Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Reason.TV and Drew Carey present "Welcome to the Nanny State Nation"
Whether you love it, hate it, or have never thought about it, chances are some politician wants to ban it. "Welcome to the Nanny State Nation," says reason.tv host Drew Carey. "Where the government minds your own business."
Saggy pants, fire places, plastic bags, light bulbs, poker—it's all been banned somewhere. Same with owning swine or fowl, feeding pigeons, owning pit bulls, and chomping on trans fats, a naughty little substance that makes food taste better.
Of course, smoking's been banned in all sorts of places—indoors, outdoors, near doors, beaches, casinos, even private homes. America's smoking ban craze began in California. So many bans start there.
"But is New York City the new California?" asks Carey? Smoking, trans fat, aluminum baseball bats, straddling a bike, wearing in-line skates or drinking coffee on a subway—the Big Apple bans them all.
Even if we don't particularly like something we should be wary of banning it because every ban is backed up by the force of law. Plus, would you want to live in a nation that bans everything that offends someone?
Carey wonders when so many of us turned into "ban-happy busybodies," and compliments the British on their more civilized approach to bans.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Not a Cookie Cutter Nation (a remix)
Another post from the primaries that seemed pertinent to today...
Grrrr...
Being a nerd, I read a lot of political commentaries. The right and the left, the conservative and liberal splits are starting to get fairly annoying...
The longer this primary season drags out the more clear it gets that our country just does not fit into neat little cookie cutter ideologies. It brings down the entire level of discourse and sets up straw men. We live in a sound bite culture. Arguments are meant to hit at a strictly emotional level. They may be right or wrong. They may have logical rationales for their positions, but we never get to that level. We just get the soundbite and then the commentators tell us what to think about it based on whether we are right or left. What's worse is that over the years, the definitions change. So without the commentators, we are lost as to what we are suppose to believe as a party, movement or subculture.
Much easier for the left to say the right don't care about the poor than for them to express a lack of trust in charity. Much easier for conservatives to say liberals don't have family values, than to explain why they think that gays cannot get married.
The examples can go on and on but the point is that people tend to disagree and with good reason. By saying all people fall into one of two categories it creates a mob mentality where critical thinking ceases and the other side becomes an enemy rather than an ally with a different strategy.
We all want a better economy. We all want strong families. We all want social equality (in opportunity not outcome necessarily). We all differ strongly on how to accomplish these goals. Its time we come together and have a civilized discourse on the how to's.
(On a side note, I think that the Nolan chart being made the norm rather than right/left would go far in helping to ease tensions in our nation.)
Grrrr...
Being a nerd, I read a lot of political commentaries. The right and the left, the conservative and liberal splits are starting to get fairly annoying...
The longer this primary season drags out the more clear it gets that our country just does not fit into neat little cookie cutter ideologies. It brings down the entire level of discourse and sets up straw men. We live in a sound bite culture. Arguments are meant to hit at a strictly emotional level. They may be right or wrong. They may have logical rationales for their positions, but we never get to that level. We just get the soundbite and then the commentators tell us what to think about it based on whether we are right or left. What's worse is that over the years, the definitions change. So without the commentators, we are lost as to what we are suppose to believe as a party, movement or subculture.
Much easier for the left to say the right don't care about the poor than for them to express a lack of trust in charity. Much easier for conservatives to say liberals don't have family values, than to explain why they think that gays cannot get married.
The examples can go on and on but the point is that people tend to disagree and with good reason. By saying all people fall into one of two categories it creates a mob mentality where critical thinking ceases and the other side becomes an enemy rather than an ally with a different strategy.
We all want a better economy. We all want strong families. We all want social equality (in opportunity not outcome necessarily). We all differ strongly on how to accomplish these goals. Its time we come together and have a civilized discourse on the how to's.
(On a side note, I think that the Nolan chart being made the norm rather than right/left would go far in helping to ease tensions in our nation.)
Monday, July 7, 2008
Even FOX has trouble justifying shooting a man in the chest with a machine gun for gambling
Check it out here. By the way short of satire or parody, I will probably never refer you to a Fox news piece, so consider yourself lucky if your a fan of Fox News. Now Fox cartoons on the other hand...
Update. Notice the specs on the HK MP5 listed by the manufacturer. Geared towards reliability and accuracy, customizable trigger configs to eliminate problems like this...
Update. Notice the specs on the HK MP5 listed by the manufacturer. Geared towards reliability and accuracy, customizable trigger configs to eliminate problems like this...
Is your music WORSHIP or EVIL?
Now there is a mathmatical formula to figure it out. Special thanks to the good people at Way of Life for helping to develop this formula. What you do is take the number of people in a band and determine what percentage of them make up the rhythm section, then you determine if that number is 4% or less like in an orchestra or an organ by itself. This would be considered appropriate worship music. On the other hand, if it is say 75% like most ROCK bands, then it would be sensual and demonic, or evil. This should clear things up for those of you trying to unravel this mystery in your churches.Also, for another perspective check out what Dan Kimball found out when he researched the topic here and here.
Hope this makes things a little easier.
The Politics of God Again
Hate to reuse a post but I wrote this during the primaries, and given the Obama Dobson war, the California War on Gay Marriage and Claiborne, Wallis et al War on the Religious Right I thought it would be fun to look at it again. Enjoy!!!
UPDATE I am reading Lord Save Us From Your Followers by Dan Merchant and it also made me think back to this post....
Over the past several decades numerous books, lectures and conferences have attempeted to define or otherwise extrapolate what it means to be a Christian in the United States of America in regards to politics, voting and civic duty.
From Jerry Falwell, Hugh Hewitt, James Dobson, etc. to Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, etc.; everyone seems to know the heart and mind of God for the next election.
The 2008 election is no different and may even be more faith centric than previous cycles. We have had Mitt Romney (a Mormon elder), Mike Huckabee (a Southern Baptist preacher), and most recently gracing the headlines, Obama's church with a controversial pastor.
What role does faith play in leading? In voting? In our daily life? For everyone these answers will be different. I think it is clear that our values are defined largely by our religious background. What I think is not so clear (as evidenced by the wide body of work on the topic and no concensus) is how that manifests itself into politics.
I would like to change the dialogue a bit and venture a new approach. People who feel life begins at conception mostly believe that they should be opposed to legalized abortion. People who feel a yearning to see an end to poverty tend to believe in socialized welfare programs. The list goes on and on as most people want to see the law dictate the values they cherish. And that is ok. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and approaches and their strategies. No one is entitled to speak for God as to which political position is the right one. (The one exception to this would be in Catholocism, but one chooses to submit to Papal Authority by being a Catholic and in turn accepts that the Pope speaks on behalf of God so the political portions of the new seven deadly sins would apply to you.)
What is not ok is the infighting and the claims that those who disagree with your politics somehow have less faith. Politics is largely about strategy not values. Some believe that outlawing things they feel are immoral is a good strategy to stop them. Others feel that it is not. CS Lewis once said that it would be a bad thing to try to legislate divorce out of existence. It was not the role of the Church to change peoples morals it was to change their hearts. Given the esteem he is given within most churches this should be seen as at least an acceptable and defensible position.
Grace, one of the hallmarks of the Christian faith seems to be lost in the world of faith and politics. Maybe this should be examined. Disagreements will happen. How we handle these disagreements should be a reflection of our values.
UPDATE I am reading Lord Save Us From Your Followers by Dan Merchant and it also made me think back to this post....
Over the past several decades numerous books, lectures and conferences have attempeted to define or otherwise extrapolate what it means to be a Christian in the United States of America in regards to politics, voting and civic duty.
From Jerry Falwell, Hugh Hewitt, James Dobson, etc. to Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, etc.; everyone seems to know the heart and mind of God for the next election.
The 2008 election is no different and may even be more faith centric than previous cycles. We have had Mitt Romney (a Mormon elder), Mike Huckabee (a Southern Baptist preacher), and most recently gracing the headlines, Obama's church with a controversial pastor.
What role does faith play in leading? In voting? In our daily life? For everyone these answers will be different. I think it is clear that our values are defined largely by our religious background. What I think is not so clear (as evidenced by the wide body of work on the topic and no concensus) is how that manifests itself into politics.
I would like to change the dialogue a bit and venture a new approach. People who feel life begins at conception mostly believe that they should be opposed to legalized abortion. People who feel a yearning to see an end to poverty tend to believe in socialized welfare programs. The list goes on and on as most people want to see the law dictate the values they cherish. And that is ok. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and approaches and their strategies. No one is entitled to speak for God as to which political position is the right one. (The one exception to this would be in Catholocism, but one chooses to submit to Papal Authority by being a Catholic and in turn accepts that the Pope speaks on behalf of God so the political portions of the new seven deadly sins would apply to you.)
What is not ok is the infighting and the claims that those who disagree with your politics somehow have less faith. Politics is largely about strategy not values. Some believe that outlawing things they feel are immoral is a good strategy to stop them. Others feel that it is not. CS Lewis once said that it would be a bad thing to try to legislate divorce out of existence. It was not the role of the Church to change peoples morals it was to change their hearts. Given the esteem he is given within most churches this should be seen as at least an acceptable and defensible position.
Grace, one of the hallmarks of the Christian faith seems to be lost in the world of faith and politics. Maybe this should be examined. Disagreements will happen. How we handle these disagreements should be a reflection of our values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
