O the Secular Outside is Frightening...

Recent news relates how a campaign is starting in London to pull ads promoting God off the side of the famous red, double-deck buses. Prominent among the protesters is Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionist and author of the "God Delusion". Apparently, the protesters are upset about messages posted by Christian groups that nonbelievers will go to hell, and they wish to counter with

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Being a devout Catholic myself, I look at that statement with a mixture of amusement and disbelief. I know that they really want to say "There is no God", but could not pull that off because of the defensible public outrage. They can't make it a definitive statement because they don't have any proof there is no God. (Oh, they offer arguments against God, but believers aren't convinced any more than atheists are convinced about arguments for God.)

I can understand the atheists' dismay at the Christian message of "Believe or go to Hell", because that tends to be an abrasive statement. And it is partially misleading, because ultimately none of us make the decision as to someone else's eternal destination. That is truly between a person and God. But the message is partly right, as well, because a disbelief in God could very easily put a person's soul at risk. If Hell is the chosen eternal separation from God, proclaiming and trying to adhere to a disbelief in God is very risky.

The reason that I can qualify that even an atheist might not face eternal damnation is because he might be seeking the Truth, the justice, and righteousness that is God, but have a fundamentally mistaken notion of God. Because of this notion, he cannot in good conscience believe in God, but he would if he had the correct understanding.

Practically, though, it must seem that the above case is vanishingly rare. Too many atheists we come across don't want to believe in God because God interferes too much with their lives. Thus the "stop worrying and enjoy your life." They think God ruins all our fun.

(John Zmirak has some good articles here, here, here, and here on how God takes all the fun out of life.)

My complaint about the protesters' slogan, though, is not their denial of God. That's their prerogative, not mine. What irks me, though, is the "stop worrying and enjoy your life" part. I know for me, coming to an understanding of the nature of God and the teachings of the Catholic Church connected all the disparate pieces together that once upon a time seemed in odd and even contradictory juxtaposition. Coming home to my faith removed a huge amount of worry from my life. It gave my life meaning. It offered clear reasons why certain actions the religious always condemn are wrong. It offered clear solutions to problems that plagued my life and plague society as a whole. It isn't easy, by any means, following these teachings, and they do carry their own bundle of worries with them, but I'm fundamentally better off for my belief in God.

Absent that, how can I stop worrying? If this life is all there is, how can I but worry? How can I hope to make a good life, when a single stupid decision or even a freak accident can ruin everything? Consider the hurricanes that have ravaged our coast lines. Consider the financial crisis. Consider the terrorists in the world. Consider all the things we do in our lives that make relating to other people difficult if not impossible. With so many calamities that threaten to destroy our fragile, ephemeral existence, how can we but worry?

Indeed, I could go on to argue that as a society grows increasingly secular and people become increasingly agnostic if not outright atheist, they find themselves with a fundament anxiety they cannot shake. They seek to fill their lives with material possessions, emotional fulfillment, and physical pleasure in order to dilute the anxiety, or at least keep their minds off of it for the time being. As we progress away from God, we only become more keenly aware of something missing in our lives. The result? We devote our lives to toys, where having the latest video game console and a high-bandwidth internet connection is the most important aspect of our lives. Or we devote ourselves to pleasure, and fill our lives with rampant promiscuity, ever on the lookout for that perfect orgasm that will fulfill our lives--for the next thirty seconds. Or we sit before the TV and vicariously experience life from the couch with the remote in one hand and a bag of potato chips in the other. (Or it could be corn chips with salsa, like at my apartment.) And all of these things can be taken away from us at a moment's notice. Our toys can break, or be stolen, or be lost in an accident. Our fall lineup can be a total flop, and then we're stuck on reruns and the miserable boredom in that nothing new is on. Or we experience that orgasm, and then try to seek it again and again with new and different people (different sex, same sex, same age, different age, animal...), degrading those people to nothing more than a penetration device or an orifice.

No thanks. I'll keep God in my life, I'll explain time and again that in all likelihood God exists, and I'll even keep the worry that hell awaits me if I ultimately choose against God. There's less worry for me that way.

Deaths in the family

As a quick note, Sara's step-grandfather, David Bollinger, died Saturday night after a long struggle with Lou Gehrig's disease. He was Zita's third husband (Zita being the mother of Sara's mother).

Also, on Sara's step-father's side of the family, Estella Graham passed away Friday night after dealing with a malignant brain tumor. She had undergone extensive treatment, and during one of her surgeries, she suffered from a stroke.

Please pray for the repose of the souls of Dave and Stella.

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.

Week Seven Picks

SD @ BUF: SD (BUF is a decent team, but they don't have a high-powered offense. The defense will hopefully make it a game, but SD will probably dominate the whole way through. 27-17)

NO @ CAR: NO (NO has the ability to play a fabulous game away from home. They just need to not hinge the game on a last-minute field goal attempt. 26-18.)

MIN @ CHI: CHI (It might be risky routing for CHI again, but MIN barely eked out a win against DET last week, and their stunning victory over NO came courtesy of NO running out of feet to shoot themselves in. It will be touch-and-go, though. 22-21)

PIT @ CIN: PIT (Two key factors are for PIT, namely that Palmer is still out and that Big Ben plays very well in Ohio. The one factor against PIT is that a team at 0-6, looking at a potential 0-7, against a division rival can play very, very hard. 20-16)

TEN @ KC: TEN (I think KC will need one more game to start pulling things together, now that Croyle is back. 17-13)

BAL @ MIA: MIA (It seems this season that MIA is no longer M.I.A. Their heartbreaking loss to HOU last week should compel them to make sure BAL won't ever come close to closing the deal. 33-14.)

SF @ NYG: NYG (I expect that NYG might be a little more conservative on play calling this week, given the trouncing last week against CLE, but the defense should harry O'Sullivan and shut down Gore, and Ward should have a good running game. 24-14)

DAL @ STL: DAL (Without Romo, it will be tough, but their running game should push them through. 17-12)

DET @ HOU: HOU (HOU managed to pull it all together against a high-scoring MIA offense, and they nearly had it won against IND. DET, however... 27-10)

IND @ GB: IND (I think this will be a slugfest, as Manning and Rodgers face off. 38-35)

NYJ @ OAK: NYJ (New coach, reeling from losses, facing an ever-improving NYJ offense. I expect OAK will actually perform adequately, but it won't be enough. 24-22)

CLE @ WAS: CLE (Sometimes a big win kickstarts everything, other times it is a let down. Everything clicked last week for CLE, and think it will stick this week. 27-21)

SEA @ TB: TB (As well as TB is playing, and as poorly as SEA is doing without Hasselback, this should be another dominating performance by TB. 21-7)

DEN @ NE: DEN (Maybe I'm just playing my favorite here, but DEN definitely has the capability of mimicking SD's performance last week. It doesn't mean they will--this is DEN after all. But with SD surging behing them, they need the win, and hopefully the loss to JAC will spark them to greater efforts. 31-23)

Confidence: 9-5

Week 6: 8-6
Week 5: 9-5
Week 4: 7-6
Week 3: 12-4

American Catholic Doings

I have a new post up on abortion. I hope I made my point clear, but sometimes it feels like you can write for pages upon pages and never stress the severity of the situation.

Credulity at its best...

It goes to show what people will believe. What is really wonderful is how our tax and tuition dollars went to bringing this fellow here. I did appreciate how he was willing to throw a bone to Christianity:

In fact, many think it is silly to believe in such things, he said. But even traditional Christian beliefs place importance on the supernatural.

“There was a guy a long time ago. This guy was walking along in the desert … and, there was a bush there, and all the sudden the bush just flamed up and the bush began to talk,” Fixico said, smiling.

Yup. Christianity is just another take on all this spirituality stuff.

Wyoming Monastery

It is small, but growing, and is a great tribute to our tiny state.

As is our growing Catholic College near Lander.

Some important links

Abortions due to rape at 1%.

AGI studies on abortion.

A 2001 discussion giving 9 reasons against abortion.

2005 abortion statistics.

Some risks of having an abortion.

A Kantian take on abortion.

A nice collection of abortion facts.

Wyoming's Attitude Toward Homosexuals

Check it out here. 10 years later, I still know nothing about Matthew Shephard except that he was a practicing homosexual and was killed by a couple of drunk people who took exception to his homosexuality.

What gets me about the article is how it immediately introduces a mother worried about whether or not one of her children might be homosexual, and how after Shepard's tragic death, she realized that homosexuals have as much value as anyone else.

The problem with the description of this mother's change of opinion is that it makes the mistake of confusing two issues. The first is the potential for self-serving, sinful behavior that occurs when one seeks sexual pleasure outside of a loving, committed marriage; the other is the value and dignity inherent in each human being, regardless of behavior or sexual orientation.

I have homosexual friends, and I value their friendship greatly. Their choices to live in an actively homosexual lifestyle are not choices I can condone. There is no contradiction here, and no homophobia. It is one thing to think a friend's behavior is harmful; quite another to despise him in entirety for it.

My satire on child abandoment wasn't satirical enough

I just learned about Nebraska's safe-have laws a couple of days ago while talking with our department's Systems Administrator, and now we have this. It is sad that parents would come to Nebraska to abandon their children, but should we be surprised?

We live in a society that hates children. Oh, there are plenty of people remaining who see children as blessings, but our society itself hates children. They get in the way of careers and free time and all the promiscuous, mind-blowing sex we think we should be having. It isn't any wonder that there are 1.5 million abortions a year in the U.S., and that a tragically high percentage of babies with identifiable problems are killed because of the inconvenience they would cause.

I suppose the cynic in me is surprised that more children are dumped off at Nebraska hospitals. Maybe most people feel that if they stick with it through pregnancy and the first year or so, they may as well continue.

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.

Blogging

There must be some kind of knack to blogging. Maybe it's because I think that everything I write should be earth-shattering, heathen-converting mind-candy. But when I stop and think about it, I find that I spend a couple hours each day just keeping up on all the news and viewpoints. Then it takes a couple of hours to write a decent, well-thought-out post. Then there's all the rest of the stuff that I need to do, and there never seems to be enough hours in a day for it all.

Maybe you have to be professional about it. Maybe you can't just blog in your spare time. Or maybe there is a particular knack. You go out, you see things, you write quickly about them. You link to other blogs, write a witty sentence, and then move on. Maybe part of blogging is just repeating what others have said. If you're popular enough, maybe you can become one of the stops on someone's cruise through relevant material.

I don't know. Sometimes I feel intimidated. Whenever I look at Mark Shea's Blog, I feel inadequate. Sure, he's been doing this stuff for years, but he manages something like 10 posts a day, and that's by mid-morning.

Maybe my problem is that I'm too theoretical. Maybe I have problems getting to the point with practical issues. Maybe I'm too uninterested in every detail that occurs in the world, since I tend to only concentrate on big issues.

I just peeked in at Michelle Malkin's Blog. I know she's famous, I know she's published books, and I know she speaks on Fox News like every other day. And yet her blog is rife with things. Is this just a case of her being more motivated than me, or is it her years and years of experience?

I guess I'll just have to step up my efforts. I'll have to learn how to type 1000 words in five minutes, making every one count. I'll have to learn how to read through 10,000 websites in half-an-hour, to make sure I can catch everything important and still have time to write and research.

Oh, yeah, research. I should probably get back around to that someday. I'm a terrible student, I really am.

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.

What is it that you do here?

One of the problems of being a theoretical computer scientist is that it is difficult to justify to the lay person just what it is that we do. In a flippant moment, I just say, "I stare off into space and try to think of theorems to prove." It is easier than the following: "I examine the relations between classes defined by reductions to sparse sets, because the ramifications of those sets having measure zero have implications for the relation between P and NP." The reason it is easier is because in this second explanation, I have to explain classes and reductions and what it means for a a set (i.e. a language) to be sparse, and then I need to explain P and NP why the question as to whether they are equal is important. And then I need to explain why sparse sets are important in the relation between P and NP, which involves not only those classes themselves, but also Boolean circuit classes like P/poly, and the ramifications into derandomization... It is a mess to explain, and most people don't have the hours it takes just to understand the basic principles at play.

Still, there's an answer I wish I could give, but I can't since it isn't my research. I could simply say: "Theoretical computer science tells us that it is impossible to have a 100% reliable virus detector." The explanation of that is probably a little too complex for the lay person, but here it goes.

There's a problem in computer science, a language (a set of strings) defined as follows:

HALT = { < m,x > | Program M halts on input x}

This is the notorious halting problem, which no computer program can solve. Why? Well, suppose such a program exists, and call it N. We can encode N as a string, as we can do with all programs (how do you think they're stored on your hard drive, after all?). Then we can make a new program P:

P: Input x. If N halts on x, run forever. Else, halt.

Now, in similar fashion, we can encode P as a string (which, of course, depends on being able to encode N as a string). Furthermore, we can feed P itself as an input! But then, what do we have? Does P on input P halt? Well, if it does, then P should run forever (i.e. doesn't halt), and if it doesn't halt, it does. Obviously this is a contradiction. Since this was based on assuming the halting problem has a program that decides it. So there must be no program for the halting problem.

Now let's turn to the problem of our foolproof virus checker. Current day virus checking programs look for signatures, i.e. particular patterns in the binary code of a suspicious program. But we know that isn't successful, because that requires knowing the signature ahead of time, and besides, suppose we had the signature somewhere in the code, but the program is built to never execute the signature. Then it might not be a virus at all. So we want our foolproof virus checker to be capable of examining a program and telling us decisively if it is a virus (i.e. the program is capable of replicating itself, and perhaps does damage in the process).

But here's the thing. Having a foolproof virus checker would give us a program to solve the halting problem, which we have already shown cannot have a program. Here's the proof:

Suppose we know that Program A is a virus, i.e. if it runs, it will replicate itself and perhaps do some damage to the computer. We can pad A with useless instructions that do not affect how A functions (save maybe that A will run a little slower). This is one method virus-writers use to defeat signature checking, by the way. So let's take an instance of the halting problem, some pair < m,x > . We want to know if M halts on input x. Well, we create Program B by "padding" A with the code of running M on x. In other words,

B: Run M on x. Then run Program A.

In other words, if M halts on x, B has the same properties of A. Since A is a virus, B must also be a virus. However, if M doesn't halt on x, B never executes A, and thus can't be a virus, since it doesn't replicate itself or damage the computer (besides running forever, of course).

Here's the catch: our foolproof virus-checker can then decide the halting problem. It examines B, and if B is a virus, then M must halt on x. If B isn't a virus, then M must run forever on x. But, as we said before, no program can decide the halting problem, so our foolproof virus-checker is a sham. It can't exist.

I think this statement in justification of theoretical computer science is one that would help explain our field's importance in once sense. But then, it might also turn people off to the field, if all we can do is assure the public that no computer is 100% safe from viruses!

Week Six Picks

DET @ MIN: MIN (MIN put together a good defense against the high-powered NO offense, with the result of two recovered fumbles, a blocked field goal run back for a touchdown, and general mayhem. DET, on the other hand, hasn't pulled anything together yet, and I don't expect they will do so. 24-10)

CHI @ ATL: CHI (CHI is going to shut down ATL's running game, and that will pose a big problem for QB Matt Ryan. 19-9)

OAK @ NO: NO (Head coach changes may or may not have a large effect, especially if the removal of Lane Kiffin relieves tensions. On the other hand, OAK has not managed to hold onto leads and in general has not played well. That gives NO the advantage on offense, but it will probably be close. 28-24)

CIN @ NYJ: NYJ (I expect this to be a close game with lots of points, though possibly with Favre making points for both teams with big plays and interceptions. 33-30)

MIA @ HOU: HOU (HOU performed well against IND until a last minute debacle. If they're ready for MIA's tricks and protect the ball, they'll do well. 21-17)

CAR @ TB: CAR (CAR's success has largely been due to shutting down the run and forcing QB's to throw. Against KC, they totally remove Larry Johnson from the picture, and they did similarly well against ATL. This will probably be close, though. 24-21)

BAL @ IND: IND (Just picking favorites here. BAL has a good defense, but if Manning shows his stuff, that won't be a huge hindrance, especially since IND isn't running the ball much. On the other hand, BAL could finally have a good scoring game due to IND's defense. It will probably come down to the line again. 24-23)

STL @ WAS: WAS (STL hasn't managed to do anything in any of its 4 games, and WAS has shown an impressive performances against DAL and PHI. 28-13)

JAC @ DEN: DEN (This probably just another picking my favorite, but DEN can move the ball on offense, and its defense actually showed up last week. There's a chance. 28-26)

DAL @ ARI: ARI (ARI is capable of putting up the points, and I expect this to be a shootout. 35-30)

PHI @ SF: PHI (This will probably be more of a defensive battle than it should be. 17-13)

GB @ SEA: GB (I simply think GB is struggling less, and will manage a sound offensive battle against SEA. In addition, looking at SEA's miserable loss to NYG might help the GB defense to pull together. 26-20)

NE @ SD: NE (I predict another heart-breaking loss for SD, but that might just be wishful thinking. 22-21)

NYG @ CLE: NYG (This could be CLE's chance to turn their game around. Supposing, of course, that NYG fails to show up in the same fashion that DEN failed to show up in Arrowhead Stadium in KC. 31-14)

Confidence: 9-5

Week 5: 9-5
Week 4: 7-6
Week 3: 12-4

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.

Give blood!

On Tuesday I donated two units of red blood cells, which is always entertaining. They remove a pint of blood, separate out the blood cells, and then return the plasma, which is mixed with a room-temperature saline solution. Brr! And then they repeat the process one more time.

Donating blood does wipe a person out, but it is a great thing to do. I would ask everyone who is capable to donate as frequently as possible. There are lives at stake, and every bit helps.

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?"

The American Catholic Is UP

The American Catholic is up and running, and I've even made my first post. I'm excited to be on board, and I hope I live up to everyone's expectations. My Catholic faith is very important to me, and this is, I hope, a first step in a lifelong journey of active apologetics and living the faith.