diaspora

Sotomayor

2009-08-07T23:38:00.005-05:00

Sonia Sotomayor will be sworn in as a judge to the highest court in the land. Many conservatives are decrying her judicial philosophy based on quotes and decisions from the past. Should they be worried? Justice David H. Souter-whom she is replacing- was nominated and confirmed under George H.W. Bush- consistently ruled for the conservative cause his first year. Soon after he became one of the left's most concupiscent voices for the left. Do you think Sotomayor will vote along ideological lines or will she surprise everyone?

Read the article below for more information:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080702078.html

Who Needs a New Jet?

2009-08-07T17:45:00.002-05:00

Thoughts?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124960404730212955.html

Guns, Freedom, and Ted Nugent?

2009-08-05T07:32:00.003-05:00

Your thoughts please...

Homework for Healthcare Conversation

2009-07-23T06:54:00.004-05:00

The two links below are what Alexa in the previous post made reference to. Read and watch and give us your take:

The article:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647

The Video:

Obama-Care

2009-07-20T21:02:00.005-05:00

I love it! Go Kudlow!

What Kudlow expressed is this short clip is exactly what I and many Americans fear when it comes to government and heath care. Little choice, bureaucrat physicians, and big costs. I just don't get it. We have two wars, a crumbling economy, Gitmo, Joe Biden and a host of other national security issues. Why does a one trillion dollar heath care bill need to be passed by August?

Big Top Politics

2009-07-19T22:21:00.005-05:00

I hope everyone is having a great summer!

I am making this post to establish a relationship between all of us here at The Diaspora and a new political blog that I am co-authoring with Doug Kuzniar. Many of us have much to say concerning the current political climate and I know that we have more than a few brilliant minds to bring together in conversation. The new blog is called Big Top Politics, and its purpose is to bring people together in serious conversation regarding various political topics. Our hope is that along the way people can help each other gain in-depth knowledge that today's media doesn't get into.

The political landscape of the United States has become a complete and utter circus. From partisan bickering and cultural warfare to unilateral invasions, the world's view of America has waned in recent years. Join us under the Big Top where we call out those that err and refocus attention on a more suitable path.

We can't wait to see you there!

www.BigTopPolitics.com

Sanford, Palin and the Media

2009-07-08T01:01:00.003-05:00

Over the last month we have seen one politician (Sanford) fall from grace and another (Palin) step down from an elected position. The last month of news coverage has sealed the fate of the "media" in my mind. They have become the most asinine and debased institution in this country. Nothing valuable was said about each politicians predicament and as usual just blew smoke up America's ass.

I didn't know anything about Sanford before his love tryst in Argentina. What I learned after the story broke was that a man with copious amounts of power screwed up. I don't condone it but I don't think any of us can imagine the pressure and the lack of true accountability that goes with such a position of power.

I have never cared for Sarah Palin. The McCain campaign painted her as Laura Ingalls with spunk. She has given interviews with less than flattering results just as any one of us would probably do if we were on the road 6 days a week and being berated with attacks. I think Stanley Fish says it best when it comes to Palin's pain:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/in-defense-of-palin-and-sanford/?ref=opinion

What say you?

How About Some More Theology?

2009-07-04T11:21:00.002-05:00

Happy 4th of July, everyone!

The Origins of the Earth and Climate Change

2009-07-01T19:09:00.002-05:00

See Pew Research Center: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1194/global-warming-belief-by-religion

The last post generated some great discussion on the science behind climate change. While reading the comments I wondered if ones view of Earth's Origins plays a role in how one reads the science of climate change. The Pew Research Center has some interesting data regarding climate change and the faithful. 34% of Evangelicals believe global warming is caused by human activity. One of the characteristics that makes an 'evangelical' and evangelical, is the fact that many take the first chapters of Genesis literally; in other words they are Creationists.

My question:

Does ones view of the Earths origins - evolution/Big Bang vs. Creationism- affect their view of Climate Change?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1194/global-warming-belief-by-religion

Protecting Mother Earth

2009-06-29T00:58:00.005-05:00

Steve, over at nuggets of logic (http://www.nuggetsoflogic.com/) believes that John Boehner (R-Ohio) encapsulates truth about the current Climate bill. The article referred to reports that Boehner thinks the bill is a 'pile of shit'. The left are acting like fundamentalist Christians when reading Revelation (looking to Al Gore for answers) when it comes to climate change and the right is just down right absurd. More and more Americans are concerned with the Climate and how we treat Mother Earth. Many just want to be good stewards and aren't too caught up in the lefts hysterics and the rights silliness. So my charge to you is this: How do we move forward on this issue? Do you think that caring for the environment really matters? If so, why? If not, why?

My Favorite Michael Jackson Song

2009-06-25T18:13:00.003-05:00

Enjoy,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex30DYwQlHU

The latest from JibJab

2009-06-23T10:34:00.001-05:00

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Some Thoughts on Iran

2009-06-21T19:45:00.004-05:00

The following link is to a post by Brian Mclaren on the current upheaval in Iran. Brian makes reference to a Andrew Sullivan post that is also good.; check both out. I think there is so much we can learn from Islam and much they could learn from Jesus. We so often become polarized by misconceptions and nationalism that we fail to separate the fundamentalists (from either faith) from the mass majority of the faithful.

Enjoy,

http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/iran-two-kinds-of-islam-and-two.html

How about some theology? An Address by Stanley Hauerwas

2009-06-11T11:57:00.007-05:00

Over the past 5 months I have been heavily influenced by the Anabaptists (Mennonites). Two authors in particular have been life-giving for me; John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas.

The questions and observations below come from an address Hauerwas gave to graduates of Princeton Theological Seminary. If you have never been exposed to Hauerwas, get ready.

http://digital.library.ptsem.edu/default.xqy?img=1&src=PSB2007282.xml&div=8

Many Christians have never thought of Jesus' life and message as political. Rather, if one says Jesus is political, we here in America jump to issues on the left and right. Jesus is not political in this way. Jesus came proclaiming access to a new reality (the Kingdom of God). This is the gospel. This new reality is foolish to the wise, confounds the scholar and elevates the socially marginalized to a status of honor. Hauerwas says:

Jesus is the politics of the new age, he is about the establishment of a kingdom, he is the one who has created a new time that gives us the time not only to care for the poor but to be poor. Jesus is the one who makes it possible to be nonviolent in a violent world. After all, Mary's song promised that the proud would have their imaginations "scattered" , the powerful would be brought down from their thrones, the rich would be sent away empty, The lowly would be lifted up, the hungry would be filled with good things. Is it any wonder that the world was not prepared to welcome this saviour?

After reading the address consider the following:

http://digital.library.ptsem.edu/default.xqy?img=1&src=PSB2007282.xml&div=8

How have we tamed the gospel? Have we reduced it?

Have you found that 'American' presuppositions have colored the way you read the Bible?

In light of Jesus offering a different way of seeing the world, why are we not doing it?

What say you?

How would you fix our schools?

2009-06-09T23:27:00.005-05:00

Even if you don't spend much time in public schools I can promise you that your tax dollars are not being used effectively. And so, my charge to you is: How do we fix our public schools? An election in this state is coming up and this should be a big issue to voters. See the link below to get an idea of what is going on in the world of public education.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/05/how_would_you_fix_the_nations.html

Language Creates Reality

2009-06-08T09:14:00.005-05:00

I have long believed that language creates reality. The words we use to describe our faith, our politics, our neighbors, and so on matter. If belief begets action (which it always should) then our words matter. The link below will take you to one of my favorite linguists-Stanley Fish- in which he explores the rhetoric of Obama's speeches. What say you?

Last week I was driving home listening to President Obama’s speech on the General Motors bankruptcy, and I heard the full emergence of a note that had been sounded only occasionally in the two-plus years since the announcement of his candidacy. It was the note of imperial possession, the accents and cadences of a man supremely aware of his authority and more than comfortable with its exercise. -Stanley Fish (NY Times, 6/8/09)

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/yes-i-can/?ref=opinion

Chistianity is Dead in this Country.

2009-06-04T19:09:00.002-05:00

This saddens me. Not because of any political issue but our faith has become nothing more than a tool of the state and a platform to preach American politics rather than the Kingdom of God.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/kentucky-pastor-invites-p_n_211498.html

Obama's Speech

2009-06-04T17:24:00.002-05:00

What did you all think about Obama's speech in Cairo?

G.M. and Organizational Culture

2009-06-02T07:41:00.003-05:00

David Brooks says:

G.M.’s core problem is its corporate and workplace culture — the unquantifiable but essential attitudes, mind-sets and relationship patterns that are passed down, year after year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/opinion/02brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Two questions:

1. What elements make for a good organizational culture?

2. How do you change an organizational culture that has been steeped in bureaucratic sludge for decades?

It’s good to see diplomacy is working with North Korea…

2009-05-29T09:23:00.000-05:00

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104697356&ft=1&f=1001

Joy In The Midst of Political Fatigue

2009-05-28T09:32:00.006-05:00

Over the last 6 months I have grown disenfranchised with politics. Listening to both the left and the right is difficult to stomach. Andrew Sullivan is one blogger that I do enjoy despite my political fatigue. I like Andrew Sullivan because he is a paradox. He is gay, conservative and voted for Obama. His view of what constitutes as 'conservatism' is quite different from what I have heard from friends on the right. When you read the article below, remember, this is a blog, not an academic journal.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-incoherence-of-american-conservatism.html

What say you?

Supreme Court Nomination

2009-05-27T08:13:00.004-05:00

On Tuesday President Obama nominated judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The liberals will rejoice because she leans left and the conservatives will prepare for the Apocalypse because she might let gays get married and is pro-choice. What say you?

See Link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27judge.html?_r=1&hp

Finally, some border security!

2009-05-25T13:54:00.001-05:00

Texas Constructs U.S. Border Wall To Keep Out Unwanted Americans

WICHITA FALLS, TX—Calling it an essential step toward securing the Texas border and protecting his people's way of life, Gov. Rick Perry announced Tuesday the completion of a 1,953-mile wall designed to keep out millions of unwanted Americans.

According to Perry, the 75-foot-high barricade running along the northern boundary is the culmination of more than 160 years of escalating tensions between Texas and the United States.
ENLARGE IMAGE
Though a protective barrier has been under consideration for decades, the Texas Legislature voted unanimously to begin construction on the project immediately following the 2008 presidential election.
"As governor, it is my responsibility to do whatever's necessary to maintain the territorial integrity of Texas," Perry told reporters during a press conference held inside a sniper tower overlooking Oklahoma. "If you are a Texas citizen, you shouldn't have to worry about some American coming in here, using your goods and services, and taking away your job."
"Let the record show I have nothing personal against Americans," Perry added. "I just think they should stay in America, where they belong."
The wall is comprised of six security layers: a razor-wire fence equipped with motion sensors, surveillance cameras, and guard towers; a 70-foot-wide trench with expert marksmen stationed along its perimeter; a roadway patrolled by armed vehicles equipped with synchronized electromagnetic wave gradiometers to detect Americans attempting to tunnel their way into Texas; and a second, third, and fourth fence.
The final section of the barricade, a reinforced concrete enclosure containing the city of Austin, will be finished by August 2009.
"These Americans are destroying the moral and social fabric of our state," said Rep. Chris Turner, who added that he worries when he looks around Texas and sees people from places like Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Vermont. "The man who used to repair my truck was replaced by some mechanic who moved in here from Kansas. Lately I can't go to the store or the bank without running into all kinds of these foreigners. This wall is the only hope we have of keeping Texas safe."
"The truth is, Americans are just different from us," Turner added. "We don't even speak the same language."
According to Texas Army National Guard Brig. Gen. Tom Alford, Americans will only be permitted to cross the border if they have immediate family living in Texas, in which case they can apply for a 90-minute monitored visitation to be held inside a checkpoint detention facility.
However, Alford stressed that any American attempting to transport barbecue sauce, beef jerky, belt buckles, or longhorn cattle back to the United States will face the death penalty.
Thus far, a majority of Texas citizens support the border wall, with nearly 8 million signing up to join a coalition of Minutemen that will guard the fence.
"These good-for-nothing Americans want to come in here and wait in the same lines as me, watch the same movies, and eat at the same restaurants," El Paso resident and border patrol volunteer Larry Carlile told reporters. "Who do they think they are? I'd never dare waltz into America and act like I owned the place. That country's a godforsaken hellhole, anyway."
"Round 'em up and get 'em out," Carlile added. "Go back to Seattle or whatever you call it."
Since the wall's completion, there has been no official comment from Washington. However, sources close to President Obama said that upon being informed of Gov. Perry's announcement the commander in chief muttered, "Thank God."

From The Onion

'TheBody'

2009-05-21T12:39:00.009-05:00

I love this!

This is good too; go Joe!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Is Your Brain on God?

2009-05-20T12:00:00.004-05:00

There is an article from NPR discussing the brain and human experiences with God. Do we truly experience God or is our brain creating these experiences? This is fascinating stuff! You get science, prayer, and belief all wrapped into one. Check it out at http://www.npr.org/news/specials/2009/brain/

This photo gives me chills....

2009-05-12T20:20:00.002-05:00

What would be the caption for this photo?

Media Control.

2009-05-12T13:09:00.002-05:00

Its amazing how the media can create a reality for the masses. Their picking and choosing of what constitutes 'valuable' has duped many into seeing the world in a false light. The following article by Bob Herbert is a great example of this happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Moving To The Center.

2009-04-29T14:55:00.005-05:00

Tony Jones is an author, theologian and a public speaker. I have kept up with his books and blog for a couple of years now and I think he has some good things to offer. In his most recent post he talks about how the faithful in America are moving to the center. He then links this shift to politics as well. Do you agree? Disagree?

http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2009/04/maybe-phyllis-tickles-next-boo.html

Liberty and Tyranny

2009-04-18T17:35:00.009-05:00

A friend (http://www.nuggetsoflogic.com/) lent me Mark Levin's new book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. I just finished the first essay and had a few thoughts.

Summary: Mark states that Conservative believe, "...in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights." (2) From this Levin discusses how the founders ordered society around a set of principles, beginning with the Articles of Confederation and the eventually the Constitution. He explains that the founders believed that an all powerful central government suffocated liberty. The individual is seen as a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. The individual has the right to pursue that which they see as prudent and in their best interest. The individual also has the duty to 'contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works.'

In the remainder of the essay, Mark walks the reader through the history of how 'Statists' (Modern Liberals) have waged an assault on freedom. He speaks of Roosevelt's New Deal and how it has spiraled into 'soft tyranny' ever since. Mark warns that this matters because once liberty is lost, it is not likely to be recovered.

Agree: I agree with Levin on a few things in this first of his 10 essays. The first is the focus on the individual as a unique and spiritual being. Though I guarantee our views on what 'spiritual being' means I do think that individual people matter. I also agree that private property is essential to this countries identity.

Finally, I agree that ' An effective government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government."(10). We saw this when W. approved wire taps on citizens phones in the name of 'national security'.

Disagree: It amazes me that a Conservative(s) can say that individuals are unique and should, "live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights." (3) and then turn around and deny marriage equality to Gay citizens. It seems that the Government can dictate who gets married but not who gets health care; this confounds me.

I also disagree with his foundationalist approach to 'truth' and 'knowledge'. Truth is contextual and 'foundations' change over time and across continents. Thomas Paine said, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.

Finally, Levin's definitions of Conservatism and Liberalism are black and white. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground or overlap; when he mentions overlap (Michael Gerson), he condemns it. From my experience people are complex and mysterious and cannot be shoved into ideological boxes.

Nuggets of Logic? Maybe....

2009-04-18T11:19:00.004-05:00

Steve, over at Nuggets of Logic, illuminates our dark minds on immigration. Also, what do you all think about his post on the Texas bill HCR 50?

Chime in...

http://www.nuggetsoflogic.com/

TeaTantrums...

2009-04-13T10:31:00.003-05:00

Paul Krugman, over at the NY times says,

"One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday. These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.
But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party.

Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.
But the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to. And if you go back just a few years, you find top Republican figures making equally bizarre claims about what liberals were up to. Remember when Karl Rove declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to the 9/11 terrorists?

Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh."

I thought Tom Delay' claiming that evolution being taught in schools was responsible for the Columbine shooting was the craziest Republicans could get; I was wrong.

The End of Christianity?

2009-04-10T07:29:00.006-05:00

I'm in a rush writing this but I hear Jon Meacham discussing his latest - fantastic - article on religion and Christianity in America: http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583?GT1=43002.

Also, watch statements by Obama that some consider to be fairly inflammatory while he was in Turkey (fast forward to 3:40):

What are your thoughts?

Gun Violence

2009-04-07T13:09:00.009-05:00

I admit that I have an unfair and somewhat unreasonable intolerance of guns and gun culture. Anyone who knows me and has mentioned guns has figured that out. In light of that let me begin by stating what this post is not. This post is not a diatribe against people owning guns. Contrary to what some say, I don't think guns should be outlawed. People should have the right to own guns if they so choose. Second, this post is not about how 'guns' kill people. I know that every person who own a gun is not crazy, and will most likely not go on a shooting rampage.

What this post is about, is the extreme amount of gun violence in this country. On Friday, Jiverly Wong shot and killed 13 people and then killed himself in Binghampton, NY. What scares me about this event (other that the fact that he killed 13 people) is that many Americans would not recognize this mans name, yet they could tell you the gift Obama gave the Queen of England. Coworkers reported that Wong bragged about wanting to shoot people often. It's as if they saw it coming.

On April 16th, 2007, 32 people were killed at Virginia Tech by a reclusive student that everyone recognized as being disturbed. In March of this year, 11 people were killed in Alabama by a gunman, on March 21st 4 Police officers were shot and killed in Oakland California, and on March 29th, 8 people were killed by a gunmen in a North Caroline Nursing Home. Just this month James Harrison shot and killed his four children in Washington state. During these last couple of months I have heard indignation at Obama's use of a Teleprompter, anger at the gas bag Rush Limbaugh, and shock and awe over the final episode of The Bachelor. Very little has been said about the amount of gun violence occuring across the nation. Something is radically wrong.

So what are we to do? Outlawing guns wouldn't work any more than outlawing cars in hopes of preventing drunk driving. Organizations like the NRA seem to just polarize people so I wouldn't look to them for practical solutions. First, I think that we as citizens can be much more effective than government programs aimed at preventing gun violence. Community involvement puts the ordinary citizen in a position to take a hands on role in the safety of their schools, churches and neighborhoods. Getting to know your neighbors goes along way in detecting suspicious behavior. In several of the cases above neighbors and coworkers new something was wrong. I do know that this is effective in schools. Just listening to the students and getting to know them helps teachers and administrators maintain safe learning environments. Ask anyone who is apart of a good neighborhood association and the same applies. Second, I think we as citizens need to hold our local politicians accountable for gun violence in our communities. Politicians pay a lot of lip service to this issue but very little good is actually done. I haven't read up on all the in's and outs of gun laws in this country, but I think we as citizens can do much of the ground work in preventing this kind of atrocity.

Money Quotes from Around the Horn...

2009-03-31T14:53:00.007-05:00

Read this short post by Andrew Sullivan over at The Atlantic. It discusses the disconnect between conservative economics and conservative Foreign Policy. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/conservatism-gm-and-afghanistan.html

Maureen Dowd says:

You know you’re in trouble when Old Europe chastises you for being too socialist. But, hey, nobody’s perfect — except maybe Michelle Obama, who landed in London with a huge Obama entourage, wearing a daffodil yellow dress and looking like a confident ray of U.S.A. sunshine.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01dowd.html?ref=opinion)

On Sunday George Will said:

As government grows, legislative power, and with it accountability, must shrink. The nation has had 535 national legislators for almost half a century. During that time the federal government's business -- or, more precisely, its busy-ness -- has probably grown at least twenty-fold. Vast grants of discretion to the executive branch by Congress, such as EESA, may be necessary -- if America is going to have constant governmental hyperkinesis. If Washington is going to do the sort of things that EESA enables -- erasing the distinction between public and private sectors; licensing uncircumscribed executive branch conscription of, and experimentation with, the nation's resources. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702504.html)

And Finally Garrison Keillor tells us what the 'Real American Dream' is:

In spring, a person's thoughts naturally turn toward what you would rather be doing than earning a living, and in America this usually means Being An Artist. This is the true American dream. Winning the lottery is a faint hope, becoming a sports hero is a daydream, but publishing poetry is the ambition of one-third of the American people and another third are thinking about writing a memoir. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2009/03/25/spring/index.html)

From The Onion...

2009-03-31T11:24:00.000-05:00

Rush Limbaugh Tucks Shirt Back In Following Animated Flat Tax Rant

WEST PALM BEACH, FL—While ferociously laying into what he calls the "liberal jihad against the flat tax," conservative pundit and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh dislodged his shirt from the waistband of his pants Tuesday, leaving it to flap wildly about his midsection for the rest of his impassioned four-minute tirade. "Hrrp—hrrp," a panting Limbaugh said before sitting back down, wiping off the microphone, and taking a moment to swallow the thick, viscous phlegm he had inadvertently dislodged during the heated monologue. "It just defies all logic how—hhugh.... Is that blood?" On the advice of his producer, Limbaugh quickly drank a glass of water and ate a banana before addressing Obama's failed commerce secretary appointees.

How Free is the 'Free Market'?

2009-03-27T21:42:00.005-05:00

In lieu of our current economic crisis, right wing ideologues are are their pulpits preaching the wonders of letting the 'free market' do its job. In fact, no country in history has developed successfully through 'free market' principles. Noam Chomsky says, "...the United States has always had extensive state intervention in the economy, right from the earliest days- we would be exporting fur right now if we were following the principles of comparative advantage" (Understanding Power, p. 255).

If it weren't for tax payers dollars we wouldn't be one of the more innovative countries when it comes to technology. N.A.S.A and the Pentagon system have no relation to a 'free market' system-(the Pentagons sole purpose is to keep information from the public). If you want an example of how 'free' our market is look at the New York Times article about how Whirlpool built a factory in Tulsa instead of Mexico. Why? Because Tulsa County was paying 25% of the corporations capital costs. (Louis Uchitelle, "Corporate Spending Booms, but Jobs Stagnate," New York Times, June 6, 1994, p. D1.) This is the 'free' market? If it weren't for state intervention we wouldn't have a steel industry, automobile industry, or microchip industry because they would have been wiped out by the Japanese long ago.

My point is this. Right wing conservatives need to stop the whole 'free' market salvation talk. If the left treated Obama as the Messiah then the right treats the 'free market' as God herself. Though I support the current administration, I'm weary of the amount of money being spent and how it is being spent. I've just had enough of hearing how the 'free market' will save us in the end. I say bullocks!

The Experts

2009-03-26T09:03:00.003-05:00

Nicholas Kristof over at the NY times says:

Mr. Tetlock called experts such as these the “hedgehogs,” after a famous distinction by the late Sir Isaiah Berlin (my favorite philosopher) between hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs tend to have a focused worldview, an ideological leaning, strong convictions; foxes are more cautious, more centrist, more likely to adjust their views, more pragmatic, more prone to self-doubt, more inclined to see complexity and nuance. And it turns out that while foxes don’t give great sound-bites, they are far more likely to get things right. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/26Kristof.html?_r=1&th&emc=th)

The article is talking about how the 'experts' can sway the masses into foolish decisions and knee jerk reactions. This economic crisis has showed me that everyone (including myself at times) is more than willing to declare that 'If we would just..." or "Its as simple as..." as the begining of their all encompassing solution. This is just arrogance. I think that the 'foxes' have been ignored for a long time and will finally begin to be heard and listened to in the coming months.

Here is an example of one of those 'foxes': http://www.getamericaworking.org/

An Evangelical Collapse

2009-03-18T21:04:00.001-05:00

From the Christian Science Monitor. Thoughts?

The coming evangelical collapse

An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise.

By Michael Spencer

from the March 10, 2009 edition

ONEIDA, KY. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

Tapeworms Oooo LaLa

2009-03-13T13:39:00.002-05:00

What are your chances?

http://www.heyquiz.com/quiz/tapeworm

Vote of No Confidence

2009-03-05T09:51:00.001-06:00

President Obama officially receives a vote of no confidence this week by investors around the world. How can a historic spending bill result in a 12 year low in the stock market? Unless investors and money “Zars” know something we average Americans don’t.

Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

By Larry Kudlow

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years... (http://kudlow.com/)

Southern Driving

2009-02-28T10:21:00.002-06:00

Prop 8

2009-02-22T20:19:00.003-06:00

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

Economic Woes

2009-02-20T09:23:00.006-06:00

It is beyond me why people spend more than they have. The shallowness of Western culture when it comes to spending is appalling. These days being a good American seems to be going into debt and being overweight. Our profligacy has reached the point that we now have to reward people who took out loans that knew they could never pay them.

I am not well versed in economic policy and practices, but throwing money we don't have into various industries makes me nervous. Everyone in America is asking for a piece of this money and god knows what they will spend it on. How about we give some to Jerry Jones and name the new Cowboys stadium "Stimulus Package Stadium". I read in one place that Las Vegas wanted part of the package for a Mob Museum. This is insane.

Though David Brooks (NYT) agrees that many of the people who will be receiving money and the ones giving it away are 'idiots, he does say:

And they seem to understand the big thing. The nation’s economy is not just the sum of its individuals. It is an interwoven context that we all share. To stabilize that communal landscape, sometimes you have to shower money upon those who have been foolish or self-indulgent. The greedy idiots may be greedy idiots, but they are our countrymen. And at some level, we’re all in this together. If their lives don’t stabilize, then our lives don’t stabilize.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20brooks.html?ref=opinion)

To me, right now anyway, doing nothing seems just as irresponsible as spending gobs of money.

I end with a question: If money is going to be spent, what industries need the money the most? What are the essential industries that must receive money for our economy to recover?

13-year old Dad.

2009-02-14T14:36:00.002-06:00

The recent reports of a 13-year old boy fathering a child in the UK

has sparked a lot of controversy and debate. In referencing CNN's

article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/14/boy.baby.dad.england/index.html

What do you think? As the article cites, the cases of underage child-births have been

at high rates in the UK for the last 10 years or so. Americans (especially in the bible belt)

would say that it was due to lack of Christian teachings, or something to that effect.

Do you think it's due to some kind of lack of moral fiber, and if so, what caused it?

Wanna go to Iran? Go to Alabama....

2009-02-11T15:41:00.005-06:00

Gallup says Alabama and Iran have much in common.....How unAmerican of you Alabama!!

Check it out:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-Iranians-Common.aspx

David Brooks says...

2009-02-10T14:59:00.004-06:00

David Brooks says,

...But another part of the administration’s economic strategy is being unveiled today by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and at first blush the news is much happier. Geithner’s plan is huge but also disciplined. It’s designed by someone aware of government’s limitations. (New York Times)

read the whole article-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

What do you think?

The GOP's New Clothes?

2009-02-05T10:13:00.010-06:00

I'm not a Republican, but I recognize that the political landscape is divisive and polarized on both sides of the aisle. The GOP nominated Michael Steele as their new chairman and I fear we have more of the same fear mongering and polarization ahead. Already he is courting the religious right and indulging those 'coveted' Evangelicals'. To me this just seems like pandering; image is the least of the Republicans (or Democrats) problems. Refer to the article below and let me know what you think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/03web-nagourney.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Republicans%20New%20Face&st=cse

Pastor Teds Got a New Gig....

2009-01-29T17:31:00.005-06:00

Ted Haggard(evangelical bigwig and star of a scandal two years ago) has a documentary coming on HBO tonight. To me it's odd that he agreed to take the spotlight again like this. I watched him on Oprah yesterday and his compunction seemed very self-congratulatory. I wonder how much money is involved?

Evolution In The Classroom

2009-01-16T09:04:00.015-06:00

I grew up with a fundamentalist understanding of our origins. The Earth was created in 6 days, Adam and Eve were the stars of the show and Genesis was a historical book. Since my junior year of college I have had my doubts about literal creationism and have made my peace with my faith and evolution since. This is one of those issues that divides people; it is on the same playing field as abortion and the death penalty. Our public schools have been in the crossfires of this debate and I have a few thoughts and observations.

When I look at the debates between the Evolution and anti-Evolution camps, they are both trying to prove their side is right. In the schools Evolution would be taught as a theory, just as Intelligent Design should also be taught as. I believe that the schools should provide an education of depth and quality over a small range of core ideas or concepts. Evolution is one of the most influential and controversial ideas of the 20th century. A working knowledge of the idea and its implications are as fundamental as an understanding of Mozart or geometrical theorems.

Present Intelligent Design and Evolution side by side in class and have the students debate it out themselves. What a great way to teach civil disagreement, logical argumentation, and public speaking. I say let evolution in the classroom along with other alternatives and let the students decide as their minds expand and mature.

Random Observations about this debate:

The Christians who so vehemently fight against all things evolution seem to have promoted our origins to a central tenet of the faith. Jesus' work is at the core of what Christians believe, not our origins. I don't see how evolution disrupts Christ's work.

If students were able to pit the science of Intelligent Design and Evolution against each other they would be getting more exposure to the last 100 years of science in a way that I never did.

What are your thoughts?

How Dare He...

2008-12-18T08:16:00.008-06:00

I want to know what do you think about this story, Obama's pick of Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration angering the gay community?

At first look, I thought, who cares? You know, get over it! But after reading the whole article - which I don't always do - I can kinda see why the LGBT (lesbian, bi-sexual, gay, and transgender) community would be upset. In fact, there is a quote from one activist suggesting that Obama would experience a tremendous uproar if he had selected a minister who advocated a route to hell for the Jews (which some select conservative churches teach). This LGBT advocate is of course contrasting the general conservative evangelical views on homosexuality and the ridiculousness of Jews going to hell. I don't know, I think this is a fair point.

Keep in mind that Rick Warren desires a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one women. While Obama opposes this hardline stance, he also rejects gay marriage.

So my question, does it matter? Is the LBGT community angry over nothing or is this is valid complaint?

READ THE STORY : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16693.html

Obama's Department of Education Appointment.

2008-12-16T10:08:00.002-06:00

Obama will announce today that Arne Duncan will be the head of the Department of Education. I think this is a good pick for two reasons.

First, he has led the third largest school district in the nation and he understands the needs of urban schools. Though I don't agree with the standardized testing of most states, he has shown success in raising student test scores. I believe he understands the shortfalls of the system and will be willing to bring in visionaries that can transform our schools over time.

Second, I think he understands the need for quality teachers in our schools. It is far to easy in this country to get a teaching job. Many teachers receive no training in the course of the year, and those who do are victims of the Christmas tree effect. (Trainings all through the year that take teachers away from the classroom and have little to no connection to the content they teach). The second educators stop growing and learning the kids will suffer. Duncan has the chance to bring all the tired educational debates to rest by bringing both sides together in order to achieve something constructive.

Coercion in the Classroom, Coercion in the Culture

2008-12-08T21:46:00.010-06:00

Coercion is convenient. Coercion is easy. In the classroom it can move students to work; not harder, but they will do the bare minimum. Principles threaten, posture, give orders and expect absolute compliance. Yet teachers, will only give their bare minimum with such techniques.

Our culture is steeped in coercive maneuvers. 'Common' sense (by common I mean what is commonly assumed and or believed) says that violence is sometimes needed; necessary. Many in our culture believe that when a shot is not fired, a swing not taken, a bomb not dropped, that we have succeeded in a non-violent strategy. This is not true. Violence includes manipulation, coercion, policies that take advantage of, money making schemes that enrich one group of people over another; these too are violence.

My point is this: if we hope to save our public schools, we must let go of coercive management techniques. And that begins with each individual in our society. If we think that threatening, stimulus-response methods will produce quality work, we are mistaken. Our society and our schools need leaders who collaborate. Studies have shown now for years that knowledge is created, not transferred like funds to a savings account for a car payment. We must look at the people around us, the schools we have, the leaders we elect and demand that they collaborate. Our teachers and leaders must speak, live and lead in a way that create new realities of creative solutions.

Schools look too much like prisons. Work places are driven by a dollar that is fragile. Many will say that this isn't practical. That common sense says.... I would challenge anyone who says this to step inside of a classroom and watch coercion take place. Quality suffers in the students work, thus quality goes down in our society.

These are my philosophical reasons for my posts on education. I will offer more pragmatic and practical solutions for our schools and society in posts to come.

Advent Conspiracy

2008-12-02T18:53:00.005-06:00

I apologize to you all for the barrage of video media here lately. With little time to sit down and write a lengthy post, it seems to be the faster way of getting across a message (and the less ambiguous as well). This is a promo for Advent Conspiracy. Check it out:

adventconspiracy.org

Happy Birthday, Jesus

2008-11-30T01:17:00.001-06:00

I'd like to share this with you all, to commemorate the start of the Christmas season.

Church, State—and Muslims.

2008-11-21T12:44:00.004-06:00

I'd like to spill a few thoughts that I've been having lately over the role of religion (in specific, Christianity) in the public/governmental life of our country. Over the past few years, my faith has undergone major foundational changes, and I suppose that I can gauge just how radical the changes have been by the way I disagree more and more with the voices that I grew up with as a kid in the Evangelical Christian church. Evangelicals, if nothing else, take Martin Luther's ideas of personal interpretation and understanding of scripture about as far as it can go (I would say that for myself, I am not a part of the evangelical belief system anymore. If only for the sake of not taking up your time by listing all of my beliefs, you could think of me largely as what is called a 'Postmodern' or 'Emerging' Christian.)

I noticed this, on CNN this morning (excuse the incredibly annoying anchor):

Now, I know that Cody will saying something to the effect of "they only show you the most radical people!" But in the case supposed scandal of a "muslim president," I'd have to say that the number of people who think this way is more than just a fringe pastor in some cornfield. My parents believe this, even! The pastor in the video spits out a scripture every 2 minutes and when he's challenged, he throws his hands up and says "hey, I'm just saying what the Bible says." The scripture that supposedly supports his claim that having a muslim president "is a sin. Exodus 20:3" states, "No other God, only me." How do you make the jump from 3,000 BC in the middle of the desert on the other side of the world to the present day and present such a phrase as infallible argument against an incoming president? Unbelievable. And even if Obama was Muslim, what exactly is the argument? And why is this a problem in a democracy that prides itself on diversity?

This brings me finally to the point of this post. The efforts of the evangelical christian movement are married to the religious political right, and the amount of people that subscribe to that national view is substantial enough to warrant an observation, I think. It seems pretty clear to me (and most others, I'm sure) that the modern evangelical christian view of an ideal America is not at all what the founding fathers had in mind. Despite what they think, the evidence that the founding fathers wanted a democracy that is independent from the will of the church is apparent. Though they try to assign modern evangelical beliefs to particular founding statesmen, the truth is that Christianity in this form did not exist at the start of our nation and its constitution. The idea that comes into my head when I think of democracy and righteous government is completely different from theirs. But I think that the case can be made that what they want is not at all democracy. You will not find a group more bitterly opposed to Middle Eastern governments (which tend to be theocratic in nature or at the very least hugely influenced by muslim leaders) and the muslim faith. Yet, it seems as though what Evangelicals are arguing for is the very same kind of structure, a theocracy—a government conducted (and a people ruled) according to the principles of a religion.

Thoughts?

Marriage: Part 2

2008-11-14T21:27:00.010-06:00

The debate in this country over who has the 'right' to be married and who doesn't has created an uneasy divide. Conservatives claim that it is a moral issue (which it is) and liberals claim it is a civil rights issue (which it also is). As long as the government has their hands in this issue we will never find a middle ground or a resolution. The government or any religious organization cannot legislate morality onto the populous.

It wasn't until 1967 that the government legitimized interracial marriage with the Supreme Court ruling of Loving vs. Virginia. Refusing the rights of a gay couple to marry is no different. I do not believe that the government defines what marriage is. My marriage is not based on what the state of Texas has told me on my marriage license. A highly centralized unit of power does not have the right to define what marriage is. The fact that they do is coercion and violence.

The Religious Right would argue that the Bible is clear on prohibiting homosexuality. I think that is a discussion that needs to take place on a larger scale. Rather than take a few verses out of their context and declare them absolute truth, we need to engage in robust conversations within our faith communities.

I'm not sure how we are to resolve the anger and hatred on both sides. I do not believe that enough constructive conversations are taking place in order to resolve this. The one thing I'm sure of is that everyone needs to keep there cool and be civil through this whole process. Patience and discernment are key in times like these.

I will end with Andrew Sullivan's take on this issue. He says:

it is a bit like growing up in a big, old house. You're allowed to live there - in fact, you were born there and grew up there - but certain rooms are off-limits. "You can't go in there," the adults say, as soon as you learn to walk. "Or there," they remind you as you get older. And you wonder why. But you're a good kid and don't want to make a ruckus, and it's your home too and your family, and they seem very insistent. After a while, they allow you to go up to the second floor and even third floor. There are rules there: don't touch that vase, don't put your feet on that couch, don't spill anything on that rug. But you can still hang out there if you really want to.

But there's one room at the very top of the house that has always been forbidden, and the more lee-way you are given elsewhere, the more stringently that rule is enforced. In the end, they say, "You can go anywhere and do anything - apart from that room." And you accept this, because they seem so intent on it. And you love them. But you keep wondering: why that room? What is up there? What am I not allowed to experience or to see?

And one day, you get up your courage and you wait till the adults are out and you gingerly make your way to that room you have never been in before.

And you go in, and look around, with some awe and burning curiosity. And you look in the cupboards and the drawers and under the chairs, and finally you find, in one dusty old desk, what they never wanted you to find.

You find the legal papers, the deed, that proves that they own the house. And you don't. However long you live, whatever you do, however you conduct yourself, this house will never be yours. You can live in it - with their permission, and under their authority. It is your home, because where else were you born and where else would you live - but only to rent, never to own. It is your family, but you are always kept one critical step away from being fully part of it. There is one fine line you will never be allowed to cross.

It is your country, but you are never fully a citizen. You can live here, but you can't vote. Your parents can die here, but you will never inherit this house.

We want to be citizens.

We want to be a full and equal part of our own homes and our own families and our own lives.

And some of us, having been in that room for a short while, know what it feels like.

And we will never, ever let it go.

What is the way forward?

Marriage

2008-11-12T22:14:00.003-06:00

Proposition 8 in California has caused quite a ruckus. Here in Texas the gay marriage issue gets voted away pretty quickly because of the highly conservative disposition. I'm not quite sure why conservatives would support the government telling people who can and cannot get married, but it seems pretty ridiculous to me. To me it seems like any loving couple that desires to be wed should have the right to do so.

What are your thoughts?

The Wonders of Government-Funded Healthcare

2008-11-01T03:12:00.007-05:00

Yes, socialized healthcare is wonderful. . .healthcare for everybody!

until the government decides

that you're too much of a burden to society.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/31/australia.residency.denied.ap/index.html

A little wisdom from the Dish

2008-10-31T09:06:00.001-05:00

This is a recent post by Andrew Sullivan over at The Daily Dish, enjoy...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-real-mcca-1.html

TAXES

2008-10-24T15:35:00.016-05:00

The U.S. Tax System explained in Beer:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

   The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.

'I only saved a dollar, too.. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I! ''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.

'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?

The wealthy get all the breaks!

''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!

'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

By David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics University of Georgia

What are your views on U.S. Taxes?

Are you in favor of higher taxes on the wealthily few, tax cuts for all, or the almighty flat tax?

What happened to the flat tax idea anyway?

The Fear of Socialism

2008-10-17T22:10:00.008-05:00

There has been a robust discussion happening among many conservative leaning people. Many are claiming that Obama's health care plan is socialist. Is Obama planning to socialize our health care system? I say no more that it already is. Let me explain...

I think Michael Cannon's definition of socialized medicine is reasonable: Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. (http://www.cato.org/) The point Cannon goes on to make is that it doesn't matter who owns the hospital, its who provides the resources. The label of 'socialized medicine' as a condemnation of his plan is nothing more than an epithet. This label has been used against Harry Truman and even Mitt Romney. To me is sounds like political posturing by right-wingers in order to gain votes by scaring voters with the word socialism.

If anything, America's health care system is already heavily socialized. Here are three examples:

1. Federal and State licensing laws control how many physicians can be hired, what operations they can and cannot perform and how much they get paid. (Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 621, September 17, 2008..0)

2. The government sets the price for most medical products through Medicaid and Medicare. The FDA says who, how, and how much each clinic or hospital can use or market the products.

3. Even though most hospitals are privately owned, through 'certificate of need' laws, the government controls which hospitals are opened and what technology is used.

Using the the label of 'socialism' as an epithet is nonsense. Much of our daily lives are 'socialized' in one way or the other. Our schools and the postal service are run by our government. The software that we use today was payed for by tax dollars through government subsidies to the military in the 80's.

Before we go about condemning all things 'socialized' we need to be sure we have a firm grip on what truly socialized programs are. If our definition becomes too narrow then no one would be purely democratic or capitalist.

I Love Europe

2008-10-11T22:31:00.002-05:00

This has to be the funniest European commercial ever! I'm not sure what debate we can have over it but it sure is funny.

A New Way To Do Banking?

2008-10-03T19:36:00.015-05:00

I recently read about a fascinating new company called LendingClub. It's a web bank that distributes, what I'm calling "micro-loans" to qualifying individuals. These loans can be used for education, vacation, home improvments, small business, and more. What makes this bank unique is how its lending capitol is raised and how bowers are connected to lenders.

Basically, anyone can become a lender assuming they are credible sources. The average joe invests a little money, entering into LendingClub's lending pool. Each investor earns interest on his or her invest based on the risk of the loan (higher risk equates to higher interest and profit). Its very simple and a great way to get more return on a small amount of investment cash.

The process of borrowing is what I love about this business. Borrowers seeking a loan are processed through a system called LendingMatch, which connects people based on varying degrees of separation. I like what LendingClub says, "LendingMatch™ finds relationships between borrowers and lenders based on geography, education, profession, or connectedness within a given social network and then presents lenders with diversified loan portfolios reflecting these relationships as well as the lenders' individual risk preferences. Moreover, LendingMatch™ serves to show borrowers that their loans are being funded by real people who rely on their loan payments to meet their own obligations."

Check it out: http://www.lendingclub.com

You might be wondering why I'm promoting this company. Well, America's current financial crisis has me wondering about the reality of nationalized banking system. I started reading about LendingClub and thought it would be cool to see a banking system, on a national level, that does business like the LendingClub.

I'd like to hear your thoughts. Do you think America needs a nationalized banking system like in Great Britain (or some other country)? Why? What are the benefits and/or pitfalls?

The VP Debate.

2008-10-03T09:53:00.010-05:00

The feared melt-down that many were expecting to see last night from Sarah Palin did not happen. Far from it. I thought Palin did a better job than anyone could have expected; she was civil, smiled through each point, and answered each question without hesitation. The 'folksy-charm' that so many right-wingers love was in full swing (Mayberry should be proud). She appealed to soccer moms and 'joe-six pack', making it clear that she was not of Washington.

I was also impressed with Biden. I was afraid he might eat the microphone in anger or ramble for 90 minuets. Biden flexed his 35 years of experience last night with a menagerie of facts and policy details. His knowledge of foreign affairs and voting records went unmatched. It seemed that Biden was focused on linking McCain to 8 years of a disastrous Bush administration. He continued the campaign strategy by focusing on McCain and not Palin, thus taking the focus away from the Palin sideshow.

Overall, as many commentators and political analysts have said, this debate was not a deal breaker. I don't think anyone who was leaning toward Obama will jump to McCain and vise versa. Palin used all the right language for conservatives, (unabashed love for Israel, traditional definition of marriage, and America is a city on a hill.) Biden used strong language to emphasise Obama's desire to end the War in Iraq and the need for environmentally friendly fuel alternatives.

Although I wasn't swayed to vote for McCain/Palin I thought she showed a much better side of their campaign. For me the folksy, hockey mom, 'Gosh darn it', personality doesn't do it for me. Floating through my head last night was a picture of Palin slapping the hand of Ahmadinejad and saying "Now you watch your mouth young man!, We don't speak that way down in Wasilla, don't cha' know!"

The Debate

2008-09-26T22:23:00.003-05:00

OK, Both Obama and McCain are both great at dancing around questions. Much of what we heard was posturing and political horse sneeze. I do not think McCain dominated the debate and conversely Obama didn't necessarily shine. We have another debate coming and I hope we can hear pragmatic solutions to our ailing country. When asked what the candidates would cut spending on neither answered the question; they both divulged what they would spend more money on. There has never been any question about which candidate I am supporting (Obama) and I hope he will offer more in the coming debates.

What was your take?

More Coverage (Paraphrased)

2008-09-26T21:01:00.004-05:00

What are the lessons of the Iraq War?

McCain: You cannot go into a conflict such as this one with the failed strategy the way that we did. I went to Iraq in 2003 and said we need to change strategy then.

Obama: This is where we have fundamental differences. I think we need to ask ourselves why we went there in the first place. I told you so. Is listing all of the casualities and spending since 2003. We took our eye off the ball. We should not have gone into Iraq when Afghanistan wasn't finished. It's a mess over there.

Rebuttal McCain: The next president doesnt have the decision of whether we'll win or not. the decision will be, for him, when we leave and how we leave. Obama didn't go to Iraq for 900 days, he is the on a NATO committee which is involved with afghanistan and he hasn't been involved.

Rebuttal Obama: my committee had nothing to do with that. McCain is pulling a tactic to contain the damage of the war. He likes to act like the war started in 2007.

Rebuttal McCain: we're making progress in Iraq, Obama doesn't like to admit that.

Rebuttal Obama: McCain opposed troop funding when there was a timetable. I opposed funding when there was no timetable. we both suppport troops. The question is not supporting the troops, the troop is, is it wise to be in Iraq? We should be focusing on Afghanistan. We should end this world responsibly. In 16months, we should be able to reduce our troops.

Rebuttal McCain: under Obama's plan, we would have been totally out of Iraq by last month, before the surge could even work. We should not snatch from the jaws of victory.

What do we do about Afghanistan?

Obama: Send additional troops to afghanistan. get out of iraq. Our major fronts should be Afghanistan and Pakistan. We should deal with the Pakistani's to get them to flush out our enemies.

McCain: I won't repeat a mistake that I made before. Is that after we finished with Afghanistan we washed our hands. On the issue of dealing with Pakistan, I'm not prepared to cut off funds to them and threaten them like Obama seems to want to do. I been to the area, I know how tough the area is. Obama calls for more troops, but doesn't understand that there has to be a new strategy, the same kind that we used in Iraq that he talks so badly about. We have a lot of work to do in Afghanistan, and I know how to work with them.

Rebuttal Obama: No one wants to attack Pakistan. but if we see enemies there and pakistan is unable or unwilling to help, we should take the enemies out. The problem with the strategy that has been pursued is that we've coddled the dictactors over there.

More to come. . . .

Running Commentary on Tonight's Presidential Debate

2008-09-26T20:02:00.002-05:00

Fellow blogger Cody and I are sitting in front of the TV watching the debate currently as it starts. I will be trying to write summaries on their comments live. I will post the questions posed and try to paraphrase the best I can what is being said.

"We must acheive both security and solvency in fact the foundation of military strength is economic strength" Where do you stand on the economic plan?

Obama: We are at defining moment. Recapping what everyone has been hearing for the past two weeks. We have to move swiftly and wisely. Putting forth

1. we must have oversight

2. we have to make sure taxpayers have a possibility of regaining the money

3. we have to make sure none of that money goes towards golden parachutes

4. We have to make sure we are taking care of homeowners

McCain: Poor Kennedy. Thank you mississipi. I feel bad about whats going on and so are many americans. Rep and Dems coming together to work out solution. Problem is broader than wall street, also main street. we have finally seen a bipartisan activity going on with economic package. Agrees with Obama's points, but adds more. want to emphasize, this is the end of the beginning if we succeed withi this package. bailout plan is not the only solution needed, we need to end our dependency on foreign oil.

Talk to each other about bailout plan, are you in favor of this plan?

Obama. We havent seen the language yet. I'm optimistic. The question we have to ask ourselves is how did we get here? Two years ago me and fellow democrats told you so. Wants to talk about how we got here. how did we get to de-regulate?

McCain: I also told you so. Most of us saw this coming. Talking about Eisenhower before. We have to hold the people accountable that started this. In washington greed and excess are rewarded. My administration will hold people responsibility.

Rebuttal Obama: I agree, but how did this happen? There should have been accountability long ago with SS, wages, healthcare, taxes, etc.

Rebuttal McCain: We Do have fundamental problems with the system. There's no doubt we have a long way to go. I have a fundamental belief in the strength of the American worker. We are still the greatest. We have to get through these tough times. America with the right leadership our best days are ahead of us.

What are the fundamental difference between you and Obama, Mr. McCain, on spending?

McCain: There has been way too much spending in Washington. Earmark spending and Pork Barrell spending. Obama has spent over 900 million in ear marks.

Obama: I suspended ear mark spending even in my own state. We have to grow the economy from the bottom-up. Americans are suffering and need relief.

McCain: Obama didn't suspend spending like that until AFTER he began running for President. . .

Obama: I don't know where McCain is getting his figures. I cut corporate loopholes. cutting earmark spending does not provide relief for the middle class. you are overlooking them.

More to come. . .

Why Will Capitalism Survive?

2008-09-26T11:06:00.005-05:00

Why will capitalism survive?

Because socialism will always be used to save it.

Another article; Thank you Ralph Nader.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/nader

What do you think?

Interesting Article

2008-09-25T17:29:00.003-05:00

This article is by George Will over at the Washington Post....Will is not usually very friendly with democrats; he is pulitzer-prize winning conservative journalist.

What do you think?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html

Questions?

2008-09-17T17:39:00.004-05:00

Both Barrack Obama and John McCain have been guilty of playing by the old game of slash and burn politics. Both are now claiming the 'change' mantra and many including myself are tired of hearing the word. Each candidates political ads are full of half-truths and information that has nothing to do with the issues. In an effort to bring the conversation back to the issues the editors of The Nation are posing several questions that they would like each candidate to answer. Below I have listed 4 that I thought were important. What questions do you want answered by the candidates? What answers are you looking for?

Do you agree with Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs, who insist that the Pentagon budget must grow?

Why would you promote NATO expansion as a security building policy considering that had Georgia been a member of NATO when it launched its attack on Southern Ossetia, under the Treaty's Article Five guarantee the US would now be at war with Russia?

The US has the highest childhood poverty rate of any industrialized nation with 20 percent of children under age 6 living in poor families, costing about $500 billion dollars per year to the US economy, or 4 percent of GDP. What is your plan to reduce childhood poverty during your administration?

The United States is hemorrhaging debt from its trade deficits - $700 billion a year - what is your plan to stop the bleeding?

All Options On The Table? (by Cody)

2008-09-12T17:15:00.016-05:00

American culture is valued around the world; our movies are appreciated by the likes of Kim Jong Il. Our T.V. shows and music can be found in the far reaches of our ever shrinking planet. If you were to look at the highest grossing summer hits over the last 10 years you would notice that action movies consistently top the list. The effect of popular violence in our culture is far reaching and the consequences are deep and largely unseen. The myth of redemptive violence is not seen because our culture accepts it with open arms. On the BBC's The World, one of the men being interviewed about 9/11 told the story of his young sons reaction to the tragic events. He said that when his son saw the plane flying into the buildings he asked, "why is a movie on so early in the day?" Something is radically wrong.

Many in our country attempt to justify our extreme violence by claiming that our nations history is one of liberation and liberating. This is not necessarily the case. Our nation's narrative has been one of expansion, acquisition and consumption. We have continuously fueled the machine of violence through more creative ways to kill our enemies. Our rhetoric has escalated to the point of daring our enemies to make a move. We have been rasing a 5 year old know as Iraq and its throwing a full blown temper tantrum. Consumerism runs rampant, every desire we have is fed and if its not, we will sue. Very few Americans know what self-restraint means anymore. We demand cheap oil and we want it now. We will even destroy one location for the benefit of another thinking that this will ameliorate the problem. All of our practice has been in violence; not non-violent resistant action. If the public consciousness was tuned into non-violent strategies, more options would truly be on the table.

Sarah Palin gave her first interview to Charlie Gibson and her stance on foreign policy stunned me. She is quoted as saying of Iraq and Pakistan: "I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America and our allies...” How can all options be on the table when we have zero experience in non-violent action? She went on to say about Ukraine and Georgia's possible entry into NATO: “I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.” By "help", I'm sure she means military violent action. This interview was extremely helpful for me; I will not be voting for the Mcain/Palin ticket.

So what do we need? Our country is full of creative and beautiful thinkers. I suggest we rediscover our past. When the dirt has been shaken from the roots, its time to swing backwards in order to more further forward. I'm not suggesting that everyone become voracious readers; but they should read a little. The likes of Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson, Franklin, Dorthy Day, Mary Oliver, Dr. King and the list could go on. Our country has a long history of creative non-violent solutions that are widely unknown and ignored. A single trip to the library could open the door for many in our society to reimagine what we as a society could be. Our nations literature is rich and varied; we should not ignore it. To some this may sound idealistic and naive. Yet, when the creative class rises-in any nation- the tide begins to change. Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Bruce Cockburn and Wendell Berry have had far reaching influecne in positive ways. The creative class opened the door to conversations that needed to take place. The same could be true for us today. Where are the Dylans, Springsteens, and Mitchells of our day?

My suggestion: open your eyes to the creativity of this country. Find the voices of those calling out in the desert, proclaiming peace and creative solutions. We've heard the myth of redemptive violence-we are experts at practicing it. Lets truly put all options on the table by exploring options so far ignord.

Community, Politics and America's Hope (by Cody)

2008-08-29T23:25:00.026-05:00

By community I mean the commonwealth and common interests, commonly understood, of people living together in a place and wishing to continue to do so. To put it another way, community is a locally understood interdependence of local people, local culture, local economy, and local nature. (Community, of course, is an idea that can extend itself beyond the local, but it does so only metaphorically. The idea of a national or global community is meaningless apart from the realization of local communities)...

- Wendell Berry, Sex, Economy, freedom & Community

I watched and listened to Barrack Obama's acceptance speech last night and was moved. I then listened and read commentary, hatred, and condemnation for everything the man said. To say the least, the negativity and hatred saddened me. The quote above is from a book of essays by Wendell Berry. Berry truly does transcend the liberal/conservative divide.; he opposes big government and big business- (though some call 'transcendence' elitism, I believe that is a naive critique). I believe that there are commonly held values by Americans. The pro-life/pro-choice debate is bogged down in divisive and thwarting rhetoric. Global trade has been reduced to a morality based on monetary gain; what value is their in gaining the whole world yet forfeiting your soul? The environment has been reduced to extreme radicals (Gore/Evangelicals). Most Americans want unwanted/teen pregnancies reduced. Many Americans long for monetary, cultural, and social equity. Many Americans and people of faith (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) long for responsible stewardship of the good earth, even if its not profitable.

Community is the only third party interest that can truly transcend the liberal/conservative divide. America has many problems: lack of self-restraint, indifference to the environment, consumerism, racism and acceptance of the myth of redemptive violence. Local people, cultures, economies, and stewardship of the earth will bring about the change that this nation needs. I am not speaking of some conservative limited government/free market utopia; neither am I speaking of some liberal government program solution. I am talking about local people, citizens of neighborhoods, members of churches and lions clubs taking a stand for their commonly held values and passions.

As I thought about the many view points presented after Obama's speech I thought about my own involvement in my local community. After long hours of meditation, I was saddened. I do not participate as I should in the local economy. I do not promote peace in every aspect of my life. I do not strive to do the best I can (pragmatically) to be a good steward of the good earth, created by our loving creator. In other words, I realized I was a hypocrite. What then are we/I to do?

I believe that as a nation we must realize the importance of local economies, cultures and environments. Our military receives more funding than our endangered species protection agencies. If we are going to continue down this road I would appreciate it if the people who claim we are a 'christian' nation rip out Psalms, Isaiah, and Job. Cherishing and supporting our local economies, cultures, and environments is our only hope of achieving a sustainable, spiritually sound, and responsible solution to our nations ailments. The global/industrial economy deals in abstractions, not humanity and the common good.

Gandhi said, "You must be the change you want to see in the world". I agree. It must begin with me. Obama has been creating many realities with the use of his inspiring language but, without action it is meaningless. Through language Dr. King made possible the reality of equity among peoples of differing cultures. Through creative action he gave the empiricists something tangible to grasp; the idealist something to hope for; the cynics something to ponder. If Obama desires the highest office in the land, he will need to find concrete solutions, rooted in local communities, that will build a bridge between tradition and progress. Speeches are inspiring, action is world shaking.

Come on Obama, give us something to hold on to.

2008-08-16T06:43:00.019-05:00

I love our country. I love Democracy. However, I'm frustrated with the unwillingness of elected leadership to follow the desire of "the people". I like what Glenn Beck says, I'll paraphrase: "We the people are in charge, not the elected officials and like it or not, it seems that once 'the people' have spoken our leaders should act accordingly". I know that's pretty bold but I like it. Its seems right. When I think about elections, I don't vote to give complete power to someone for four years. If that elected official is not doing what he or she said, kick'em out! Give me a pitch fork!

I've often wondered why so few participate in national elections. I do have a theory; maybe it feels pointless to many. After all, why vote for change when change never comes? The Democrats took congress during the last election cycle and were going to clean up Washington & end the war in Iraq. What have they done? Nothing. Even today, 66% of our nation feels that we should not be in Iraq and 62% feel a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq is in order (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). So, why are we still in Iraq? This same type of situation is true for off-shore drilling. 74% of our nation supports drilling off-shore as a partial fix for energy prices (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1519). This may or may not be a good solution but like it or hate it, its the will of the people. So what is Congress doing? Look at Ms. Pelosi's stance on drilling:

On the Stephanopoulos Sunday news show, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi underscored her refusal to allow a drilling vote. Asked about the Republican rebellion in the House, she said, “What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies.” She went on to say, “We are spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic, when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.”

I can't disagree with her argument but 2/3 of Americans want to drill. Make a more persuasive argument or get out of the way.

This begs the question: can elected leaders really go by what "the people" want? I'll agree that decisions can NOT always be made based on the demands of the people. But thats precisely the problem. There is NO REAL system for sounding off and giving our leaders direction. Thus, elected leadership does whatever it wants and the people are told to get in line. Oh, wait. we do have a system. We get the privalige of voting every four years on our leaders, right? Are we still in Iraq? Do we still have an economic problem? Are any elected leaders doing what polls indicate people want? Nope. Congress is deadlocked. Stuck. The system works real well...

If "we the people" were really allowed to input on decision making, would we always get it right, do the right thing, or demand the right course of action? No. But that is not the point. Democracy does not necessarily require the "right" anything. It does however require participation and action by both its citizens and elected officials. Which we don't currently have and may not have for quite sometime. But I see this lack of participation and ownership by US citizens as systematic of a failed government.

What say you?

Does more experience make for a better president?

2008-08-06T10:45:00.009-05:00

The chart to the left (click on it to see a larger version of the chart) shows the amount of experience presidential candidates had at the state and federal level before taking the office of President. The author of the article suggests that the idea of a candidate with the most experience will make the best President is a fallacy. McCain has been around since the beginning of time and Obama appeared out of thin air from Chicago's harsh political arena.

Will McCain's experience give him the upper hand should he take office?

Will Obama's lack of experience give him a 'fresh' perspective on the politics of Washington?

Does more experience make a better President?

What do you think?

The link to the article is below:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12290.html

Bios

2008-08-01T13:56:00.002-05:00

This is Mari. Just a comment: I like how on the bios on the right, I have been affixed the Democratic "D" and everyone else has eventually become Independent. Oh people! Just show an affiliation and get over yourselves!! Dustin, you're a Libertarian, Cody's a Democrat, and Josh is a Republican. We don't have to agree with or endorse every party line, but we do owe readers full disclosure of our political leanings at the very least. Unless you want to be considered above it all as an Independent. But then some noble contributors might object to being called elitist....

What do you think?

2008-07-30T11:06:00.005-05:00

The following excerpt comes from the Fort Worth Star Telegram. The article is about how several struggling schools in the Fort Worth ISD are spending grant money.

Ten struggling schools in the Fort Worth district are spending more than $200,000 on staff retreats, including $64,500 by South Hills High School for a three-day stay at the Gaylord Texan in Grapevine.
The money comes from grants through the federal No Child Left Behind program and must be used by the schools to analyze student test data, comprehensively assess needs, make a campus improvement plan and team-build, according to the Texas Education Agency, which distributes the money. The retreats are allowed, but some wonder if the venues might be excessive.

see the article in its entirety here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/793889.html

Is this an abuse of the funds they received?

Is a 200 dollar a night resort the best place to analyze test data?

Weigh in...

DNC Gets A Gas Tax Holiday

2008-07-23T20:16:00.007-05:00

Apparently the DNC in Denver - the ones hosting the DNC Convention - has avoided paying state and Federal taxes on gas. This is shocking, since the DNC has said a gas tax holiday for the average American would be pointless not offering any real help. Apparently, its quite helpful for the DNC politicians in Denver.

Read about it here:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/22/city-gives-dnc-host-committee-pass-gas-tax/

This kind of stuff drives me crazy! I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC is doing the same thing. How is it that our political system continually leaves the average American screwed over? Again, it drives me crazy! And what a double standard set by the DNC. I just can't believe these politicians would strike down a policy affecting average Americans and then use that same policy to derive benefit from it.

I personally think the gas tax holiday is a joke because I've read it would bankrupt U.S. road maintenance budgets. It would be nice but the relative benefit is quite low. But for the love of everything, don't say its a waste and then us it for yourself. What say you?

NCLB and how America's Children Are Left Behind

2008-07-21T11:24:00.006-05:00

As the gernal election gets under way I have been looking over our nation's educational policy (NCLB); my hope is that our new commander in chief will bring massive reform to our public schools. No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2001 and gained copious amounts of support. Its goal was to raise math and reading scores and close the education gap along racial and socioeconomic lines. NCLB also contains many accountability measures for schools and teachers: testing, employment standards, 4 tiered system for intervention and so on...

I read an article from the Cato Institute (libertarian think-tank) about NCLB and its failure to follow through with what it promised. The article gives a set of numbers from the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) test. PISA is a test given to students (15 yr old) in 30 countries that tests their reading and math skills. So, according to the PISA test:

U.S. students have suffered overall stagnation or decline in math, reading, and science in the years since NCLB was passed....Taken together, the PISA test data suggest NCLB has been a failure. That same picture is painted by a separate test of 4th grade students: the Program on International Reading Literacy Survey. According to PIRLS, U.S. 4th grade reading achievement fell, though only by a negligible 2 points, between 2001 and 2006. (you can read the article and see the actual numbers from the link below)

NCLB treats students and schools like a car manufacturing plant. You cannot put a kid on an assembly line and expect every student to perform the same way by 2012. It may surprise some to hear me say this but I am wondering if our nations schools should be given to the states and local communities. The Feds hardly fund the programs they create so why on earth would I want them to legislate my curriculum standards and school performance? If NCLB was held to its own accountability standards it would fail-or as NCLB likes to call it, 'under performing'.

I end with these questions:

Should NCLB be "Mended or Ended"?

Is lessening the role of the Federal Government in education a solution or another way of prolonging the problem?

Is school choice a viable option?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8850

Just For Fun Too...

2008-07-20T16:12:00.002-05:00

Just For Fun

2008-07-20T12:47:00.001-05:00

Any Questions?

Let the drilling begin...so we can save a few bucks in about 20 years (by Mari)

2008-07-14T14:07:00.006-05:00

Alright, Bush has now lifted the presidential ban (signed in by his father in 1990) on offshore drilling, and is now calling for Congress to lift theirs. Evidently it's a two-step process in this case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25674571/

What interests me here is that Bush makes this move now, in the middle of a campaign that he can really only damage, despite analysis from economists and pundits (not to mention admission from the Republican candidate) that increasing local drilling will not significantly affect the economy in general or gas prices in particular. If legislation designed to decrease dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise, has been sitting "tabled" in Congress for the last 25 years, going again and again without approval, what does Bush stand to gain by making this wild stab now? Especially considering that it will be a tough sell on a Democratic Congress? According to the MSN article referenced above, even several Republican senators in states with large coastal tourist incomes are less than enthused about the proposition. As for the efficacy of offshore drilling as a solution, this article provides some information:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25287795/

Ironically, this author concludes that the real, immediate solution to rising oil prices is to use less oil. Is this a case of those pesky tree-huggers doing their best to ruin the fun for Big Oil again? Or are there legitimate ecological, not to mention economic, reasons to leave the coasts of America alone? Either in the long or short run, is offshore drilling really the salient resolution? I overheard someone at work claiming that oil companies have found a way to drill that has "no impact" on the environment, that is "completely safe." I don't like to get into it with my Limbaugh-listening coworkers, but I had to pipe up in this case and say that there is no action that we can take, large or small, local or global, that has "no impact" on the environment. It's a matter of measuring and weighing risk vs reward.

Ultimately, we are confronted with the question: how dire is the situation we find ourselves in? Though our fuel prices are still below those in Europe, Australia, Asia, and most of the rest of the industrialized world, have we really hit our breaking point? Are we so crippled by the consequences of our oil addiction that we have to smash the iconic piggy bank of "Sea to Shining Sea"? Have we now come to the juncture at which the risk is worth the reward?

A Tribute to Josh & Other iPhone Users

2008-07-12T09:14:00.001-05:00

Religious Crusading, with the new twist of Racial Exploitation! (guest author Mari)

2008-07-08T09:33:00.006-05:00

As reported by MSNBC this morning, "the Christian Defense Coalition has launched a campaign against Obama on abortion. It labels Obama 'the abortion President' and uses an image that is sure to offend -- it's a depiction of a black 'Uncle Sam,' saying, 'I want you to pay for abortions.'"

Don't believe it?

Now, I am not a supporter of the destruction of innocent life. In fact, for the first time, I've begun to have a glimpse into the many conflicting emotions, hopes, and fears that women experience through pregnancy. To be very honest, I struggled quite a bit during the first few weeks I knew I was pregnant, because I had firmly decided to move on with my life and career, and was actually facing the alienation and despair of giving up those dreams for the small clump of cells I was now incubating. It's a daunting feeling, and I never thought I'd be able to identify with women who do not want their pregnancies. But for a time I did. And as much as I have come to value the inestimable life inside me, I cannot any longer be a part of an argument that takes that conversation away from women.

I also feel that it is not the place of the government to limit the safe and careful treatment of women who choose this route (that's right Dustin, call me a Libertarian). The funding for state-run clinics is a separate issue. Abortion is and must remain the choice of the individual, as much as I regret the tragic consequences.

However--this issue is quite inflammatory enough without dragging in the politics of race. Yes, Obama is black, and there's no way to create an image of him as Uncle Sam without making Uncle Sam black. But did the CDC really need to go there? The unfortunate impression that this awareness campaign will create among its target audience is an underhanded commingling of distasteful images, meant only to stoke up hatred against a candidate that that audience is predisposed to dislike (for his politics). It's really the height of propaganda, appealing to fears and prejudices, values and allegiances that are deeply ingrained in people in order to force catharsis. Or piss people off, as in my case. Which really amounts to the same thing.

Thoughts? Reactions?

Conservatives Not as Stupid as We Are Led to Believe (By Josh)

2008-07-04T17:19:00.003-05:00

This post is purely (read, mostly) for fun. I have grown up conservative, and while nearly all of the conservative voices I heard growing up have now proven to be. . . well, not worthy of my attention, there is one that I receive constant persecution for. (i.e. dude, you listen to Rush Limbaugh, shut up.)

Recently there was a 9-page article on Limbaugh, and, here, for all of you Limbaugh-and-limbaugh-listener-haters, is this citation, via the New York Times. Enjoy.

'Limbaugh’s audience is often underestimated by critics who don’t listen to the show (only 3 percent of his audience identify themselves as “liberal,” according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press). Recently, Pew reported that, on a series of “news knowledge questions,” Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” — the defiantly self-mocking term for his faithful, supposedly brainwashed, audience — scored higher than NPR listeners. The study found that “readers of newsmagazines, political magazines and business magazines, listeners of Rush Limbaugh and NPR and viewers of the Daily Show and C-SPAN are also much more likely than the average person to have a college degree.”'

FedEx vs. Government Bureaucracy (By Dustin)

2008-06-29T10:44:00.005-05:00

Thanks for this video Steve! I think Newt makes a few funny yet poignant points about government's ability to manage its systems. Lets examine a few: Welfare...check; tax code (one of the most complicated in the world)...check; Katrina...check; CIA intelligence...check. Next up healthcare.

Let Freedom Reign! (by Dustin)

2008-06-26T20:48:00.008-05:00

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. For many this is a win; I'm not so sure. I think it is a win from the stand point of upholding the constitution and allowing individuals the opportunity to protect themselves in their homes. Its scares me because of the potential abuses and violence that could arise (all though I did read something about gun violence going up after D.C. started the ban). To be honest, I have not had time to research this ruling because of work but thought it would be fun to discuss.

What are your thoughts? Is this ruling good or bad for America?

For your enjoyment:

Why I'd Vote for Obama (by Cody)

2008-06-26T09:19:00.010-05:00

In one of the comments Jeff asked why I would vote for Obama; and so I will attempt to explain briefly . But first, I need to clarify something; I'm not an Obama fanatic. I don't put stickers on my car, wear a button on my shirt, go to rallies and scream like Justin Timberlake just took off his shirt. I would vote for him, not swoon for him. At this point in the general I'm still all ears. I want to hear what McCain has to say as much as Obama. I still have the lingering question for Obama- Will there be any substance? or merely great speeches?

I will point out three reasons why I like Obama:

1. The first reason is an ideological one. I believe Obama understands our pluralistic society and religions role in it. Or at least he understands it 'differently' than other politicians. For years the religious right hijacked the political sphere for evangelicals, I grew up thinking that to be Christian is to vote Republican. To me, Obama gets the fact that peoples faith is important but it has been used a tool of division in the past; and I would hope that he would be all ears to other faiths in our nation and not just create a religious left. In 2006 Obama gave a speech at the Call to Renewal conference. He said;

...Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends. In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

I agree with what he said about religion telling us what our obligations towards one another are. Our individualism has cause many horrors in our nation in regards to poverty and education. I think that good religion can show us that we are stronger together rather than apart. I think Obama get this.

Now, I'm not going to get into what Dobson said yesterday about this speech- another time. My only point with this first reason is to say that I think that Obama would see the value and the good taking place in the religious activity of our nation (Jew, Muslim, Christian...)

2. My second reason is because I believe Obama has the 'possibility' to bring some creativity to the White House. Again, I am still waiting to see what that creativity is going to look like and if his wonderful speeches are just that-wonderful speeches. There is an new kind of energy about Obama that hasnt been seen since Kennedy. The fact that he is running has already changed the conversation. The area that I'm hoping for the most creativity in is education. The goal of NCLB was a good one but no one paid for it. Schools were given expectations and then no money or resources came. I think that Obama could bring fresh ideas to the education of this country, rather than just coming up with new expectations and then throwing a standarized test at the schools.

3. Finally, I would vote for Obama because of a fundamental difference between him and McCain. The difference comes down to letting the Market solve the problem vs. a Government policy/program. Now dont get me wrong, the Market is good to solve many things (the housing crisis possibly?) but I'm not comfortable putting poverty and our energy crisis in the hands of the Market alone. Example: When the U.S. was attempting to be the first to the moon Kennedy didnt make an announcement and say; "300 million dollars to the first American on the moon". No, he put the full force of the government behind it and made it a reality. Now, I'm trying to get into the whole what use it NASA anyway debate. I think that when good government (I can see the cynics cringing) gets behind an issue, say poverty, I think that some good things can happen. My hope it that Obama can put some energy and traction behind allieviating poverty, education, the environment and so on.

I know that my more conservative friends will have much to say about all of this. This might actually be a good way to see who the best candidate would be; anyone up for writing someting on McCain?

Alternative Fuel and The Election

2008-06-24T07:45:00.006-05:00

The New York Times has an article on Obama's ties to the Ethanol industry and for me its a disappointment. I like Obama and have supported him since the primaries but I cringe at his ties and stance to ethanol; to me its not a creative progressive stance on renewable energy.

According to the article it turns out that Obama's chief environmental/energy advisor is Jason Grumet. Grumet used to work for the agribusiness conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland. This business is like the Wal-Mart of farming business; they do not help local farming, they diminish it. If Obama is offering change in Washington, I'm missing where that change is going to take place. To me this is the same old buddy buddy between big business and the smiling politician. If this is who he chooses as a energy policy advisor I am terrified to think who he might choose for his foreign policy advisor; Eric Prince maybe? (President of Blackwater security)

Many economists and environmental groups have shown that ethanol is not as energy efficient as we have been led to believe. It produces less than two units of energy for every unit it takes to produce it (corn ethanol). Not only is it minimaly efficient it has driven the price of corn up, thus again diminishing local farming. Jason Furman, Obama's economic advisor said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said. What merits? How is the 'common American' that he is supposedly representing benefiting from his affair with Agribusiness?

Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and it has been highly proficient. The Times says, Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source. We import some of Brazil's sugar based ethanol but there is a tariff on it. This tariff makes it expensive for the average consumer and thus impractical for wide spread use. Economist C. Ford Runge offers this solution;

“If you want to take some of the pressure off this market, the obvious thing to do is lower that tariff and let some Brazilian ethanol come in,” said C. Ford Runge, an economist specializing in commodities and trade policy at the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota. “But one of the fundamental reasons biofuels policy is so out of whack with markets and reality is that interest group politics have been so dominant in the construction of the subsidies that support it.”

So, there you have it, the general election has begun and we are in the same place we always are. I will say, McCain's Let's Make a Deal offer to the first one to find a good battery is more creative but COME ON! What's next, free subway for life for anyone who has a great solution for Iraq?

DRILL BABY, DRILL! (By Dustin)

2008-06-18T08:31:00.006-05:00

I heard this interview on NPR this morning and found it very interesting. I've been arguing for more oil production as a solution to high gas prices and assumed refineries were also needed. Mr. Deffeyes makes a compelling argument for more oil production but NOT for building more refineries. It's very interesting.

Would the construction of new refineries help to lower fuel prices?

"It won't do a thing," says geologist Ken Deffeyes, author ofBeyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak. The problem, he says, is not a lack of refining capabilities but a shortage of crude oil to be refined.

"Building more refineries won't make crude oil appear at the entry side of the refinery," says Deffeyes.

Additionally, he notes that while the U.S. has not built a new refinery in decades, oil companies have added increased capabilities to existing refineries. "We haven't seen oil piling up on the dock waiting to go to the refineries," he notes.

The focus, he says, should be on the lack of crude oil, and he says that problem won't go away. "If world oil production is not increasing — and in fact seems to be in the process of decreasing — you need fewer refineries, not more refineries," he says.

Read or listen to the full article here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91625440

Individual Freedom vs Propaganda (By Dustin)

2008-06-06T11:00:00.010-05:00

As I plunge headlong at the disgrace of my wife and friend Cody, into my diatribe about U.S. seat belt enforcement and my disappointment in citizen response to this Gestapo-esque government agenda, I feel the need to explain my political perspective on this issue. I am a self-described political moderate / independent, with a bent for conservatism and libertarianism. Both bents are philosophically opposed to totalitarianism, which translates in American politics as large or "big" government. My short definition of conservatism and libertarianism is an extreme over simplification but frames the forthcoming points.

I can be very divisive when it comes to seatbelt enforcement. I truly don't understand why this is an area the government needs to regulate. To me, seatbelt enforcement is a waste of tax payer money (or maybe it's a great local government money maker with revenues derived from tickets), a distraction for the police, and an over reach of government power. I know, I know, it's about "protecting" the citizens. After all, Americans are too stupid to think for themselves. If the government really wants to save lives why not focus on fast food? Last time I checked, cardiovascular disease was the top killer of U.S. citizens. Yet, I have never seen an ad posed at regulating the consumption of fast food on a national level. And I certainly have not seen a government-funded campaign like that of seatbelt enforcement. Has anyone received a ticket for eating fast food!

I have recently seen two ads on TV regarding this issue of seat belts. One is a general PA and the other is for enforcement awareness. The general PA is not government-funded but the enforcement ad is. Take a look:

American "Gestapo" Ad:

Seatbelt Promotional:

Bravo to the director of the seat belt promo ad; he or she should get an award. And by the way, you'll get no argument from me that wearing a seat belt is smart and can save one's life. In fact, I'll require my child to were a seat belt and will model this behavior myself. But I'm not arguing seat belt safety or effectiveness. I'm frustrated because "Big Brother" is wasting money forcing adult tax payers to wear them; regardless of their personal choice. I totally support mandated protect for children as baby's don't know any better. But adults should have the right - in my view - to choose seat belt or no seat belt without government reprisal.

Again, why is the government regulating this and where does it end? I love the liberals who fight for laws like seat belt enforcement. They fight for the rights of one group, while critizing and removing the rights of another; all in the name of "protection".

Questions:

1 - What is the purpose / value from a government perspective to enforce seat belt use?

2- Why seat belts and not other "statistically" deadlier issues?

3 - How is this NOT a "gateway" policy that could very easily lead to more individual-freedom-restricting laws?

And the Drama Continues. . .

2008-06-03T22:44:00.003-05:00

If you have been keeping up with the current political news coverage and were witness to tonight's developments, I'd like to open the floor for a few questions that have been knocking around in my head, and I'm sure yours as well. I happened to be at the gym while all of this was going down and so had to constantly fight with the other "gym dudes" to change the channel to CNN (because, evidently, a bunch of guys with dead cowhides on their hands throwing dead cowhide balls around a fan-shaped field is extremely important to some people). I won in the end because I am taller. I can reach the TV controls.

Anyway, I probably caught 80% of both Hillary's non-concession and Obama's, well, shall we say, non-substantive speech. Example:

"John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe

if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this

economy—cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota—he'd understand the kind

of change that people are looking for."

What?

I wish my professors allowed me to answer a question by talking in a completely different context. . . Anyway, if you can't tell, by now I'm not a fan of Obama. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I throw my support behind Hillary or McCain, for that matter. I won't have to make such a decision fully for at least another month. Until then, speculation is where the fun is. And, these, after I have drug all of you through the mud of my own opinion, are my questions:

1. Is an Obama-Hillary ticket, at this point, still a dream ticket?

For Obama, making such a move would illustrate a priority for party unity/victory over real change. And he would have to make Bill a part of his campaign, or at least tie him to the bumper of the car for the ride to the White House. Even then, would you, if you were Obama, want Bill lurking around the halls talking to reporters while you were in the oval office conducting change?

2. Will Obama's recent withdrawel from his church

enrage african-american voters?

From talking with friends, one of which is a school teacher in a predominately african-american school, my impression is that a good slice of the black community stands in solidarity with at least some (perhaps not all) of Rev. Wright's beliefs. And while Obama defended and then denounced (but stuck with) his church and his pastor, he would rally that core group of voters. But now, all of that has changed. Where does that leave this group of people?

3. McCain was standing in front of a backdrop that said,

"A leader we can believe in". . .is Obama on his staff??

It seems that McCain has adopted some of the rhetoric of change and belief that the Obama campaign has used to great effectiveness. My initial thought was, 'Wow. Way to be original, John.' But as I thought about it, I'm thinking it could be a stroke of genius. Your thoughts?

My apologies for not working in some angle about this effecting the enviroment, etc. For the moment, I'm rather caught up in the drama and clever strategy that is the American election process.

Being Progressive Isn't a Geological Location.

2008-05-29T08:01:00.005-05:00

An article in The New York Times today talks about Portland Oregon's growing racial divides. The article begins;

...one person’s frontier, it turns out, is often another’s front porch. It has been true across the country: gentrification, which increases housing prices and tension, sometimes has racial overtones and can seem like a dirty word. Now Portland is encouraging black and white residents to talk about it, but even here in Sincere City, the conversation has been difficult.

The city has been updating and improving the infrastructure of several urban areas in Portland. A city that is well known for a progressive disposition is finding it difficult to dialogue about race and gentrification. The article says that much of Portland's progressives are white-upper middle class; African Americans make up only 7 percent of Portland's population. To me, it sounds like West Texas, just a 'left' version of it. (Air America instead of Rush).

The article ends with an account of Neighborhood meetings (mostly whites in attendance) where residents attempted to talk about the issues. It said that neighborhoods decline for any number of reasons, but it does expose how awkward it is for a 'progressive' city to deal with racial tension, even today. Several attendees interviewed show how misunderstanding and lack of communication has bred some of these problems.

When I read this it made me think of the perception certain cities and states have. Texas is perceived as a traditional/conservative/Republican state (no denying that that is the prevalent disposition). Many people see the state as racist (thank you Farmers Branch). Oregon on the other hand has the perception of a progressive/green state. I believe this shows that being progressive has very little to do with where you live. Oregon isn't immune from Farmers Branch style conflicts; its not just a Texas issue. Follow the link below for the article: Thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/29portland.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212066652-BYwiR9c7eF5Yts2YXzttvg

Global Farming Woes and World Hunger

2008-05-27T09:26:00.007-05:00

This was from an article in the Wall Street Journal about the cost of fertilizer rising at a faster rate than that of gasoline:

Urea, a nitrogen-carrying fertilizer, is selling for around $600 a ton, twice the price a year ago, mostly because of a steep run-up in natural-gas prices.
The price of phosphate has climbed to about $1,000 a ton, up from $365 last year, according to Green Markets, a trade publication, while the price of a ton of potash is now more than $700, up from $230.

The price of gasoline has far reaching affects in the global south. High quality fertilizers, high yield seed, and drought resistant seed are not readily available in areas where extreme hunger runs rampant. When modern agricultural technology is not available to poorer countries then the problem of hunger is compounded. Gasoline is not the only culprit to the shortage of good seed and sustainable fertilizer, these shortages existed even before gas prices shot up. The gas price merel adds more problems to an already nightmarish situation. A current example is Myanmar; this time of year is called the 'hungry season'; farms have been pushed to capacity and the government is obviousloy not going to make things any easier.

I believe that providing farm technologies, (seed, fertilizers, soil education) to poorer countries would provide assistance that could really curb the hunger problem. Communities in South America and Asia that have sustainable farms have healthy communities. Now, I understand that healthy farms are not the only solution for many of these places. Corrupt governments play a huge role in corrupt and dieing communities. Giving farm aide to the poorest countries is merely one step in the right direction for hunger relief.

Unfortunatly, the first thing that would need to happen in order for the U.S. to help foreign farmers would be to quell the lobbiest, i.e. American Farm Lobby. When the topic of helping African farmers comes up, the lobbiest step in and the White House reacts and nothing ever gets done. The reason the American Farm lobby fights against helping Africa or other countries is becasue U.S. farmers depend on selling their produce to foreign countries like Africa. Getting Americans to spend more money on their food by buying locally is a daunting task; changing behavior doesnt happen over night (and neither will world hunder). This many seem idealistic or 'head in the clouds' but I believe it is at the root of the problem. The woes of global farming are not known by many people in this country. I've spent the last couple of months reading up on modern farming problems, the issue is complex and intimidating. I believe that more Americans need to be educated on this issue and public awarness could ispire a more constructive conversation about world hunger.

Greatest Threat to American Middle Class

2008-05-23T09:06:00.008-05:00

Watching MSNBC this morning, I discovered that American Airlines is raising fees and cutting flights. This move by AA is symptomatic of high oil prices and very revealing of class differences as suddenly, only the wealthy can afford air travel. Its unbelievable. My wife and I bring home good dual incomes but are thinking twice about paying for a flight to New York next month. Several years ago this flight to see mom and dad cost $250, now we can expect to pay over $500!

Raising travel costs are only one example of pressure being placed on the middle class. But what about the poor? If the middle class can't travel, what can't the poor do; eat? We already know that feeding the poor has become more difficult because of food costs. Rice alone - the most common source of nourishment - has tripled in price (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23832071/)! What has influenced this price increase? Namely, oil prices.

I'd like to start a debate (discussion) about the importance of cheap oil in relation to global poverty and world hunger. I think one key factor in solving these major issues requires cheap oil, which in part means drilling new oil sites. Drilling new oil sites will require "green" organizations to move out of the way. Think about it, could the fight to save our planet actually be stifling humanitarian capacity to end global hunger? Shouldn't these two good agendas work together?

Before all the idealists jump on the glaring problems with my argument, lets discuss pragmatic solutions. I already know that if America had solar powered cars that oil prices would be less. But we don't on a mass scale and won't for a long time. I also know that America produces enough grain and other food products to end world hunger but the cost of shipping keeps it from making around the world. Companies and the will of people do not allow for food exports to take place because of oil prices.

Discuss.

The Courts Get It Right!

2008-05-22T16:06:00.003-05:00

Wow! An American court sides with individual and family rights over the State...unreal! Though I detest polygamy and child abuse, I am glad to see kids that who were unjustly separated from their families returned home. A short term removal from the ranch made sense to ensure their safety but complete removal for no reason; come on.

I love this quote from the article: "The appeals court said the state was wrong to consider the entire ranch as an individual household and that the state could not take all the children from a community on the notion that some parents in the community might be abusers."

Read the full article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24777095/

Christian Nonsense & Starbucks

2008-05-20T19:50:00.004-05:00

Global warming, AIDS, teen pregnancy, world hunger and Starbucks! Unreal. Read the story: http://www.startribune.com/nation/18969709.html?location_refer=Golf

California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

2008-05-15T14:57:00.004-05:00

I know this doesn't have anything to do with the economy but I though it was interesting.This was in today's New York Times. What is your take on this? How do you think this will play out in the general election?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Global Warming

2008-05-11T18:02:00.001-05:00

Good clean fun or propaganda?

The Radical Center: The Economy (by Cody)

2008-05-07T13:41:00.005-05:00

Here is the position of The Centrist Party of America on the economy. The centrist party (racial center) dates back to FDR and the New Deal; it has recently had a resurgence with scholars such as: Michael Lind, Ted Halstead and others. I am merely posting the position here and will unpack it over the next couple of days. Is this a pragmatic postition? What does a balance between boutique economic systems and national/international systmes?

Secure - Stable - Sustainable - Reasoned Economics: Free markets with market regulation limited to the common good of the people that enables equality of opportunity, based on performance and productivity. Checks and balances to ensure that competition and innovation are not squeezed out of the American Dream. Protect and allow for potential to be achieved by the virtue of individual will, rather than subsidy without performance agreements or due consideration to cost/benefit relationships. Balance between boutique economic systems and national/international systems.

Free Market vs. What? (By Dustin)

2008-05-04T11:20:00.002-05:00

It seems like solving the "common good" or "morally right" issues facing humanity is fundamentally affected by economics. This is not deeply insightful as most individuals spend a great portion of their life dealing with money; making it, spending (rather for survival or entertainment), even losing it (Josh in Las Vegas). However, economic systems are inhibiting even suppressive; they affect one ability to do good.

So, my questions: (1) is a "free market economy" more or less conducive to addressing issues like education, global warming/environment, and poverty or is a socialist economy with high levels of government involvement & control? Why? (2) is there another economic system that would work? What is it?

To have a level playing field, lets define "free market economy". The following is Wiki's definition; I know its not scholarly but it works:

A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party. [1] In the aggregate, the effect of these decisions en masse is described by the law ofsupply and demand. Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, distorting market signals. [2] In the marketplace the price of a good or service helps to quantify its value to consumers and thus balance it against other goods and services. In a free market, this relationship between price and value is more clear than in a controlled market[citation needed]. Through competition between vendors for the provision of products and services, prices tend to decrease, and quality tends to increase.

A free market is not to be confused with a perfect market where individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition. Free market economics is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which expands this environment by confining government intervention to market failures. Hence, with government force limited to a defensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace beyond levying taxes in order to fund the maintenance of the free marketplace. Some free market advocates oppose taxation as well, claiming that the market is better at providing all valuable services of which defense and law are no exception, and that such services can be provided without direct taxation. Anarcho-capitalists, for example, would substitute arbitration agencies and private defense agencies. While some economists regard the free market as a useful if simplistic model in developing economic policies to attain social goals, others regard the free market as a normative rather than descriptive concept, and claim that policies which deviate from the ideal free market solution are 'wrong' even if they are believed to have some immediate social benefit.

In other words, a free market economy is "an economic system in which individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions."[3] In social philosophy, a free market economy is a system for allocating goods within a society: purchasing power mediated by supply and demand within the market determines who gets what and what is produced, rather than the state. Early proponents of a free-market economy in 18th century Europe contrasted it with the medieval, early modern, and mercantilist economies which preceded it.