Wednesday, 17th June, 2009
Yes, I'm Going There...
Abortion. Yes, I'm going to go there, mainly because it's a topic that's been bugging me lately. Let me open by explaining my stance, so that we can get past that and move on to the real discussion. From a personal moral standpoint, I am pro-life. If I were in a position to have an opinion regarding whether my wife terminated a pregnancy or not, I would be against it, unless of course in the case of extreme circumstances. However, from the standpoint of government policy, I am pro-choice. I do not believe the government has the right to legislate something that is predominantly a moral issue, and since no scientific evidence exists that confirms when a life begins, I do not think it is legal in a secular government to make the case for murder. In all the talk about personal responsibility, moral issues are one of those cases where I feel that the choice should be left up to the individual.
But I think the discussion goes beyond the legalities of abortion. Fundamentalists would argue that abortion should be considered one of the most, if not the most, critical issue of our time; that criminalizing abortion would solve a major issue in the world and would promote a "better" society. But I contend that abortion is not the real issue. Like it or not, there are legitimate reasons for someone to pursue the termination of a pregnancy, and not all of them are merely acts of irresponsibility. If we are to really make a difference in this world, it is our duty to understand the reasons for their decisions, and to do whatever we can to help alleviate those root causes. This is the greater social issue at hand - not the fact that someone wants to terminate a pregnancy, but rather what shortcomings our society has that have resulted in that individual choosing that path.
For far too long, I believe the organized Christian "church" has focused its energy on the symbolic issues of our time rather than diving into the roots of those issues. We as Christians have a responsibility to fight not to make abortion illegal, but to mold society in such a way that abortion is no longer necessary. We need to tackle the greater social issues that face us and stop concerning ourselves with the symptoms. Granted, it is impossible that we can accomplish all the social changes that are necessary to build a truly great society. But if we put our energy into it, I know we can make a real difference in the world and not just create a symbol of our supposed morality.
Thursday, 28th May, 2009
Acceptance != Agreement
Group targets New York same-sex marriage bill in new ads
In particular, this quote is fascinating to me:
"The rights of people who believe marriage means a man and a woman will no longer matter. We'll all have to accept gay marriage whether we like it to or not," both ads also say.
Well yeah, that's pretty much the whole point of an opinion, is it not? You don't have to agree with someone in order to accept their point of view as valid. Heck, there are a lot of right-wing ideas that I don't agree with - that tax cuts are always a good thing, that private industry is always better than public industry, that government should legislate on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage. But I still accept that other people might disagree with me, and respect that their opinions are just as valid as my own. If you're not willing to accept an opposing viewpoint, what makes you think the opposite side is going to respect your own viewpoint?
Thursday, 16th April, 2009
The Independent Country of Texas
I can't even make this stuff up.
Texas governor says secession possible
So my first reaction was, sweet!!!! I mean the only thing better than no Texas in the United States would be no Florida in the United States. And really, who wouldn't want to see Chuck Norris try to lead a country? Except that would probably a whole new league of Chuck Norris jokes, which can't possibly be a good thing.
But once the elation recedes, then you realize just how idiotic this really is. I mean secession? Really?!!! Sounds like just a bit of an overreaction to me. It's not like anyone is forcing them to take any stimulus money; they have a right to turn it down if they want to. In my opinion, they're just bitter that they can't have their way anymore, and so they're turning to a "temper tantrum" in an attempt to force people to do what they want.
Here's an idea Mr. Governor. Why don't you focus on running your state, and let Obama focus on running the country? Or better yet, grow up and don't make veiled threats to try to get your way. Or even better, make good on your threat so the rest of the world can laugh at your stupidity.
Something tells me Jon Stewart is going to have fun with this one...
Wednesday, 15th April, 2009
Happy Tax Day
And in response to this whole tea-party demonstration crap, I bring you:
Commentary: April 15 is patriots' day
I don't always agree with Begala, but there's not much more to say.
Wednesday, 8th April, 2009
Is This Really Who We Want To Trust?
Pulp Nonfiction (from The Nation)
To be fair, it could be argued that the original tax credit implemented by former President Bush could have been defined or structured in such a way that this sort of abuse would not be allowed. However, I think the point is that, if there is a way to manipulate a loophole or otherwise "game" the system, the vast majority of private corporations would have absolutely no qualms about taking advantage of it, regardless of the long term consequences. And this really gets to the heart of something that has troubled me as of late - how much faith some people seem to put in private industry.
Private corporations exist for one purpose, and one purpose alone: to make money. This is an extremely simple point that is not at all profound; however, it does help to provide some insight into the behaviors of those corporations. Because of this singular goal, it is important to remember that a company will almost never do what is in the best interest of its customers, its employees, the world, or anything else. In general, it will only do as much as is needed to maintain the highest level of profit. For example, a company will have absolutely no concerns about asking their salaried employees to work 60, 70, or even more hours per week without additional compensation, as long as those employees are willing to do it. Obviously it is not in the best interest of the employees, but the company only cares to the point that the employee considers "acceptable".
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against private industry one bit. After all, I'm a firm believer that too much in any one direction is not in the best interest of anyone outside the very small group of people that would stand to profit from that extremism. However, it is clear to me that private industry without oversight or any form of checks and balances is a recipe for disaster. If we have learned anything from the recent banking collapse, it is that lack of regulation of the private sector will inherently lead to poor decisions that have disastrous long-term consequences. Private industry should be allowed to thrive, but not without an efficient and effective set of regulations to insure that the best interests of everyone are not sacrificed in the name of making a quick dollar. We need a reform of our regulatory system, with more regulations put into effect to protect our interests, if we ever want to have a strong and stable economy.
Those on the other side of the fence would argue that regulations are costly for private industry, and they would stymie growth and prevent innovation. To a certain point, they are correct. However, it is important to remember that a good regulatory system ensures that all companies bear the burden equally, and that good regulations are really there to help enforce things that would otherwise be common sense, but that the need of profit often gets in the way of. Combine that with tax incentives for small business, and you will go a long way toward building an economy that is not only strong, but stable long-term instead of our current flawed system.
To close, I'll leave you with an example I learned from one of my friends. Back in the early 90s, there was a movement to put rear guard devices (known as underride bars) on the backs of 18-wheeler trucks. This was in response to the growing number of people who were killed when they rear-ended a truck and their car ran up underneath it, essentially decapitating them. Trucking companies had fought this, not because they didn't want to prevent those deaths, but because they didn't want to be the only company to incur the cost of the new device, thus cutting into their profitability and making them lose ground to their competitors. Eventually the NHTSA stepped in and created a regulation requiring these devices to be installed on all new trucks. Pretty much everyone within the trucking industry praised the decision; after all, they didn't want people to be killed any more than anyone else, and the fact that everyone was bearing the burden of the new regulation meant that they could still remain competitive while also adding another level of safety.
Government-run industries are not the answer. But neither is unchecked private industry. We need a balance.
Thursday, 12th March, 2009
Stopping Messing With American Idol!
Seriously! First they decided that they weren't going to show as many bad singers in the first round. I personally think that was a stupid move - I mean people like to see people make a fool of themselves on national television, for better or for worse it's part of the entertainment - but I can somewhat see their point. Then they completely changed the format of the top 36. While I do like the fact that it's no longer constrained by a sense of gender equality, they've traded one unfairness for another. What happens if one of the sets of 12 contains a plethora of strong singers (like week 3 of this year)? It just doesn't make much sense.
But this last change is just too much. I totally respect the judges (well except for Paula, she's a freak), but the whole point of the top 12 in American Idol is that America gets to decide. By giving the judges a chance to overrule what America has voted, they're minimizing the importance of voting. Now I totally understand their reasoning - believe me, I was so upset with Daughtry being voted off that I almost didn't watch the rest of the season - but it still doesn't make sense. First of all, the rules for this new overrule specifically state that it's only in effect until the top 5. Daughtry made it to the top 4, so this change wouldn't even have helped him. Second, Daughtry is doing better than most of the American Idol winners are doing; arguably his career is in a better place because he didn't win, because it allowed him to do what he wants to do without being constrained by the American Idol contract. Or take Jennifer Hudson, one of the other people they mentioned. She's doing just fine with her career, despite not winning. And even if the judges had "saved her", even Simon Cowell wouldn't have given her a chance in hell against Fantasia. In other words, if these people are as good as advertised, they will still do well in the industry even if they don't win, and depending on the artist, they might even do better!
My personal opinion? They made this rule change because of bad publicity. There are at least three cases of non-winners doing better than the ones who ended up winning that year (Clay Aiken, Jennifer Hudson, and Chris Daughtry). They made this change so that they can try to improve the odds that their winner really is the best one in the competition, the one that ends up being the most successful.
Anyway, enough of my rant. As an aside, what the heck was up with Kelly Clarkson? Her song was just terrible, she looked awful, she sounded awful... I don't know, something was definitely up with her.
Thursday, 5th March, 2009
Personal Responsibility
I've been hearing about personal responsibility a lot lately. In particular, there seems to be a general argument coming from the Republican side that Democrats want to eliminate personal responsibility in this country. I'd like to set the record straight on this issue, because I think this is yet another example of one side not understanding where the other is coming from.
Although there are no doubt a few exceptions among the extreme liberal members of the Democratic party, the vast majority of real progressives that make up the core of the party does NOT want to eliminate personal responsibility. We absolutely do believe that people should be held accountable for their choices, and that if they make a bad choice, they absolutely should not be absolved entirely of the consequences of that choice.
Where we disagree is on what role the government should play. In an extremely general sense, progressives believe that part of the government's job is to help protect the people from private industry taking advantage of their ignorance. A perfect example of this is the recent crash in the housing industry. While those who purchased mortgages that they really couldn't afford are certainly to be held accountable for their poor choice, the banks also bear a level of responsibility for offering those mortgages in the first place. Prior to the Bush administration, there was legislation in place to help regulate the types of mortgages that banks could offer. This provided a level of protection for consumers. However, after the deregulation of the banking industry, banks saw an opportunity to take advantage of homeowners eager to purchase more than they could afford with no risk to the bank - after all, if they ended up defaulting on the mortgage, the property would just go back to the bank. Home prices soared to all-time highs while this was going on, resulting it people who are responsible being able to afford less than before. And then, after the plan backfired, everyone (responsible or not) is being affected due to the drain it is placing on the economy). Now if the world was perfect, those banks would be forced out of business, people would find other places to live, and everything would recover. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, and instead we are ALL paying the price as a result.
In addition to helping protect the public, progressives also believe that one of the primary roles of the government is to help provide opportunities for us all to succeed. This does not mean that the government should absolve people of the consequences of their poor decisions, nor does it mean that the government should just take care of us all. But everyone makes mistakes from time to time, and we should not allow people to fail simply for making a bad choice. What's more, many people simply don't have good opportunities to begin with due to some social constraint. For example, after graduating high school, my family couldn't afford to send me to college. Thankfully, the government had instituted the HOPE scholarship program that allowed me to attend Georgia Tech. Without that program, I would have had two choices - either try to acquire costly student loans to pay for college, or don't go. Most likely I would have gone the student loans route, but then I would be paying hundreds of dollars a month for many years in order to repay those loans. Instead, I'm able to invest that money into our economy.
Let me just reiterate here. Progressives do not want personal responsibility eliminated. We do no want the government to simply take care of us. We are not looking for handouts. We are, however, looking to the government to provide some protection against irresponsible business practices. We are looking to the government to help provide opportunities for those who have made some mistakes in the past, as well as those who just wouldn't have those opportunities otherwise. Capitalism may be a great thing, but capitalism run unchecked can also be very dangerous and risky.
Thursday, 26th February, 2009
John Boehner = Genious
No really, he is. I swear.
Obama submits budget blueprint
Two particular passages of note here:
Obama is also proposing a $634 billion health care "reserve fund" aimed at reforming the system. In order to fund it, Obama will ask wealthy Americans to accept with a tax increase and wealthy seniors to pay higher Medicare premiums.
The tax increase that he is referring to is the same tax increases he's been talking about for a year, regarding rolling back to the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250k a year. Keep in mind that this same rule applies to small businesses as well - only those small businesses who make more than $250k a year in profit will be affected, and if I remember correctly, only like 5% of small businesses actually fall into that category.
Now for John Boehner's response:
"Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?" he asked.
Okay, Obama has clearly said MANY times exactly who this tax increase is going to affect, and that the vast majority of Americans AND small businesses will not be affected. And what's more, if you make decent health care more affordable for everyone, it will bring down one of the biggest costs that small businesses currently pay, giving them more money to invest in their business. But somehow Boehner doesn't seem to get that - he sees the words "tax increase" and immediately ignores every other detail.
Yeah, glad to see we have such intelligent people representing us...
Saturday, 21st February, 2009
Spending Money to Criticize Spending Money...
Couple of quotes in particular:
“Suppose you spent one million every single day starting from the day Jesus was born and kept spending through today,” an announcer says as images of the three wise men, the Roman Coliseum, the Mona Lisa and other historic landmarks flash across the screen. A million dollars a day for more than 2,000 years. You would still have spent less money than Congress just did.”
And then later in the article:
The organization said it will spend nearly $1 million on the ad that is scheduled to run on CNN, CNN Headline News, FOX News CNBC and FOX Business Network.
So let me get this straight. It's not okay to pass an expensive stimulus, the vast majority of which will either give tax breaks to people and small businesses to help spur economic growth, or will invest in different programs to help create millions of jobs in the next few years. But it is okay to spend a million dollars for the sole purpose of deriding such a program.
Yeah, someone has their priorities mixed up.
Two things I find really interesting and ironic about this. First, why didn't they run this crap after the $700 billion bank bailout was passed? Was it simply because Bush supported it, or do they not have a problem with giving taxpayer dollars to banks whose irresponsible and greedy attitude helped to cause the economic crisis in the first place? Second, if the government had passed a $787 billion stimulus package consisting of nothing but tax cuts, I have a strong feeling that this same group wouldn't be complaining one bit. I mean after all, tax cuts != government spending, right?
Thursday, 19th February, 2009
Apple STILL Hasn't Learned
Could jailbreaking your iPhone land you in jail?
So basically Apple is up in arms because people are jailbreaking their phones and putting software on them that is not approved by Apple. Now I haven't read the EULA or TOS for iPhones - after all, who actually reads that stuff anymore - so they may or may not have a legal ground to stand on here. But my main thought is, why do they care? So what if people modify their device? If they want to void their warranty and risk bricking the phone so they can improve the device, I say let them have at it. I mean really, what harm is there? It's not like Apple is liable for any changes people make.
The real issue here is that Apple STILL hasn't learned to separate their hardware from their software. I figured after they gave in and finally started recognizing the need to put OSX on x86 platforms, that maybe they had finally figured it out. But they continue to make the same mistakes that have plagued them since the beginning. Hey Apple, you want to know one of the biggest reasons why Microsoft is still kicking your ass? Because they learned early on that it's a bad idea to create a closed system. They've always been extremely supportive of the third-party development community, which has lead directly to the popularity of Windows. You can spout off all day long about better hardware and stupid crap like that, but the public is going to gravitate toward where the applications are. And if Apple continues to try to force their closed system on people, and not open up to the rest of the development community, they will continue to be a non-factor.