"Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind..."

Something I noticed while waiting for UPS...

2009-01-19T13:59:00.003-06:00

The article in the link is great. I love it. Here's the article again since I like it so much:
http://skepticblog.org/2008/12/09/regulation-schmegulation/

It's a good read for anyone, especially those that believe market deregulation caused the current financial collapse.

Some points of interest:
The people posting comments want to compare quantity with quality, but it seems they didn't read the part about the Community Reinvestment Act (aka CRA). (The part where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took on bad mortgages)
Long story short, the CRA was created to stop banks from redlining certain neighborhoods, most of which contained large proportions of minorities. If the banks kept redlining, they would be penalized. Over time, the CRA accumulated more and more crap, as many laws do, and it forced the banks to give mortgages to people that could not afford them. If the banks refused, they would be penalized. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying up mortgages anyway, so how could a bank refuse?

The above is an example of regulation. It is not deregulation.

In fact, I would challenge anyone to find a situation where deregulation (again, not like the above regulation) hurt the market.

StumbleUpon has been absolutely full of blogs that call for the cessation of the "deregulation trend." I thought I would add another against that unfounded belief.

How does the government differ from the mafia?

2009-01-17T13:05:00.002-06:00

I'm not being 100% serious here, but I found myself thinking about this in the shower this morning. It humored me a little...

They both offer "protection" as one of their essential services (and both charge and arm and a leg for it).
Both are masters of extortion.
Both have extensive networks to help carry out the special interests of the bigwigs at the top.
Both have connections to certain industries and corporations, and both collude with the said corporations.
The list could just keep going...

But what's the difference?
One's legal, and the other isn't.

FOCA

2009-01-14T02:55:00.003-06:00

The "Freedom of Choice Act" has sparked a lot of controversy lately, hasn't it?
It's quite the bill. I'm impressed that it hasn't been filled with pork yet.

Either way, I'm not gonna state an opinion on abortion. I can't have one anyway, so it really doesn't affect me so much. I'm concerned with infringements on everyone else's liberties.

In section four of this bill, a woman is given a right to abortion. Here's a quote:

"Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." (from the above link)

Now, what's the problem with that?
The word "right."

A right is defined as "A just or legal claim or title." (from Dictionary.com, since I have no other dictionary)

Why would this bother me?
An abortion is not something to which you have an unalienable right. In order to obtain an abortion, you must use up another being's resources. (unless, of course, you're performing an abortion on yourself) No one should have a right to another person's time or money.

So, how does that affect us?
Firstly, this act would allocate federal funding for abortion. That should not be. Why do honest taxpayers need to pay for another person's wants? I want a nice synthesizer, but the government is not allocating money for that.
Secondly, this act could have some serious repercussions for health workers that refuse to perform abortions on any occasion, even if they were morally opposed to the idea of removing the fetus.
In the event that this act makes a doctor's refusal to comply a crime, Catholic bishops have vowed to close down hospitals. That seems like an issue to me.

Regardless of your moral opinion on abortion, it is not a right. Rights are unalienable entitlements. You never have to earn rights. Women have a right to an abortion just as much as I have a right to Bill Gates' money. That wouldn't mean they aren't allowed to have one; it simply means they would have to pay for it (just as if I wanted Bill Gates' money, I would have to somehow earn it from him). No one has the right to force someone to go against their morals either.

Hopefully our lawmakers realize what rights are before this vote...

Either way, off to bed. I'm finally tired.

"Top Ten Myths About Health Care"

2008-12-24T19:30:00.003-06:00

Here's an interesting book/pamphlet I found online. It's called the "Top Ten Myths About Health Care."

It made me think. Here's a brief topic list, and then I'll let you read the rest to yourself:
1) Government health care is more efficient,
2) We're spending too much on health care,
3) 46 million Americans cannot get health care,
4) High drug prices drive up health care costs,
5) Importing drugs will reduce health care costs,
6)Universal coverage can be achieved by forcing everyone to buy coverage,
7) Government prevention programs reduce health care costs,
8) We need more government to insure poor Americans
9) Health information technology is a silver bullet for reducing health care costs, and
10) Government run health care plans in other countries are better/less costly than those in America.

I only had a chance to read the first chapter since I'm supposed to be packing for San Diego, but it was pretty interesting. This really cleared up some areas of confusion for me.

Well, back to laundry...

Tolerance is a two-way street

2008-12-12T03:09:00.002-06:00

I wrote something about the dangers of voting on rights and privileges a few weeks ago. I still hold the same opinion that I did then; the government needs to stay out.

I did, however, find something interesting about all the goings on in the aftermath of the passage of Prop 8.
Here's the article.

A basic summary:
After the passage of Proposition 8, many groups have been rather hateful toward the groups believed to be responsible for the bill's passage. That screams tolerance, now doesn't it?

Just something to consider and think about...

Again, I honestly have no opinion in the issue of gay-marriage. I don't think the government should be able to make decisions about that.
Unfortunately, we live in a democracy (well, sort of). That means, you get to vote on the rights of the masses. Sometimes, you vote things in that only affect others. Sometimes, people vote on things that affect you and not them. All too often, a vote hurts a smaller part of the population. It is the nature of the beast.

Alright, back to bed...

Global warming, a real threat or just straight-up fraud?

2008-12-09T00:58:00.004-06:00

It's that question again... So what's the answer?

I don't know, but I did find a book about the other side of it. It is:
"The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud" by Lawrence Solomon. Has anyone read it yet?

Supposedly, this guy used to be an environmental activist. Here's the link to the write up if anyone is interested.

"Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?"

2008-12-04T23:49:00.004-06:00

This is something that I stumbled across during my internet travels for the day. I found it rather interesting. Here it is:

"Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?"

I never really thought of it this way, but this makes quite a bit of sense. Hope you enjoy it!

Change you can believe in!

2008-12-03T17:57:00.003-06:00

I should be doing my homework, but I'm not. I have no desire to deal with MapleTA right now, but I need to. I need every point I can get so I can try to get an A in calculus. Unfortunately, I also need a break from this stuff or I'll lose my sanity...

Either way, I found a few interesting articles online that you should consider reading:

"Obama's stimulus package seeks to save jobs and energy"

Especially take note of the last bit of commentary. The money has to come from somewhere. But where?
Another part of the stimulus plan advocates using money (again, from where?) to help repair/remodel bridges, roads, schools, and other state owned furnishings. Now, this sounds peachy until you analyze the possible implications. The construction industry is contracting (the main reason for this part of the stimulus plan is out of work construction laborers) because it was too large. There were too many in the first place. Why would we want to sustain those extra jobs? The same workers will be out of work as soon as the stimulus plan ends. These men/women would be better off getting a different job now.

Also, why would we try to create an industry that has to be supported by the government? It's not as if it will just magically sustain itself once it's up and running...

Another interesting one:

"Obama shelves oil company tax after price fall: aide"

It appears that someone's been playing with the public a little on campaign promises, huh? At least he realized that it was
a really stupid idea...

And this should make you cringe... Reading this made me realize how little I want Tom Daschle to be in charge of anything:
"Daschle-Obama healthcare possibilities"

I don't think I need to say anything about that...

The "P" word

2008-11-26T23:41:00.003-06:00

I've been noticing an odd little trend lately... It's made its way through our culture, bleeding out of the mouths of reporters and through the keyboards of bloggers everywhere. We've become obsessed with hatred for those that obtain profits in any venture. If a company (especially a large one) posts a profit for the year, people react as if genocide has occurred. It's ridiculous.

Well, maybe I exaggerated a bit there, but it still is silly. I mean, what's wrong with profits? I can hardly think of anything.

Profits are not made without the consumer's consent.
Obviously, the consumer had to feel as if the product being sold benefited him/her at least as much as he/she paid for it (if not more). It's not as if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to buy a product. That's illegal. How can a consumer contribute to profits and still be so against them?

The public benefits from profits immensely.
Who really owns a company? (I'll give you a hint; if it's a publicly traded company in the stock market, it's probably owned by the stockholders!)
In many cases, profits are distributed to the investors in a company through
dividends as a reward for their investment. This means, if you own stock in a certain company, and they post profits, you could be rolling in some coin. Or, if you're preparing your retirement and you turn to the stock markets for investment, you could collect a little extra for yourself on the side. Sounds like a pretty decent deal, right?
That isn't the only way you can benefit from a profit. If a company doesn't put profits out through dividends, the money has to go somewhere, right? It generally goes straight back into the company. This allows for growth and expansion, which leads to job creation. That is definitely not a bad thing, now is it?

Profits provide an optimal environment to technological advancement.
In the last little bit, I mentioned profits going back into a company. If a company doesn't put the spare cash toward building a larger business, they generally put it into research and development. The extra R&D can help bring about new products, which in turn benefits the consumer more. This doesn't sound that bad either, right?

So, why are profits looked down upon? What about the word spurs such a negative reaction?

I really don't know. If you do, tell me.

So, now when you hear a politician talk about increasing taxes on a highly profitable industry, you'll know some of the negative implications of the act, right? Hopefully...
Just think what we could be doing if we didn't have a nearly 40% business tax (that your president-elect and his Congress want to raise!)!

eHarmony sued for excluding homosexual options

2008-11-20T16:41:00.003-06:00

This article confused the hell out of me...

I cannot even begin to think of why this suit would have come about. Why would someone spend their time suing a service like this instead of just going to a business that would have catered to them? Why didn't the courts throw this out immediately?

For those that do not know, eHarmony was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren, a devout evangelical Christian (sounds like the kind of guy I would consent with for advice on a same-sex date!) and psychologist. According to eHarmony, by way of the Wall Street Journal article linked above, the matching system is based upon analysis of opposite-sex couples. They did not offer dating services for same sex couples.

The alleged crime was discrimination. This is what I don't understand.

The website offered an opposite-sex matching service. This was well advertised. If you were a homsexual man or woman, you could still participate in the matching service offered if you would like. The results may be a little less satisfactory, since you wouldn't be paired with people of your preferred gender, but you could participate nonetheless.

In short, this means they wouldn't turn you away. You can only purchase the services offered, but you wouldn't be turned away.

Just for the hell of it all, I looked at a same-sex dating website. Did you know that I couldn't browse through profiles of straight women? I doubt straight women could browse through profiles of straight men either. Point being, according to this lawsuit, I am being discriminated against.

And what will become of the other specialty matching websites? They currently have them for people of certain races and religions. What will become of those?

If I visited a website that sold women's clothing and found absolutely no men's clothing, would I have a case for discrimination?

Proposition 8 and natural rights

2008-11-16T17:27:00.003-06:00

So, there was a huge protest against the recent passage of Proposition 8 yesterday... There were stories all over the web, pictures on the news after the football game, and a rather large amount of buzz generated on social networking sites. All in all, it was quite a show. They got a lot of people out there.

I'm not here to take sides on this issue, but I did notice something rather peculiar about the people that oppose this law...

Did anyone else notice that many of the people against the passage of Proposition 8 are the same people that are against protecting property rights/personal rights regarding money?

I find it very odd that one person can be for natural and "unalienable" rights, and against natural and "unalienable" rights at the same time.

But, as I've heard many times from people that have voted to restrict rights regarding property, the people have spoken. I mean, that makes sense, right? If someone decrees that the "mob rules," then they shouldn't really fight against it, should they? That's the danger in a "democratic" society.

If you vote on other people's rights, they're probably going to vote on yours.

Just a thought, really...

Discrimination in the public education system

2008-11-11T05:28:00.002-06:00

Wow, I really haven't kept up with this thing. School, work, and everything else has just taken way too much time. I wouldn't even be up writing this if I had anything else to do; I had my wisdom teeth out last week, and it's causing more pain right now than it did on the second day. It literally just started tonight too. Weird. At least I have my Percocet, right?

Anyway, I have an issue I've wanted to write about for months.

I'm gonna give a fair warning on this one; this is not a feel good article. The problem I'm writing about is not exactly "politically correct." Also, keep in mind, the numbers only apply to Oklahoma, but the same problem with similar numbers apply to all the states.

How does discrimination affect the direction of funds in the state school system?

Here's a fun fact you probably didn't know:
30% of Oklahoma's education funding goes to less than 5% of the students. Why is this?

Now, if this were any other issue, it would have been stopped immediately. If it were discrimination based on race, gender, a student's financial standing, or a student's grades, it wouldn't have lasted a second without some sort of lawsuit from the ACLU. So, what could it be?

This discrimination is based on IQ.

Now, before you draw any conclusions, you should know that the naturally gifted do not receive any more funding than the average. So, that leaves one group.

The special needs students in Oklahoma receive 30% of the funding. How is that remotely justifiable?

Now, before you say or think anything, I'm not saying they don't have a right to school. I'm not saying they aren't human beings. I'm not advocating eugenics.

In order to come to any logical conclusion, we have to take a step back and look at the whole picture. From there, we can answer some vital questions.
What is the purpose of school?
What skill sets do special needs children acquire in public schooling?
Why are we allocating so much of our resources to this one group?

The widely accepted purpose for public schooling is to provide an affordable means for children to acquire the skill sets they need for adult life. I think that's fairly reasonable.

What skill sets do special needs children acquire in schools? Absolutely none. There isn't much of an educational environment in a special needs class. It's more or less just a place they go for socializing. I mean, sure, they do learn things, but how many of these things are pertinent to everyday life outside of school?

Why do we allocate so much of our resources to this group? I don't really know. What gains do we get from it? What is the return on investment? We teach most children so they can become functioning members of society, meaning people that work and contribute to the economy. If we aren't teaching special needs children to contribute, why are they getting so much of the school's funding?

Now for the question: What do I suppose we should do?

As I said before, I'm not for eugenics. I don't believe that pushing someone out of society is really going to help us enough to forget the moral implications, but I don't believe in giving alms either.

We should cut the funding for special needs children down to where it is exactly proportional to the rest of the students. Everyone should have an equal chance (at least from the state's perspective) in a public school from a financial standpoint, right?

And we wonder why schools are underfunded...