It is sometimes argued that Jesus taught socialist principles and, therefore, the Christian thing to do is for the government to provide welfare. I reject this argument.
In fact, Jesus never taught about the role of government in welfare. Instead, he taught that we, individuals and the Church, must take care of the poor and our neighbors in need. St. Francis of Assisi reinforced these teachings when they had been lost from the Medieval church.
Passing the responsibility of welfare on to the government is to reject Jesus' admonition that taking care of the poor is an individual responsibility. The Good Samaritan did not go to town to report that an injured man was on the road, and law enforcement should go help him. Mother Theresa did not send off a check to a charity, she WAS the charity. That is what Jesus taught us to do by example and precept.
Whenever you read or hear this argument, please don't let it slide. It is fundamental to the present and future of our American government and to us as a people.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Oblivion: An Example
In a recent letter to the editor, a young man complained about being given a ticket for going 2 mph under the speed limit. That was the focus of his letter, decrying his obviously safe driving and the injustice of the officer in citing him.
In the process of trying to justify himself, however, he filled in the rest of the picture, painting himself clearly as an Oblivion:
He was on a 2-lane interstate next to a semi-truck, with a line of cars stuck behind him.
Oblivious!
In the process of trying to justify himself, however, he filled in the rest of the picture, painting himself clearly as an Oblivion:
He was on a 2-lane interstate next to a semi-truck, with a line of cars stuck behind him.
Oblivious!
Thursday, April 25, 2013
First-Hand Experience: There's No Substitute
I had heard, seen, and read a lot about Italian drivers, and thought I had a pretty good conceptual understanding of how they're different from the American drivers I'm familiar with. After all, I'd seen dozens of movies and TV shows, including some with both a car-related focus and some made for prospective visitors, so I felt comfortably well-informed. And driving is something I do all the time and am a extremely comfortable with, so hey, no surprises could possibly await me.
I was wrong.
Spending two weeks all across Italy from Sicily to the Alps has finally educated me on Italian drivers. Like in America, their habits and circumstances vary from place to place. But from the mad almost-a-demolition-derby scramble in Sicily and Naples, where every car seems to have dents and broken mirrors, to the please-stay-away-from-my-Mercedes-while-I-hurtle-down-the-mountain thrill ride in the Alps, it dawned on me that it all makes sense in a very Italian sort of way. While there are rules, markers, signs, and cops, the Italians seem to approach traffic like they approach food and family relations, with GUSTO. They don't piddle around with polite waiting at traffic round-abouts, they barge in and get through! If you want to go slow, you go slow. If you want to go fast, you go fast. And it all sort of works out.
To truly understand something, there's no substitute for hands-on, first-hand, in-person experience. Ask anyone who has ever climbed a high mountain peak, or snorkeled in a reef, or watched lava explode on contact with the sea. By reading or watching a screen you can get the general idea and learn a lot, but I've learned it's a mistake to mischaracterize that as actual knowledge or understanding.
It's the same with people, families, and culture. If you'd like to understand a people or a country, for goodness' sakes GO THERE. And don't make the mistake of preaching about them until you have.
How many of the world's current ills could we solve by sending people to places for first-hand experience?
I was wrong.
Spending two weeks all across Italy from Sicily to the Alps has finally educated me on Italian drivers. Like in America, their habits and circumstances vary from place to place. But from the mad almost-a-demolition-derby scramble in Sicily and Naples, where every car seems to have dents and broken mirrors, to the please-stay-away-from-my-Mercedes-while-I-hurtle-down-the-mountain thrill ride in the Alps, it dawned on me that it all makes sense in a very Italian sort of way. While there are rules, markers, signs, and cops, the Italians seem to approach traffic like they approach food and family relations, with GUSTO. They don't piddle around with polite waiting at traffic round-abouts, they barge in and get through! If you want to go slow, you go slow. If you want to go fast, you go fast. And it all sort of works out.
To truly understand something, there's no substitute for hands-on, first-hand, in-person experience. Ask anyone who has ever climbed a high mountain peak, or snorkeled in a reef, or watched lava explode on contact with the sea. By reading or watching a screen you can get the general idea and learn a lot, but I've learned it's a mistake to mischaracterize that as actual knowledge or understanding.
It's the same with people, families, and culture. If you'd like to understand a people or a country, for goodness' sakes GO THERE. And don't make the mistake of preaching about them until you have.
How many of the world's current ills could we solve by sending people to places for first-hand experience?
Monday, April 1, 2013
Financial Crises
The logical conclusion reached from the financial crises in several European countries is that their governments spent too much. Yet Washington has been spending recklessly for the past dozen years with no sign of slowing down. It's like the lemming at the back of the pack, who sees his fellows plunging off the cliff--he could choose either to stop before he reaches the edge, or he could plunge to his demise with the others. Guess which Washington has chosen.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Marriage
Not to wander too far off this blog's intended path, but a couple of thoughts keep rattling 'round my head as I listen to discussions of marriage in the news. I'd like to keep this to one narrow point.
From a social, legal, and governmental viewpoint, one of the significant purposes of marriage has always been to provide legal protection for women and their children, and, to a lesser degree, protection for husbands & fathers. Where is that in the current discussion of same-sex marriage? Government has a vested interest in promoting and protecting families (parents and children) because they are the fundamental unit of society from which social order comes (and a lot else), and that is in part accomplished by the legal contract of marriage and the benefits bequeathed therewith. From a KSL.com editorial:
"Redefining marriage would also diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. It would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter once it had redefined marriage to make fathers optional. On the subject of fathers, by the way, social science is not ambiguous. Children raised in households headed by a single mother (the most common single-parent situation) face many disadvantages, often through no fault of the mother. It would be wrong to assume this is merely because the child needs just two people, of any gender, in a parental role. Fathers and mothers, men and women, provide unique role models and nurturing capabilities from which children develop into healthy, balanced adults"
When both partners are the same gender and their marriage, by design, cannot produce children, exactly what would be the purposes of such "marriage" from a social, legal, and governmental point of view? Government and society do not have a vested interest in promoting and protecting same-sex unions anywhere near as important as promoting and protecting families -- the results of the two to society are radically different. I understand the desire for same-sex couples to get the economic, legal, and tax benefits that married couples get, which seem to be the heart of the matter, and I think it would be wise for those issues to be addressed specifically without redefining "marriage."
From a social, legal, and governmental viewpoint, one of the significant purposes of marriage has always been to provide legal protection for women and their children, and, to a lesser degree, protection for husbands & fathers. Where is that in the current discussion of same-sex marriage? Government has a vested interest in promoting and protecting families (parents and children) because they are the fundamental unit of society from which social order comes (and a lot else), and that is in part accomplished by the legal contract of marriage and the benefits bequeathed therewith. From a KSL.com editorial:
"Redefining marriage would also diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. It would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter once it had redefined marriage to make fathers optional. On the subject of fathers, by the way, social science is not ambiguous. Children raised in households headed by a single mother (the most common single-parent situation) face many disadvantages, often through no fault of the mother. It would be wrong to assume this is merely because the child needs just two people, of any gender, in a parental role. Fathers and mothers, men and women, provide unique role models and nurturing capabilities from which children develop into healthy, balanced adults"
When both partners are the same gender and their marriage, by design, cannot produce children, exactly what would be the purposes of such "marriage" from a social, legal, and governmental point of view? Government and society do not have a vested interest in promoting and protecting same-sex unions anywhere near as important as promoting and protecting families -- the results of the two to society are radically different. I understand the desire for same-sex couples to get the economic, legal, and tax benefits that married couples get, which seem to be the heart of the matter, and I think it would be wise for those issues to be addressed specifically without redefining "marriage."
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Energy Philosophy
Based on recent discussions in the news, I offer a philosophy for your consideration.
Wind- and solar-based power plants cannot operate all the time because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. That means that behind these power plants, we must have traditional power plants (hydro, coal, gas, geothermal, or nuclear).
Isn't that a waste of money to build redundant systems?
Imagine that you have a car that can use sunshine to drive. What do you do when the sun goes down? You must turn on the gasoline engine. So why pay for the solar system to begin with? It made your car significantly more expensive.
"But it uses no fuel and is good for the environment," you may say. But solar power costs several times more than traditional electricity, making it inaccessible to most of the world. Photovoltaic panels are quite environmentally damaging to produce and dispose of.
"It could run on batteries," you may say. Do you know where batteries come from? They are, frankly, the environmentalist's worst nightmare. They are prohibitively expensive, as Prius owners are discovering (over $4000 per car), and they are recharged by whatever power plants are in your regional electrical grid (coal, in most of the country). So your Prius runs on coal and heavy metals -- that ought to soothe your green little heart.
The point is: There is no perfect energy source. There are, however, some than can provide all of our needs all of the time while at the same time are affordable to most of the world. In my mind, redundant systems like wind and solar do not make sense at the large scale or in the long-run.
My proposal: Convert coal-fired power plants to gas immediately. As we can, replace as many power plants as we can with nuclear. Build geothermal plants around Yellowstone and along the west coast. Stop wasting tax dollars on wind and solar subsidies, and let them win or lose in the competitive market. Remove Federal regulations that prevent high efficiency vehicles from coming to the U.S.
Wind- and solar-based power plants cannot operate all the time because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. That means that behind these power plants, we must have traditional power plants (hydro, coal, gas, geothermal, or nuclear).
Isn't that a waste of money to build redundant systems?
Imagine that you have a car that can use sunshine to drive. What do you do when the sun goes down? You must turn on the gasoline engine. So why pay for the solar system to begin with? It made your car significantly more expensive.
"But it uses no fuel and is good for the environment," you may say. But solar power costs several times more than traditional electricity, making it inaccessible to most of the world. Photovoltaic panels are quite environmentally damaging to produce and dispose of.
"It could run on batteries," you may say. Do you know where batteries come from? They are, frankly, the environmentalist's worst nightmare. They are prohibitively expensive, as Prius owners are discovering (over $4000 per car), and they are recharged by whatever power plants are in your regional electrical grid (coal, in most of the country). So your Prius runs on coal and heavy metals -- that ought to soothe your green little heart.
The point is: There is no perfect energy source. There are, however, some than can provide all of our needs all of the time while at the same time are affordable to most of the world. In my mind, redundant systems like wind and solar do not make sense at the large scale or in the long-run.
My proposal: Convert coal-fired power plants to gas immediately. As we can, replace as many power plants as we can with nuclear. Build geothermal plants around Yellowstone and along the west coast. Stop wasting tax dollars on wind and solar subsidies, and let them win or lose in the competitive market. Remove Federal regulations that prevent high efficiency vehicles from coming to the U.S.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Why NIMBY is Often Irrelevant
NIMBY -- "not in my back yard" -- is a reaction to anything proposed to be near you. It could be something small like a business, church, school, road improvement, or zoning change, or it could be something big like a prison, refinery, or nuclear power plant. NIMBY is considered in decisions every day, and it often affects the outcome, as it should.
But wait a minute. Some things will be opposed by someone no matter where they proposed to be. I doubt you could propose to build an oil refinery anywhere without opposition, for example. The question is, in such a case what do we do with NIMBY? Is it a valid reason, of itself, on which to base a decision?
I say it is not, and here's why.
First, if a factor is the same everywhere, we routinely disregard it as logic dictates we should. Gravity, for example, would not be a consideration in locating an oil refinery because it is essentially the same everywhere (in detail it is not, as some of you realize, but the differences are negligible). Similarly, if NIMBY is everywhere, it can be ignored in the decision-making process.
Second, it is likely that some of the reasons brought up by the NIMBYs (the people in opposition) are legitimate and should be considered; however, it is vital to realize that the logic and reasons of the argument are distinct and different from the opposition itself. Some opposition is gut reaction and not based on valid reasons or evidence, and that kind of opposition should be summarily dismissed.
If our society is to continue to thrive and grow, we must base decisions on valid logic, reason, and evidence, and not on emotional reactions. That is why NIMBY is often irrelevant.
But wait a minute. Some things will be opposed by someone no matter where they proposed to be. I doubt you could propose to build an oil refinery anywhere without opposition, for example. The question is, in such a case what do we do with NIMBY? Is it a valid reason, of itself, on which to base a decision?
I say it is not, and here's why.
First, if a factor is the same everywhere, we routinely disregard it as logic dictates we should. Gravity, for example, would not be a consideration in locating an oil refinery because it is essentially the same everywhere (in detail it is not, as some of you realize, but the differences are negligible). Similarly, if NIMBY is everywhere, it can be ignored in the decision-making process.
Second, it is likely that some of the reasons brought up by the NIMBYs (the people in opposition) are legitimate and should be considered; however, it is vital to realize that the logic and reasons of the argument are distinct and different from the opposition itself. Some opposition is gut reaction and not based on valid reasons or evidence, and that kind of opposition should be summarily dismissed.
If our society is to continue to thrive and grow, we must base decisions on valid logic, reason, and evidence, and not on emotional reactions. That is why NIMBY is often irrelevant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)