Marketing

My wife is a graphic designer and constantly harps on how hard the Obama Party, er I mean Dem party marketing a nonsense brand. That is why Pepsi and Ikea stole the marketing campaign right after the election. 

So I think this guy really hits the mark. 

And this...

This reminds me of why it is that a) the useful fools who voted for this moron will soon be either disenchanted or at best apathetic, and b) libertarians can have some common cause with bleeding hearts b/c we have BETTER answers for how to help the poor than the bleeding hearts do. The last 30 seconds of this video seriously almost moved me to tears. Throughout the ages the down trodden have been told that some guy is going to save them, when all along they just need the freedom to save themselves. 

Why I really dislike rich leftists that want to increase our taxes

This is why. 

How the West Was Done

I think we can now identify the precise moment at which we began our inexorable slide toward the death of our civilization.  It was the announcement this month that the EPA has made an endangerment finding vis a vis six Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). Hyperbolic? Unfortunately no. 

Let me see if I can do this is the unofficial 1Timmy4 word limit of 250 words:

Basically, in 2007 the SCOTUS determined in Mass v. EPA that states (along w/ private groups) had to right to sue the EPA to force it to regulate GHGs for motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA had to make a determination that either: 1) GHGs are a danger to public health and welfare, 2) GHGs are not a danger, or 3) there is not enough information.

Unsurprisingly, Obama's EPA has chosen option number one.

They claim they will just regulate automobiles (already a bad decision, but that is a different topic). However, since environmental groups can now sue to make EPA regulate gases, they can make the EPA regulate GHGs not just for automobiles, but under ALL of the CAA. 

The CAA was written several decades ago, and revised most recently 20 years ago, with the distinct intent of regulating really terrible pollutants that like kill people. Concrete plants, smelters etc. It sets actual limits (100 tons in some cases, 250 tons) of gases before regulation kicks in, and for poison like CO, sulphur that causes acid rain this works well. But, it is insane for carbon dioxide (which we all breath out by the way, you are a pollution source now...)

Your average mid-size office building or large restaurant emits this much GHG, depending on how they are fueled. Making possibly millions of previously unregulated sites subject to EPA permits will not only grind the EPA to a halt, it will mean the end of development as we know it. Obama and his minions know this and are basically daring Congress not to re-write the CAA to include Kyoto style limitations or cap and trade. But Congress has not shown any desire to lose their seats doing this. 

So, essentially the EPA has said, 'Congress, you pass wildly unpopular legislation or we will grind the economy to a complete standstill.' Great. As Glenn Reynolds has become fond of saying, the country is in the best of hands. 

High Speed Rail and Billion Dollar Whimsy

Oh man.  This has got to be the funniest Obama quote yet. Our brilliant President recently announced that we will be spending billions of dollars on a high speed rail system in the U.S. Being the hyper educated intellectual he is, I am sure we can see reams of data on the economic, geographic and political feasibility of such a boondoggle project! 

"I am always jealous about European trains," Obama said April 3 in Strasbourg, France. "And I said to myself, 'why can't we have high-speed rail?' And so, we're investing in that as well."

I am seriously. Apparently we are now replacing decision making with the whimsical comments of  college kids spending dad's money on Eurail passes and hash, while 'finding themselves' after graduation. 

This reason is topped only by an insightful Onion columnist of years past that blithely suggested we mimic another venerable European social invention.

Back in adult reality–I think the Cato analyst cited in the ABC article captured it best.

"You might as well have the government invest in nuclear-powered bicycles," Mitchell added. "That's probably the only thing I could imagine that would be more of a waste of money than inter-city rail."

Visuals Help a lot

A good Rule

Nassim Taleb is one of my favorite thinkers.  He has written a very interesting list of rules in the FT today.  Chief among these is as he puts it: 2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains. 

We have, as he suggests, combined the worst of capitalism and socialism. I think that the worst mistake the liberal and the lay person makes these days is that anti-Corporatism is anti-Capitalism. If we really had capitalism we would not have all these behemoth corporations. We would have a smaller, more entrepreneurial society. 

It is socialist impulses that create large corporations. When tax, reporting, zoning, environmental regulation, min wage–whatever socialist laws you like–are put in place, it changes the economies of scale for doing business. Now only large corporations can spread these costs over enough units to stay afloat. 

Here is what I am saying: The same retards that clamor for 'buy local' and independent businesses vote for the very policies that make these businesses fail.

Here is the easy solution: Constitutionally limited government. This is what our Founders wanted to avoid. They have been diluted through 250 years of lobbying by big business or elites claiming to act for the 'people'.

I will say it again so even the dullest can appreciate it: pro-capitalist policies are often the exact opposite of pro-corporate policies. If we limited our government once again so that it is not for the socialist desires of the elite and big business, we would then have the small local, entrepreneurial economy that yuppie troglodytes claim they want. 

Finance

Howdy Ya'll.  Sorry have been so quite.  Still very busy.  But I wrote this for something at school and thought it might be interesting to share here...

A completely free market would experience downturns and corrections. The idea at issue today is the proper role of policy and regulation in these cycles. There are two primary questions: 1) whether government regulation causes and/or deepens bubbles and corrections; and 2) whether government intervention will hasten or delay recovery. If the ‘free market’ instigated the current crisis then perhaps the solution is government intervention. If policy was the cause, more intervention may not help the situation.

Market Forces as a Cause

Owner occupied real estate is the principal investment for most Americans. Home prices historically tend to rise. Even if they fell, investors believed, the illiquidity of the housing market protects it from the type of volatility seen in the stock market. This ignores that most homeowners are highly leveraged, and continue to be so as they trade more desirable real estate.

In the past several decades, this may have led banks to offer loans to potential buyers with less and less money down. While the standard loan had been based on a 20% down payment, this number dwindled to zero over the past decade. With decreasing equity, it became more likely that buyers would be subject to foreclosure if home prices fell or even flattened. Why did bankers and buyers assume this great risk?

There are two major strains of answers to this question that laid the blame on a ‘free market.’ First, economists such as Robert Shiller proffer the idea that it was irrational exuberance.  There is some power to this idea. The banks’ increased willingness to give out loans created more scarcity, which began an inflation that resulted in a bubble. Market participants were irrational (or there an inefficient market), and homebuyers were willing to pay significantly more than the real value of the assets. Some may have been hoping that they could exit before they would become a bag holder, but others truly believed home prices would never go down.

The second idea is related more to the bankers, namely that securitization of loans allowed banks to pass on this irrational risk to unwitting investors. When mortgage lenders take a risky loan, they package it with other loans that have a better credit rating and sell them as a securitized bundle to 3d party investors. It was the government’s failure to regulate such securitized loans and the credit rating agencies, they reason, that allowed this behavior. Once the bill became due, the bubble was bound to burst. Indeed, there were 18 million vacant units in the U.S. in Q4 2008, out of 130 million total households.

The Government as the Cause

While there certainly are inefficiencies, the idea that there is a free housing market is ludicrous. There are not just a few policies involved, but rather a bouillabaisse that stewed for decades. There were two major government policies (among many) that had a hand in the crisis: 1) encouragement of risky lending, and 2) restrictive land use policies.

 First, the U.S. government believes that people who are unqualified to own homes should do so. While large economies like France and Germany have lower than 50% home ownership, the U.S. is generally around 65-70%. In the 1970s, Carter decided this was not high enough. His Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), encouraged banks to lend to unqualified buyers. Clinton deepened the meaning and enforcement of the CRA. This was placed on top of the existing structure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that have generally speaking, since the 1930s, had the goal of lowering the risk of lending.

The second major factor is geographic. Metro areas with restrictive land use policies create false scarcity, which contributed to skyrocketing prices. DC, LA and Miami, which all have relatively illiberal land use policies, saw some of the greatest increases on the Case-Shiller index during the past decade. Conversely, markets with more liberal land use policies, did not suffer from the same degree of boom and bust. (See Appendix: Case Shiller Home Price Index for Several Major Metro Markets, Jan 1987–Jan 2009).

Government as the Solution

Since policy has contributed to, or even caused this crisis, are the proffered solutions the best response? We would do well to remember Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson: Always consider the unintended consequences of a policy in the near and long terms.

AIG and other bank bailouts: While bank bailouts will insure that capital does not dry up, they create a dangerous moral hazard. When risks are socialized and rewards are privatized, the incentive structure leads to increasingly bad decisions.

The Auto bailout: In the near term some jobs may be saved. However, those jobs will be for an industry that has proven itself to be uncompetitive on the global market. If the U.S. still has any comparative advantage in auto manufacturing, it would be better realized if failing businesses were allowed to fail. Businesses that create marketable products and that are willing to operate in right-to-work states, thus lowering costs, would take their place. 

Increasing the money supply: The goal is to ‘unfreeze’ the credit market so that investors can have cash to spend on growth. However, as Milton Friedman taught us, MV=PQ. Increases in the money supply will lead to inflation. With the massive spending program underway, we run the risk of hyperinflation the moment that we begin recovery.

Government Stimulus: The key Keynesian premise is that available cash will kick start demand. This is flawed for a couple of reasons (among many). 1) The Obama administration assumes a multiplier for government spending of about 1.57. His own adviser, Christina Romer, has said that: a) the multiplier is lower than that; and b) the tax cut multiplier is as large as 3.[1]    2) Make-work employment adds nothing to the GDP. This is the fallacy that that George Mason economist Bryan Caplan refers to as Sisyphusism, or the belief that an unemployed man is better off rolling a rock up a hill only to have it roll back down, ad infinitum. The market has already decided that much of what the stimulus package proposes to do is not important enough to fund. Therefore it is unlikely that these projects will lead to real growth.

TARP: This program carriers many similar dangers. The moral hazard created will incentivize poor investment. If bad assets were allowed to fail, there would be pain in the near term, however, as the market absorbs this failure, future investment will be more efficient.

Conclusion

As Hayek warned us more than 60 years ago, the fundamental premise of Keynesianism is that planners know better than the market. This ignores the wisdom of crowds. Millions of individual actors will happen upon better solutions faster than the smartest policy makers with unlimited resources. When a large portion of the GDP is socialized we will all suffer from unlikely negative events. When the economy is more decentralized on the other hand, there are winners and losers, but capital soon flows away from bad ideas and toward good ones.

---

[1] The Macroeconomic effects of tax changes: Estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, Christina Romer, David Romer (March, 2007).

Watch KINGS on NBC

every Christian should support this new show Kings. It's a modernization of I Samuel, starting with David and King Saul. the premiere was Sunday, watch it online if you missed it, and it basically was spot on. it's the only time I know of where a national network has put a show on that's based on the Bible, directly, and it's well produced. It's no 24 or Lost so far, but this kind of quality Bible based show  needs support so more like it can come out. Christians supposedly are the vast majority of people in the U.s, whether practicing regularly or not, so it should be better reflected on TV, and in a cool modern way like this to get the gospel out, or atleast God back out to the world of pop culture, get discussions going again. So let your voice b heard and well, watch it. it's good.

Watch Jon Stewart interview Cramer

The interview Jon Stewart did with Cramer of CNBC was very informative on how guys like me got screwed on Countrywide and stocks in general. It was a big screw you game all along, and surprisingly Jon stewart uncovers the problem with attempting wealth not through work ethic and the foolishness of worshiping the almighty dollar instead of the almighty Lord. If Gregory could add a link to it, I'd like that. Its off the subject of our Punk/God conversations, but Jon Stewart shows my anger in stupidly trusting people with dollar signs for eyeballs instead of putting faith in my God. Won't happen again.

Quiet

I am drowning in work.  But still have lots to blog about.  SirCAL and BAP, please feel free to blog whilst I catch up with work/school. 

Smart Guys

If only the people in power ever listened to smart guys. Impressive that this was  on cnn.com I know. 

Republican is the New Punk

Remember Earthworm Jim? Well, its creator just wrote a synopsis of why I wanted to start this blog. 

I love pandas!

Fun times

A little optimism.  Not sure I am convinced, but he does demonstrate that you can read the cards in different ways. I am convinced that this would be a good idea. Oh well. Should get back to blogging more about Christianity and stuff. 

Rejoinder

I should point out one small problem I have with Glaeser's general argument. When you decrease the number of people who pay taxes at all, you increase the number of people who are willing to tax high-income individuals. Although the earned income tax credit was championed by none other than Milton Friedman, there is an element of public choice theory that of course has been borne out in reality. Without getting in to all of that, the general point still stands, which is that government is terrible at the equitable distribution of wealth because politicians have no incentive to actually respond to poor people. 

If they are no longer poor, they will not vote for Democrats! The Republicans don't get their votes anyhow. Government has always responded to those who have enough money and influence to ask it for money. The poor do not hire K St. lobbyists. 

Finally. I have one more thing to ad about this despicable bailout. You are now poorer by $800b not just because you paid taxes into that pool, but more because they pulled that money out of thin air. Today there are suddenly $800b more dollars. That makes every dollar you own worth $800b less all of the dollars in circulation. Not only is your stock account down, your house worth less etc, but now the politicians have decided that your dollars themselves should be each worth a little less.  Congratulations.  

Libertarian Egalitarianism

I first became aware of Edward Glaeser when he was promoting his theory (which is demonstrably correct) that zoning laws are a primary driver of real estate bubbles in liberal cities (San Fran, DC et al.)  

Today, he posted what I consider to be the clearest enunciation of my economic viewpoint. This should be tattooed on the eyelids of all of the young evangelicals who prance around saying that they support BHO and the Dems because Christ told us to care for the poor. 

Guess what! Free markets help the poor more than the transfer of wealth from tax payers to rich-well connected people. This 'bailout' / 'stimulus', it is designed to make rich people who have politicians ears richer. The fundamental conceit of socialism is the 'transfer of wealth.' Unfortunately it always results in the transfer of wealth to a few who are close to the throne. 

If you want to be Christ-like you achieve this by giving your money to the poor. Its as simple as that. The reason we do not want the government to take our money and give it to the poor for us is: 1) then we were not being Christ like at all, but rather abdicating that responsibility on to others, and 2) the government doesn't really give money to the poor but rather to special interest groups, and 3) when we give money to the government, not only does it not give it to the poor, and rather give it to special interest, but then the poor get even poorer because there are fewer jobs, lower paying jobs, and fewer innovative products that save the poor money while increasing their standard of living. 

Mars Hill

I saw this on Nightline on ABC last night!!!

Really good stuff.

The Utter Idiocy of the Thinking Class

This is exemplary of the problem with our chattering classes.  NOAA released a report that says that CO2 increases affect the earth's climate for 1,000 years.  Fair enough. I think there are conceptual problems with that but whatever, there is certainly a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now thanks to humans, and it will certainly have an effect on our climate. Take a look at these headlines though. 

First of all, the idea that the climate anywhere would be substantially the same in 1,000 years regardless of human action is of course ridiculous. Second, the idea that all changes in the climate will have ill effects for humans and the 'environment' is equally ridiculous. But the truly stupid things are that a) scientists think they can predict (using 'complex' computer models) complicated interactive systems 10 years out let alone 1,000 years is insane, and b) that they do not take into account that radical changes in technology and science will have occurred if humanity still exists 1,000 years from now.  

Can you imagine trying to explain to an average person in 1,000 the world in which we live? That will make explaining the world of 3,008 to us seem like explaining that 1+1=2... The media, and the scientists they help fund, are just trying to keep you scared. The Bible of course tells us time and time again not to worry. 

Now, of course I am not saying that we should not be interested climate, or general creation care.  We very much should. I am saying that we need to be extremely careful about buying in to predictions of gloom and doom that are tenuous at best, and I think facially absurd. 

Urban Rural Political Divide: Part II

So. As promised, (or threatened) I want to also talk about this from the other direction: does politics lead to geographic separation. I think that this is mainly the case for low-density urban development, as there are little empirical data on folks fleeing the city for very rural places (anecdotally I am sure many do, as I would like to, but its nothing like a phenomenon). 

David Brooks wrote an interesting book on this called Paradise Drive, but the focus there was a bit different. In a nutshell, right of center people choose to live in lower density and left of center folks choose to live in higher density. Why? 

1. Children–More children equals more conservative. There are so many available data to support this idea that I will leave the cites up to the reader (as again I lack the time). The most liberal women are the least fecund, conservatives are the most. When you have a child (or especially more than one) city living is difficult and annoying. Even without children, married couples, who don't need to go to bars etc are likely to live in the burbs. This is the most obvious reason, but there are subtler ones.

2. Religion–This directly relates to point #1 (religious are much more fertile), but I think there is a more nuanced ancillary reason. I have no children and I prefer lower density. In the Jeffersonian sense religious people like some kind of nature, rather than the paean to man that cities are. Second, Christians in particular, which obviously make up the vast majority of religious in the US, at least partly desire to remove themselves from pagan culture. That is easier in the suburbs where you can be alone. The more dense, the more you are constantly exposed to any number of objectionable sights and sounds etc. As strange and silly as this may sound, I think it is a powerful motivator. 

3. Taste Culture–Liberals, yuppies, activists, these are all taste culture people. This often coincides with religion. If you worship created, rather than Creator, you are likely in this 'taste culture' idea. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with it per se, but I think it can be related to the worship thing. What do I mean? Well, religious folks might draw their friends from church or school or scouts etc. Yuppies et al tend to derive friends from taste culture. They are 'foodies' or hikers, or insert social category here. High density living caters to this more simply because there are more opportunities for interaction and specialization.

4. Legal–This is a catch all category but perhaps the most profound. Firstly that the zoning laws of cities (along with higher density) make property more expensive. Therefore families move to the suburbs. But it is more complicated. Taxes are often lower in the suburbs, which is obviously a concern of conservatives (b/c you know, we are honest and actually pay our taxes, unlike Dem pols). It is also often easier to do what you like with your property in the suburbs, though with neighborhood covenants this is increasingly less true. The big one is of course that the draconian gun laws of cities drive conservatives out. 

About 80% of the country according to the census is urban.  Obviously, this does not mean urban urban, but rather developed vs. rural. There are those who believe that culture emanates like a radio wave out of the cities, and there is some truth to that. But I believe one of the reasons the U.S. is still tolerable compared to some other Western societies is that we have allowed for semi-urban development, without the problems and pitfalls. We need to encourage this. The lefties decry this as 'sprawl' and there is something to that argument that we can't ignore. Some suburban spaces are ugly, wasteful and dehumanizing. But hello! So are a lot of very high density urban spaces! What we need to is develop sensibly for a variety of needs. If we let the left command suburban policy to make it more dense, we will lose these spaces and the heart of America.

There is a lot more to talk about here so feel free to chime in. Next I will deal with the future, and how I think these categories are going to become even more difficult as I believe we are on the cusp of a transport revolution along the lines of the auto 100 years ago. 

Hypocrisy

Victor Davis Hanson, whose general perspective I pretty much fully agree with, has this excellent piece on the hypocrisy of our nation. When a Christian man is a stalwart fighter against immorality we assume naturally that he is a Ted Haggart creep. When a secular (or faux religious Obama style) crusader against ruining the earth or some such pablum, we do not assume, as we should, that he lives in a huge wasteful estate (as do Al Gore, John Ewards, etc.). 

More to the point, I am also uneasy about this. These children of the left are teenagers with power now. Think about it. Over the last eight years, all you have heard is how awful Bush is and how stupid he is and how on 1/20 they were going to party etc. Now that the tables are turned conservatives are quiet, respectful and still proud of our country. I join millions of Christians in praying for Obama. How many times have we heard that this past week? I have heard it from almost every major conservative leader. How many times have I heard a Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo lefty Christian say that about Bush.  Exactly zero.  Be glad if someone could prove me wrong. I haven't heard it. 

The 'reality based community' of the left are actually whiny little 13 year olds. The conservatives are classy adults who fight with ideas and action not with weasel words. But... We need to start being as proactive as the left has been. When an enviro nut gives you crap challenge them. When a lefty whines about the poor, compare how much they give versus how much you give. I know, because the data and my anecdotal observation prove, that we do better on helping the poor anyway. Being adult and respectful does not mean that we have to be walked all over.

Urban Rural Political Divide

So. We all know that for the past several elections, and increasingly so, there has been a distinct urban/rural political divide.  Why is this? I would be interested in exploring reasons for this. Armchair style since I definitely don't have the time or the resources to do real research. 

First the Purely Geographic:

1. Exposure Theory–Lefties often argue that when you are urban you encounter people unlike you more often and this leads you to an enlightened 'progressive' worldview.' Clearly the bias in this theory clouds its reasoning. But if more finely tuned there is something to it. Urban people are more likely to be moral morons because they are over exposed to sinful humanity and therefore become desensitized to it. 

2. Jeffersonia–The sort of converse is the country Jefferson hoped to create as a founding father. He believed that the yeoman farmer learned the best values from a) reaping rewards from his own hard work, and b) immersing himself in God's wholesome creation. There is clearly something to this. Exposure to nature shapes your character, and generally in a direction toward 'conservative' values. Please note that most lefty 'nature lovers' are urban yuppie folks who shop at REI and like to go to rural places while looking down on the inhabitants, or hippie 'activist' people who are also actually urban and like to go to rural places and imagine that all of the people there are poor and desperately waiting to be radicalized.

3. Urban Dependency–Urban dwellers are dependent on the government. Also a sort of yang to Jeffersonian yin, this theory is that urbanites are unable (and unwilling–see Katrina) to take care of themselves. When and if economic collapse happens these folks will riot and become brutally violent. Rural people will tighten their belts and survive. Suburbanites will do a mix of the two depending on how suburban they are and what city they surround (i.e. can they have guns). 

4. Firearms–Which brings me to the last point. Guns are loud and dangerous and tend to be more difficult to safely use in urban areas. For this reason, folks who live in less dense places are more likely to learn how to hunt and or defend themselves. Isn't this you ask rolled into the other categories though? Well, yes, but I place it as a stand alone because guns are a pivotal political issue. No Democrat campaigns on a platform of 'you are a dependent urbanite who needs government and is so overexposed to sinful behavior that you have mistaken tolerance for depravity.' But they do campaign on 'we need to take guns out of the hands of scary people.' 

This post is already well over the 1timmy4 word limit, but I will briefly close on the geographic reasons. Most folks vote on one or two issues, if they vote on issues at all (rather than say, 'hey that guy is black and doesn't scare me!'). But, their general political makeup is a complicated mix of surroundings, worldview and influence. These geographic categories are clearly powerful, and pervasive. Sure there are folks in urban areas that are conservative (me, though I wish I lived in a rural one–there are old school urban conservatives who will remain so), but they are clearly the minority. Our country is likely to progress mostly in the direction of urban. However, the density we do this at will likely affect our political character. The things I have mentioned all kind of have a geography influences political affiliation assumption though. Next post I will explore the idea that maybe it is also the other way around. Then, I will explore the religious dimension of these.  Please feel free to chime in!

Is Obama the new Messiah??

I am very troubled as our new president gets sworn in tomorrow. In many ways I see very Communistic propagandha involved in the idolizing of his image, his phrases, his message, his celebrity status, etc. I am not a nutjob in other ways. I didn't vote for him and I don't support A LOT of his policies, but he was elected fair and square in this great democracy that we call The United States of America, and I honor that. I also think it's great to have the first African-American president so minority children everywhere can finally have someone to look towards to and say, "I can do that too." The problem I do have is taken from Romans 1:25 and 1 John 5:21. Everyone, esp. Christians need to watch their idols. God is sovereign over this presidency and everything we do. We need to worship the Creator, not the Creature.

Death of Free Speech

It is coming.  Faster than we think perhaps. The left, who are seemingly gaining adherents and power hate free speech. Christians are not the target of the future. They are the target now. 

This story highlights some of the more absurd p.c. objections to inaugural goings on. The most alarming of course is the outrage and shunning that has surrounded Rick Warren. 

What the lefties don't know is that Warren isn't exactly known as a conservative or even orthodox Christian within evangelical circles. For the record I think he's a pretty good guy (giving away 90% of your income is a lesson many of the outraged celebrities could stand to learn). But what is really alarming is that Warren is shunned primarily for not backing down to a basic Biblical truth. 

As I mentioned in my last post, sinners of all stripes are now going to be pestering our all leftist federal government to legitimize their errant behavior. What we will inevitably get out of that is legislation that limits our rights to speak Biblical (or otherwise) truth. 

Our 'more enlightened' neighbors to the North (forgetting of course that they have had a rightist gov't for the past few years) have long entered into this territory, despite the fact that they also have a right to free speech. Just ask Stephen Boisson or Ezra Levant. 

Church and State: Using the Gov't to Legitimize Behavior

Jumping off my comment following SirCAL's comment on the drug post, I think this is worth a separate post. I have not heard a lot of folks float this idea around, though, I do not credit myself with creating it or anything, I just can't think of a cite for it off the top of my head. 

I think that the left and some right liberals (libertarians et al) tend to want to use the government to assuage their broken consciences. As I mentioned in my posts about the problem of evil, we have what I believe is an innate feeling of oughtness.  Not just about the world but about ourselves. Both the OT and NT tell us that the law is written on our hearts. Everyone knows they are a sinner. Having some authority above them give its blessing to their sin makes them feel better. 

Why for example do homosexuals, the vast majority of whom are non-monogamous, do not want families (as sick as that is) not settle for being merely left alone, but desperately want the State to marry them? I can totally understand that they want to not be criminally prosecuted for their sins. I cannot understand, outside of my present point, why they care so deeply that the State provide its imprimatur of acceptance to their lifestyle. 

Perhaps so much the same for prostitution, drug and other behavior crime advocates. Obviously there is an element there of just wanting to avoid arrest etc. But I think they are also motivated by a desire to feel as though their errant behavior is legitimate. After all, we implicitly understand, like it or not, that the gov't is a sovereign authority. 

Legislating Mental State

So there is a very interest series of articles concerning the criminalization of drugs over here.  I am wondering if my fellow bloggers might want to chime in with their opinions. As Christians should we vote for morality? Where does that line end (kept in this case specifically to drugs)? Freewill and liberty are also moral.  How do we balance these? I will be honest, my viewpoint has changed on this over the past year or so, but I am curious what you both have to say. 

At this point, let's restrict it to drugs, but it has ramifications for other 'victimless' crimes such as prostitution. To me any way, that is a much easier question to answer. As of now there are hundreds of thousands of women in slavery as prostitutes in this country. If prostitution were 'legal' I don not believe that situation would improve, but rather get much worse. 

I think drugs are a more difficult problem. On the one hand, there is no doubt that there is a criminal enterprise that exists only because pot (leaving out hard drugs, which I dont even consider an option for legalization) is illegal. There are millions of people in the justice system because of pot. This seems unjust and counter-productive. On the other hand, places with liberal pot laws have become bastions for harder drugs and other undesirable behavior. Sin will beget more sin. Thoughts? 

The Problem of Freewill

G.S. Bryan's post on Driscoll brought me to another topic: Calvinism, or Predestination. I know I've heard Bryan's thoughts in the past but it may have changed, and  I haven't heard my new blogging friend's opinion. In the punk world, everything is DIY, freewill reigns (actually MY will reigns), but when you become a Christian invariably SOME of you if not ALL is given to God's will, so how did you both deal with that transition? And on top of that, how much of life/us do you believe God controls and does it go as far as the Calvinist definition of predestination, where before you are born no matter what you do, God decided, ELECTED, who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, getting us awfully close to that Robot problem we spoke of earlier. 

Worst Person in the World?

This guy exemplifies why I think the end of the U.S. is near.  I just hope I can get my farm in the hill country set up before the end takes hold. 

Jesus was Dude

The NYT has up a piece on Mark Driscoll.  Predictably it makes him look like some sort of cretinous authoritarian monster in hipster clothing.  I would of course reserve that for ahem, Rob Bell.  But anyway.  Its worth taking a look at for sure. If the world understood what we believe, then we wouldn't be in this world. 

Health and Wealth Christians beware

Now, after saying my part in the last post, I feel obligated to obliterate the Health and Wealth Christians even moreso... you know the ones who say " It's not God's will that his people are poor or sick, so if you're a true Christian and have faith, you'll be healthy and wealthy. Just blab it and grab it, Claim it, and its yours, and if you don't have health and wealth, why, then your faith is weak and God's withholding his blessings because you haven't done enough to get that EVIL out of your life." 

      That's WAAAYYY less Christian than the numskull who gives all his money away to the needy, not only because they think they can use God's promises and blessings like he's some Genie in a lamp obligated to placate to our every whim if we word the chant just right to force his hand, but also as if in this sinful world where we're soaked in sin, "real" Christians get some sort of immunity force field to protect us. Tell that to every one of Jesus' disciples who were unhealthily Murdered, POOR (except of course John, who was just tarred and left for dead on an island, PENNILESS).  God must have been so disapointed in them. If only they had blabbed... and then grabbed... what God owed them in promises of faith. Stupid apostles.

Relevant Orthopraxy

Do you read Relevant Magazine? It is always interesting to say the least. As my wife often complains, it seems like a bunch of life-long Christian kids who are trying to be hipsters. Christians should create our own culture instead of poorly imitating the world's.  (It's always embarrassing how Christians who try to mimic culture are usually years behind anyway). 

In this issue there is a brief article about the meaninglessness of scriptural orthodoxy without a corresponding orthopraxy.  Fair enough. Agreed.  But, the chief example of orthopraxy given? You guessed it. Shouldn't we all like umm sell everything we own man, and give it all to the poor. (Except for your magazine subscriptions, form fitting clothing, and indie record collection.) 

Hey hipsters! Guess what? There are other important ways to live out our faith.  This obsession with social justice and tendency to constantly 'call' folks on it was shared by an infamous disciple. (I know, I know, there are caveats to this, but you get my point).

Helping the poor is awesome and is a necessity to living out a Christian life. It is not the only way to show fruits of the spirit, and it also does not require that you not enjoy life on earth or, (ahem) constantly judge others for not being ascetic enough for you. (Notice how everyone seems to set the 'rich' bar just a hair north of wherever they are?)

Awesome Dude

This guy, while reviled by some, is pretty awesome.  Sometimes I wish as I had changed my mind I could have done something like this.  Luckily I was not close enough friends w/ Molotov cocktail making retards to have done much. 

Problem of Evil: Natural Disasters

While we can explain the evil of this world based on idea that man has fallen, how do we connect this to 'Acts of God'?  Does God kill people?  Well.  Here we should turn to Genesis three again, and Romans 8 as I mentioned before.  The natural world, thanks to man's sin, is cursed. Paul says that creation cries out for Christ's return. So do we (that is the feeling of oughtness I referenced before).

The long and the short of it is that no one is free from sin, the wages of sin is death, and therefore a natural disaster that kills people just brings about the inevitable: this life is limited.  There is no righteous man, not even one.

It seems to me that where folks get bolluxed on this one is that they think of themselves as 'basically good.' Well, I am not basically good.  I am wretched and fallen. When you encounter someone who thinks that bad things shouldn't happen to 'good' people, ask them where they set the bar for 'good people.' You will inevitably find they always set it a little conveniently lower than where they are. 

Problem of Evil: Another World is Possible?

Is another world possible?  Not until Christ metes out perfect justice.  Don't get me wrong, I think Shane Clairborne is an admirable guy.  I agree that we should focus on living our own lives as Christ-like as possible.  I also agree that our hope is not in this world.  That just doesn't lead me to 'anarchism'—whatever that even means.  (An 'anarchist' world would make ours look like sunshine and lollipops, but more more on that later). 

Let's put 'Christian anarchists' aside for now since I think we more wish to argue with regular old God-hating anarchists/punks/activists/leftists.  The message we need to deliver to these people is this:  capitalism, democracy, or whatever is not the right enemy.  Sin is. 

People concerned primarily with social justice often completely lack personal justice.  Activists I know are not only the most sexually immoral people I have ever met, they are also the most, disloyal, lying, stealing and cheating.  They have elevated their feeling of oughtness about social justice to the point where it had drowned out their feeling of outness (otherwise known as a conscience) in their personal lives.  You cannot escape Genesis Three. 

Problem of Evil: Genesis Three

This is one of the most common apologetics for atheism/agnosticism. How can a loving personal God preside over a world with so much cruelty and sadness—not just at the hands of evil men, but also from natural causes?  I introduced this topic below with a personal anecdote b/c I believe this is when it becomes most trying to faith. 

The cold unfeeling hand of cruelty and death seems to be more at home in a random, purposeless universe.  However, it more clearly leads to God.  This is because we live in a Genesis Three world.  The earth is cursed by our rebellion (Romans 8). 

Each of us feels an ought-ness about this world that remains woefully unfulfilled.  The activist is simply a loud reaction to this universal impulse.  They feel, falsely, that there are material conditions that are keeping the world from being the way that it should be.  So they march, write books, and create political parties, societies, kibbutzim, communes, and utopias.  They all fail.  There is no one you can elect, there is no system you can put in place, no material need you can satisfy that will rid the world of evil–natural or anthropogenic. 

Maclash?

Funny.  I was just thinking to myself the other day that Mac has gotten so popular that there is going to be a backlash.  I even thought that if times were different I might bet in favor of MS in the market.  Then I see that the Glenn Reynolds has already of course identified the trend.  

O'Doyle Rules!

So I was reading this post from Rod Dreher and it reminded me of what I said to my wife yesterday while we were spending an unfortunate afternoon at Tyson's Corner mall.  Looking around at the pornographic, anti-Christian, anti-American propaganda that passes for ads these days, and the way rich suburban teenagers dress and talk, I said to my wife: remember that scene from Billy Madison?  Where he tells the O'Doyles that he has a feeling they are going down soon?  It's hard not to get that feeling looking at these people.  Also a very funny clip.

Keffiyeh

When you see a hipster wearing a keffiyeh, this is what they are knowingly or unknowlingly supporting.  Genocide of the Jewish people is not cool.  The fact that it is still so fervently sought by so many of all manner of non-Christians is also a powerful apologetic.  Why would the Jewish people be so hated by all of the non-Christian world if there were not some veracity to their status as God's chosen?