet in the Regular English Class, students worked their butts off learning the dynamics of grammar, literature, good writing (which, even when exhaustively reviewed by other English teachers, still received a B or a C because it wasn't up to a clearly identifiable objective standard), and good speech skills.
It doesn't come to either of us as any surprise that Wyoming ranked "D" in effective teacher identification and retention, and in ineffective teacher dismissal.
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is, myself. But bad teachers hung around like the stench of a decaying woodchuck (credit Scott Adams for the phrase), and good teachers were few and far between. Average or mediocre teachers were about par. I have no idea if we simply have good teachers available who, due to bureaucracy and low performance standards, chose not to exert themselves because it didn't matter, or if (as we sometimes expect) that our College of Education was simply the last stop for people who couldn't make it in other fields.
I personally tried out our Education department for a year, and eventually I caved because--while I would still love to teach--the crap you have to put up with is excessive. I was particularly disenchanted with the extremely liberal bent of the department, which seemed more interested in coddling the low-end students out of sake of their fragile self-esteem than in actually teaching meaningful material. On the other hand, a visit to our local charter school here in Laramie, the Snowy Range Academy, told me that the militant disciplinary response--which was a matter more of just rote memorization and moving on--wasn't the answer either. But I do think that our College of Education churns out by far more mediocre teachers than even adequate teachers.
Part of the problem, too, is coaching. Perhaps because of Wyoming's low population, and the fact that so many schools need to have teachers doubling up (or even tripling up) on positions, but it seemed that four out of every five teachers were also coaches. And it felt telling that most of the poor teachers (I can think of a few glaring exceptions, but they're exceptions) were coaches. And I suspect that their poor teaching was in part caused by the fact that they were coaching, as well, and thus didn't have the time and energy needed to focus on the classes. That isn't to say that there weren't good teachers who were also coaches. I can think of a couple of those. But the connection is certainly troubling.
Other factors seem to be that Wyoming just doesn't appeal to many people, which is why we remain at the bottom of the totem, barely earning the one representative to the House we have. People complain that there is nothing to do in Wyoming. I suppose when you compare to Colorado or California for the Six Flags and Disney Land parks, Wyoming is lacking in that. But most of the great things to do in Wyoming are of the out-of-doors sort. People tend not to like the hiking so much, though many are okay with the skiing. But if they're going to ski, they'd rather do it in Vale, or somewhere else in Colorado.
Salaries have always been a problem. Why work for $25 K a year when you could work for $40 K a year, even if the cost of living around the $40 K job is $17 K a year higher than in Wyoming? But then, Wyoming offers so many other ares of employment that can easily net one $80 K a year that it is no wonder that many prefer those jobs to teaching.
Yet, I don't think money or location are the biggest problems. I think most teachers bail for the reason I did: the bureaucracy, and the unfriendly environment to those who wish to actually do what needs to be done. Like actually teach and grade and use red ink and discipline students who are out of line. I left in part because I felt like I wouldn't be able to be tough on my students, challenging the smart ones to excel beyond where they were already at, and encouraging or even dragging the slower ones forward. I think that environment needs to change before we throw more money at the problem.
I think it might also help if we change the image of teaching as one of the most vital roles one can play in our nation, as opposed to the crap job you fall back on if you can't make it in other fields.
It doesn't come to either of us as any surprise that Wyoming ranked "D" in effective teacher identification and retention, and in ineffective teacher dismissal.
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is, myself. But bad teachers hung around like the stench of a decaying woodchuck (credit Scott Adams for the phrase), and good teachers were few and far between. Average or mediocre teachers were about par. I have no idea if we simply have good teachers available who, due to bureaucracy and low performance standards, chose not to exert themselves because it didn't matter, or if (as we sometimes expect) that our College of Education was simply the last stop for people who couldn't make it in other fields.
I personally tried out our Education department for a year, and eventually I caved because--while I would still love to teach--the crap you have to put up with is excessive. I was particularly disenchanted with the extremely liberal bent of the department, which seemed more interested in coddling the low-end students out of sake of their fragile self-esteem than in actually teaching meaningful material. On the other hand, a visit to our local charter school here in Laramie, the Snowy Range Academy, told me that the militant disciplinary response--which was a matter more of just rote memorization and moving on--wasn't the answer either. But I do think that our College of Education churns out by far more mediocre teachers than even adequate teachers.
Part of the problem, too, is coaching. Perhaps because of Wyoming's low population, and the fact that so many schools need to have teachers doubling up (or even tripling up) on positions, but it seemed that four out of every five teachers were also coaches. And it felt telling that most of the poor teachers (I can think of a few glaring exceptions, but they're exceptions) were coaches. And I suspect that their poor teaching was in part caused by the fact that they were coaching, as well, and thus didn't have the time and energy needed to focus on the classes. That isn't to say that there weren't good teachers who were also coaches. I can think of a couple of those. But the connection is certainly troubling.
Other factors seem to be that Wyoming just doesn't appeal to many people, which is why we remain at the bottom of the totem, barely earning the one representative to the House we have. People complain that there is nothing to do in Wyoming. I suppose when you compare to Colorado or California for the Six Flags and Disney Land parks, Wyoming is lacking in that. But most of the great things to do in Wyoming are of the out-of-doors sort. People tend not to like the hiking so much, though many are okay with the skiing. But if they're going to ski, they'd rather do it in Vale, or somewhere else in Colorado.
Salaries have always been a problem. Why work for $25 K a year when you could work for $40 K a year, even if the cost of living around the $40 K job is $17 K a year higher than in Wyoming? But then, Wyoming offers so many other ares of employment that can easily net one $80 K a year that it is no wonder that many prefer those jobs to teaching.
Yet, I don't think money or location are the biggest problems. I think most teachers bail for the reason I did: the bureaucracy, and the unfriendly environment to those who wish to actually do what needs to be done. Like actually teach and grade and use red ink and discipline students who are out of line. I left in part because I felt like I wouldn't be able to be tough on my students, challenging the smart ones to excel beyond where they were already at, and encouraging or even dragging the slower ones forward. I think that environment needs to change before we throw more money at the problem.
I think it might also help if we change the image of teaching as one of the most vital roles one can play in our nation, as opposed to the crap job you fall back on if you can't make it in other fields.
How Does Wealth Disappear?
One of the basic principles in economics is that currency is based, more or less (in our case, less), on the connection with some material good that backs the currency. Now, our dollar is no longer tied to our gold reserves, but it still represents the worth of our goods.
To understand how wealth disappears, we have to understand how wealth is created in the first place. First and foremost, wealth is created through effort. At the very least, the effort is from picking fruit from a tree, or berries from a bush, or hunting an animal, or so on. The worth of the item is based upon need and availability. A cup of water during a flood season isn't worth very much because water abounds everywhere. A cup water to a man dying of thirst in the desert is practically worth his life. But this is simply stating the principles of supply and demand. No one can really question that supply and demand play a role in matters; what is arguable is how much government should tamper with market forces.
Now, wealth is essentially created through effort, as I just said. I can take some raw material, each component fairly cheap because of availability and low demand for just raw components, and turn those pieces into, say, a house. Because of the effort I placed into the house, the worth of the house is more than the worth of the materials individually; worked into the price is the time and talent I've expended. Supposedly, anyone could invest their time and talent to build a house, but in reality, housebuilding is best suited to one who knows how to build houses, especially given the quality of amateurish buildings. That's why my effort adds to the cost of the house.
Now we examine how supply and demand work on the houses I build. Suppose I build one house, and three people want to buy. That means the house increases in value because of the competition. How? I can simply raise the price until two of the three people are no longer willing to buy the house, and then sell it to the one left standing. The thing to note is that this increase in price is somewhat artificial, because it does not necessarily accurately reflect the cost of the materials and the value of my labor. Those two factors are a baseline of worth; the inflated cost is variable and due to other conditions. For example, if two of the three decide they're better off in tents before I inflate my price, then I can no longer inflate the price. With no competition, my one remaining customer can demand that I sell at the base price, or he won't buy at all. Alternatively, I could build two other houses so that all three can buy, and then only be capable of offering a base price. Or I could build more houses than are demanded, which could potentially artificially deflate the actual value of the first house (depending on the cost of the other houses), because the threat is there to go with a cheaper model, and leave the most expensive house unoccupied.
The government can step in and tamper with prices, too. It can mandate that every house be sold for at least some amount. This causes some reverberations in the market, but eventually it settles down. The reverberations come because some houses aren't worth that amount, and won't sell. But soon the new houses built will be built with the minimum price tag in mind, which has two effects. One is that, since cheaper housing is no longer available, there are fewer people looking for houses, and thus fewer new buildings are constructed. With fewer buildings made, the supply goes down. If the demand remains constant, then the value of the cheaper buildings rises, perhaps finally equating with that bare minimum, and the balance is restored. The second is that the base worth of a house is artificially inflated. As I said before, the cheaper houses might eventually rise value as the supply and demand evens out, but other houses will see an increase in value, as well. If this cheap house and this average house sell for the same price, there will be a higher demand for the average house due to quality concerns. Thus its price will rise.
Now suppose that the government changes its mind and removes its regulation that houses must be sold for some amount. Suddenly the price of houses collapses. People can offer cheaper houses for much cheaper than before, and the higher priced houses lose value as people steer towards the cheaper housing. In an instant, thousands of dollars per home just vanish. All manner of wealth just disappears.
This is the sort of thing that happened with the housing market crash. The government effectively mandated a minimum housing cost by making sure a much wider spread of the marketplace could afford housing (via the subprime loans). So if everybody and their cat can receive, say, a $100,000 loan, all houses are now worth at least $100,000, and all the more expensive houses rise in value. This continues in an upward surge for a time, especially as people build more houses to accommodate the influx of people looking for homes. The bubble builds for a while, but eventually--and most people seemed to forget this point--the market balances out again, and the bubble stops increasing. Due to other factors, the economy slowed, people defaulted on loans, and ultimately many banks closed and credit froze. This had the effect of suddenly reversing the $100,000 minimum mandate, and the price of houses dropped. All the wealth that had been there before evaporated.
That's the thing we need to remember in this world of ours. Wealth can not only be created, it can be destroyed. I can pump thousands of dollars into a business that ultimately fails, and that money for the most part may as well have never existed. Now, some may argue that the money I invested at least went to paying the bills, paying employees, and so on, and that even though the business failed, the money still circulated. But that money also went to purchase products that are never sold, or equipment that then lies unused and is sold off at bargain prices. The wealth effectively disappeared.
So how exactly does wealth disappear? It isn't necessarily correct to say that it disappears because it never existed, that it was an artificial wealth that ultimately would be shown to be the phantom it really is. In some cases this is correct. But for the majority of wealth that has disappeared, it disappears because natural drop in demand leads to a drop in worth of items considered.
To understand how wealth disappears, we have to understand how wealth is created in the first place. First and foremost, wealth is created through effort. At the very least, the effort is from picking fruit from a tree, or berries from a bush, or hunting an animal, or so on. The worth of the item is based upon need and availability. A cup of water during a flood season isn't worth very much because water abounds everywhere. A cup water to a man dying of thirst in the desert is practically worth his life. But this is simply stating the principles of supply and demand. No one can really question that supply and demand play a role in matters; what is arguable is how much government should tamper with market forces.
Now, wealth is essentially created through effort, as I just said. I can take some raw material, each component fairly cheap because of availability and low demand for just raw components, and turn those pieces into, say, a house. Because of the effort I placed into the house, the worth of the house is more than the worth of the materials individually; worked into the price is the time and talent I've expended. Supposedly, anyone could invest their time and talent to build a house, but in reality, housebuilding is best suited to one who knows how to build houses, especially given the quality of amateurish buildings. That's why my effort adds to the cost of the house.
Now we examine how supply and demand work on the houses I build. Suppose I build one house, and three people want to buy. That means the house increases in value because of the competition. How? I can simply raise the price until two of the three people are no longer willing to buy the house, and then sell it to the one left standing. The thing to note is that this increase in price is somewhat artificial, because it does not necessarily accurately reflect the cost of the materials and the value of my labor. Those two factors are a baseline of worth; the inflated cost is variable and due to other conditions. For example, if two of the three decide they're better off in tents before I inflate my price, then I can no longer inflate the price. With no competition, my one remaining customer can demand that I sell at the base price, or he won't buy at all. Alternatively, I could build two other houses so that all three can buy, and then only be capable of offering a base price. Or I could build more houses than are demanded, which could potentially artificially deflate the actual value of the first house (depending on the cost of the other houses), because the threat is there to go with a cheaper model, and leave the most expensive house unoccupied.
The government can step in and tamper with prices, too. It can mandate that every house be sold for at least some amount. This causes some reverberations in the market, but eventually it settles down. The reverberations come because some houses aren't worth that amount, and won't sell. But soon the new houses built will be built with the minimum price tag in mind, which has two effects. One is that, since cheaper housing is no longer available, there are fewer people looking for houses, and thus fewer new buildings are constructed. With fewer buildings made, the supply goes down. If the demand remains constant, then the value of the cheaper buildings rises, perhaps finally equating with that bare minimum, and the balance is restored. The second is that the base worth of a house is artificially inflated. As I said before, the cheaper houses might eventually rise value as the supply and demand evens out, but other houses will see an increase in value, as well. If this cheap house and this average house sell for the same price, there will be a higher demand for the average house due to quality concerns. Thus its price will rise.
Now suppose that the government changes its mind and removes its regulation that houses must be sold for some amount. Suddenly the price of houses collapses. People can offer cheaper houses for much cheaper than before, and the higher priced houses lose value as people steer towards the cheaper housing. In an instant, thousands of dollars per home just vanish. All manner of wealth just disappears.
This is the sort of thing that happened with the housing market crash. The government effectively mandated a minimum housing cost by making sure a much wider spread of the marketplace could afford housing (via the subprime loans). So if everybody and their cat can receive, say, a $100,000 loan, all houses are now worth at least $100,000, and all the more expensive houses rise in value. This continues in an upward surge for a time, especially as people build more houses to accommodate the influx of people looking for homes. The bubble builds for a while, but eventually--and most people seemed to forget this point--the market balances out again, and the bubble stops increasing. Due to other factors, the economy slowed, people defaulted on loans, and ultimately many banks closed and credit froze. This had the effect of suddenly reversing the $100,000 minimum mandate, and the price of houses dropped. All the wealth that had been there before evaporated.
That's the thing we need to remember in this world of ours. Wealth can not only be created, it can be destroyed. I can pump thousands of dollars into a business that ultimately fails, and that money for the most part may as well have never existed. Now, some may argue that the money I invested at least went to paying the bills, paying employees, and so on, and that even though the business failed, the money still circulated. But that money also went to purchase products that are never sold, or equipment that then lies unused and is sold off at bargain prices. The wealth effectively disappeared.
So how exactly does wealth disappear? It isn't necessarily correct to say that it disappears because it never existed, that it was an artificial wealth that ultimately would be shown to be the phantom it really is. In some cases this is correct. But for the majority of wealth that has disappeared, it disappears because natural drop in demand leads to a drop in worth of items considered.
Friday, February 06, 2009
The Stimulus Bill
Currently, as of about 4:30 pm Easter Time, it seems unlikely that the Senate is going to succeed today in passing the stimulus bill, which makes me happy. The longer we hold off on passing this monstrosity, the more chances we have at making it a better bill.
Now, I'm not one to sacrifice good on the altar of perfection, but this bill doesn't attain good. It doesn't even attain mildly distasteful. As opposed to an economic stimulus package, I would have called it a Government Goody Bill, in which all the branches of the government, including a few new branches, get heaps and heaps of money. In a 600+ page document, I saw maybe 30 pages that even came close to addressing the financial sector, the dilemma of private businesses, and the needs of anything non-governmental. The rest of the bill endlessly detailed handouts to various government agencies.
Somehow, I don't see how that will help stimulate our economy. But then, I suppose that the slow, creeping spread of the government over all economic aspects eventually will mean that government and economy are one and the same.
I personally hope that the Senate will pare the spending back by a few hundred billion dollars, and contemplate how wise it is to spend in all the places they are spending. I can kind of see how many of the items will make or preserve jobs, but only if we're considering government jobs. That, I think, is telling.
Now, I'm not one to sacrifice good on the altar of perfection, but this bill doesn't attain good. It doesn't even attain mildly distasteful. As opposed to an economic stimulus package, I would have called it a Government Goody Bill, in which all the branches of the government, including a few new branches, get heaps and heaps of money. In a 600+ page document, I saw maybe 30 pages that even came close to addressing the financial sector, the dilemma of private businesses, and the needs of anything non-governmental. The rest of the bill endlessly detailed handouts to various government agencies.
Somehow, I don't see how that will help stimulate our economy. But then, I suppose that the slow, creeping spread of the government over all economic aspects eventually will mean that government and economy are one and the same.
I personally hope that the Senate will pare the spending back by a few hundred billion dollars, and contemplate how wise it is to spend in all the places they are spending. I can kind of see how many of the items will make or preserve jobs, but only if we're considering government jobs. That, I think, is telling.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Sexual Freedom Strikes Again
As society continues to press on its mindless chanting for sexual freedom and lambasting anyone who dares disagree as retrogressive and brainless religious, we have beautiful tales likes these:
Teen Accused of Blackmailing Fellow Students For Sex
and
Teen 'Sexters' Charged with Child Pornography.
So what are to make of these? Maybe we should have considered that our view of free sex, sex without consequence, and teenage sex would have led to these things. The first article, of course, is pretty heinous, and will receive a tut-tut because he was forcing fellow male students into having sex, thus violating the whole consensus thing.
It is actually the second article that worries me more. Some states make it illegal for minors to have sex with each other, but others don't. For those that don't, does it make sense to allow minors to have sex with each other, but not take naked pictures of each other? Heck does it make sense to forbid even a minor from taking a naked picture of herself, in that light?
The inevitable result, as I see it, is that eventually we start pulling down the barriers. Those kids that were prosecuted for child pornography will fight, and eventually interest groups will step in, and we'll have a court ruling that as long as the picture is of yourself, you can send it where you will. That will open the door for all kinds of leeway in child pornography cases, and we might see a fair amount of breakdown there. It might be that child porn is limited to preadolescence, and see we start seeing a plethora of junior high or high school girls submitting themselves to become amateur porn stars. And our ultimate situation grows much, much worse.
If we dare to ask, "Didn't anyone tell these kids not to do something like this?" we're immediately confronted with slogans like "teens will have sex anyway, so we just try to make it safe", and "do whatever you like, just be responsible about it" and so forth. We can't interfere because it is an invasion of privacy. Or an assault against sexual rights. Heck, if parents aren't supposed to be involved in whether or not a kid has an abortion, why should they be involved with sexual choices, up to and including texting friends with nude photos?
Slippery slope? More like an icy cliff. It will be interesting (and bone-chilling) to see where these cases end up.
Teen Accused of Blackmailing Fellow Students For Sex
and
Teen 'Sexters' Charged with Child Pornography.
So what are to make of these? Maybe we should have considered that our view of free sex, sex without consequence, and teenage sex would have led to these things. The first article, of course, is pretty heinous, and will receive a tut-tut because he was forcing fellow male students into having sex, thus violating the whole consensus thing.
It is actually the second article that worries me more. Some states make it illegal for minors to have sex with each other, but others don't. For those that don't, does it make sense to allow minors to have sex with each other, but not take naked pictures of each other? Heck does it make sense to forbid even a minor from taking a naked picture of herself, in that light?
The inevitable result, as I see it, is that eventually we start pulling down the barriers. Those kids that were prosecuted for child pornography will fight, and eventually interest groups will step in, and we'll have a court ruling that as long as the picture is of yourself, you can send it where you will. That will open the door for all kinds of leeway in child pornography cases, and we might see a fair amount of breakdown there. It might be that child porn is limited to preadolescence, and see we start seeing a plethora of junior high or high school girls submitting themselves to become amateur porn stars. And our ultimate situation grows much, much worse.
If we dare to ask, "Didn't anyone tell these kids not to do something like this?" we're immediately confronted with slogans like "teens will have sex anyway, so we just try to make it safe", and "do whatever you like, just be responsible about it" and so forth. We can't interfere because it is an invasion of privacy. Or an assault against sexual rights. Heck, if parents aren't supposed to be involved in whether or not a kid has an abortion, why should they be involved with sexual choices, up to and including texting friends with nude photos?
Slippery slope? More like an icy cliff. It will be interesting (and bone-chilling) to see where these cases end up.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Zone In on the Ozone
Now ozone is in the news again, not because there is too little of it in places (thanks to nasty CFC's that have depleted the ozone, especially over Antarctica), but because there is too much of it in the wrong place.
Apparently, concerns of ozone have been around for a while. The EPA has information on the molecule and its effects. But the gist of the matter is this. The molecule O3 (three oxygen atoms) are formed when oxygen and nitrates (NOx) interact. Specifically, NO2 (produced from car engines) is somewhat unstable, and when struck with light breaks apart into NO and O, and that spare O is highly reactive. (An oxygen atom on its own is fairly reactive, and it likes to bond with many other things, like hydrogen to produce water, or other oxygen atoms to produce the typical O2 molecule, or carbon, or nitrogen, or a host of other elements.) This lone, drifting oxygen can then latch onto the more stable O2 molecule, forming O3.
Now, chemists and chemical engineers have known for a long time that SOx and NOx were dangerous molecules responsible for lung aggravations and acid rain and various other detrimental features. These things have a very measurable, very immediate effect on the environment and on people, and they've been addressed for quite some time. However, given the concerns of ozone, especially in areas of heavy industry, or huge amounts of chemical traffic (such as the oil-field heavy regions around Pinedale), it seems to me that the real environmental concerns posed by NOx and SOx have been systematically ignored in favor of the harmless CO2.
But then, SOx and NOx aren't quite so politically expedient to lambaste in the news, so I guess they get a pass.
Apparently, concerns of ozone have been around for a while. The EPA has information on the molecule and its effects. But the gist of the matter is this. The molecule O3 (three oxygen atoms) are formed when oxygen and nitrates (NOx) interact. Specifically, NO2 (produced from car engines) is somewhat unstable, and when struck with light breaks apart into NO and O, and that spare O is highly reactive. (An oxygen atom on its own is fairly reactive, and it likes to bond with many other things, like hydrogen to produce water, or other oxygen atoms to produce the typical O2 molecule, or carbon, or nitrogen, or a host of other elements.) This lone, drifting oxygen can then latch onto the more stable O2 molecule, forming O3.
Now, chemists and chemical engineers have known for a long time that SOx and NOx were dangerous molecules responsible for lung aggravations and acid rain and various other detrimental features. These things have a very measurable, very immediate effect on the environment and on people, and they've been addressed for quite some time. However, given the concerns of ozone, especially in areas of heavy industry, or huge amounts of chemical traffic (such as the oil-field heavy regions around Pinedale), it seems to me that the real environmental concerns posed by NOx and SOx have been systematically ignored in favor of the harmless CO2.
But then, SOx and NOx aren't quite so politically expedient to lambaste in the news, so I guess they get a pass.
News Articles on Gay Marriage
One of the first I find is an article about British homosexual unions having a failure rate of less than one percent. I'm not inclined to give this statistic much weight, given that the numbers were drawn from a 2 year period, starting when such unions were legitimized. If the average first marriage lasts about 8 years, we wouldn't necessarily expect to see breakdowns in gay marriages right away.
The news is apparently more grim in Sweden, where homosexual unions are 50% more likely to break up within an eight year period.
But then, in Denmark, it seems that gay marriages are out-performing heterosexual marriages.
In general, is skimming around the web, it seems that jury is still out on how well homosexual unions succeed. Since such marriages are only a very recent phenomenon, or because so few nations keep track of statistics in this regard, it is very difficult to make any conclusions. I personally would not be surprised to see gay marriages ending in roughly the same percentage as normal marriages.
Why? Because anymore, marriage is about legitimized sexual acts, not about true devotion to another person coupled with the life-giving aspect that produces family. When the sex aspect is what it is all about, who cares if your partner is male or female?
The news is apparently more grim in Sweden, where homosexual unions are 50% more likely to break up within an eight year period.
But then, in Denmark, it seems that gay marriages are out-performing heterosexual marriages.
In general, is skimming around the web, it seems that jury is still out on how well homosexual unions succeed. Since such marriages are only a very recent phenomenon, or because so few nations keep track of statistics in this regard, it is very difficult to make any conclusions. I personally would not be surprised to see gay marriages ending in roughly the same percentage as normal marriages.
Why? Because anymore, marriage is about legitimized sexual acts, not about true devotion to another person coupled with the life-giving aspect that produces family. When the sex aspect is what it is all about, who cares if your partner is male or female?
Not Surprising at All
It seems that the premiere couple leading the gay marriage march are filing for divorce, and in fact had been separated since 2006. (Fox News has the story here.)
Now, I know this is just one story, but it seems to me that it says something that the people who fought hardest to marry are now filing for divorce. It kind of makes the whole endeavor seem pointless, doesn't it? I mean, if you're going to get together with someone for a couple of years and then slip apart and get together with someone else, why fight for marriage?
Of course, we know that plenty of heterosexual marriages fail, as well, but that doesn't somehow validate what's going on here. What is needed is a strong understanding of what marriage is about. It isn't about legitimizing your sexual relationship with a person, and it isn't about tax deductions or social acceptance or anything like that. It is about a commitment to, for the rest of your life, devote yourself fully to another person.
I don't think very many people in the whole gay marriage debate understand this.
Now, I know this is just one story, but it seems to me that it says something that the people who fought hardest to marry are now filing for divorce. It kind of makes the whole endeavor seem pointless, doesn't it? I mean, if you're going to get together with someone for a couple of years and then slip apart and get together with someone else, why fight for marriage?
Of course, we know that plenty of heterosexual marriages fail, as well, but that doesn't somehow validate what's going on here. What is needed is a strong understanding of what marriage is about. It isn't about legitimizing your sexual relationship with a person, and it isn't about tax deductions or social acceptance or anything like that. It is about a commitment to, for the rest of your life, devote yourself fully to another person.
I don't think very many people in the whole gay marriage debate understand this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)