In reading an article today, I came across this quote which I thought was absolutely priceless. Do you know who it's referring to?
"What's there left to say about him that hasn't been said... He reads 12 books per week, speaks seven languages, teaches microeconomics at Stanford, advises the State Department on sub-Saharan diplomacy and holds multiple patents for water-filtration devices. He once fashioned a crude transistor radio out of a seashell and two plastic sporks."
The answer? Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland A's
Monday, February 12, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Defending Democrats
There are a couple of different active stories at the moment where Democrats need defending. The first is this whole Nancy Pelosi Air Force jet story. Pelosi has been encouraged to fly to and from her San Francisco area home to DC using a military aircraft. The problem with this is that they're not willing to supply here with an aircraft capable of making the trip non-stop. I think she should either:
a) be allowed to fly coach if that's what she'd prefer
b) if folks are going to insist that she use a military aircraft then they should provide her with one that will be able to get her to and fro in a similar time frame as the coach flight would
If that means a larger aircraft than what Hastert used then so what? Big deal. Get over it, people. Given the way Republicans have spent tax payer money lately I don't think it's nearly as much an issue of fiscal constraint as it is being a bunch of sore losers. Show some class.
The second Democrat that needs defending these days is John Edwards. Apparently he and his family have just finished building a massive estate in North Carolina. It's 28,000 square feet situated on 102 secluded acres, according to reports. Personally, I think it sounds lovely. I think if he's made the kind of money to provide for his family like that in an honest fashion then good for him. I wish I was able to provide for my family like that.
Now where Edwards will run into a little trouble, and perhaps rightly so, is on his vision of two Americas. As Jay Leno was quick to point out, "we know which America he [Edwards] is living in." It's hard to be thought of as sincere when you claim to be fighting for the rights of the poor when you live in such splendor. How well can you know the poorer America when you keep yourself so far removed from it?
Now I don't know a whole lot about the personal life of Edwards. For all I know he and his family are at the local soup kitchen working every week and he may do oodles of other things for charitable reasons. If that's the case then good for him. Maybe it's not at all hypocrisy. I don't know. I can understand why it would at first glace need explaining, though.
a) be allowed to fly coach if that's what she'd prefer
b) if folks are going to insist that she use a military aircraft then they should provide her with one that will be able to get her to and fro in a similar time frame as the coach flight would
If that means a larger aircraft than what Hastert used then so what? Big deal. Get over it, people. Given the way Republicans have spent tax payer money lately I don't think it's nearly as much an issue of fiscal constraint as it is being a bunch of sore losers. Show some class.
The second Democrat that needs defending these days is John Edwards. Apparently he and his family have just finished building a massive estate in North Carolina. It's 28,000 square feet situated on 102 secluded acres, according to reports. Personally, I think it sounds lovely. I think if he's made the kind of money to provide for his family like that in an honest fashion then good for him. I wish I was able to provide for my family like that.
Now where Edwards will run into a little trouble, and perhaps rightly so, is on his vision of two Americas. As Jay Leno was quick to point out, "we know which America he [Edwards] is living in." It's hard to be thought of as sincere when you claim to be fighting for the rights of the poor when you live in such splendor. How well can you know the poorer America when you keep yourself so far removed from it?
Now I don't know a whole lot about the personal life of Edwards. For all I know he and his family are at the local soup kitchen working every week and he may do oodles of other things for charitable reasons. If that's the case then good for him. Maybe it's not at all hypocrisy. I don't know. I can understand why it would at first glace need explaining, though.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Abortion Rights
This is a sensitive subject. I don't intend to blast anyone or make anyone feel guilty or anything of the sort. I read the article on Mitt Romney and the evolution of his position on abortion. I thought it some small way it mirrors the evolution of my own position. It made me want to honestly share my own feelings and struggles with the issue.
The first time I can ever really remember discussing or contemplating abortion was 1993 or 1994. I didn't have a whole lot of understanding of the medical and scientific background or anything. Growing up in a very conservative, church going South Mississippi, I understood that all of my friends and family believed it was wrong. At the time, I thought it was wrong as well. I didn't really understand why, though. It was mostly just the influence of my friends and family, though. Where I differed with most of my friends and family was that I didn't think my personal beliefs on abortion should be forced on others. While I believed it was wrong, I thought others should be free to choose for themselves.
That all changed in 1996. One of my good friends in college, Doug Johnson, was rabidly pro-life. He and I discussed the issue a thousand times. When I say discussed, I mean just that. He and I were good friends and I believe we held a healthy respect for one another. This allowed a forum where open and honest communication could take place. Those types of relationships that foster open and honest communication don't exist much within our society anymore. I think that's one reason so many issues are so polarizing. Without open lines of communication one side doesn't understand where the other side is coming from.
As I said, Doug was rabidly pro-life. He thought abortion should be illegal without exception. Through the many talks we had, I came to understand why. It wasn't so much that he convinced me or talked me out of my position or anything like that. It was that being given the opportunity to hear what someone who disagrees with me believes and why they believe what they do, I was better able to understand my own beliefs.
For me, the whole issue boils down to an issue of rights. I'm generally a very permissive guy when it comes to allowing people to do what they want to do. The very premise of rights is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This was the basis for my previous belief that even though I personally believed abortion was wrong, I didn't think it was the government's place to tell others that it was wrong, though.
Doug had me think about other laws where the government has the right to restrict someone's behavior because it infringed upon the rights of others, though. The government has the right to enforce laws against stealing. It's not that me picking up a wallet full of money is wrong. It's that me picking up someone else's wallet full of money is wrong because they have the right to carry a wallet full of money without me interfering with them.
This is where the rubber meets the road in the abortion debate for me. I don't have the right to terminate the life of an adult because that adult has the right to life. At what point does a baby, a fetus, a zygote, whatever you want to call it at whatever stage of development and life it is, at what point does it have rights? My philosophy being based on rights, at the point the baby has the same right to life that I do then I don't believe abortion should be allowed. When does that occur, though?
I'll be honest, I'm not sure exactly at what point those rights begin. I think there has to be a definite point where you say this is a baby, this baby has rights that we can't allow others to infringe upon, though. If you're a mother or father and you've sat anxiously in the doctor's office to see the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks of your baby that you just can't wait to get here, do you honestly believe that little baby doesn't have rights? You can see it move. You see fingers and toes, you see it sucking its thumb. Doesn't this baby have the same rights that you and I do? I believe that it does.
In searching for a definite point at which the baby has rights, I haven't really found a point at which I'm comfortable saying that it doesn't. This is based on several things. For one, my strong held belief in the Bible. In numerous places the Bible talks about God knowing us from conception. Also, it seems to me, the more technology advances and the more we have insight into what happens within the womb, the more we understand how a baby advances earlier and earlier than we think it does. This is a great site for fetal development. I don't feel comfortable saying that a baby - that at 8 weeks has a brain, hands, knees, even an eyelid - doesn't have rights that we have every responsibly to protect.
This discussion isn't an easy one. There are a lot of people with understandably strong feelings on both sides of the debate. I think the more we respect one another and share our opinions the more comfortable we'll all be both with our own beliefs and the beliefs of others. Having been on both sides of this debate and different points in my life and having seen others willingness to respect my beliefs and discuss such a sensitive and personal issue, I feel like I know this first hand.
The first time I can ever really remember discussing or contemplating abortion was 1993 or 1994. I didn't have a whole lot of understanding of the medical and scientific background or anything. Growing up in a very conservative, church going South Mississippi, I understood that all of my friends and family believed it was wrong. At the time, I thought it was wrong as well. I didn't really understand why, though. It was mostly just the influence of my friends and family, though. Where I differed with most of my friends and family was that I didn't think my personal beliefs on abortion should be forced on others. While I believed it was wrong, I thought others should be free to choose for themselves.
That all changed in 1996. One of my good friends in college, Doug Johnson, was rabidly pro-life. He and I discussed the issue a thousand times. When I say discussed, I mean just that. He and I were good friends and I believe we held a healthy respect for one another. This allowed a forum where open and honest communication could take place. Those types of relationships that foster open and honest communication don't exist much within our society anymore. I think that's one reason so many issues are so polarizing. Without open lines of communication one side doesn't understand where the other side is coming from.
As I said, Doug was rabidly pro-life. He thought abortion should be illegal without exception. Through the many talks we had, I came to understand why. It wasn't so much that he convinced me or talked me out of my position or anything like that. It was that being given the opportunity to hear what someone who disagrees with me believes and why they believe what they do, I was better able to understand my own beliefs.
For me, the whole issue boils down to an issue of rights. I'm generally a very permissive guy when it comes to allowing people to do what they want to do. The very premise of rights is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This was the basis for my previous belief that even though I personally believed abortion was wrong, I didn't think it was the government's place to tell others that it was wrong, though.
Doug had me think about other laws where the government has the right to restrict someone's behavior because it infringed upon the rights of others, though. The government has the right to enforce laws against stealing. It's not that me picking up a wallet full of money is wrong. It's that me picking up someone else's wallet full of money is wrong because they have the right to carry a wallet full of money without me interfering with them.
This is where the rubber meets the road in the abortion debate for me. I don't have the right to terminate the life of an adult because that adult has the right to life. At what point does a baby, a fetus, a zygote, whatever you want to call it at whatever stage of development and life it is, at what point does it have rights? My philosophy being based on rights, at the point the baby has the same right to life that I do then I don't believe abortion should be allowed. When does that occur, though?
I'll be honest, I'm not sure exactly at what point those rights begin. I think there has to be a definite point where you say this is a baby, this baby has rights that we can't allow others to infringe upon, though. If you're a mother or father and you've sat anxiously in the doctor's office to see the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks of your baby that you just can't wait to get here, do you honestly believe that little baby doesn't have rights? You can see it move. You see fingers and toes, you see it sucking its thumb. Doesn't this baby have the same rights that you and I do? I believe that it does.
In searching for a definite point at which the baby has rights, I haven't really found a point at which I'm comfortable saying that it doesn't. This is based on several things. For one, my strong held belief in the Bible. In numerous places the Bible talks about God knowing us from conception. Also, it seems to me, the more technology advances and the more we have insight into what happens within the womb, the more we understand how a baby advances earlier and earlier than we think it does. This is a great site for fetal development. I don't feel comfortable saying that a baby - that at 8 weeks has a brain, hands, knees, even an eyelid - doesn't have rights that we have every responsibly to protect.
This discussion isn't an easy one. There are a lot of people with understandably strong feelings on both sides of the debate. I think the more we respect one another and share our opinions the more comfortable we'll all be both with our own beliefs and the beliefs of others. Having been on both sides of this debate and different points in my life and having seen others willingness to respect my beliefs and discuss such a sensitive and personal issue, I feel like I know this first hand.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Why Aren't Politicians More Like Athletes?
So this may sound kinda crazy, but think about it. All you ever hear from politicians is what they don't stand for. You seldom hear about what they do stand for. It's all about how the other guy hasn't done this or how he did that and shouldn't have and so on and so forth. Shut up about the other guy already. Why is voting for you going to lead to better things for me? That's all I care to hear.
Contrast that with most athletes and especially coaches. Athletes seldom declare victory before a game. They rarely blame the refs or the timekeepers or anything of the sort. I mean, I know it happens, but out of all the games that go on year after year after year you only hear that kinda thing a handful of times. And even when you do, the rules are there to discourage that kind of behavior. These people pay hefty fines. Compare that with the last couple of national elections where there has been so much partisan bickering and accusing going on.
In case you missed it, Joe Biden recently announced his candidacy for President in 2008. He then proceeded to rip into the other major candidates, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. Now if Biden was an athlete, his response instead would have gone something like these. And if you're a politician reading this, feel free to use it. I think it'll get you a lot further with the voters that the venom you normally spew.
Joe Biden, the professional athlete: Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for President in 2008.
Bill, the reporter: Senator Biden, what about Hillary Clinton? Do you think you have more of a shot than she would head to head against some of the more notable Republican candidates?
Biden: Well, there are some excellent candidates out there, Bill. I'm going to have a tough time even convincing my family and personal friends to vote for me, I think.
Reporter: Senator Biden, do you really feel Hillary Clinton is an excellent candidate? I mean, even some fellow Democrats are sounding as if they're concerned whether or not she's too polarizing a figure to have a shot with the more centrist voters.
Biden: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've known Senator Clinton for a long time, though. I think she's got the strongest team on paper and she really plays the game the right way. If she's in the zone come election day, anything can happen. But I think I've really got a message the voters would like to hear. If we practice hard, take it one voter at a time, I think we can be in this thing at the end with a shot to win it. That's why you count the votes.
Contrast that with most athletes and especially coaches. Athletes seldom declare victory before a game. They rarely blame the refs or the timekeepers or anything of the sort. I mean, I know it happens, but out of all the games that go on year after year after year you only hear that kinda thing a handful of times. And even when you do, the rules are there to discourage that kind of behavior. These people pay hefty fines. Compare that with the last couple of national elections where there has been so much partisan bickering and accusing going on.
In case you missed it, Joe Biden recently announced his candidacy for President in 2008. He then proceeded to rip into the other major candidates, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. Now if Biden was an athlete, his response instead would have gone something like these. And if you're a politician reading this, feel free to use it. I think it'll get you a lot further with the voters that the venom you normally spew.
Joe Biden, the professional athlete: Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for President in 2008.
Bill, the reporter: Senator Biden, what about Hillary Clinton? Do you think you have more of a shot than she would head to head against some of the more notable Republican candidates?
Biden: Well, there are some excellent candidates out there, Bill. I'm going to have a tough time even convincing my family and personal friends to vote for me, I think.
Reporter: Senator Biden, do you really feel Hillary Clinton is an excellent candidate? I mean, even some fellow Democrats are sounding as if they're concerned whether or not she's too polarizing a figure to have a shot with the more centrist voters.
Biden: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've known Senator Clinton for a long time, though. I think she's got the strongest team on paper and she really plays the game the right way. If she's in the zone come election day, anything can happen. But I think I've really got a message the voters would like to hear. If we practice hard, take it one voter at a time, I think we can be in this thing at the end with a shot to win it. That's why you count the votes.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The "Minimum" in Minimum Wage
I can't stand minimum wage laws. They're terrible policy. Anyone with even a basic level of understanding of economics knows and can explain why. Since I don't have one :), I had to read Stossel's. One of the most obvious reasons minimum wage laws are bad policy is that the cut the bottom rungs off the wage ladder. As Stossel explains:
"The law of supply and demand, which operates whether we like it or not, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes."
Given that explanation, when the cost of labor goes up then people (employers) buy less of it. In other words, they don't employee as many people.
As much as I like Stossel (and anyone that's read Stupid in America can attest that I do) even he misses one important point here. I believe that increasing the minimum wage will only increase the number of illegal immigrants that are hired. I know this isn't terribly intuitive so let me try to explain it with an analogy that most people are more familiar with.
Years ago the NBA considered raising the height of the basket. The thought was that there were so many really tall people playing that the 10' height had become outdated. People who were 7'+ tall had an unfair advantage over 6' people because they were so close to the 10' basket height. They did some test to see how effective raising the height of the basket would be in leveling the playing field between people that were 6' and 7' tall. In tests that were done (can anyone find one of those old tests for me to link to?) raising the height of the basket didn't level the playing field as they hoped it would. Instead, it further exaggerated the disparity. It put the 10' goal even further away from the 6' tall person and increased the advantage that the 7' person had.
So how does this basketball analogy have to do with minimum wage laws? Right now mimimum wage is $5.15. That's our 10' basketball goal. The 6' tall people are American citizens that are currently being employeed at minimum wage. The 7' tall people are illegal immigrants. Their advantage is that they can work for a cheaper rate. Surely most companies are law abiding in their hiring policies but some try to break the law and get an advantage by hiring some 7' tall people on their team. They're cheaper to employ. When the height of the basket is raised (when minimum wage is increased) then the 7' tall people (illegal immigrants) have even more of an advantage. They have more of an advantage because whereas currently it costs $5.15 to employ a US citizen versus potentially $4 for an illegal immigrant raising the minimum wage to $7.25, as the house as just voted to do, pushes that disparity from $1.15 to $3.25.
I'm not condoning companies for hiring illegal aliens. Certainly regardless of the money that can be saved it's not a justification for breaking the law. It will encourage a lot of unscrupulous companies to do just that, though. It increases their incentive the break the law. It may not be worth them risking the fines and bad publicity and everything else that goes with getting caught to save $1.15 but it's going to become worth it to more companies for $3.25. The easier it is for illegal immigrants to get a job the more that are going to be streaming across our border. That's the real low point of increasing the minimum wage.
"The law of supply and demand, which operates whether we like it or not, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes."
Given that explanation, when the cost of labor goes up then people (employers) buy less of it. In other words, they don't employee as many people.
As much as I like Stossel (and anyone that's read Stupid in America can attest that I do) even he misses one important point here. I believe that increasing the minimum wage will only increase the number of illegal immigrants that are hired. I know this isn't terribly intuitive so let me try to explain it with an analogy that most people are more familiar with.
Years ago the NBA considered raising the height of the basket. The thought was that there were so many really tall people playing that the 10' height had become outdated. People who were 7'+ tall had an unfair advantage over 6' people because they were so close to the 10' basket height. They did some test to see how effective raising the height of the basket would be in leveling the playing field between people that were 6' and 7' tall. In tests that were done (can anyone find one of those old tests for me to link to?) raising the height of the basket didn't level the playing field as they hoped it would. Instead, it further exaggerated the disparity. It put the 10' goal even further away from the 6' tall person and increased the advantage that the 7' person had.
So how does this basketball analogy have to do with minimum wage laws? Right now mimimum wage is $5.15. That's our 10' basketball goal. The 6' tall people are American citizens that are currently being employeed at minimum wage. The 7' tall people are illegal immigrants. Their advantage is that they can work for a cheaper rate. Surely most companies are law abiding in their hiring policies but some try to break the law and get an advantage by hiring some 7' tall people on their team. They're cheaper to employ. When the height of the basket is raised (when minimum wage is increased) then the 7' tall people (illegal immigrants) have even more of an advantage. They have more of an advantage because whereas currently it costs $5.15 to employ a US citizen versus potentially $4 for an illegal immigrant raising the minimum wage to $7.25, as the house as just voted to do, pushes that disparity from $1.15 to $3.25.
I'm not condoning companies for hiring illegal aliens. Certainly regardless of the money that can be saved it's not a justification for breaking the law. It will encourage a lot of unscrupulous companies to do just that, though. It increases their incentive the break the law. It may not be worth them risking the fines and bad publicity and everything else that goes with getting caught to save $1.15 but it's going to become worth it to more companies for $3.25. The easier it is for illegal immigrants to get a job the more that are going to be streaming across our border. That's the real low point of increasing the minimum wage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
