Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 and Visual Studio 2005 introduce a concept called partial classes. Partial classes allow you to divide the code from a single logical class into multiple files. This can help alleviate the problem of file contention among developers. Visual Studio 2005 uses partial classes when you add a Windows Form to your solution. Instead of having to see all of the designer generated code within your class, this is hidden away in a partial class. The designer generated code for a file named FileName would be stored in a partial class named FileName.Designer.cs.
The only thing you have to do in code to make a class a partial class is to add the partial identifier as part of the class declaration. In C#, all files that make a class have to have the partial class designation. In VB.NET only one of the files that make up the class have to have the partial class designation.
After using partial classes for some time, one of my files was becoming rather large. I decided I'd try to add another partial class, FileName.SectionA.cs. It worked great but unfortunately it didn't appear in VS underneath the FileName.cs file the way FileName.Designer.cs did. This bugged me. After poking around for a while both within Visual Studio and on the web, I was unable to find a straightforward way to do this. I started looking at the project file itself and I noticed that FileName.Designer.cs looked something like this:
<compile include="FileName.Designer.cs">
<dependentupon>FileName.cs</dependentupon>
</compile>
The file that I had added looked something like this:
<compile include="FileName.SectionA.cs">
<subtype>Form</subtype>
</compile>
By editing the project file with Notepad I replaced the SubType node with the DependentUpon node like so:
<compile include="FileName.SectionA.cs">
<dependentupon>FileName.cs</dependentupon>
</compile>
After reloading the project... voila! I got the result I was looking for which was FileName.SectionA.cs appearing underneath FileName.cs.
The only downside to this approach I've found is that by default, if you checkout FileName.cs then all of the subsequent "child" files (such as FileName.Designer.cs and FileName.SectionA.cs) are also checked out. If your main concern is file contention then you need to consider this. If you're more interested in better organization then this is probably not an issue but I felt it was worth mentioning.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Seems Like It's Been Forever
So I haven't posted in a while. I've been a little preoccupied with some personal things going on. Work, having a baby, buying a new house, moving, you know, little things like that. If it's of any consolation to anyone, I did think about the blog in the ~3 months since I last posted. I created a quick draft of a number of articles that were of interest to me over that time along with some quick thoughts. Now that I have a little time I'm going to try to go back and turn those 9 drafts into 9 posts. Hopefully you'll see them appearing over the next few days. They're all back dated to the time I created the draft. They'll appear to be old but they're really not. I haven't posted anything since 4/19. Time to get to work.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Chemical Weapons in Iraq
Here's a story that wasn't reported in the mainstream press. Chemical weapons were found in Iraq. That's right. This is probably news to you. Newsbusters noticed that no one else seemed to report on it.
The few media outlets that have discussed it talked about how it wasn't as many weapons as what we suspected or how they were old weapons, not newly made weapons. What they don't mention is that a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon and under International Law Iraq was unable to possess them. By Iraq's admission they did not possess them. Neither the law nor Iraq's admission tempered the statements to say they didn't create any new weapons. They didn't say they only had less than 5. The law was they couldn't have any.
I know maybe I'm beating a dead horse here but you'll here in the press for years about how we went into Iraq and there were no weapons. This isn't true. I'm not advocating the manner in which we went into Iraq but lets stick to the facts. Iraq did have chemical weapons. The press just didn't have the objectivity to report it.
The few media outlets that have discussed it talked about how it wasn't as many weapons as what we suspected or how they were old weapons, not newly made weapons. What they don't mention is that a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon and under International Law Iraq was unable to possess them. By Iraq's admission they did not possess them. Neither the law nor Iraq's admission tempered the statements to say they didn't create any new weapons. They didn't say they only had less than 5. The law was they couldn't have any.
I know maybe I'm beating a dead horse here but you'll here in the press for years about how we went into Iraq and there were no weapons. This isn't true. I'm not advocating the manner in which we went into Iraq but lets stick to the facts. Iraq did have chemical weapons. The press just didn't have the objectivity to report it.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
America the Beautiful
I want to go here. Really, I do. I love being outdoors, camping, mountain biking, the like. Europe seems to have all the sex appeal and get all the press with its rich history. I'd much rather take a few weeks one year when the kids are older and tour all of the National Parks out West, though. It's a beautiful country we live in. Really, it is.
Friday, April 28, 2006
100% Political Pandering
I case you've been living under a rock somewhere, gas prices have been high. The national average these days is hovering around $3 a gallon. There are a lot of people unhappy about that and a lot of politicians that are up for re-election this year.
If you've read some of my previous posts you'll understand that I believe one of the two main objectives of tax legislation today is to buy votes. This plan is a perfect example of that.
Here are other people's thoughts on the idea:
"100 percent political pandering."
- John Berthoud, National Taxpayers Union
"One of the dumbest ideas of the year."
"Simply a please-vote-for-me-in-November payment."
- Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute
If you've read some of my previous posts you'll understand that I believe one of the two main objectives of tax legislation today is to buy votes. This plan is a perfect example of that.
Here are other people's thoughts on the idea:
"100 percent political pandering."
- John Berthoud, National Taxpayers Union
"One of the dumbest ideas of the year."
"Simply a please-vote-for-me-in-November payment."
- Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Gouge This
There's been a lot of talk in the news about price gouging and how Congress is investigating. Some Democrat from Washington even wants to make "excessively unconscionable price increases" illegal. Seriously. What does that mean and what good is that going to do?
Our economy is based on supply and demand. He's a simple illustration. I own a generator store. The weather's been great, electricity cheap and in abundant supply, and my 10 generators have been sitting on the shelves for months with a $500 price tag on them. Well, a hurricane comes rumbling through (increased demand). Due to the new anti-gouging laws, I can't adjust my price and on such short notice I'm unable to increase my inventory (flat supply). Someone comes in and buys 1. As the warnings increase and the weather worsens, another customer comes in and buys 2 more. Just in case, he says, as he loads them up. The morning of the storm, 4 more customers come in and between them buy the remaining 7 generators that I have.
I've been unable to regulate my inventory because supply, demand, and price are all out of my control. As a store owner, I can never do much to affect demand. Given notice I can keep a steady supply, but I must use price to balance the two.
That's not the end of the story, though. Others come in desperate need after learning now that the power will be out for days. I have to turn them away empty handed. I have no more generators. Meanwhile the customers that came in and bought 2 generators each are running their TVs and air conditioners all day long. The people without are suffering. If I had been able to adjust my price, perhaps some of the customers that bought 2 generators just because the price allowed them to would have only bought 1. Maybe they'd just be running a refrigerator and a couple of fans. And maybe I would still have had generators on my shelf when the people that I had to turn away came in. Wouldn't they have been happy to pay $700 for my $500 generator?
Here's another scenario. This time my generator store isn't in one of the areas affected by the storm but in a neighboring area. I see the news reports about how people are in desperate need of generators. The new anti-gouging laws prevent me from raising my price though and my price is set to be able to sell the generators from my store. If I could raise the price of my generators to $700 maybe it would be worth it for me to try to deliver them to the storm affected areas. Since my price can't go above $500 though, I just let them sit unused in my store.
I'm sure some people would argue that those scenarios are very unrealistic and would never happen and they aren't good examples and all that. I saw the potential for those stories to unfold first hand when I was in the aftermath of Katrina last year, though. Price gouging laws prevent people from reacting to changing economic conditions around them. It may help some people in that they got a $500 generator for $500 instead of $700 but it hurts people others when a generator isn't still on the shelf. That's not gouging; that's basic economics.
Our economy is based on supply and demand. He's a simple illustration. I own a generator store. The weather's been great, electricity cheap and in abundant supply, and my 10 generators have been sitting on the shelves for months with a $500 price tag on them. Well, a hurricane comes rumbling through (increased demand). Due to the new anti-gouging laws, I can't adjust my price and on such short notice I'm unable to increase my inventory (flat supply). Someone comes in and buys 1. As the warnings increase and the weather worsens, another customer comes in and buys 2 more. Just in case, he says, as he loads them up. The morning of the storm, 4 more customers come in and between them buy the remaining 7 generators that I have.
I've been unable to regulate my inventory because supply, demand, and price are all out of my control. As a store owner, I can never do much to affect demand. Given notice I can keep a steady supply, but I must use price to balance the two.
That's not the end of the story, though. Others come in desperate need after learning now that the power will be out for days. I have to turn them away empty handed. I have no more generators. Meanwhile the customers that came in and bought 2 generators each are running their TVs and air conditioners all day long. The people without are suffering. If I had been able to adjust my price, perhaps some of the customers that bought 2 generators just because the price allowed them to would have only bought 1. Maybe they'd just be running a refrigerator and a couple of fans. And maybe I would still have had generators on my shelf when the people that I had to turn away came in. Wouldn't they have been happy to pay $700 for my $500 generator?
Here's another scenario. This time my generator store isn't in one of the areas affected by the storm but in a neighboring area. I see the news reports about how people are in desperate need of generators. The new anti-gouging laws prevent me from raising my price though and my price is set to be able to sell the generators from my store. If I could raise the price of my generators to $700 maybe it would be worth it for me to try to deliver them to the storm affected areas. Since my price can't go above $500 though, I just let them sit unused in my store.
I'm sure some people would argue that those scenarios are very unrealistic and would never happen and they aren't good examples and all that. I saw the potential for those stories to unfold first hand when I was in the aftermath of Katrina last year, though. Price gouging laws prevent people from reacting to changing economic conditions around them. It may help some people in that they got a $500 generator for $500 instead of $700 but it hurts people others when a generator isn't still on the shelf. That's not gouging; that's basic economics.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Where Do You Get This We Business?
So I'm reading this Newsweek article about how Bush changing advisors isn't really going to affect the White House's policies very much. And that's probably true. And then I get to this line, "We should be preparing for aging baby boomers." I'm sorry, we? We should be preparing for aging baby boomers? Where do you get this we business? Do you have a frog in your pocket?
Don't think of me as cold hearted. Perhaps sometimes I am, but I don't want you to think of me that way (that's supposed to be mildly amusing). I'm all for helping people out. Really, I am. My mom isn't getting any younger and I try to help her out as much as I can. I recently had a friend that went several months without a job. We'd meet for dinner every few weeks to catch up and see how his job search was going. I'd try to make sure I picked up his tab. I give faithfully to my church and occasionally other organizations. I have a trip this fall planned to do some mission and/or humanitarian work. Last year after hurricane Katrina I personally delivered hundreds of gallons of water and gasoline along with food, generators, and other supplies to friends and family that I have still living in the affected areas. I'm all for helping other people out. I just don't believe other people should live their life as if they expect it.
It kinda reminds me of an email forward I saw a long time ago. Upon digging through my email archives, I find it dated 2/10/1999. Yes, I actually have email from that long ago.
It's titled simply "Folk Tale."
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV, which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America.
I don't want a grasshopper to starve while I live in abundance. I really don't. But I don't think anyone wants to be the ant working hard all summer while the grasshopper plays all the while sticking his tongue out at the ant and making faces chanting, "you're gonna have to gimme some of your food." There's no justice, fairness, or equality in that. None whatsoever.
Now some people may dismiss that as a silly little story. And in some ways it is. For one, it's certainly not just the Democrats that would wildly applaud an era of such fairness. It's anyone running for re-election. My point is sharing the story is that neither version is really correct. A balance needs to be found between helping those in need and removing the incentive for hard work.
I believe in social safety nets. I just don't believe in welfare. The social safety nets of our country are the good people of our country. The social safety nets are the people who give individually, collectively through charitable organizations, churches, and often anonymously. In order for this safety net to exist it's also very important that the government get out of the business of providing a safety net. Just like in this story when the grasshopper knows the ant is going to take care of him he doesn't work, people are often times lulled into a false sense of security when the government steps in and tries to do the job of the people. People take on, and understandably so, the attitude of, "Why should I give this person my money? Aren't there government programs for that?" Or maybe, "Why should I help them? Won't someone else?"
There's a balance to be found between helping someone who needs a hand and making yourself so available to help anyone and everyone that people take advantage of it. That's what happens with institutionalize welfare. Not everyone, but very large number of people take advantage of it. If these decisions are made instead of at a federal or even a state level at the community level or even the household level then there's a much greater degree of discretion I who I want to help and why. And if I don't want to make my decision individually there are numerous churches and other nonprofit organizations that would love to help me decide what to do with my charitable giving. And since I'm the one making the decision, I'll never have to wonder where do you get this we business.
Don't think of me as cold hearted. Perhaps sometimes I am, but I don't want you to think of me that way (that's supposed to be mildly amusing). I'm all for helping people out. Really, I am. My mom isn't getting any younger and I try to help her out as much as I can. I recently had a friend that went several months without a job. We'd meet for dinner every few weeks to catch up and see how his job search was going. I'd try to make sure I picked up his tab. I give faithfully to my church and occasionally other organizations. I have a trip this fall planned to do some mission and/or humanitarian work. Last year after hurricane Katrina I personally delivered hundreds of gallons of water and gasoline along with food, generators, and other supplies to friends and family that I have still living in the affected areas. I'm all for helping other people out. I just don't believe other people should live their life as if they expect it.
It kinda reminds me of an email forward I saw a long time ago. Upon digging through my email archives, I find it dated 2/10/1999. Yes, I actually have email from that long ago.
It's titled simply "Folk Tale."
THE ORIGINAL VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.
MODERN AMERICAN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be that, in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Then a representative of the NAGB (The national association of greenbugs) shows up on Nightline and charges the ant with green bias, and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when he sings "It's not easy being green."
Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS Evening News to tell a concerned Dan Rather that they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the Reagan summers. Richard Gephardt exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."
Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of greenbugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal hearing officers that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare moms who can only hear cases on Thursday's between 1:30 and 3 PM. The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV, which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America.
I don't want a grasshopper to starve while I live in abundance. I really don't. But I don't think anyone wants to be the ant working hard all summer while the grasshopper plays all the while sticking his tongue out at the ant and making faces chanting, "you're gonna have to gimme some of your food." There's no justice, fairness, or equality in that. None whatsoever.
Now some people may dismiss that as a silly little story. And in some ways it is. For one, it's certainly not just the Democrats that would wildly applaud an era of such fairness. It's anyone running for re-election. My point is sharing the story is that neither version is really correct. A balance needs to be found between helping those in need and removing the incentive for hard work.
I believe in social safety nets. I just don't believe in welfare. The social safety nets of our country are the good people of our country. The social safety nets are the people who give individually, collectively through charitable organizations, churches, and often anonymously. In order for this safety net to exist it's also very important that the government get out of the business of providing a safety net. Just like in this story when the grasshopper knows the ant is going to take care of him he doesn't work, people are often times lulled into a false sense of security when the government steps in and tries to do the job of the people. People take on, and understandably so, the attitude of, "Why should I give this person my money? Aren't there government programs for that?" Or maybe, "Why should I help them? Won't someone else?"
There's a balance to be found between helping someone who needs a hand and making yourself so available to help anyone and everyone that people take advantage of it. That's what happens with institutionalize welfare. Not everyone, but very large number of people take advantage of it. If these decisions are made instead of at a federal or even a state level at the community level or even the household level then there's a much greater degree of discretion I who I want to help and why. And if I don't want to make my decision individually there are numerous churches and other nonprofit organizations that would love to help me decide what to do with my charitable giving. And since I'm the one making the decision, I'll never have to wonder where do you get this we business.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Here Come the Braves
Everyone has been talking all doom and gloom about the season. On 4/15 Smoltz throws a CG 4 hitter. Thomson pitched 6 beautiful shutout innings on 4/16 but the bullpen slipped, probably due to being a bit overworked for the first 2 weeks of the season, and gave it away. Sosa got rocked on 4/17 but I'm not so sure we should be expecting much more of him. Last year he had a lot of good luck. Maybe it'll continue, maybe not. I'll be glad when Ramirez is back, though. On 4/18 Davies mans up after Sosa was bombed in NY and gives up 1 in a CG effort against the Mets. Today Hudson who's been terrible this year follows it up with another CG and they beat the Mets in NY again, this time 2-1. That's 3 CG in the last 5 and 4 beautiful starting efforts in the last 5. A few months from now people will be looking back at this stretch as the one that turned the season around for the Braves.
UPDATE: The AJC now reports:
"Excluding Jorge Sosa's four-inning mess in Monday's series opener, the other four starters are 3-0 with a 0.55 ERA during the run, allowing two runs and 11 hits in 33 innings, with three walks and 22 strikeouts."
That's phenomenal pitching. That's Braves baseball.
UPDATE: The AJC now reports:
"Excluding Jorge Sosa's four-inning mess in Monday's series opener, the other four starters are 3-0 with a 0.55 ERA during the run, allowing two runs and 11 hits in 33 innings, with three walks and 22 strikeouts."
That's phenomenal pitching. That's Braves baseball.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Immigration Issues
This whole immigration deal is too big not to weigh in on. The first thing I think reading this article and seeing some of the pictures both in this article and on TV recently is man, I love seeing those people waving that American flag. Too often the TV shows images of people in other countries burning that beautiful flag that so many of our forefathers fought and died for. To see people who want to be a part of this country waving it proudly gives me a thrill. That's the way it really is - almost anyone anywhere in the world, including the very same people that are burning our flag, would leap at the chance to live in America - and it's only just that it's portrayed that way for a change.
Now to the difficult issues. The first issue is the borders. Our borders must be secured. That's not even up for discussion. I'm all for people coming into our country but we have to know who's coming in, why they're coming in, how long they're going to be here, etc. Our economy needs hardworking people from all over the world. We need like-minded people who respect the rule of law and who want to build a better future for their families. I'm for that 100%. The problem with open borders is that it allows people who don't contribute and who wish us harm to potentially enter our country as well. We can't have that.
Once our borders are secured, who should we let in? As I outlined, we want people who are going to contribute. We need hardworking people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and help our economy continue to grow. I don't know if that means we have to limit the number of people that come in every year or what but securing the borders does mean that deporting people becomes a real threat. As the lady in the article said, "They kick us out, weÂ?re coming back tomorrow." Given the currently porous borders there's no way to enforce basic principles on those coming into the country. People coming in should be documented (possibly including providing them with an ID card) and have a hearing scheduled for a year or so out. At that hearing they should be able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language and the American society. This isn't a citizenship exam but should cover the essentials. They should also be able to demonstrate a work history and things like that. Removing the minimum wage and moving from an income tax based system to something like FairTax would make integration people into our economy that much easier and more productive but that's a different discussion.
The toughest issue is what do we do with the people who are already in the country illegally once we close the borders. Honestly, there's not an easy answer to that question. I can see both sides of the debate. I can see how people oppose blanket amnesty. You never want to encourage people to ignore the rule of law, one of the most basic principles of our country. I can also understand the argument that many of these people, even though they're here illegally, have contributed to our economy and we don't want to just kick them out. I think the best resolution is some sort of a compromise. I think there should be a window, perhaps one year, where people currently here illegally can apply for entry into the US just like anyone else. There would be no fear of expulsion if they register but they would be subject to the same requirements as anyone else entering the country. They would also have to pay some sort of a penalty. It could be something from a fine to having them volunteer to help educate and assimilate others coming into the country. If they don't register during that window and if they don't abide by the terms of the agreement then they'll be subject to deportation. I understand this solution may not be ideal but sometimes there's not an ideal solution to a situation.
I want to go ahead andacknowledgee the fact that I said assimilate. I want to clarify what I mean by that. There must be things that the entire nation is willing to presuppose in order for the nation to exist and function as a nation. People in our country have to be able to speak a common language and abide by a common set of laws. That doesn't mean we should all be the same. We have to use common sense. The way people dress, the foods they eat, there are plenty of cultural things that people should be allowed to continue. I'd go so far as to say that these are cultural things that we as Americans should encourage. Diversity is a beautiful thing, it really is. Life would be no fun if we all dressed the same, laughed at the same jokes, walked the same, liked the same foods, and on and on and on. At the same time, even appreciating diversity is a common trait. Someone once said if not for the dark then we couldn't recognize the light. By the same token, if not for things in common then we wouldn't be able to recognize the differences. Assimilation has been made out by some to be a dirty word. It shouldn't be. It doesn't mean that we all become identical. It just means that we have things that we accept in common. We have a common basis, a common foundation.
If this wasn't already obvious, I don't have all of the answers. I recognize that people have to be able to enter the country. If people weren't allowed into the country then none of us would be here. That outlook has to be weighed against the fact that we have to maintain a level of security for us all. We as a nation should welcome with open arms those who want to share a common foundation with us: things like language, an appreciation for family values, a robust economy, opportunity, and most importantly freedom.
Now to the difficult issues. The first issue is the borders. Our borders must be secured. That's not even up for discussion. I'm all for people coming into our country but we have to know who's coming in, why they're coming in, how long they're going to be here, etc. Our economy needs hardworking people from all over the world. We need like-minded people who respect the rule of law and who want to build a better future for their families. I'm for that 100%. The problem with open borders is that it allows people who don't contribute and who wish us harm to potentially enter our country as well. We can't have that.
Once our borders are secured, who should we let in? As I outlined, we want people who are going to contribute. We need hardworking people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and help our economy continue to grow. I don't know if that means we have to limit the number of people that come in every year or what but securing the borders does mean that deporting people becomes a real threat. As the lady in the article said, "They kick us out, weÂ?re coming back tomorrow." Given the currently porous borders there's no way to enforce basic principles on those coming into the country. People coming in should be documented (possibly including providing them with an ID card) and have a hearing scheduled for a year or so out. At that hearing they should be able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language and the American society. This isn't a citizenship exam but should cover the essentials. They should also be able to demonstrate a work history and things like that. Removing the minimum wage and moving from an income tax based system to something like FairTax would make integration people into our economy that much easier and more productive but that's a different discussion.
The toughest issue is what do we do with the people who are already in the country illegally once we close the borders. Honestly, there's not an easy answer to that question. I can see both sides of the debate. I can see how people oppose blanket amnesty. You never want to encourage people to ignore the rule of law, one of the most basic principles of our country. I can also understand the argument that many of these people, even though they're here illegally, have contributed to our economy and we don't want to just kick them out. I think the best resolution is some sort of a compromise. I think there should be a window, perhaps one year, where people currently here illegally can apply for entry into the US just like anyone else. There would be no fear of expulsion if they register but they would be subject to the same requirements as anyone else entering the country. They would also have to pay some sort of a penalty. It could be something from a fine to having them volunteer to help educate and assimilate others coming into the country. If they don't register during that window and if they don't abide by the terms of the agreement then they'll be subject to deportation. I understand this solution may not be ideal but sometimes there's not an ideal solution to a situation.
I want to go ahead andacknowledgee the fact that I said assimilate. I want to clarify what I mean by that. There must be things that the entire nation is willing to presuppose in order for the nation to exist and function as a nation. People in our country have to be able to speak a common language and abide by a common set of laws. That doesn't mean we should all be the same. We have to use common sense. The way people dress, the foods they eat, there are plenty of cultural things that people should be allowed to continue. I'd go so far as to say that these are cultural things that we as Americans should encourage. Diversity is a beautiful thing, it really is. Life would be no fun if we all dressed the same, laughed at the same jokes, walked the same, liked the same foods, and on and on and on. At the same time, even appreciating diversity is a common trait. Someone once said if not for the dark then we couldn't recognize the light. By the same token, if not for things in common then we wouldn't be able to recognize the differences. Assimilation has been made out by some to be a dirty word. It shouldn't be. It doesn't mean that we all become identical. It just means that we have things that we accept in common. We have a common basis, a common foundation.
If this wasn't already obvious, I don't have all of the answers. I recognize that people have to be able to enter the country. If people weren't allowed into the country then none of us would be here. That outlook has to be weighed against the fact that we have to maintain a level of security for us all. We as a nation should welcome with open arms those who want to share a common foundation with us: things like language, an appreciation for family values, a robust economy, opportunity, and most importantly freedom.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Nuclear End Game
Through the natural progression of technology things become more and more common. Nuclear weapons are no different. While still extremely difficult to create a weapon and a delivery device, it's becoming easier and easier to do.
Just a few years ago we were sending IAEA inspectors into Iraq as long as they could stay at one time without being kicked out. Right now we're battling both North Korea and Iran over their nuclear pursuits. We're putting a lot of diplomatic pressure on Iran in cooperation with the Europeans. Russia and China are still far less than supportive. How can they not support forcing a country who's stated intention is to "wipe [Israel] off the map" to waive their nuclear ambitions? It makes me wonder what their angle in this deal is.
What's our end game in this whole pursuit, though? Lets say tomorrow Iran announces they're inviting inspectors in. We inspect. No nukes. What if we're wrong? What if the inspectors don't find them and they obtain nuclear weapons anyway?
Or the most likely scenario, regardless of how things play out with Iran, what happens when the next country pursues nukes? What happens if Syria starts trying to build a bomb? What happens if radicals take over Pakistan and gain control of their nukes? What happens if 20 years from now Mexico is governed by radicals and they start pursuing nukes?
Do we just continue this pattern of apply diplomatic pressure, involve the international community, threaten sanctions, offer billions in aid and other concessions, apply diplomatic pressure, threaten military force, finally start paying out the nose in the hopes that some rogue dictator that we didn't trust with nukes keeps his word? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Don't misunderstand me, we're doing what we have to do now. That can't be our end game, though.
Technology eventually becomes a commodity. Computers were novelties years ago. Now almost every household in the industrialized world has one. Internet access is the same way. We would never consider it a viable option to keep "bad guys" from getting computers even though they can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Just look at the time, money, and privacy lost every year due to sabotage. Why do we consider this a viable option when it comes to nukes?
Someone said once that silence can never be bought, only rented. Preventing the spread of technology and innovation is the same way. Eventually our best efforts at presenting "bad guys" from getting nukes will fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying. Right now that's buying us time but we need to looking beyond that. How do we respond when they eventually obtain nukes? The answer to that question should be our end game.
Just a few years ago we were sending IAEA inspectors into Iraq as long as they could stay at one time without being kicked out. Right now we're battling both North Korea and Iran over their nuclear pursuits. We're putting a lot of diplomatic pressure on Iran in cooperation with the Europeans. Russia and China are still far less than supportive. How can they not support forcing a country who's stated intention is to "wipe [Israel] off the map" to waive their nuclear ambitions? It makes me wonder what their angle in this deal is.
What's our end game in this whole pursuit, though? Lets say tomorrow Iran announces they're inviting inspectors in. We inspect. No nukes. What if we're wrong? What if the inspectors don't find them and they obtain nuclear weapons anyway?
Or the most likely scenario, regardless of how things play out with Iran, what happens when the next country pursues nukes? What happens if Syria starts trying to build a bomb? What happens if radicals take over Pakistan and gain control of their nukes? What happens if 20 years from now Mexico is governed by radicals and they start pursuing nukes?
Do we just continue this pattern of apply diplomatic pressure, involve the international community, threaten sanctions, offer billions in aid and other concessions, apply diplomatic pressure, threaten military force, finally start paying out the nose in the hopes that some rogue dictator that we didn't trust with nukes keeps his word? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Don't misunderstand me, we're doing what we have to do now. That can't be our end game, though.
Technology eventually becomes a commodity. Computers were novelties years ago. Now almost every household in the industrialized world has one. Internet access is the same way. We would never consider it a viable option to keep "bad guys" from getting computers even though they can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Just look at the time, money, and privacy lost every year due to sabotage. Why do we consider this a viable option when it comes to nukes?
Someone said once that silence can never be bought, only rented. Preventing the spread of technology and innovation is the same way. Eventually our best efforts at presenting "bad guys" from getting nukes will fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying. Right now that's buying us time but we need to looking beyond that. How do we respond when they eventually obtain nukes? The answer to that question should be our end game.
Friday, April 07, 2006
That's an Apology?
I don't know a thing in the world about Cynthia McKinney other than the fact that her politics are extremely liberal. For those that haven't been following along, when people enter the Capitol building in Washington they have to go through a metal detector and be screened, much like what happens at an airport. Members of Congress are allowed to bypass this screening process and are given a special pin to wear on their lapel to help the security teams identify them. McKinney was not wearing her pin as she bypassed security the other day. According the the Capitol Police officer, she was asked three times to stop. She ignored the officer's request to stop and he approached her from behind placing a hand on her arm or shoulder (where exactly the officer placed his hand is a matter of dispute). McKinney immediately turned around and struck the officer. Some reports say with her hand, others say with her purse. In any event, she struck a cop.
Initially she said she was "acting in self defense." No joke. That was her claim. The next day she claimed that there was "inappropriate touching." I'm not sure who's touching was supposed to be inapproate but again, that was her claim. This morphed into "racial profiling" with McKinney claiming she was stopped only because she was black. Today the press is claiming that she's apologizing. Her exact words were, "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."
Now I don't know about anyone else but my mom used to tell me that I had to say it like I meant it. It doesn't sound to me like McKinney meant it. Of course she's sorry that the misunderstanding happened at all. Everyone is. Of course she regrets its escalation. Everyone does. What is she apologizing for? What did she do that she wishes she had not done? That's the real mystery here. My mom wouldn't have considered that an apology from me and Idon't think we should consider that an apology from McKinney.
Initially she said she was "acting in self defense." No joke. That was her claim. The next day she claimed that there was "inappropriate touching." I'm not sure who's touching was supposed to be inapproate but again, that was her claim. This morphed into "racial profiling" with McKinney claiming she was stopped only because she was black. Today the press is claiming that she's apologizing. Her exact words were, "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."
Now I don't know about anyone else but my mom used to tell me that I had to say it like I meant it. It doesn't sound to me like McKinney meant it. Of course she's sorry that the misunderstanding happened at all. Everyone is. Of course she regrets its escalation. Everyone does. What is she apologizing for? What did she do that she wishes she had not done? That's the real mystery here. My mom wouldn't have considered that an apology from me and Idon't think we should consider that an apology from McKinney.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Fort Mountain
I really enjoy mountain biking but I don't get to do it as often as I'd like. Yesterday I was able to get out a little and enjoyed Fort Mountain State Park outside of Chatsworth, Georgia. It was beautiful, to say the least.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Hannity *IS* an Ignorant Boob
At least, that's what Alec Baldwin says.
I've been accused of being a Republican hack. I'm not. I have no problem calling it like I see it. Hannity was acting like an ignorant boob.
Hannity is a polarizing figure because of stunts like he pulled in this exchange with Baldwin. Regardless of whether his points may be right or not no one is going to hear his message if he continues distributing it in such a polarizing manner. Calling Baldwin a "third-rate Hollywood egomaniac" does no one any good. People who support Baldwin automatically tune Hannity out because he's just being a jerk and people who don't like Baldwin don't need to be told that. They already believe it.
Why am I ranting about this? Because Hannity and others should use their platform more judiciously. Millions of people every week hear Hannity in one form or another. This heated exchange will probably be heard by even more. The problem is, he's not leaving a positive impression with anyone who hears him. To be clear, I don't think anyone should ever compromise their beliefs simply to be heard by more people or to leave a more favorable impression. I do believe people should be aware of the opportunity that they have, though. Rather than attacking Baldwin, Hannity should reach out to him. Be civil. Try to genuinely discuss the issues. Don't immediately put him on the stand and drill him, even if some of his statements are out there. Ask him why he believes those things. Give him an opportunity to explain why, by his own admission, he believes our Vice President is "a terrorist."
The most valuable thing an elected official, talk show host, movie star, or celebrity of any kind has is a platform. Unfortunately they don't all have the wisdom to use it judiciously.
I've been accused of being a Republican hack. I'm not. I have no problem calling it like I see it. Hannity was acting like an ignorant boob.
Hannity is a polarizing figure because of stunts like he pulled in this exchange with Baldwin. Regardless of whether his points may be right or not no one is going to hear his message if he continues distributing it in such a polarizing manner. Calling Baldwin a "third-rate Hollywood egomaniac" does no one any good. People who support Baldwin automatically tune Hannity out because he's just being a jerk and people who don't like Baldwin don't need to be told that. They already believe it.
Why am I ranting about this? Because Hannity and others should use their platform more judiciously. Millions of people every week hear Hannity in one form or another. This heated exchange will probably be heard by even more. The problem is, he's not leaving a positive impression with anyone who hears him. To be clear, I don't think anyone should ever compromise their beliefs simply to be heard by more people or to leave a more favorable impression. I do believe people should be aware of the opportunity that they have, though. Rather than attacking Baldwin, Hannity should reach out to him. Be civil. Try to genuinely discuss the issues. Don't immediately put him on the stand and drill him, even if some of his statements are out there. Ask him why he believes those things. Give him an opportunity to explain why, by his own admission, he believes our Vice President is "a terrorist."
The most valuable thing an elected official, talk show host, movie star, or celebrity of any kind has is a platform. Unfortunately they don't all have the wisdom to use it judiciously.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
More Good Debate Press
BugMeNot.com is a great resource for access to websites that require registration to view their content. Such is the case with this fantastic article about Liberty debate from the New York Times. Try logging in with a username of test122 and a password of test122.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
College Debate Continued
I debated at Liberty University in 95-96 and 96-97. I learned more about how to think in those two years than I probably have in the rest of my life combined. That said, I think to really sort out some of the comments of these articles and others that have come out recently you really have to have an understanding of debate.
If you don't feel like you need this explanation then read on. There are two main types of debate: Lincoln-Douglass (commonly referred to as LD debate) and policy. LD is a persuasive art. Facts are commonly used but the facts aren't necessarily any more important and are sometimes even less important than delivery and persuasiveness. When I think LD debate, I think of the guy on C-SPAN. He's speaking to an audience for the purpose of motivating and persuading the audience.
Policy debate is a very different animal. There are very strict rules, timelines, and procedures, and unlike LD, policy debate is not exactly a spectator sport. The goal of policy debate is not to convince a broad audience but a panel of judges (generally 1 or 3 but sometimes as many as 7 or 9 I've seen). The judges are always former debaters, current coaches - all people that are very familiar with the sport. Because of the strict time limits and the desire to get in as much information and argumentation as possible, the debaters talk as quickly as humanly possible, commonly over 200 words per minute and at times upwards of 400 words per minute. Most people can't hear and think that fast, let alone speak that fast.
I debated policy so that's what I know. A policy debate consists of two teams of two. One team is the affirmative and the other the negative. The affirmative's goal is to offer up a "plan" within the bounds of the "resolution." Given all the talk you hear in some of these articles about creationism and abortion you'd think that was what was debated all the time. My freshman year the resolution was "Resolved: That the US Federal Goverment should substantially increase security assistance to one or more of the following: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Palestanian National Authority, and Syria." My sophomore it was "Resolved: That the US Federal Government should increase regulations in order to require a substantial decrease in the production and/or emission of environmental pollutants." As an example, a common plan my freshman year was to give missile defense technology to Israel to help them better defend their cities from missiles from Syria, Iraq, and the like. The negative's plan is the prove the affirmative wrong. There are numerous ways to do that, the most popular would be things like arguing that Israel is capable of defending their cities now and don't need our help, that our missile defense systems don't work, that something else bad bad will happen because of the plan (commonly referred to as a disad or disadvantage), that the plan is outside the bounds of the resolution (called topicality), or by proposing an alternative plan to accomplish the same objective by a different means (called a counter plan). There are others but those are the main ones.
The affirmative and negative battle back and forth through 8 speeches, 4 by each side. The first 4 speeches are called the constructives because that's where the positions are being constructed and where new arguments are made. "Evidence" is read to support the different arguments. Evidence is a published opinion from some Ph. D, professor, government authority, beat writer, or other supposed expert. There are also plenty of published hacks and the authority of someone's cited evidence can always be questioned. The last 4 speeches are referred to as rebuttals and are used to summarize and explain the argumentation and the overall impact of the specifc issues. Generally each debater will give one constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. 9 minutes are allotted for each constructive and 6 for each rebuttal. After each constructive, the presenting team is questioned for 3 minutes by the opposing team in what is called "cross examination." Each team also has 10 minutes of "prep time" to prepare for their speeches.
The affirmative begins with the First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) in which lays out the need for the plan, the specifics of the plan, and what the plan accomplishes. The negative counters with the First Negative Constructive (1NC) which outlines the negative position. The affirmative answers with the Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) at which point every argument made by the negative that the affirmative wants to answer must be addressed. Anything not addressed is considered "dropped" or conceded. The 2NC is where the negative really expounds upon some of their positions. This is the last of the constructives and where something of a reversal in the debate takes place. The negative immediately follows with a second speech, the First Negative Rebuttal (1NR). The 1NR picks up and explains the negative positions that the 2NC did not cover. When combined with the 2NC, this gives the negative a straight 15 minutes of talking time, often referred to as "the spread." The 1AR has 6 minutes to answer 15 minutes and can often be spread very thin for time. The 1AR in my opinion is one of the most difficult speeches. You have to be extremely fast, if you're good using no prep time, and answer every argument made by the 2NC and 1NR. You also have to do so in a manner that leaves your partner a clear strategy to go for the win in the 2AR. Before the 2AR is the 2NR, though. This is the last of the negative speeches where the negative team presents their final plea to the judges. The 2AR concludes the round by giving one final assessment for the affirmative team.
For anyone that's ever participated in or witnessed a policy debate round, this is not what Roger Bullard referred to as, "a finely honed method of persuasion." It is, exactly what he arguest that it is not, "a means for arriving at truth." It's an intense, fast paced, dissection of thought and argumentation. Why then, don't creationists fare as well in court as they do in debate, as Mr. Bullard asks? For starters, I've never heard creationism argued in policy debate. The type of debate that Mr. Bullard is talking about doesn't remotely resemble college policy debate which is what the article talks about. If creationism were argued in policy debate, or any debate for that matter, both parties start on level ground. In the courtroom creationists are met by years of precendence that puts them at an immediate disadvantage. They must not merely "win" the argument at hand, they must do so in such a convincing fashion that it justifies overturning years of judicial precedent. In a courtroom creationists are also disadvantaged by the precedent that the judge's decision may create. Even if the ruling was not overturning precedent, the judge may be hesitant to rule in a particular way because it may create confusing and possibly even contradictory precedent. That would also put creationists at a disadvantage. There's also the argument that at the level that these sorts of determinations are made, the justices do not by and large represent the populus of the country. That's another arugment for another time, though.
I also came across another article here. This guy makes a similar argument, "The right is already better at resonating with the public in a visceral, emotional way; our advantage is that we're the logical ones, and that reason, in theory, prevails over sound and fury in the end." To continue repeatedly arguing that "we" (whoever in the heck this "we" is) are the logical ones and they are not - only "visceral, emotional" and therefore inferior is only to continue to lose touch with the American people and show your ignorance. When it comes to America, there is no we and they. There is no "two Americas," Senator Edwards. America is 285 million different people all with different wants, different needs, and different issues that are important to them. Sure, some of those issues overlap and intersect and on some single issues there are two primary groups of people but the equation as a whole is far more complex than that.
The Nation article is right about one thing. "The rising generation of the Christian right aren't going to be batty Pat Robertson types---they're logically-sound, rhetorically-gifted debate champions, who know their foes' arguments inside out." The "batty Pat Roberton" type would not passionately defend a viewpoint they did not believe. Neither would they believe a viewpoint they could not defend. There is not a right wing conspiracy that leads unknowing kids into college debate to brainwash them on talking points to talk around issues they don't understand. These are the brightest of the bright that are open-mindedly seeking truth. They consider their own motives and predispositions as well as those of the people around them. This is why debaters are so passionate. This is also why this rising generation is here now.
If you don't feel like you need this explanation then read on. There are two main types of debate: Lincoln-Douglass (commonly referred to as LD debate) and policy. LD is a persuasive art. Facts are commonly used but the facts aren't necessarily any more important and are sometimes even less important than delivery and persuasiveness. When I think LD debate, I think of the guy on C-SPAN. He's speaking to an audience for the purpose of motivating and persuading the audience.
Policy debate is a very different animal. There are very strict rules, timelines, and procedures, and unlike LD, policy debate is not exactly a spectator sport. The goal of policy debate is not to convince a broad audience but a panel of judges (generally 1 or 3 but sometimes as many as 7 or 9 I've seen). The judges are always former debaters, current coaches - all people that are very familiar with the sport. Because of the strict time limits and the desire to get in as much information and argumentation as possible, the debaters talk as quickly as humanly possible, commonly over 200 words per minute and at times upwards of 400 words per minute. Most people can't hear and think that fast, let alone speak that fast.
I debated policy so that's what I know. A policy debate consists of two teams of two. One team is the affirmative and the other the negative. The affirmative's goal is to offer up a "plan" within the bounds of the "resolution." Given all the talk you hear in some of these articles about creationism and abortion you'd think that was what was debated all the time. My freshman year the resolution was "Resolved: That the US Federal Goverment should substantially increase security assistance to one or more of the following: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Palestanian National Authority, and Syria." My sophomore it was "Resolved: That the US Federal Government should increase regulations in order to require a substantial decrease in the production and/or emission of environmental pollutants." As an example, a common plan my freshman year was to give missile defense technology to Israel to help them better defend their cities from missiles from Syria, Iraq, and the like. The negative's plan is the prove the affirmative wrong. There are numerous ways to do that, the most popular would be things like arguing that Israel is capable of defending their cities now and don't need our help, that our missile defense systems don't work, that something else bad bad will happen because of the plan (commonly referred to as a disad or disadvantage), that the plan is outside the bounds of the resolution (called topicality), or by proposing an alternative plan to accomplish the same objective by a different means (called a counter plan). There are others but those are the main ones.
The affirmative and negative battle back and forth through 8 speeches, 4 by each side. The first 4 speeches are called the constructives because that's where the positions are being constructed and where new arguments are made. "Evidence" is read to support the different arguments. Evidence is a published opinion from some Ph. D, professor, government authority, beat writer, or other supposed expert. There are also plenty of published hacks and the authority of someone's cited evidence can always be questioned. The last 4 speeches are referred to as rebuttals and are used to summarize and explain the argumentation and the overall impact of the specifc issues. Generally each debater will give one constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. 9 minutes are allotted for each constructive and 6 for each rebuttal. After each constructive, the presenting team is questioned for 3 minutes by the opposing team in what is called "cross examination." Each team also has 10 minutes of "prep time" to prepare for their speeches.
The affirmative begins with the First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) in which lays out the need for the plan, the specifics of the plan, and what the plan accomplishes. The negative counters with the First Negative Constructive (1NC) which outlines the negative position. The affirmative answers with the Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) at which point every argument made by the negative that the affirmative wants to answer must be addressed. Anything not addressed is considered "dropped" or conceded. The 2NC is where the negative really expounds upon some of their positions. This is the last of the constructives and where something of a reversal in the debate takes place. The negative immediately follows with a second speech, the First Negative Rebuttal (1NR). The 1NR picks up and explains the negative positions that the 2NC did not cover. When combined with the 2NC, this gives the negative a straight 15 minutes of talking time, often referred to as "the spread." The 1AR has 6 minutes to answer 15 minutes and can often be spread very thin for time. The 1AR in my opinion is one of the most difficult speeches. You have to be extremely fast, if you're good using no prep time, and answer every argument made by the 2NC and 1NR. You also have to do so in a manner that leaves your partner a clear strategy to go for the win in the 2AR. Before the 2AR is the 2NR, though. This is the last of the negative speeches where the negative team presents their final plea to the judges. The 2AR concludes the round by giving one final assessment for the affirmative team.
For anyone that's ever participated in or witnessed a policy debate round, this is not what Roger Bullard referred to as, "a finely honed method of persuasion." It is, exactly what he arguest that it is not, "a means for arriving at truth." It's an intense, fast paced, dissection of thought and argumentation. Why then, don't creationists fare as well in court as they do in debate, as Mr. Bullard asks? For starters, I've never heard creationism argued in policy debate. The type of debate that Mr. Bullard is talking about doesn't remotely resemble college policy debate which is what the article talks about. If creationism were argued in policy debate, or any debate for that matter, both parties start on level ground. In the courtroom creationists are met by years of precendence that puts them at an immediate disadvantage. They must not merely "win" the argument at hand, they must do so in such a convincing fashion that it justifies overturning years of judicial precedent. In a courtroom creationists are also disadvantaged by the precedent that the judge's decision may create. Even if the ruling was not overturning precedent, the judge may be hesitant to rule in a particular way because it may create confusing and possibly even contradictory precedent. That would also put creationists at a disadvantage. There's also the argument that at the level that these sorts of determinations are made, the justices do not by and large represent the populus of the country. That's another arugment for another time, though.
I also came across another article here. This guy makes a similar argument, "The right is already better at resonating with the public in a visceral, emotional way; our advantage is that we're the logical ones, and that reason, in theory, prevails over sound and fury in the end." To continue repeatedly arguing that "we" (whoever in the heck this "we" is) are the logical ones and they are not - only "visceral, emotional" and therefore inferior is only to continue to lose touch with the American people and show your ignorance. When it comes to America, there is no we and they. There is no "two Americas," Senator Edwards. America is 285 million different people all with different wants, different needs, and different issues that are important to them. Sure, some of those issues overlap and intersect and on some single issues there are two primary groups of people but the equation as a whole is far more complex than that.
The Nation article is right about one thing. "The rising generation of the Christian right aren't going to be batty Pat Robertson types---they're logically-sound, rhetorically-gifted debate champions, who know their foes' arguments inside out." The "batty Pat Roberton" type would not passionately defend a viewpoint they did not believe. Neither would they believe a viewpoint they could not defend. There is not a right wing conspiracy that leads unknowing kids into college debate to brainwash them on talking points to talk around issues they don't understand. These are the brightest of the bright that are open-mindedly seeking truth. They consider their own motives and predispositions as well as those of the people around them. This is why debaters are so passionate. This is also why this rising generation is here now.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Uncollected Revenues
Critics of FairTax often cite the their concern as stemming from the difficulty they perceive with collecting the tax. Basically, they fear that the system is easy to cheat. I'm in a store, I want to buy something for $100. I tell the store owner something like, "you know, I don't have $100 but I do want to buy your item. I do have $70. Why don't I buy it for $70 and you don't charge me tax on the item?"
Cheating the system is definitely a fair point of discussion. And the above scenario not only can happen but inevitably will happen. But let's face it: there are problems with the income tax system as it exists today. A report out today says income taxes in 2001 cost the government (you and me) $345 billion in lost revenues. $345 billion! Apparently it's not that difficult to cheat the current system.
The question is not is either system foolproof. The question is, which system will result in less cheating? One big difference between the current system and FairTax is that today I can fill out an incorrect earned income (whether by accident or on purpose) and send it away. Until it's evaluated by the government, there is no other check. With FairTax, someone has to be willing to cheat with you. I can't buy something without paying taxes if the store is not willing to sell it to me without charging taxes. By the same token, the store can't easily charge me taxes without me realizing that I'm not being charged taxes.
Certainly these scenarios will occur. I just don't think it'll be very common. Under FairTax, two people have to be involved in order to cheat a system. Under the current system, only one. It sounds much more likely that a store would rightfully charge someone tax and then keep the tax for themself and not pay it to the government. But that's possible under the current system. Once again, I think the advantage goes to FairTax over the current system.
The good news (other than FairTax is coming :)) is that the government does hope to collect an additional $55 billion or so of that unpaid debt. I wonder how much those attorney and collection fees will cut into that.
Cheating the system is definitely a fair point of discussion. And the above scenario not only can happen but inevitably will happen. But let's face it: there are problems with the income tax system as it exists today. A report out today says income taxes in 2001 cost the government (you and me) $345 billion in lost revenues. $345 billion! Apparently it's not that difficult to cheat the current system.
The question is not is either system foolproof. The question is, which system will result in less cheating? One big difference between the current system and FairTax is that today I can fill out an incorrect earned income (whether by accident or on purpose) and send it away. Until it's evaluated by the government, there is no other check. With FairTax, someone has to be willing to cheat with you. I can't buy something without paying taxes if the store is not willing to sell it to me without charging taxes. By the same token, the store can't easily charge me taxes without me realizing that I'm not being charged taxes.
Certainly these scenarios will occur. I just don't think it'll be very common. Under FairTax, two people have to be involved in order to cheat a system. Under the current system, only one. It sounds much more likely that a store would rightfully charge someone tax and then keep the tax for themself and not pay it to the government. But that's possible under the current system. Once again, I think the advantage goes to FairTax over the current system.
The good news (other than FairTax is coming :)) is that the government does hope to collect an additional $55 billion or so of that unpaid debt. I wonder how much those attorney and collection fees will cut into that.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Class
It's easy for people to say bad things about professional athletes. Far too often they deserve it. In this instance though, one doesn't. He deserves praise. I don't know how many other people will but I'm going to give it to him.
Michael Irvin showed real class today. Yes, this is the same Michael Irvin that seems to have had on again off again drug and related problems over the past several years. Today his former teammate, Troy Aikman was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And Michael Irvin wasn't. Most professional athletes would have bemoaned the decision and talked about how unfair it was. Some recently have even played "the race card" in circumstances less than this(read: Donovan McNabb). Given Irvin's recent history, I'm sure a lot of people expected him to rail on the process. Instead, Here's Irvin's reaction:
"Any level of disappointment I have is undermined by my joy for Troy... It's not about me, it's about Troy."
That's allowing a former teammate and friend enjoy their moment in the spotlight rather than overshadowing them with your own misery. That's putting others first and recognizing the big picture. That's class. Thanks for giving us a glimpse of something that's all too rare in the world today, Michael Irvin.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
College Debate
I want to address some of the things mentioned in this article but I don't have time now. For now I'll just leave the link to remind me and get back with some of my thoughts and first hand experience later.
Alito Confirmed
It's official now. Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court has been confirmed.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Alito's Approval
I seem to remember someone feeling quite certain that Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court would be approved in short order. Today he won approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. A nominee must be approved by the committee before being voted on by the entire Senate. Msnbc.com reports today, "The only way Democrats can stop the conservative judge now is through a filibuster, a manuever they show little interest in." Score one for the Gang of 14.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Stupid in America
Tonight I saw one of the best documentaries that I've ever seen. ABC's 20/20 with John Stossel ran a documentary about American public education entitled "Stupid in America." I'm a big fan of John Stossel.
If you're not familiar with Stossel, you should check out Give Me a Break. He walks you through how he started out in the 1980s as a consumer advocate reporting on scams. One of the stories I remember most was a piece he ran about abortion clinics. Apparently it was becoming a relatively wide spread problem that these clinics would report that women were pregnant and needed to come in for an abortion when they were really not pregnant at all. Stossel reported on the problem from the consumer's point of view. These women were being cheated, paying for a service that they never received. Stossel hired women to go into abortion clinics and when supplying a urine specimens to the clinic actually supplied the clinic with a sample of Stossel's urine that they were carrying. Something like 6 out of 10 clinics reported, based on a sampling of Stossel's urine, that the woman was pregnant. After finding out about different scams and how businesses were cheating consumers he advocated increased government oversight. He wanted more regulation to solve society's problems. Over time, Stossel decided to revisit scams he had previously busted. He learned that even after the light he had shed on the problems that the situation had not grown much better. He slowly began to learn first hand that increased government regulation was not the answer to everything. He became far more libertarian in his beliefs and became a firm believer that government has a role but it's not to increase regulation to solve any and all of society's ills.
Now that you know who he is, back to Stossel's current story. Stossel once again lays out a very compelling case. In this instance, how forcing children to go to a single school without having a choice is a government monopoly. He compares it to AT&T back in the 1980. He argues that consumers (in this case the children being sent to often failing government schools) would be far better off given choices in the education market just as they're better off given a choice of Verizon, Cingular, Sprint, T-Mobile, and so many other mobile phone carriers these days as opposed to being stuck with a single provider no matter how poor they may be.
I hope people don't get me wrong. I don't hate public schools. My mom was a public school teacher for 30 some odd years. Both of her parents were public school teachers. I have numerous aunts and uncles that were teachers, a sister-in-law that was a teacher, and lots of friends. I'm a product of a public school. 1st through 12th grade I attended public school in what most people would say is one of the worst possible places for it - south Mississippi. But my experience wasn't a horror story. By and large I had teachers that cared and other students around me that challenged me.
Stossel went to one of the top public schools in New Jersey, supposedly the state with the highest rated public schools in the nation. Stossel asked what about the purpose of the Bill of Rights and one of the causes of the Civil War. No one was able to answer. He went to South Carolina which has one of the lowest rated public schools in the nation. He interviewed the state Secretary of Education about the problems. She continually said that the schools there are dramatically improving and have great things in store over the next few years. No acknowledgement of the fact that less than 50% of students entering high school graduate after 4 years there.
He contrasted her attitude with that of a newly elected governor in the state. The governor moved to South Carolina after being elected and upon moving learned that his family was in an underperforming school district. He was then told that whereas everyone else has to send their children to the school in the district where they live, the governor is exempt from that law. Why is what seems to be good enough for everyone else, going to the school in the district in which you live, not good enough for the governor?
I'm not going to take any more time than I already have to recap Stossel's arguments. Read his article. The whole point of this was to say that education in America is a major problem and something needs to be done to address the problem. This would be one of my other first initiatives as governor. People seem to agree that the governor's children deserve better that our current system; they deserve a choice. Like the South Carolina governor, I just happen to agree that your children deserve a choice as well.
If you're not familiar with Stossel, you should check out Give Me a Break. He walks you through how he started out in the 1980s as a consumer advocate reporting on scams. One of the stories I remember most was a piece he ran about abortion clinics. Apparently it was becoming a relatively wide spread problem that these clinics would report that women were pregnant and needed to come in for an abortion when they were really not pregnant at all. Stossel reported on the problem from the consumer's point of view. These women were being cheated, paying for a service that they never received. Stossel hired women to go into abortion clinics and when supplying a urine specimens to the clinic actually supplied the clinic with a sample of Stossel's urine that they were carrying. Something like 6 out of 10 clinics reported, based on a sampling of Stossel's urine, that the woman was pregnant. After finding out about different scams and how businesses were cheating consumers he advocated increased government oversight. He wanted more regulation to solve society's problems. Over time, Stossel decided to revisit scams he had previously busted. He learned that even after the light he had shed on the problems that the situation had not grown much better. He slowly began to learn first hand that increased government regulation was not the answer to everything. He became far more libertarian in his beliefs and became a firm believer that government has a role but it's not to increase regulation to solve any and all of society's ills.
Now that you know who he is, back to Stossel's current story. Stossel once again lays out a very compelling case. In this instance, how forcing children to go to a single school without having a choice is a government monopoly. He compares it to AT&T back in the 1980. He argues that consumers (in this case the children being sent to often failing government schools) would be far better off given choices in the education market just as they're better off given a choice of Verizon, Cingular, Sprint, T-Mobile, and so many other mobile phone carriers these days as opposed to being stuck with a single provider no matter how poor they may be.
I hope people don't get me wrong. I don't hate public schools. My mom was a public school teacher for 30 some odd years. Both of her parents were public school teachers. I have numerous aunts and uncles that were teachers, a sister-in-law that was a teacher, and lots of friends. I'm a product of a public school. 1st through 12th grade I attended public school in what most people would say is one of the worst possible places for it - south Mississippi. But my experience wasn't a horror story. By and large I had teachers that cared and other students around me that challenged me.
Stossel went to one of the top public schools in New Jersey, supposedly the state with the highest rated public schools in the nation. Stossel asked what about the purpose of the Bill of Rights and one of the causes of the Civil War. No one was able to answer. He went to South Carolina which has one of the lowest rated public schools in the nation. He interviewed the state Secretary of Education about the problems. She continually said that the schools there are dramatically improving and have great things in store over the next few years. No acknowledgement of the fact that less than 50% of students entering high school graduate after 4 years there.
He contrasted her attitude with that of a newly elected governor in the state. The governor moved to South Carolina after being elected and upon moving learned that his family was in an underperforming school district. He was then told that whereas everyone else has to send their children to the school in the district where they live, the governor is exempt from that law. Why is what seems to be good enough for everyone else, going to the school in the district in which you live, not good enough for the governor?
I'm not going to take any more time than I already have to recap Stossel's arguments. Read his article. The whole point of this was to say that education in America is a major problem and something needs to be done to address the problem. This would be one of my other first initiatives as governor. People seem to agree that the governor's children deserve better that our current system; they deserve a choice. Like the South Carolina governor, I just happen to agree that your children deserve a choice as well.
Trend Setting
In one of my last posts I used the term "temptations" to refer to what a lot of politicians face. I don't think it was a term that I had heard previously applied to that specific situation. Today I was reading an article on msnbc.com about some of the fallout from the Abramoff scandal. The Abramoff scandal, for those that may not be familiar with it, is about people basically buying influence in Washington. In one particular section of the article, msnbc.com is discussing what changes are being made to make it more difficult to buy influence the way it is alleged to have occurred with Abramoff. The heading reads, "working to ban temptation." I think that's a good thing and the more people that recognize that the better. Just remember where you heard it first.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Purpose of Taxes
I was thinking tonight at dinner about my dream from a couple of weeks ago. The dream where I was the governor of Georgia. What would I do as governor? Well, to start with, a governor can't do much. The governor doesn't make laws. The governor does have nice platform on a state level and even occasionally on the national level - especially if your last name happens to be Schwarzenegger - to force the agenda that he wants to see. This started me thinking about my agenda.
My first priority is tax reform. There are 2 elements to the current tax system. There's the amount of money that the government collects from us all and then generally turns around and spends and there's the processes that we as taxpayers have to go through to feel reasonably safe that we've paid the government what we legally owe and aren't going to be subject to any sort of an audit. I think any reasonable person would agree that the amount of money that the government spends is certainly something that can be curbed. That's not going to be easy to do, though. People are accustomed to certain programs and expenditures being available and there would be a lot of resistance , even if only very vocal resistance by a few people who were affected by program X. Because of that, I think the process would be the easiest thing to change.
I think you'd be had pressed to find any reasonable person that believes that the current tax process is a good idea. I'm personally a big fan of at least the basic premise of FairTax (read my review of The FairTax Book or buy your own copy). I think implementing something similar at a state level would not only be a great thing for the state but would also be a great thing in that it would be another example that the federal government could draw upon to prove the concept. I say another example because there are numerous states that do something that is in some respects very similar. The largest and most notable are Florida and Texas. Neither state has a state income tax and instead collects the majority of its revenues through sales and other taxes. I digress, though.
The best thing in my mind about a program similar to FairTax is that it removes the temptation from taxation. Taxation is a temptation for politicians, I believe. In my last post I talked about the different temptations that politicians undoubtedly face. Taxation may be the largest. Originally I think taxation was pure. The earliest revenues were used for building a federal infrastructure with legislative buildings and courthouses and beginning to assemble what is today the greatest national defense that the world has ever known. Some of our tax revenues still go to reasonable causes but so much doesn't anymore.
Today there are two main reasons that tax laws are passed. I don't remember if this came from The FairTax Book or another source or if I happened to assemble this. Regardless of the source, I've long believed this to be the case. The main reasons tax laws are passed today are to influence behavior and to buy votes. Think about that for a few minutes. Think of the different tax laws that you're familiar with. Homeowner's deduction. You save money on your taxes if you own a home. It's meant to encourage home ownership. Investerwords.com says, "The deduction is intended to encourage renters to become homeowners, under the belief that home ownership encourages upstanding citizenship and reduces crime." How about another one. Your 401k. 401kFocus.com says, "In order to encourage savings, the government created special tax advantages for 401k participants." Non-profit deductions are meant to encourage giving to charitable organizations. Student loans and interest deductibility are meant to encourage education. Get the picture? The government gives you a small financial reward for doing what it wants you to do.
The second reason, buying votes, is a little bit harder to get your arms around. Lets start with a relatively easy one: prescription drug coverage for seniors. This is not about whether it's a good idea or whether or not some seniors could use help paying for prescription drugs. God knows if my grandmother were still alive and needed help paying for prescription drugs I'd be working a second job now instead of writing this blog entry to help her pay for them. But take a step back for a second and remember - this is not about whether or not prescription drug coverage for seniors is a good idea. This is about whether or not it's an attempt by the government to buy votes. Now lets think this through. The basic way this program works is that a smaller amount of money is taken from every tax payer (roughly 280 million Americans that should be paying taxes) and redistributed to a much smaller number of seniors that are eligible for prescription drug coverage (less than 12 million enrolled as of 1/1/2006). If the government takes $50 each year from each person, most people aren't going to miss $50 over the course of a year. Especially not when it's automatically withheld from your paycheck and there's no clear easy way to see how much you paid or understand where it's going. That's another story, though. That $50 from 280 million people turns into almost $100 every month for 12 million seniors seeking prescription drug coverage. That extra $100 makes 12 million people very happy and therefore very eager to vote for you. 12 million people may or may not sound like a big number when you're talking about buying votes but the last 3 Presidential elections combined were decided by less than 12 million votes! 12 million is a HUGE number of votes.
Vote buying happens in other ways as well. The entire aspect of a progressive tax is meant to buy votes. The tax system that we have is called a progressive system. The more money you make - the higher the tax rate you pay. Your rate, in addition to the amount of taxes you pay, gets progressively higher. Think about it. The higher the annual income level, the fewer people who make it. More people make at least $10/hour than $15. More people make at least $15 than make at least $20. More people make at least $50 than make $100. The higher the income level of the people you raise taxes on the fewer people you affect. And raising taxes on fewer people gives you more money to spend on more people.
A concept like FairTax removes a politician from these temptations and as I've described previously, these have to be some very strong temptations. Any effort to reform and cleanup government would have to start with something like this. Remove from the equation not just all the headaches associated with the current process but also the temptations that the process places upon the politicians. Don't tempt them to influence your behavior or buy your vote.
My first priority is tax reform. There are 2 elements to the current tax system. There's the amount of money that the government collects from us all and then generally turns around and spends and there's the processes that we as taxpayers have to go through to feel reasonably safe that we've paid the government what we legally owe and aren't going to be subject to any sort of an audit. I think any reasonable person would agree that the amount of money that the government spends is certainly something that can be curbed. That's not going to be easy to do, though. People are accustomed to certain programs and expenditures being available and there would be a lot of resistance , even if only very vocal resistance by a few people who were affected by program X. Because of that, I think the process would be the easiest thing to change.
I think you'd be had pressed to find any reasonable person that believes that the current tax process is a good idea. I'm personally a big fan of at least the basic premise of FairTax (read my review of The FairTax Book or buy your own copy). I think implementing something similar at a state level would not only be a great thing for the state but would also be a great thing in that it would be another example that the federal government could draw upon to prove the concept. I say another example because there are numerous states that do something that is in some respects very similar. The largest and most notable are Florida and Texas. Neither state has a state income tax and instead collects the majority of its revenues through sales and other taxes. I digress, though.
The best thing in my mind about a program similar to FairTax is that it removes the temptation from taxation. Taxation is a temptation for politicians, I believe. In my last post I talked about the different temptations that politicians undoubtedly face. Taxation may be the largest. Originally I think taxation was pure. The earliest revenues were used for building a federal infrastructure with legislative buildings and courthouses and beginning to assemble what is today the greatest national defense that the world has ever known. Some of our tax revenues still go to reasonable causes but so much doesn't anymore.
Today there are two main reasons that tax laws are passed. I don't remember if this came from The FairTax Book or another source or if I happened to assemble this. Regardless of the source, I've long believed this to be the case. The main reasons tax laws are passed today are to influence behavior and to buy votes. Think about that for a few minutes. Think of the different tax laws that you're familiar with. Homeowner's deduction. You save money on your taxes if you own a home. It's meant to encourage home ownership. Investerwords.com says, "The deduction is intended to encourage renters to become homeowners, under the belief that home ownership encourages upstanding citizenship and reduces crime." How about another one. Your 401k. 401kFocus.com says, "In order to encourage savings, the government created special tax advantages for 401k participants." Non-profit deductions are meant to encourage giving to charitable organizations. Student loans and interest deductibility are meant to encourage education. Get the picture? The government gives you a small financial reward for doing what it wants you to do.
The second reason, buying votes, is a little bit harder to get your arms around. Lets start with a relatively easy one: prescription drug coverage for seniors. This is not about whether it's a good idea or whether or not some seniors could use help paying for prescription drugs. God knows if my grandmother were still alive and needed help paying for prescription drugs I'd be working a second job now instead of writing this blog entry to help her pay for them. But take a step back for a second and remember - this is not about whether or not prescription drug coverage for seniors is a good idea. This is about whether or not it's an attempt by the government to buy votes. Now lets think this through. The basic way this program works is that a smaller amount of money is taken from every tax payer (roughly 280 million Americans that should be paying taxes) and redistributed to a much smaller number of seniors that are eligible for prescription drug coverage (less than 12 million enrolled as of 1/1/2006). If the government takes $50 each year from each person, most people aren't going to miss $50 over the course of a year. Especially not when it's automatically withheld from your paycheck and there's no clear easy way to see how much you paid or understand where it's going. That's another story, though. That $50 from 280 million people turns into almost $100 every month for 12 million seniors seeking prescription drug coverage. That extra $100 makes 12 million people very happy and therefore very eager to vote for you. 12 million people may or may not sound like a big number when you're talking about buying votes but the last 3 Presidential elections combined were decided by less than 12 million votes! 12 million is a HUGE number of votes.
Vote buying happens in other ways as well. The entire aspect of a progressive tax is meant to buy votes. The tax system that we have is called a progressive system. The more money you make - the higher the tax rate you pay. Your rate, in addition to the amount of taxes you pay, gets progressively higher. Think about it. The higher the annual income level, the fewer people who make it. More people make at least $10/hour than $15. More people make at least $15 than make at least $20. More people make at least $50 than make $100. The higher the income level of the people you raise taxes on the fewer people you affect. And raising taxes on fewer people gives you more money to spend on more people.
A concept like FairTax removes a politician from these temptations and as I've described previously, these have to be some very strong temptations. Any effort to reform and cleanup government would have to start with something like this. Remove from the equation not just all the headaches associated with the current process but also the temptations that the process places upon the politicians. Don't tempt them to influence your behavior or buy your vote.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
A Struggle for Significance
Everyone wants to feel that what they do is important. This is something I've dealt with before but it's really been weighing heavily on me the last 2-3 weeks. I'm a software consultant. I feel like I'm good at what I do. I have a good job with a good company. I'm paid well. I generally enjoy what I do. What does it matter in the grand scheme of things, though? Take the project I'm working on right now as an example. I'm helping a very large Fortune 500 company write an order entry system. Ultimately over 10k people will use this system. I'm the technical architect and the development lead for this project. I'm not exactly pushing paper in some windowless office or digging ditches only to refill it again. So why do I struggle with significance?
I think there are some meaningful things that I do. I think trying to be a good example to my kids is a good one. That's something that hopefully is lasting and of major impact. The relationships that I have with people is something of importance as well. How much time to I spend doing those things compared to the time that I spend working, though? It seems to pale in comparison to the time that I actually spend doing my job.
The best reason for these feelings that I can come up with is that I believe there are more important things in life. I think there's more that can be accomplished than building an order entry system for a bunch of people to use and save a big company a lot of time and money. There's more to life. What does that mean for my life, though? Am I supposed to be doing something else? Am I in the wrong line of work?
I think right now I'm where I'm supposed to be. I do think I'll eventually do something else, though. I have a deep appreciation for our nation. I think ultimately I'd like to take the time to either go to law school and become involved in Constitutional law or become politically active. I'm politically active to the extent I'm aware of what's going on by and large and I vote but I'm talking about becoming even more involved and potentially running for office one day. I think God has a long way to go to prepare me for that if that's where I'll ultimately be led, though.
Politics is a mess these days. Especially in Washington. The whole environment is just so full of contempt and corruption. I'm not so cynical to believe that all of these people were full of contempt and corruption when they arrived. I think the environment is just that tough. I'd like to say it's something I'd never give in to but I don't believe that. A philosopher once said you can never say with certainty what you would do in a situation unless you're in the situation. The idea behind that is that there are so many forces at work that we don't see and understand. There are so many temptations on these people that we on the outside can't fathom. I'm not so naive as to think I'd be immune to those temptations. I think God wants to make sure that if that's an environment that I'll be placed in that those aren't temptations that I would ever fall prey to. If I did then I'd be no better fit to serve and lead than the people who are in place there now.
Today in church our pastor's sermon was entitled "Living with Purpose: The Path to Significance." Does that mean anything? Only that it's something that God continues to deal with me about. I had a dream a week or so ago that I was the Governor of Georgia. Does that mean anything? I don't know.
I do believe that being in a position where I could speak to people would make me feel like I'm accomplishing a greater purpose. I'd love to be able to convey to people a message of freedom and hope. I'd love to be able work to make that a reality for so many people who today feel that politicians are so far removed from the people and their problems. I think I'd be as good a person as anyone to do that. I understand what I believe, why I believe it, and most importantly, I genuinely care and want to make a difference. I pray that as God gives me opportunities to make a difference I would be able to take advantage of them and serve Him well however big or small those opportunities may be.
I think there are some meaningful things that I do. I think trying to be a good example to my kids is a good one. That's something that hopefully is lasting and of major impact. The relationships that I have with people is something of importance as well. How much time to I spend doing those things compared to the time that I spend working, though? It seems to pale in comparison to the time that I actually spend doing my job.
The best reason for these feelings that I can come up with is that I believe there are more important things in life. I think there's more that can be accomplished than building an order entry system for a bunch of people to use and save a big company a lot of time and money. There's more to life. What does that mean for my life, though? Am I supposed to be doing something else? Am I in the wrong line of work?
I think right now I'm where I'm supposed to be. I do think I'll eventually do something else, though. I have a deep appreciation for our nation. I think ultimately I'd like to take the time to either go to law school and become involved in Constitutional law or become politically active. I'm politically active to the extent I'm aware of what's going on by and large and I vote but I'm talking about becoming even more involved and potentially running for office one day. I think God has a long way to go to prepare me for that if that's where I'll ultimately be led, though.
Politics is a mess these days. Especially in Washington. The whole environment is just so full of contempt and corruption. I'm not so cynical to believe that all of these people were full of contempt and corruption when they arrived. I think the environment is just that tough. I'd like to say it's something I'd never give in to but I don't believe that. A philosopher once said you can never say with certainty what you would do in a situation unless you're in the situation. The idea behind that is that there are so many forces at work that we don't see and understand. There are so many temptations on these people that we on the outside can't fathom. I'm not so naive as to think I'd be immune to those temptations. I think God wants to make sure that if that's an environment that I'll be placed in that those aren't temptations that I would ever fall prey to. If I did then I'd be no better fit to serve and lead than the people who are in place there now.
Today in church our pastor's sermon was entitled "Living with Purpose: The Path to Significance." Does that mean anything? Only that it's something that God continues to deal with me about. I had a dream a week or so ago that I was the Governor of Georgia. Does that mean anything? I don't know.
I do believe that being in a position where I could speak to people would make me feel like I'm accomplishing a greater purpose. I'd love to be able to convey to people a message of freedom and hope. I'd love to be able work to make that a reality for so many people who today feel that politicians are so far removed from the people and their problems. I think I'd be as good a person as anyone to do that. I understand what I believe, why I believe it, and most importantly, I genuinely care and want to make a difference. I pray that as God gives me opportunities to make a difference I would be able to take advantage of them and serve Him well however big or small those opportunities may be.
I'm Lazy
There are so many things that happen over the course of every week that I have opinions on. I don't know how one person could possibly end up with so many opinions. Somehow I never end up taking the time to post my opinons here, though. I'm just lazy.
I think it's very important to take the time to list out some of these opinions. There are several reasons why. Perhaps most importantly, taking the time to write out my opinions forces me to think through my opinions far more than what most people would normally do. This either causes me to consider angles that had previously not occurred to me and as a result change my opinion or it causes me to feel more certain about my conclusion. In either case I end up more comfortable with my opinion. I think it's also important from a historical standpoint to document what my beliefs are. I don't have the best memory in the world. The things that I remember I tend to remember with extreme clarify but there are a lot of issues that for whatever reason just don't stick in my mind long term. I'd like to be able to look back over time and see if my beliefs and opinions have changed and if so how. I think that will be very interesting to do years from now. Or even for my children to one day be able to see what their dad believed and why. I wonder what they'll think.
I think it's very important to take the time to list out some of these opinions. There are several reasons why. Perhaps most importantly, taking the time to write out my opinions forces me to think through my opinions far more than what most people would normally do. This either causes me to consider angles that had previously not occurred to me and as a result change my opinion or it causes me to feel more certain about my conclusion. In either case I end up more comfortable with my opinion. I think it's also important from a historical standpoint to document what my beliefs are. I don't have the best memory in the world. The things that I remember I tend to remember with extreme clarify but there are a lot of issues that for whatever reason just don't stick in my mind long term. I'd like to be able to look back over time and see if my beliefs and opinions have changed and if so how. I think that will be very interesting to do years from now. Or even for my children to one day be able to see what their dad believed and why. I wonder what they'll think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
