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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Day Without a Gay Bust

So it seems that the "Day Without a Gay" protest drew little attention and few participants. Apparently a few people have commented that, given the bad economy, it simply wasn't prudent to strike, that such a an effort would have a backlash on the gay community.

That explanation doesn't seem to work, to me. Maybe I'd be a bit more ruthless in this, but a poor economy would, to me, be the best time, so that the message hits home hardest. But then, I suspect that maybe the reason the protest didn't find wide participation is because, in contrast with similar protests by blacks and Hispanics, homosexuality doesn't manifest visually in terms of unalterable traits. While I'm willing to concede to the theory that "homosexuality is not a choice", nevertheless homosexual actions do involve choice. One can choose to engage in homosexual sex, or one can choose to refrain. One can choose to be "flaming", or one can choose to appear no different than any other random Joe on the streets.

The problem the gay movement is having, I think, is this. The black movement truly and honestly dealt with discrimination that targeted something blacks simply could not change. Moreover, blacks were fighting to be recognized as far more than just a skin color. Those in the gay movement, though, are largely discriminated against for their behavior (and not their sexual preference per se). What this amounts to, then, is that in order to equate their struggles as being discriminated against as something that they are, they have to reduce themselves to nothing but gay, and I don't think most people with homosexual tendencies want to completely subsume themselves under a single label.

To simplify, because the onus is on the behavior, not on an unchangeable trait, people in the gay movement have to make that behavior an unchangeable part of their being, essentially make "gay" the sole qualifying detail about themselves. They have to reduce themselves to a single label in order to make this discrimination fit, and I would conjecture that the human mind find such a reduction of self unappealing.

Random Thoughts

Having a cold is terribly uncomfortable, but most colds are not life-threatening and run their course in a week or so. Seeking a doctor is usually a waste of money because the doctor can’t really do anything but prescribe medication for the symptoms, and you can usually buy just as effective medication over the counter. But there are some tragic cases where the cold becomes much more than just a cold, even to the point of hospitalization. Insurance exists for this reason; it is an attempt to pool money together from many, many people to help pay for those things which very rarely happen. It is a gamble. When someone has insurance that covers everything, that no longer is insurance but health care. When everyone has this insurance, it is universal health care. The question becomes: who pays for this? If we divide up the costs, the people who need the insurance can’t pay their portion, else they wouldn’t actually need the insurance. The deficit has to be made up by those who have more money. This isn’t problematic assuming that the rich are voluntarily covering the difference. If they are not, then this becomes theft.

I look at taxes to the government as renewing my subscription to the services the nation has to offer. I just wish that I could pick and choose the services for which I pay. But then, I might not pay into the services the nation really needs.

Part of the difference between left and right seems to be who we trust to have money. The left doesn’t trust the rich to have money because they fear the rich will hoard it and never help the poor unless forced. The right trusts the rich to invest wisely and donate to charities. Catholics understand that wealth can corrupt, and thus there are rich people who do despicable things in the pursuit of more wealth. Catholics also acknowledge that a man who works hard to earn wealth shouldn’t be punished for working hard. Work is one of the great means with which we glorify God, and when you punish the rewards of work, you deter man from working.

We hear a lot on the campaign trail about the merits of a man who is willing to come across the aisle and work with the other party to pass bills. We hear endless talk about partisan politics dividing the nation. We see so much activity in Congress directed towards blocking bills from the floor, keeping bills from debate, filibustering bills, and in general accomplishing nothing. The message of change continually bantered about is a change in which all differences are set aside and Congress actually passes bills the help our beleaguered nation.

Yet there is a fallacy inherent in this thirst for change, and I hear it from people who view partisan politics with cynicism and dismay. They hear radically different views from the left and from the right—there is global warming, there isn’t; capitalism, socialism; pro-choice, pro-life—and conclude that the reality must be somewhere in the middle. Maybe there is global warming, but it isn’t as bad as the Democrats make it sound. Surely some amount of socialism is necessary to rein in the unbridled greed of the capitalists. Obviously abortion is bad, but it shouldn’t be eliminated for some of those rare, tough situations. Thus all the stalling and partisan politics should take a back seat to compromise.

The fallacy is this: compromise works in favor of the party that realizes it can eventually pass its agenda by forcing the other party from its position. If we feel anything should go on television, we get the prudish critics to approve some mildly offensive language. And then we get them to approve some adult situations. Then we ask for scenes that are somewhat sexually explicit, and after long rounds put them on primetime television. And then we go for more and more offensive language, more adult situations, more sexually explicit material. After so many compromises, it looks as though one side completely folded, and the other held firm to its guns.

It is amazing how far we have compromised ourselves from the truth, from what is right. As bad as an Obama presidency would be, we still must realize that a McCain presidency is a compromise.

As a final note, there is something uncompromising about “You shall love your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength.”

Dropping Heath Care Already?

Apparently Hawaii decided it couldn't continue its universal health care. Proponents of this system were greatly disappointed, to be sure, but here are a few crucial factors everyone should pay attention to:

A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program.

and:

State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.

When you're willing to offer free care, who wouldn't want to opt for it instead of paying for their own?

Of course, this program was dropped because of funding shortfalls, even though the program only costs the state $50,000 or so a month. Keep in mind that this amount covers only about 2000 of the 3500-16,000 uninsured children the state hoped to cover. Assuming Hawaii was willing to spend the same $25 per child once it had every kid on board, that would amount to $87,500 to $400,000 a month, or $1,050,000 to $4,800,000 a year. That doesn't sound like a whole lot, considering the amount of money the federal government throws around, but it is a fair amount for a state's budget.

What ethics remain?

In a recent "stunning" revelation, another congressman, Democrat Tim Mahoney, allegedly paid $121,000 dollars to a mistress who worked with him during his campaign against Mark Foley. Mahoney is married.

I understand quite well that Foley deserved to be removed from his post due to his philandering around with the interns. Grooming homosexual partners is a terrible wrong, not necessarily for the homosexuality, but for the larger picture of what Foley was doing: preparing people to have sex with him in an uncommitted relationship. I'm sorry, but I find it despicable that an older man would try to groom an under-aged person, even if the intent is to wait until majority. The only reason to wait is to narrowly evade the letter of the law. It doesn't change the fact that Foley was only looking for a means to glut himself on pleasure at another person's expense.

And now his replacement has followed a similar path. There must be something about Florida, I guess. Can't figure out how to hold elections, can't seem to elect decent candidates.

The only way to be sure to avoid a sex scandal is to realize that sex isn't recreation. It isn't about getting your pleasure fix. It is about a surrender and giving in the most intimate way possible. I would say that it is about true love, but people don't even know what love is anymore. Love is a choice to willingly devote oneself to another. Most people seem to think love is just the warm, gushy feelings. Those are nice, but they're not always present. But that doesn't mean that love goes away.

I hope this Mahoney is canned. A man who would cheat on his wife isn't someone I want in office.

Global Warming Conspiracy Theory

I don't keep track of very many blogs, but I thought I'd try to be among the first to connect the dots and blame Bush, not for wasteful spending and bad economic policies, but for deliberately wrecking the economy for the sake of the oil companies.

Here's how it goes:

1) Everyone knows that Bush is in the pay of big oil. He's an oil man himself. When oil profits, he profits.

2) Congress was getting dangerously close to passing a bill that would require reductions in greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide. The passage of that bill would hurt big oil, because after all, burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide.

3) The big factor with "going green" was that it would cost a lot more, both to fund subsidies for "clean" and "renewable" sources of energy and for average Joe Six-Pack to pay for his energy costs.

4) Crashing the economy was the only viable way to preserve the dominance of the oil companies. With the economy in a tailspin, Congress wouldn't dream of passing their bill to reduce emissions. The cost of doing so on top of the huge loss of savings would spark lynch mobs.

So it is all Bush's fault. The economic crisis was entirely his doing, and was a deliberate attempt to forestall world-saving bills that would have hurt his oil company cronies.

American Catholic Doings

I have a new article up at The American Catholic, dealing with the place of religion in politics. Simply put, I am grotesquely verbose about a simple fact: everybody has religious beliefs, and those influence their policies. You cannot remove religion from politics, and simple honesty demands that we acknowledge our religion so that people can better evaluate our claims.

I didn't want the whole article to devolve into a finger-point mess, so I'll state it here. Part of the problem with our presidential candidates at the moment is that it is very, very hard to fully understand what they believe. Obama especially has spent so much time hiding his past and has such a small record that it is impossible to know where he's coming from (other than 20+ years under Reverend Wright). In addition, once politicians seize the nomination and start "moving towards the middle" to attract the undecided voters, it becomes even more difficult to tell what they really believe.

I think an honest discourse in which each candidate reveals his religious viewpoints, especially regarding the origins and ends of mankind, would help immensely figuring out whether or not we can believe them when they flip-flop on issues or change course.

The Second Debate is Over

I missed most of the second debate. My sister was visiting, and Sara and I were busy introducing her to Mario Kart Wii. But she left around 8, allowing me the chance to catch the last half-hour, and then the endless punditry following.

Some quick personal thoughts:

1) History does matter. I though Palin's remark to Biden during the VP debate, "Say ain't so, Joe. There you go again, looking back...", was a flake (not to mention forced and deliberately Reagan-esque). Biden was right. History is the prologue. We have to look at history to know causes and possibilities. We need to know how we reached the present, and seeing the interrelation between cause and effect will help us judge what might happen in the future. Thus it is valuable to know voting records. They help us judge how likely it is that a candidate will follow through with his campaign promises.

2) Honesty matters. A candidate who cooks the books and spins the facts is not one I want to vote for. Unfortunately, that apparently disqualifies both candidates. They repeatedly, ad nauseum, misrepresent the other's position, exaggerate numbers, and make false accusations. Each time they get called on their fouls, it hurts their causes. Unfortunately, McCain seems less capable of making firm, indignant responses to Obama's charges, and thus he loses there.

3) A person can be guilty by association. But people can change, too. Whether or not the William Ayers connection has any merit depends greatly upon how radical Ayer's views are now, and how much those views influence Obama. Dick Morris, in his interview on Hannity and Colmes, noted that there are still radical elements to Ayer's modus operandi, and that there is strong evidence that Obama is in lockstep with him in terms of education. This could be an important point.

4) Obama's campaign manager tried to force Sean Hannity to back away from the guilt-by-association charge by accusing Hannity of being anti-Semitic for having an anti-Semite on his show. He obviously wanted Hannity to say something along the lines of, "I'm not anti-Semitic because I was in the same room as an anti-Semite," which would have been a great "gotcha" moment. And it was a good point, until he kept belaboring it when Hannity wouldn't fall into his trap. Hannity made a clear point: on his show, he hosts many people who ideologically disagree with him, the point being that sometimes you have to show how crazy the crazies really are. In addition to that, we don't see Hannity making policy based on his association with his anti-Semitic guest.

5) Health care is an issue I can only gawk at. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid, imprudent health insurance policies, and out-of-control lawsuits have driven the price of health care through the roof. I feel great sympathy for those who have been forced into bankruptcy because of high medical bills. (The commercial running quite often, featuring people who had to file for bankruptcy due to medical costs could have done better than someone who couldn't fit a $50,000 bill. Sara's cousin Jason was involved in a motorcycle accident that nearly killed him, and the treatment required to save his life ran over a million dollars.) But I don't see how Obama's plan will help matters. Insurance for pre-existing conditions? It is a nice dream, but makes no sense in practice. In fact, it doesn't make sense in terms of what insurance is about. But McCain's message on health care could use a few rewrites. He needs to explain exactly how his plan will benefit the average American, and how Obama's won't. As long as that is missing, Obama can keep promising fantasies.

Who I Believe Brings Change

On a quick note, I just have to say that I don't believe Obama will bring change as president of the United States. Part of the problem I have simply comes from listening to the candidates talk and what solutions they propose. Obama, better than McCain, scores political points, has talking points a mile long, and is, in his own right, decent at identifying problems.

It is his solutions that terrify me. Part of my reaction is sub-rational: when I look at what McCain proposes, as modest as those proposals are, I have a gut-feeling that he won't do much to hurt things, though I might remain skeptical as to where he will fix things. When I read Obama's proposals, or listen to him speak, I have a gut-feeling that he is going to tank the economy, and in general make matters worse.

I have some basic knowledge of economics. That can be boiled down to three points:

1) Supply and demand. You get full points on a Econ 101 exam by simply drawing an X on a chart and labeling one as supply and the other as demand. The reason is simple: the concept itself is simple to understand, but it is vital.

2) A man can increase capital through his own blood, sweat, and tears. In agriculture, assuming decent weather conditions, a farmer could increase capital by growing more crops. Simple as that.

3) When the costs are hidden, or something is free, people will take as much as they can, regardless of need. (This excludes those rare cases of something being so bad you couldn't give it away.)

What does Obama want to do with his economic policies? He wants to ignore supply and demand; he wants to cripple capital-making processes; and he wants to hide costs.

I might be completely out on a limb on economic policies, but this seems like a recipe for disaster. In my opinion, only someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of where money actually comes from could possibly think Obama's economic strategies are sound.

It seems like if you ask a liberal where money comes from, his answer will be (with a deer-in-headlights type expression): "The rich?"

Why Obama Will Win

Susan Estrich, a Fox News contributor, has new article posted on the Fox News website regarding a friend of hers who will not be voting for McCain. I find Estrich's columns to be some of the most thoughtful, well-articulated, to-the-point left-wing writing I've ever said. After all the vitriol we tend to her in the left-wing news and blogsphere, coupled with a large dose of finger-pointing and idiocy from the right, it is refreshing to read her posts.

That being said, I think there's a subtle clue in this particular column as to why I think Obama will win. It isn't because he's the new face of change, or that McCain is a warmongerer, or anything like that.

I believe it is because Obama promises goodies. End of story.

Right now, we're in a bit of a financial crisis, and there's concerns of whether this crisis will continue to develop until we're in a widescale depression. On the minds of the people of the United States is not: "how am I going to work through this?" Instead, it is "how is the government going to save me?"

I understand very well that the government exists to protect us. It gives us our laws, it maintains a military against outside forces, it provides a legislative system to adjust laws to be fair, it offers an executive system to enforce those laws for our protection, and in even hands us a judicial system to ensure that disputes are settled, be they civil or criminal. This is all very moving, very touching, very assuring.

So the government protects us from outsiders (or at least it is supposed to), and the government protects us from our neighbors. But the big crisis in our nation, and why I think Obama now will win, is that many of us want the government to protect us from ourselves.

Now, Estrich raises legitimate concerns.

[Rosie] does not believe [McCain] will help people like her: People who are "lucky" to be covered by an HMO where the lines are endless and the care is too often haphazard. It was not her first choice, it was the only insurance she could get. Blue Cross twice rejected her, the first time because she took medication for gastritis. Gastritis? She was lucky to get coverage by the HMO. If she tried now, with arthritis and high blood pressure, not to mention a fussy stomach, even they would turn her down.

The problem of getting health care to those most in need is one of the hot topics in this presidential debate. Who should have insurance and how much that insurance should cover are vital questions. The answers people want is "everyone and everything." Obama wants to promise that; McCain doesn't. And for this, Obama is heralded as a savior, and McCain out of touch with the common person.

I don't necessarily understand the problem Rosie is going through. I have insurance and don't have any health factors that will greatly impede getting insurance. But my mother-in-law suffers from Rosie's problem. For a time she had some strange abdominal pains that no one could explain, and because of this health risk, insurance agencies won't cover her. She's lucky to be on her husband's plan, though it carries a huge deductable, but on her own, she's out of luck. That hardly seems fair, especially considering that in a crisis she could find herself facing backruptcy. No one with any amount of compassion would ever wish that on someone.

Politicians, especially those on the left, want to make sure everyone has insurance, as though health insurance is this magical entity that mystically reduces the cost of health care. But health insurance isn't a panacea by any means, and the idea of making sure everyone is covered ignores the very principles that makes insurance work.

Insurance isn't a basic right owed anyone. If any thing is a basic right owed, it might be the health care itself, which is a subtle distinction, and even then there are arguments to make about it.

Insurance is really just a business. People who started insurance noted that personal disasters can be devastating and practically impossible to recover from. But such disasters are relatively rare. Now, in normal course of events, back in the days when we actually cared about our neighbor and didn't have the government looking over our shoulders to ensure we played nice and fair, lest there be a lawsuit, if one of our neighbors fell into hard times, everyone (or at least a large number of people) pitched in to help. They provided food, water, and shelter, and contacted a friend who had a brother who knew a person who could employ the downtrodden unfortunate.

In some ways, though, this neighborliness can be inefficient and no effective enough. In a small community, no one is going to be able to provide the $6 million needed for the lifesaving operation to rescue the victim of a terrible accident from the brink of death. Thus it isn't necessarily effective. Furthermore, even if at some point in time the community could have afford the $6 million, there was no guarantee that $6 million would be at hand when needed. Thus it isn't necessarily efficient.

The insurance people then offered a service. They would regularly collect small donations that would be put into a fund. When disaster hit, disaster beyond the economic capability of the members, money would be drawn from that fund to aid the victim. It was more efficient because regular payments meant a continual, calculable, and immediately accessible source of money, and if it could attract enough customers, from many communities, then it would be more effective, as well. Of course, since the insurers are offering a service, a portion of those payments would go to salaries.

Now, insurance agencies cannot cover everyone. In order to survive, in order to be capable of helping its customers, it has to have a relatively large body of low-risk customers. It has to rely on the probability that most of the people who pay insurance in fact will never need the insurance. And this immediately creates tension. People at high risk of cancer--like my grandfather, who smoked like chimney and drank like a fish--are those who will most likely face expensive medical procedures beyond their economic capabilities. But these are the people insurance agencies want to cover the least, because they will in turn need large withdrawals from the funds. It is almost self-contradictory. Insurance exists to help people who have to pay enormous amounts of money, and yet if insurance covers those people, it risks going out of business due to have all its funds drained dry.

There are a lot of calculations that need to be made in order to determine, then, who to cover and who not to cover. The agency has to take on some amount of risk, for otherwise it cannot cover anyone. But how much risk is a difficult balancing act. If an agency discovers that 75% of smokers require expensive surgeries, respirators, or other medical services, that agency might decide that covering smokers is too risky. The payouts will be more than the pay-ins, and the company cannot keep afloat. But if the agency instead discovers that only 30% of smokers require expensive treatment, then it might be willing to gamble by covering smokers.

Obama wants to offer health insurance to every American, regardless of medical history. It sounds nice. Those like Rosie and my mother-in-law would finally be able to have insurance. It would certainly be a relief and a boon, especially as the financial crisis tightens budgets, increases unemployment, ruins retirement plans, and cast a cloud of doubt on the future. But the question becomes: if offering health insurance to everyone can be done, why hasn't it been done?

There are two potential answers. One is that the insurance companies are greedy and would rather rake in the money and never pay it back out. The other is that the insurance companies are already stretched as far as they can go, and taking on additional risk would endanger them. If too many risky customers demanded payments all at once, the company could go under.

You know, now that I mention it, that sounds remarkably like something else I've heard about just recently. What was it? Oh yeah! It had something to do with the Democratic government demanding that mortgages be offered to people that couldn't quite make the credit checks, down payments, and other factors required for qualification. When all those people couldn't meet their payments when the housing bubble burst and the economy slowed down, what happened to all those banks? That's right, they collapsed, forcing us to attempt a $700 billion bailout plan.

Of course, the analogy only works if the second case holds, the case where insurance companies are already taking on as much risk as they think they can afford. Who knows? Maybe Obama is right in thinking the insurance providers can take on unlimited amounts of risk and not suffer for it. It's a nice delusion.

The problem isn't that McCain is out of touch with the ordinary person. The problem is more that McCain doesn't have a satisfactory answer for the ordinary person. What is he supposed to say? If he toes the line Obama is, wouldn't he be saying "Well, I'll make sure you get insurance at the risk of the whole system collapsing in ten or fifteen years, just like the mortgage agencies"? Or maybe, "I'll make sure you get insurance, but at the cost of thousands of people losing their jobs as high taxation slows the economy down and forces companies to lay off their workers?" If he follows his principles, could he possibly hope to win by saying, "Sorry, but I can't make thousands of people suffer just for your benefit, so you'll have to regretably fall through the cracks" or "the reality is the government simply can't guarantee you insurance, so you'll have to rely on providence and your neighbors"? Of course he can't say anything like that. But that doesn't mean he's out of touch.

But Obama offers the goodies, which must mean he's in touch with the ordinary person. And that, of course, is why he'll make the presidency.

Finger Pointing

If there is anything that is a bi-partisan measure, it is passing the buck. Regardless of where one might stand on the issue, it is still abhorrent how politicians point fingers, cast off blame, and try to score political points.

On the left, Nancy Pelosi tried to use the necessity of passing the bailout package as an advantage to grandstand and point fingers at the Bush Administration for bringing us here. As far as she is concerned, she is both right and wrong. This government failed to read the writing on the walls and thus curtail bad policies that had been implemented in past administrations. However, Bush's economic policy raised federal revenue to levels previously unseen by cutting taxes to the wealthy and to corporations. On the other hand, Bush's administration did also raise spending to heretofore unseen levels, which also carries part of the blame.

On the right, Republicans in the House used Pelosi's grandstanding as an excuse not to vote for an unpopular bill.

On both sides, there were a large number of Representatives that hoped that they could vote "no" and still have the bill pass. In part because they felt they could score political points, and in part because they feared they would lose reelection if they voted "aye".

Overall, there was a complete failure of conscience, a willingness to place pride and ego ahead of what needed to be done. Now, I think the measure should have failed, and I think we can make it through this crisis without government intervention. There's no guarantee that government intervention will avert crisis in the first place, and though there is precedent that this might actually work, there are so many factors involved that there is no way to predict what will happen. But if a Congressman is willing to vote "no" on a bill in order to secure reelection when his conscience tells him that he should vote "aye", there is a severe problem.

There are a number of things that we need to keep in mind when dealing with our political system. First, there is no divine mandate for the United States of America. God did not direct us to create this nation as He directed the Hebrews to create Israel. The USA is just one nation among many. Someday, it too may just be another chapter in a history book. True, there are many good things about the USA, many things that make it the greatest nation in the world. But that is today. That there is no God-given mandate means that there is no guarantee we'll be the greatest nation in the world tomorrow. The lesson here is that we cannot as a nation feel assured that we will always be on top, that fortune will always favor us, that we can do no wrong.

Second, there is no God-given mandate that we should be a democratic republic. If we cherish our system, we have to realize that we can lose it, that we can hand it over to people who will abuse it, that we can let fall apart through apathy. God won't intervene to save our democracy.

Third, there is no God-given mandate that any particular candidate should take office, no matter his credentials, no matter what office. Any person has only a finite span in office, can only accomplish so much once there.

The lesson here is humility. When we as a nation start speaking, "Our way or the highway," then we had better be sure that our way is the right way. Note: it is not necessarily wrong to say "my way or the highway", because my way might indeed be right. But I also need to act humbly when saying it, and I need to have good reasons for saying it. When we start saying "our way or the highway" for no other reason than other people, other nations disagree with us, then we have abandoned humility and fallen to pride.

When we starting forcing our governmental system on other nations, we need to watch out. We may be right in suggesting they change, but then, we might be wrong as well. We need to make sure our reasons are something more than, "It's what we do."

When we start falling for the mentality that this candidate or that candidate must or must not attain office, we start falling to pride. We, not God, are the ones who know everything, and thus can definitively state that candidate A will bring ruin and wreckage, while candidate B will save us from all sins and bring us to everlasting toys, Amen. Now, we might have very good reasons to believe that candidate A might do terrible things while in office. But he is still one man, and can only do so much. We might have very good reasons to believe that candidate B will issue in an era of prosperity, and that would be nice, but he is still only one man. His era will be finite, and he will probably do other things that will tick us off.

The problem I see in Congress is this. A person runs for office, wanting to make a difference. He finds he has to cater to the voters if he wants to get elected, and so he has to compromise his policies to make it in. Once he's in, he finds himself in a dilemma. Accomplish his agenda, or accomplish what his voters--especially interest groups that funded his campaign--want him to do. Sometimes that isn't too difficult, when policies and agendas coincide. But when there is conflict, we start to see just how our system corrupts our politicians.

It starts out so simply. A candidate thinks that he cannot make a difference if he isn't elected, and so he changes his tune to attract the most voters. Once he's in, he faces the dilemma that if he doesn't please his constituents, then he can't stay in and effect change. Thus he can either keep compromising his policies, perhaps even against his conscience, or he can keep to his conscience and risk losing the next election. It seems like a double bind. He's damned either path he takes.

It reminds me a little of the musical version of "Les Miserables". Valjean sings: "If I speak, I am condemned. If I stay silent, I am damned." In this scenario, Valjean, a convict who broke parole and disappeared, only to later establish himself as first a successful businessman and then mayor, faces the horror of learning of some other man accused in his place, accused of being him. If Valjean speaks out, he'll lose his business, and the whole town will return to the economic shambles from which he raised it. He sings: "I am the master of hundreds of workers. They all look to me. Can I abandon them, how will I live, if I am not free?" And yet he eventually comes to the right conclusion.

There was no God-given mandate that the town should be economically prosperous, that Valjean should be mayor, that Valjean should be the savior of all those people. There was a God-given mandate to seek the redemption of his own soul, and there was a God-given mandate that one cannot use evil means to seek a good end. Thus the choice to forsake the town and reveal himself as the true escaped convict was the only one Valjean could justifiably make.

The same situation applies to Congress. No single candidate is our savior. At least, I don't see any of them dying on a cross to redeem our sins. Thus no single candidate has the right to claim the importance of staying in office over doing what is right. Perhaps there is some justification of doing wrong if the Congressman's conscience tells him that the wrong act is somehow right, but that's as far as it can extend. No Congressman is justified in voting against his conscience in order to gain political points and hold onto his office.

It is pride that leads one to believe that somehow the fate of all the nation, perhaps even all of mankind, hinges upon him remaining in office. And yet such a person should be humble. He has been entrusted with an enormous task, that of guiding a nation of hundreds of millions of people, in trying to craft legislation that is good for the nation, and in trying to defeat legislation that he believes will hurt the nation. He should be humble, for he has been given a chance few people ever get. He should be humble, for only then will he be capable of setting aside partisan politics, politics as usual, scoring political points, and so on. He should be humble, do what he believes is right, regardless of party lines or popularity. If he loses office by doing so, then so be it. He did what he could, and if people won't accept what he did, then that's that.

God Himself only showed us the way. He didn't force us to take it. Our politicians should be so humble.

Week 4 Results, with Soapboxing

Well, as predicted, I only scored 7-6 this week in my picks. The question one might ask: if I could guess that I would only succeed 7-6, why not change my picks to something stronger? The answer: some of these defeats I just couldn't see.

To be perfectly honest, I suppose I could have conceived of Kansas City toppling Denver, since I knew Denver has historically had problems in Arrowhead Stadium, but the Chiefs have been particularly bad this year, whereas Denver at least had an explosive offense. We will see if that continues. Dallas, too, was supposed to be so strong that there was never any hope for Washington, but they, too, were upset. I did call the Jets beating the Cardinals, though certainly not in such a devastating fashion; I did call Tampa Bay over Green Bay; I did call Carolina over Atlanta; likewise Chicago over Philadelphia. The reason I mention those is that they were risky games, ones that I either couldn't call one way or the other, or was taking a gamble. I will admit that picking Houston over Jacksonville and Minnesota over Tennessee were big gambles I made that didn't pay off, but the lesson is this: any given Sunday, anything can happen. A titan will continue plundering or will fall. A weak team comes together for a few brilliant moments to make an upset, or continues playing poorly. Close teams battle it out to the last nail-biting seconds. Games go into overtime and are largely decided by the coin toss.

As Chris Burman says, that's why they play the game.

I was happy to lose my pick last night on Monday Night Football, but in a sense I still feel justified in my choice. A touchdown--finally, after 11 quarters without a touchdown--seemed to bring Pittsburgh back into the game, but then sacking rookie quarterback Flacco, forcing a fumble that was returned for a touchdown, placed the game firmly into the Steelers' hands. Just like that, a game that had gone all Baltimore had become all Pittsburgh. Of course, that didn't mean the game was over--they fought hard for the rest of the half, and then battled it out in overtime. I like Pittsburgh, and so I'm happy they managed a much-needed win.

There's a lesson to be learned from this, though. In games, the tides can turn quickly. In real life, the tides can turn quickly. When we look at the political sphere, a couple of changes in the nation's fortunes can turn the voters from tending to the right to tending to the left, just as a terrorist attack can swing them back right.

The difference: football is game. Yes, some jobs are at stake, but those predominantly are the coaching positions and starting lineup. Politics, while people seem to treat it like a game, is real life. It is deadly serious. Right now, national politics affect some 300 million people.

When we watched the candidates debate, we see them struggling to maintain a good outward appearance while trying to tear the opponent to shreds. It is all about making cheap political points and not giving any away. In this sense, campaigning and legislating and so on is treated as a game, and that is dangerous. If politics is just a game, then the mentality easily becomes that we're not dealing with real people, real money, real problems.

The economy doesn't crash when Kansas City topples Denver 33-19. It does when bad bills are passed in efforts to score political points. When governing this nation is all about posturing, making a better show than the other guy, and trying to benefit a small target constituency rather than doing what is right, then it does seem like a game.

A game we all lose.