Obama - Providing Strong Demotivators

One of the people that I blog-stalk posted recently about some of the stuff that's going on with the current administration - the raising of taxes, bail-outs, etc. - and mentioned this in her post:

Brent and I were talking about Obama's proposed taxes, and what will actually come to fruition. The result of which: I'll quit my job.

I did the math and I would rather spend 100% of my time at home than work 50% of the year for the government to support their reckless spending habits.

Then it dawned on me- that's the consequence of socialism, it no longer becomes beneficial for producers to produce. Smart producers figure out that they're supporting consumers- so they stop producing.

Over in The Corner on NRO, Jonah Goldberg had mentioned something similar in this post:

I Don't Want To Pay For It [Jonah Goldberg]

That is, by far, my driving attitude in all of this. I just don't want to pay for it. It's not that I don't want government to do nice things for deserving people in certain circumstances. It's not necessarily that I'm hostile to this group of beneficiaries or that (though I am in fact hostile to some). It's that I think most of Obama's ideas will not work, will be a waste of money and will hurt the economy. And, flatly, I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to break the law. I don't want pull a Geithner or a Daschle or anything like that. But I don't want to pay for it. I will look for every means within the boundaries of the law to minimize what I pay in taxes and I make no apologies for that whatsoever.

This post mentions some of the thoughtful reader response that he received which included this email:

You stupid F*** I always knew you conservatives loved money and hated your country. Oh, and don't think we can't tell you don't want your money spent on black people.

And this is Jonah's clarification:

Me: As for the saner folk who seemed to have misunderstood my point, let me just clarify. We are being deluged with talk about how this is an exciting new era, that this is hope and change and an exciting blah, blah, blah. During the campaign, Joe Biden told us that supporting higher taxes is both a patriotic duty and a religious-moral obligation (it's neither and Biden's argument was typically dim). Barack Obama says this is all about a new era of responsibility and all that jazz.

Well, I don't buy any of it. This is simply warmed over, recycled, big government liberalism being inflicted on us in a time of crisis. It's not exciting or innovative and supporting it doesn't make you morally superior or more responsible. It just means you're eager to spend other peoples' money on programs and schemes that are more likely than not going to result in making the country less prosperous. I will pay my taxes — unlike Barack Obama's treasury secretary — because that's the law and the social contract. But, I don't have to celebrate it and I don't have to enjoy it. Saying I don't want to pay higher taxes for bigger government doesn't make me less patriotic, it makes me conservative and, I would argue, more reasonable.

Anyway, what I thought was really interesting about all of this is how else this concern is being manifest:

Sales of "Atlas Shrugged" Soar in the Face of Economic Crisis

Washington D.C., February 23, 2009--Sales of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008. This continues a strong trend after bookstore sales reached an all-time annual high in 2008 of about 200,000 copies sold.

“Americans are flocking to buy and read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day” said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government’s increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we’re facing, and she offered, in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ a principled and practical solution consistent with American values."

Courtesy of the Ayn Rand Center.

If you haven't learned about it yet, then become acquainted with the Laffer Curve. It is a graphic representation of government revenue by rate of taxation. As the rate of taxation approaches 100% of income, the incentive to work is lost, thus, resulting in decreased government revenues. Basically it's just not worth it to keep on working so hard when the government is taking all your money away from you.

And the thing about it is that even if it results in some improved conditions like more available health care coverage, or better roads, or whatever it may be, in the end, people want control over their own lives and how they distribute their income, and not to have everything forced for them. Of course there is a balance in all of this, so don't take that line of thought to its extreme and assume that I think government has no role whatsoever.

Judicial Activism: Same Sex Marriage and the Aftermath of Proposition 8

Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Policy
Proudly Presents its 2009 Symposium:

"Judicial Activism: Same Sex Marriage and the Aftermath of Proposition 8"

Friday, February 27, 2009, 1:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Kennedy Hall, Room 237

PANEL 1:

1:00-2:30 p.m.

Judicial Activism: Are Courts Entering Into the Political Policymaking Arena?
Judicial activism is defined "as a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions." Defenders of judicial activism argue that judges have a duty to protect minority groups and right error in law through their decisions. Critics of judicial activism argue that it usurps the power of the elected branches of government, thereby damaging the rule of law and democracy itself.

INCLUDING:

Featured Panelist
Paul R. Baier
George M. Armstrong, Jr., Professor of Law, Paul M. Hebert Law Center,LSU. Professor Baier is a renowned Constitutional Law Scholar and the editor of the memoirs of Justice Hugo Black, Mr. Justice and Mrs. Black

Stephen Bates, Assistant Professor of Journalism,University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Daniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law, Indiana University's Maurer School of Law
Michael Vitiello, Distinguished Professor and Scholar, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law

Moderated by Hugh Hewitt, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, and the host of a nationally syndicated radio show.

INTERMISSION:

2:30-3:30 p.m.

Please join us in the Kennedy Hall law school lobby for hors d'oeuvres and drinks.

PANEL 2:

3:30-5:00 p.m.

PANEL 2: Same-Sex Marriage and the Aftermath of California's Proposition 8
In May 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, which affirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In response to the decision, thousands of same-sex couples exercised their legal right to marry. In November 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to invalidate same sex marriage. The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of Proposition 8. This panel will discuss many of the key issues that have arisen as a result of this series of events. Specifically, panelists will consider the legal issues surrounding Proposition 8 and whether the California Supreme Court has engaged in judicial activism.

INCLUDING:

Panelists:
M. Katherine Darmer, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
Jeff A. Redding, Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law
Dr. Ronald L. Steiner, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
Lynn D. Wardle, Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School
Robin F. Wilson, Professor of Law & Alumni Faculty Fellow, Washington & Lee University School of Law

Moderated by Dean John C. Eastman, Dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law, Chapman University School of Law

http://www.chapman.edu/law/students/nexus/2009_Symposium.asp

NO CHARGE FOR STUDENTS, FACULTY & VISITORS

-This event qualifies for 3 hours of California MCLE credit
-RSVP to nexuslawjournal@gmail.com to pre-register for the Symposium
-Hors d'oeuvres and drinks served between panels, with reception to follow
-Read the Nexus Journal at http://www.lawschoolblog.org/blog

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

One University Drive

Orange CA, 92866

(714) 628-2500

Best friend Dave is responsible for organizing this. You guys...I can't tell you how proud I am of him. The guy is on fire this week. I wish I would have thought to put this up earlier in the week, but in any case, if you can duck out of whatever you have this today for a few hours, I'm sure it will be worth your time. If you have any questions for him he can be reached at davereid1 - @ - gmail.com.

What Our Representations Has Begotten Us

How did we get to this point of such expansive government? There's a lot of good stuff out there on the web right now commentating at length on all of the most recent economic developments. I especially liked this comment made on Salt H20's blog:

While reading in Mosiah 11 about wicked King Noah and how he burdened his people:

And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their bziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.

"One fifth? wouldn't that be nice"

Rush Limbaugh made this comment this morning on his show regarding the current administrations politics:

The Democrats are trying to say that tax cuts gave us these problems. It’s the same playbook. There’s nothing new. Folks, do you understand? Really, you can boil the Obama speech down last night to what we have heard from every Democrat since FDR except John F. Kennedy, and that is: Raise taxes and cut the military. That’s it. That’s the program. Except this, the Obama program is more wide-ranging and deeply penetrable into the fabric of this nation’s decency and goodness than any Democrat has ever tried, including FDR.

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article yesterday about how Obama's budget plans can't be covered by raising taxes only on the rich. It will have to come from elsewhere, and at very high rates. Some excerpts:

President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

Anyway...I don't really have much time to comment on this right now, so you can come up with your own conclusions. Oh...and the bumper sticker comes courtesy of the Republican Party of Tennessee. For some reason the page isn't loading, but here is the link in case it does start loading.

Be blessed y'all.

Political Points

Just a few quick things I wanted to mention before I get going on being productive (again, yeah, I've actually gotten some stuff done) today:

• Did any of you catch the state of the union last night, that I guess isn't technically a state of the union? I strongly dislike Nancy Pelosi. She had this deranged, europhic look on her face the entire time. It felt like a pep rally more than a political speech. I was glad to read some other reactions from prominent conservatives voicing the same sentiments. And then Biden sat in the back and had this perpetual grin and witless look about him. I feel like I'm being overly critical, but I swear...they looked like a couple of idiots. Obama set forth a very ambitious agenda - exploration of renewable energy solutions, health care reform, advancement of education. The Bush tax cuts will not be renewed, and capital gains taxes are among those set to increase, which is a strong disincentive to invest in the stock market. Admittedly, as a orator, the guy is amazing. Flat-out amazing. Content-wise, very lacking.
  
• Was talking with a friend last night about drug legalization, more specifically about legalizing marijuana in the state of California for personal use, not just medical use. In this post from last summer, I briefly made my case against the legalization of drugs. Please allow me to quote myself:

  While I'm jumping topics again, legalization of drugs is the dumbest idea ever. A lot of times the argument for legalization of drugs is that it will reduce the amount of drug related crime and eliminate the black market. What are two of the three most preventable causes of death in the United States? #1 is tobacco use, and #3 is alcohol consumption. Almost 500,000 people die prematurely each year because of each of those legal drugs. In the years from 1995-1999 it cost the United States approximately $157 billion annually in health-related economic losses just from tobacco use. That's staggering, isn't it? Right now the death rate for use of illicit drugs is only 17,000. Can you imagine how that number would surge if we were to decriminalize illicit drug use? That alone is reason enough not to legalize drugs.

  I mention all this because Mark Perry posted recently about the topic arguing for a shift in our approach to illicit drugs here. I'm still not buying it, partly because of the argument that Brooks in the next item to follow.
• I posted an article of his last week, but David Brooks of the New York Times is one of my new favorite writers. This is his latest piece. He says in this article:
  

  When I was a freshman in college, I was assigned “Reflections on the Revolution in France” by Edmund Burke. I loathed the book. Burke argued that each individual’s private stock of reason is small and that political decisions should be guided by the accumulated wisdom of the ages. Change is necessary, Burke continued, but it should be gradual, not disruptive. For a young democratic socialist, hoping to help begin the world anew, this seemed like a reactionary retreat into passivity.

  Over the years, I have come to see that Burke had a point. The political history of the 20th century is the history of social-engineering projects executed by well-intentioned people that began well and ended badly. There were big errors like communism, but also lesser ones, like a Vietnam War designed by the best and the brightest, urban renewal efforts that decimated neighborhoods, welfare policies that had the unintended effect of weakening families and development programs that left a string of white elephant projects across the world.
  

  With respect to the previous point, I think there are a number of other far-reaching consequences that we haven't even begun to fathom with a major shift in decriminalizing drugs. It's simply too dangerous. This article gives a pretty dispassionate review of the issue as it pertains to California.
  
  It's kind of interesting that some of the best conservatives are converted liberals. Brooks appears to be one of these. Churchill started out liberal, as did Reagan. Jay Nordlinger describes a little about his liberal beginnings in his most recent Impromptus column, thusly:

  An e-mail that arrived yesterday struck a chord with me—and it may well with you, too:

  Dear Mr. Nordlinger,
  
  I was very moved by your column today (“The case of Baby Shanice, &c.”). Like you, I was raised in an ultra-liberal environment—Santa Cruz, Calif., in my case. Only now, at 37 years old, am I questioning my long-held assumptions, particularly about abortion.
  
  I was a huge supporter of Senator Clinton for the presidency. But the tactics of the far Left—the DailyKos and MoveOn crowd—left me cold. I voted for McCain, the first time I ever voted for a Republican.
  
  Increasingly over the last year, I have found myself siding with conservatives on issues like illegal immigration, affirmative action, fighting jihad, and the role of markets. What Arthur Schlesinger termed “the liberal mind”—what I take to mean freedom from totalitarian thinking (anti-Communist that he was)—I see reflected by conservatives today.
  

  Yes, he is on his way, this letter-writer. I remember the journey myself—vividly. I didn’t want to become a conservative! In my world, “conservative” was a dirty word: It meant “bigot,” “racist,” “ignoramus,” “warmonger,” and other unpleasant things. No one would have chosen to become a conservative in Ann Arbor, Mich., unless he was a complete masochist, which I surely was not.
  
  It’s just that life and events and thought and facts—well, they pushed me that way. And I was devouring Commentary and National Review. And, mirabile dictu (as WFB might say), here I am . . .

• In that column, he posts this article about an Iraqi woman who organized the rapes of 80 women so that they would seek absolution through their participation in suicide bombings. Radical Islamists are not just bad people, they are evil people. These are not people who just dislike America because we had a President with an aggressive foreign policy. They hate you and want to destroy your way of life. Don't forget that. In many ways we're regressing to a September 10th mindset. Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear technology; North Korea is implementing missile systems that can reach our mainland; Russia continues to seek out reestablishing the former USSR. And last night Obama declares that we're going to begin dismantling cold war-era weapons that we don't use. The fact that we don't have to use them is because we have them in the first place, carrying a big stick. Reagan was responsible for the collapse of communism because of his foreign policy approach. Diplomacy doesn't work with dictators, tyrants, and all others who are bent on your destruction.

That's all. Now on to writing questions about t-tests, regression, and the like....bleh.

Concerning the Economic Downturn

I have a busy week ahead of me so blogging will probably be down...or up if I'm really opposed to doing my stuff. Anyway...

My internet homepage is MSN and I've been surprised at the number of stories in the financial section talking about the hit that the porn industry has been taking. Sales are down for the porn peddlers because times are tough for people. Just last week there was a story about how Playboy is open to discussion about someone coming in and purchasing the company. When all the federal money was being handed out for the automakers, Larry Flint of Hustler was among some of the people lobbying to get some government financing.

And then in the last couple weeks a lot of the finance blogs that I've been reading have been posting more on frugality than on investing - living within our means, that sort of thing. Over on Get Rich Slowly, the blog author has a story about the enduring habits the Japanese people developed as a result of their decade long downturn in the 1990s.

I know this could sound crazy to some people, but do you ever think that maybe Heavenly Father anticipated the current condition of the world and uses these slowdowns to get us recentered? When you read the Book of Mormon there is story upon story about how the people became prideful and drifted from the gospel when they were prosperous, but then returned again when they were forced to be humble. I wonder what the modern day scriptures would say about the world today and the hand that God has been playing to get us to remember him.

Want to hear something kind of pathetic about Hugh Hefner? I read a book a few years ago about the efforts that the porn industry was making to capture attention of boys and teens. There were a number of stories about Hef, but the saddest one I heard was about how many people speculate that he never got over his first wife. I'll bet that his spiral into the field is largely a result of his own misguided attempts at trying to fill the emptiness in his life. Apparently his sensitivity is so eroded that he cannot climax outside of the influence of narcotics. Can you imagine that kind of depravity in a human being? And this is the same person that so many men worship.

That's The Deal

***Disclaimer: To be honest, I don't really like this post. I guess what I don't like is that it's a serious subject that I feel inadequate in explaining in the manner that it deserves. Hopefully something useful comes out of it for you.

One of the blogs I subscribe to is the Best Article Every Day site that is usually either funny or about tech stuff. Occassionally they have articles that come from some author(s) that writes about his atheism. Mostly these are inane articles, and the author has this air of superiority about him that I just find really annoying. I thought this last one was interesting. Here is an excerpt:

“Speaking of Jesus, let me ask you this. You occasionally sing the gospel lyrics, ‘from the earth to the cross my debt to pay from the cross to the grave from the grave to the sky Lord I lift your name on high’. If given the opportunity, being present at the crucifixion and knowing what you know now, would you save this purported ’saviour’ from murder? If you knew you could succeed and assuming you love him as much as you claim, would you retrieve him from torture and death, or would you watch him suffer and expire in order to win your so-called salvation? Which is essentially a selfish act.”

My coworker’s eyes seemed to expand three times the size of their original state, he said nothing and shook his head as he walked off. This time, he was not humming a reassuring hymn, but it seemed as if he was truly perplexed about what actions he would take.

I was able to return to the project at hand, without further interruption from ‘witnessing’ events.

My first reaction to the story is one of surprise because this seems like such an easy argument to invalidate. Someone with any knowledge of the scriptures and even the most marginal faith should be able to see through this question, so it's disappointing that the man of faith in this story is depicted as someone who doesn't seem to have much grounding in Christianity. And the rest of my reaction revolves around feeling annoyed at the pride the atheist has in forcing another person to question his faith. Anyway...

Jesus was not only well aware of his impending death, but broadcasted it to his apostles. Probably one of the most significant of these instances occurred just after Jesus had announced that he would confer the keys of the kingdom to Peter. Matthew 16:21-24 reads:

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow dme.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Aside - I remember one time when I was talking to my brother about the church and talking about the need for modern day prophets, he used this scripture as evidence that prophets can lead us astray, but I know better now.

This scripture has, I think, very relevant application to the scenario proposed by the atheist. We don't need a time machine to test out this hypothetical question because the Lord responded to it himself. Peter was an apostle, heard Jesus talk about his death, and vowed that he would protect him. For that, Jesus severely rebuked him, even referring to him as Satan which is the ultimate of insults coming from the only perfect person who has ever lived. So why the rebuke? Was Peter evil for wanting to save Jesus?

The problem for the atheist is the topic of life after death. Death is the severest punishment to someone without any grounding in the gospel, but to a Christian who believes in the Living Christ, death is just a step toward the fulfillment of God's plan of salvation. Peter was so severely chastised because his desire to spare Jesus' death on the cross is in direct violation of the fulfillment of that plan. Christ not only accepted his fate, but forbade anyone else from trying to prevent it.

In another instance, after Judas had betrayed Jesus and led the Romans to him, Peter's first reaction was to resist the arrest, to protect the Lord. Instead, Jesus gently rebuffed Peter's efforts saying, "thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). Again, the reaction is the same. The sin comes not from allowing Christ to die to win salvation, but from trying to "save" him to prevent his suffering. The suffering of sin and death is what allowed Christ to ascend into the role as Savior.

Christ himself declared to Pilate, "to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world" (John 18:37). His mission was to do the will of the Father. While speaking to the Nephites on this side of the world after his resurrection he declared in 3 Nephi 27:14-15:

And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

Nothing was going to prevent him from carrying out that plan. Not even Pilate who thought he was in the position of authority when he reminded Christ that he had the power to release him, to which the Lord responded, "Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above" (John 19:11).

To someone without an eternal perspective, death is something to be avoided at all costs, there is no purpose to suffering. The avoidance of pain and the procurement of pleasure is the point of mortal existence. As was so eloquently put in the biopic of C.S Lewis' life Shadowlands, "the pain now is part of the happiness then. That's the deal."

Speaking about suffering, President Kimball said:

Being human, we would expel from our lives physical pain and mental anguish and assure ourselves of continual ease and comfort, but if we were to close the doors upon sorrow and distress, we might be excluding our greatest friends and benefactors. Suffering can make saints of people as they learn patience, long-suffering, and self-mastery.

Think in your own life about those people whom you have encountered who have been forced to deal with great hardships, sickness, tragedy, etc. How often have you seen that those who have experienced tragedy firsthand often are the same ones with an increased capacity for love, compassion, and understanding? How often are they the first, last, and most effective responders in showing compassion and understanding others?

It's not that we seek out pain, but with the right perspective we can let it enhance the people that we become. Our extremities are God's opportunities. Christ knew this and embraced the challenges that he faced. His suffering and death is what allowed him to become the author and finisher of our salvation.

Mark Gormley Rocks

I don't even know what to say....it's so freakin' funny, everything about it. Enjoy.

Could You Be Loved? Let Me Love You!

It's Friday. Who else is pumped for the weekend? I'm not quite sure why I'm in such a good mood. Maybe it's because I went snowboarding this morning. Or maybe it's because I had the best oreo, coconut, chocolate chip brownie thing right after. I don't even have anything going on this weekend that is really that exciting, but I'm just feeling it.

Maybe it's that the sun has been out the last couple days and so I've been able to go running outside for consecutive days and it feels awesome. I didn't even go for a specific distance. I just ran out, aimlessly up and down the big hill, towards campus, and then back to my place. Ran out for about 25 minutes, and then back home, so it was a good 5-6 miles. It felt so awesome. Tomorrow I think I might even do 8. It's just been so dang pleasant (I can't believe I'm saying this about 40-50 degree weather, gross). Do any of you remember Superman IV? I feel like I'm kind of like Nuclear Man, who is basically a solar-powered dude. I wish I could a find a decent clip of him from the movie. It's so freakin' lame, but I totally feel like that guy. When the sun is hiding I lose my super powers; when it's bright and shiny, I'm all there ready to kick some Superman tail!

Anyway, I've said this before, but part of what's so great about being here at BYU is how many awesome people there are. I mean really impressive people. The professor who I am a TA for, I kind of love/hate him, just finished this same program that I'm in, last year. He was telling me the other day about how he was just kind of floating through the program when all of the sudden something just clicked for him and he started to get ahead in everything that he was doing. He got so far ahead that he wrote a stats book that he now teaches from. That just amazed me.

And yesterday I met another guy in my program who is a third year student. He just defended his thesis and will defend his dissertation this summer. He'll have finished the PhD program in 3 years. That's kind of insane. He's taking 18 hours a semester, and working on his thesis/dissertation, and consulting on the side. I don't think I necessarily want to follow that timetable, but the course of his studies I think I'd like to emulate. I guess there's a lot of opportunity for someone like me because I have research skills, whereas the business majors don't and aren't interested in that stuff anyway. But he got a job with Pricewaterhouse Coopers. He just started working a lot with the business professors, went to their retreats, stuck his resume in with all the MBAs, and BAM! Big time job. He said he got a lot of interest from companies mostly because his experience was so different. I think I'm going to jump on that train because I don't think I'm really interested in academia. And I like money.

At the faculty lecture yesterday this Finnish guy came and spoke and he was just awesome. He has a PhD and MBA, and was just really impressive. Recently I've been thinking that further down the road, I'd like to get an additional degree. I'm thinking law, probably because I love Dave's experiences so much. I guess I hear all the good stuff, but I find it all so interesting. Anyway, this professor was running all these scenarios on social learning theory and I was totally riveted. I went and introduced myself after he was done, and Dr. Miller who organizes these events, was sitting right there when I met him. I asked Dr. Felin how I could get involved, and then Dr. Miller started chiming in and giving him more information about me. It was just really cool to see how interested he was in hooking me up with this other guy. I love the cross-pollenization that goes on here at the school. I think it will provide some great opportunities. I think the best thing I have going for me is that I'm pretty capable in whatever I choose to pursue, but more importantly, I'm interested in pretty much everything.

It's funny - I've just had all this energy the last couple days. Hopefully it keeps up, and I can focus it on actually getting stuff done. Anyway, have a great weekend everyone. Here's some Bob.

Impromptus with Jay

Okay...by now you all have to know my affinity for Jay Nordlinger. What I like about so many conservative writers is that the image of themselves that they project through their writings is so often the same kind of person that I hope to be, and Mr. Nordlinger is foremost among those writers for me. He had a couple of columns this week and I just wanted to include a couple items.

This first one comes from this Impromptus that was posted earlier in the week. I'll the quote speak for itself:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

And here is today's article. I just loved this one. It made me laugh out loud and clap my hands in amusement (incidentally, anyone know when or from whom I adopted the hand-clapping as my gesture of appreciation for great humor? From Steve Ridge from freshman year. I knew that it wasn't always my own, but I didn't realize who I stole that from until he came out for Greg's wedding a couple years ago).

I’ll relate something interesting from the Middle East Media Research Institute (and for the report I’m talking about, go here). An Egyptian cleric is on television. And he is pronouncing on divorce. I cherish the last line in particular. But you’ll want to read the entire chunk:

What’s the point of having an animal you can ride, if it drives you nuts? The distance it takes you you could cover in a bus for a quarter of an Egyptian pound, but you have to spend 100 pounds on this animal. Sell it, and get rid of it. Would anyone blame you for selling it? Would anyone say: “Shame on him for selling it”? It’s only an animal.

If a man is completely fed up with his apartment, because he has bad neighbors, and the apartment is falling apart, would anyone blame him for selling it and say: “Shame on you, how can you sell it? This is where you were born and raised.” This apartment does not suit him anymore. I have bad neighbors, and I don’t feel good in it.

The same goes for the woman. If a woman has such bad character that her husband does not feel comfortable with her, there is nothing to prevent him from divorcing her. What are we, Christians?!

What are we, Christians?! There are about a hundred things to say about this. I will confine myself to: I don’t think the good imam has checked in on Christianity—by which I mean, Christian-dominated societies—lately.

I just loved that punchline. Here is the last.

You want a taste of mail? Not everything that arrives in my inbox is a valentine, you know. In my January 26 column, I wrote,

The question was raised in our office late last week, “How long will the Obama administration be able to blame George Bush for every problem under the sun?” And the answer is, Indefinitely—because the media will permit it, and abet it: participate in it (given that so many in the media share the worldview and attitudes and style of the new administration).

Is that too dark and cynical a view? Well, I hope so. Maybe we should revisit this subject at regular intervals.

Anyway, a reader wrote, “Hey asshole, your grandchildren will still be paying for Bush’s greed in 2050 so GFY.”

I wanted to publish this letter mainly because I was tickled by that use of initials!

I just love his last line in response to that piece of mail. Can you not a get great sense of his warmth and humanity? That's what I admire so much about his politics and writing.

Psychology Behind the Package, Obama Inspiring Fear, and Markets Are the Answer

Was at a faculty lecture this morning and one of the professors had mentioned an article by David Brooks who writes about the Worst-Case Scenario for the stimulus package in the New York Times last week. What's really cool about the article is that it talks about how these economic policies fail because oftentimes they do not take into account the social psychology that drives people to behave in the ways that they do.

Economics is wildly unpredictable, not because you can't identify trends or patterns, but because economics is part of a larger system that is mostly chaotic. So much of the theory is based on rational thinking, but people for the most part are not rational. We act contrary to our better instincts all the time. So in this case with trying to apply a theory of economics that was developed in the 1930s under circumstances that in some ways are similar, but in probably more ways are dissimilar, it's impossible to determine if the solutions would work in today's society. It's even still debatable that these theories worked even when they were first developed.

From the article:

President Obama defended spending initiatives in broad terms. He had enormous faith in the power of highly trained experts and based his arguments on models and projections. The actual legislation was cobbled together by Democratic committee chairmen, often acting beyond the administration’s control.

During 2010, the economic decline abated, but the recovery did not arrive. There were a few false dawns, and stagnation. The problem was this: The policy makers knew how to pull economic levers, but they did not know how to use those levers to affect social psychology.

The crisis was labeled an economic crisis, but it was really a psychological crisis. It was caused by a mood of fear and uncertainty, which led consumers to not spend, bankers to not lend and entrepreneurs to not risk. No amount of federal spending could change this psychology because uncertainty about the future remained acute.

Essentially, Americans had migrated from one society to another — from a society of high trust to a society of low trust, from a society of optimism to a society of foreboding, from a society in which certain financial habits applied to a society in which they did not. In the new world, investors had no basis from which to calculate risk. Families slowly deleveraged. Bankers had no way to measure the future value of assets.

I think the biggest problem I have right now with President Obama is that he is doing very little to inspire optimism. I'm not old enough to remember what Reagan was like, but everything I read about him indicates that the man was an eternal optimist. And the crises that he faced were much more difficult than they are now. Here's an illustration if you don't believe it:
Obama, however, seems to lead by inciting fear and dread. It's a far-cry from his campaign rhetoric of hope and change. I saw an exchange with him the other night while he was talking about what to do with the housing sector and he probably used the word "crisis" about 20-30 times in the short segment in which he was on. I understand that times are tough, but what is inspiring about having a leader of the most powerful nation on the planet always broadcasting doom? If you ever get a chance, look at the fear-related words that he uses, their frequency and variety. It's startling.

Another thing I don't like is that people are pointing at the current troubles and trying to assert that this is why the market system doesn't work. The truth is, nobody is allowing the market to correct itself and readjust. The housing crisis began because the government felt that minorities should be able to own homes, so they forced lenders into relaxing their requirements for loan qualifications. Not that minorities shouldn't be able to own homes, but the problem wasn't that people weren't lending to minorities because they're black/hispanic/etc., but because they were low-income people who couldn't afford houses in the first place. With the sudden availability of credit to everyone, regardless of their ability to actually fulfill the terms of the loans, demand increased. Increased demand drove up prices, so supply increased to meet the new availability of profit. Now people are defaulting on their loans, and it's leading to the most recent wind of new bailout packages going to the housing market.

The always sharp, always-on Thomas Sowell writes in more depth about the market system and housing market here. Here are some relevant paragraphs:

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.

What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

...

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed-- and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

How did the auto people do? So far, so bad that GM and Chrysler are looking for more bailout money. Now they're considering bankruptcy. So why couldn't this happen 6 months ago before all the bailout money? Oh. Government intervention. Right. The markets are what's going wrong.

This is just my feeling, but we just need to get past the mentality that it's always going to be a feast. There are bound to be some famines along the way, but ultimately, the market system is what allows for the most opportunities for feasts to prevail. There will be some corrections where things will tighten, but recessions go away, unemployment rates will drop, and people will be able to live in relative comfort, that is, if we can resist the urge to do things that prolong the downturns.

UPDATE: Here is an article by the editors at NRO talking more about additional bailouts for Chrysler and GM.
As we predicted,

General Motors and Chrysler need more money. One of the Bush administration’s last acts was to tap the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for loans in the amount of $13.4 billion for GM and $4 billion for Chrysler. The administration instructed the automakers to return in February with restructuring plans to ensure their long-term viability. The companies have now submitted those plans, admitting that they haven’t solved their problems and asking the government for more cash.

Bits and Pieces

I wish I could find the full video because this was my favorite part of his show last week. It's so freakin' awesome. Just a few things.

• Whenever I do one of these posts, it means that I'm kind of copping out because I don't want to take the time to read stuff thoroughly, or think long enough about something to write it all out.
  
• Seeing Amanda Peet in that video makes me want to see A Lot Like Love. Anyone else like that movie?
  
• I gave a talk on Sunday about receiving revelation, and there was a whole bunch I felt I left out so you can look forward to that coming up soon.
• Are redheads the only ones happy enough with their hair color that they'll never change it? or is it because it's too hard to change and still make it look good?
  
• It's cool to know a person so well that you're able to pick out every aspect of that person that makes him/her so great. I wish everyone could know Dave like I do.
• I was more stressed over this past weekend than I have felt in a long time.
• A friend of mine asked me how much time I spend on the blog and it made me feel self-conscious. Why do I bother writing so much anyway? Are my 10 or so readers that important to me? I revisit this question every few months. The answer always seems to be the same thing: I just like being able to write. I've learned to keep the blog less personal, whatever that really means. I have a separate one that acts as my journal. Anyway...that's why I do it though - the writing is cathartic for me.
  
• I like listening to other people talk about their politics, but I don't like joining in the conversations.
  
• I might have rekindled my love affair with snowboarding over the weekend.
• I love how much Dave and Caitlin laugh together.
• I'm considering writing for the BYU political review, that is, if I can deal with how left it seems to lean. What is that anyway? How do the politics of so many people at a church school feel so left?
• Was reading a blog about finance and the author was bemoaning why people bother talking about, rather, complaining about the stimulus plan. It got me thinking about why bother talking politics at all...I know that with 300 million people in the United States, it may feel like what you think as an individual has very little sway in the currents of such a vast ocean of people, BUT...it matters. I think the past election should have demonstrated as much with the passing of Prop 8. While each of us may only have one voice, we all have a sphere of influence whose reach extends much frrther outward than we can imagine. What you and I think as private citizens matters, matters in how you approach life and how your course is ultimately determined. I think it's dangerous, and sad, to not grasp that. Indifference is the real problem. I would that thou wert cold or hot...
• I want to read biographies. I was reading some stuff about Lincoln over the weekend and it all just blew me away. There are so many people worth learning about.
  

Coconut Banger's Ball. It's a (w)rap!

Nerdy Basketball

This post is mostly for Laura, and is going to be a short one. I read this article today by Michael Lewis about Shane Battier of the Houston Rockets. He talks about how the Rockets have made use of statistics to try and field a better team. Apparently they're ahead of the game, but the article itself is just so awesome.

If you're looking for an author that your husband might enjoy reading, then definitely point him towards Michael Lewis. He's the same guy who wrote Moneyball, and the only book of his that I've read, The Blind Side. The guy is an awesome awesome writer, and all he has the most interesting sports stories. Great, great stuff. That New York Times article is long, but again...so interesting.

Most Romantic...

These are just a few of Chris' thoughts on the most romantic pieces of entertainment.

Movie

I'm a little bit at a loss, I feel, when it comes to naming romantic movies because I haven't seen any of the classics. However, I'm a big fan of The Family Man. The guy starts out as such a jerk, but in the end he becomes the best dad and such a dedicated husband. I love Tea Leoni. I love the part when he's leaving for work and she runs out and grabs him and pushes him against the house and kisses him. I think it just fits perfectly the kind of relationship that I think any of us would like. There are a lot of things I love about his movie, this part being at the forefront.

Book

Scarlet Pimpernel. I love this book. Love it love it love it. It's really short too, so check it out. A wife feels trapped in a marriage with a man she presumes to be boring and slow-witted. While yearning for more romance and excitement, she later learns that he is in fact the Scarlet Pimpernel, and she has endangered his life by imploring him to help her brother. Best part is the restraint that he has to show in their relationship because he needs to maintain his identity as this dumb aristocrat, but as she walks away he literally kisses the ground that she walks on after she has left.

Poetry

So just about every street in Chile is either name for Miguel de Cervantes, Salvador Allende, Gabriella Mistral, or Pablo Neruda. Pablo wrote a book of sonnets for his wife and what's in there is probably the coolest, most passionate literature you could ever find. Sonnet VXII is probably the most well-known, and rightfully so, because it's just so beautiful. But even the letter at the beginning of the book that is addressed to his wife Matilde is amazing. Best part about his stuff is that you can read the English translation or the Spanish and lose very little of the meaning or the passion of his thoughts.

To my beloved wife,

I suffered while I was writing these misnamed "sonnets"; they hurt me and caused me grief, but the happiness I feel in offering them to you is vast as a savanna. When I set this task for myself, I knew very well that down the right sides of sonnets, with elegant discriminating taste, poets of all times have arranged rhymes that sound like silver, or crystal or cannon fire. But--with great humility-- I made these sonnets out of wood; I gave them the sound of that opaque pure substance, and that is how they should reach your ears. Walking in forests or on beaches, along hidden lakes, in latitudes sprinkled with ashes, you and I have picked up pieces of pure bark, pieces of wood subject to the comings and goings of water and the weather. Out of such softened relics, then, with hatchet and machete and pocketknife, I built up these lumber piles of love, and with fourteen boards each I built little houses, so that your eyes, which I adore and sing to, might live in them. Now that I have declared the foundations of my love, I surrender this century to you: wooden sonnets that rise only because you gave them life.

Painting
One of my philosophy professors said that if you want to see a painting that will make your knees weak, look at this piece by J.L. Gerome, Pygmalion and Galatea. The myth, if you're not familiar, is about a sculptor who sees women prostituting themselves and tells himself that he will never love another woman. He was such an amazing sculptor that when he finishes the sculpture of Galatea she looks so life-like that he actually falls in love with it. Aphrodite has pity on him and brings the sculpture to life, and this painting is that scene.

Song

There's so many that qualify. Where do you even start? I love Marvin Gaye's You're All I Need To Get By, but this one is my current favorite. That second line just kills me. You know he knew that was a money line as soon as he thought of it.


Dance

How can I stay away from this show? And I'll never forget this routine.


Have a Happy Valentine's Day.

Impetuous Youth

I've been feeling really sappy this week so that means some Valentine's related posts are coming your way.

What is it about impulsiveness that seems to scream romance? It really is a splendid thing to be so caught up in the thought of another person that nothing else can invade your mind, almost like that boy or girl has made a permanent residency inside the walls of your head and he/she refuses to accept any visitors.

The most impulsive thing I've done for a girl was in April 2002. I had been dating her for the whole school year and the second semester she was back at home in Northern California. She had visited just after my birthday and right before finals, and was going to be spending the spring term in Italy on a study abroad. Once finals were over I went home for the summer. Having just seen her recently, I had kind of figured that would be it until after she got back, but I had some weird attachment/dependency issues with her and so I desperately wanted to see her again. So from one day to the next I drove up and met her near PacBell Park, which might be called AT&T or SBC Park now. We met up on a crowded street, stayed the weekend at her sister's place, and spent the whole time cruising around the bay area. I didn't tell anyone that I was leaving.

My favorite Valentine's day and impulsive related memory was on February 14th, 1994. We just had our Valentine's dance at Sierra Vista Middle School and I had managed to work up enough courage to ask the love of my life, Jennifer Meyerson, to dance with me. Back then I honestly thought she was the most beautiful thing I had ever laid my eyes upon, but I was painfully shy. A few days later, it might have even been the Monday after the dance, was Valentine's Day. My friend Chris and I both liked these girls and decided that one way or another we were going to confess our undying affection for them. I can't remember if Chris did it the day of, or the day after, but she ended up crushing his dreams. That turned out to be the first of many such instances for him. That guy has really taken a beating over the years. At least he never gave up and found the one for him. I wanted to see Jennifer, but had no idea how to go about doing it, and of course was deathly afraid of putting myself out there like that.

After what may have been an hour or two of coaxing and confidence building from my friends, I finally decided to go to Von's, pick out the most romantic card of what's left on the night of Valentine's day, rollerblade over to her house and tell her how I felt.

So with Dave in tow with me for moral support, I found my way over to her front door. I'm not sure what I was wearing, probably jean shorts at the time because I was really into that then, but I remember she came to the door wearing a red sweatshirt, black jeans, and had black socks with some kind of white pattern on them. With trembling hands, a faint heart, and a mouth exceeded in dryness only by the Atacama desert in Chile, I handed her the card. I think I said maybe about a dozen words the entire time, and repeated those probably about a hundred times during the course of the evening. I think I mentioned something about how great she looked at the dance, and how I just really wanted to let her know how I felt.

I was luckier than my friend because Jen was a really nice girl and really appreciated the gesture. She said something about how brave it was for me to actually face her and give her the card. I think I spent an hour at her doorstep, but I'm pretty sure we didn't talk about anything. Dave was rollerblading around in the cul-de-sac the whole time. Nothing ever resulted from that big step forward because I couldn't suppress my nervousness around her enough to ever talk to her after that point. At least not until my senior year in high school when we were finally a little more friendly, and I asked her to prom, but she already had a date.

I just love that memory. I love that I gave her that card. I love that I never took off my rollerblades the entire time. I love that Dave was just blading around in the background the whole time.

Stimulus Overload

Sorry for the politics/stimulus overload. This thing is a pretty big deal and it really seems to me that there are a lot of reasons to be annoyed with this package, and the President's handling of these issues. I was having a hard time in stats following my professor so of course being at a computer I just started reading. I came across an article on Real Clear Politics that I wish I could locate now, but the author was talking about how pleased he was with Obama and how things have gone so far for him. He was touting the stimulus package, and...I found it. Go here. The craziest part isn't where he says Obama delivers a knock-out to the GOP arguments against his package, but in the last couple of paragraphs:

Still, it was a relief to hear such a coherent, powerful case for the public sector coming from the Oval Office.

We didn’t hear this from George W., or from Bill (“The era of big government is over”) Clinton, or from George Sr., or from Ronald (“The government isn’t the solution. The government is the problem”) Reagan or from Jimmy Carter, whose Fed chairman, Paul Volcker, intentionally engineered a severe recession. Why is Volcker a senior adviser to Obama again? Nor did we hear it from Jerry Ford. His idea of public support for the economy was manufacturing “Whip Inflation Now” buttons. You have to go back to that great liberal, Richard Nixon, to find a President who believed in priming the pump. Thirty-eight years ago, he said, “We’re all Keynesians now.”

It’s been a long time for that wisdom to return to the White House.

Crazy, right? Wait...so the golden age was under the leadership of Richard Nixon? Really? Because I'm pretty sure the '70s were not the paradise he might think it was.

I can't believe anyone would ever say that Reagan's term in office was anything but an enormous success, even just looking at it strictly economically. The country went through a period of unparalleled prosperity...in all of human history. Reagan's economy created 19 million jobs. The economic expansion occurred at a rate never before seen. Paul Volcker did orchestrate the conditions under which that severe recession occurred in the early 1980s, but that was because of stagflation. The economy was weak, and inflation was out of control, so he backed the dollar which came at the expense of the economy, although it was only temporarily. Obviously, because then the US annual GDP exploded from that point.

I think this post over on the Corner at NRO is pretty interesting. It gives a list of notable people opposing the stimulus package. That post points out that many of the president's own economic advisors had been critical in the past of the philosophical underpinnings of the package. Most tellingly, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office advised that the stimulus plan may actually hinder long-term economic growth. I can't seem to find that particular report, but here is another detailing some related issues. Here is a key excerpt:

Because of the bill's divided focus, its stimulative effects may prove too weak to halt or reverse more than a fraction of the job losses predicted for the next two years. And the investments, while relatively modest, may produce enough sticker shock to weaken support for the larger efforts the administration wants to mount in areas such as health care, energy, the environment, and infrastructure. It may prove difficult to turn off the spigot of "temporary" spending in 2011, as states and localities will still be struggling to recover from severe unemployment and steep revenue losses. If so, the consequence will be a permanently higher baseline budget at the very moment that the administration will want to pivot toward long-term restraint. The president may discover that once missed, a chance to invest in reform may be hard to reproduce--an ironic twist on his chief of staff's instantly famous dictum linking crisis and opportunity.

I wonder if those words will be prophetic in the next few years.

This isn't about the stimulus, but I thought it was really interesting. It's about the housing crisis and the efforts that Bush, Greenspan, and McCain had made to try and secure more federal oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If you haven't heard the name Barney Frank before, you should be aware. I'm pretty sure the guy is evil incarnate. He opposes everything that's good for this country.

Economics 101

Today I was in the psych grad lab just shooting the breeze (I love the PG-13 version of that phrase. I don't know why. I guess I just like hearing swearing. It's funny to me and feels so casual. I guess that's the problem though...too casual becomes too irreverent and so on...but still) with some of the other students and someone had brought up the subject of Obama's news conference last night touting the stimulus plan. One guy then started complaining that all Republicans ever want are tax cuts, and how was that supposed to ever get us out of this recession. My insides were churning.

I think taking an economics class should be mandatory for all college students. Very few people will ever actually do anything related to it professionally, but economics is a key factor in government and having a rudimentary understanding of economic principles is fundamental to having an informed voice.

Taxes were the reason why colonial Americans threw the Boston Tea Party (which is in itself kind of funny now that you think about it. Rich white guys are pissed about having all these taxes levied, so what do they decide to do? Throw a bunch of tea into the Boston harbor, but dressed up as Native Americans. If people were to do this today, what would they be dressed up as? African-Americans? Hispanics? Middle-easterners? Jews? Do you think anyone would realize what it was that they were protesting or would they go straight to talking about how racist/anti-semitic/anti-whatever and be looking for some way to turn this into a hate crime? What would the ACLU do? I wish something like that could occur just so I could see. That was the longest aside ever.) was all about. No taxation without representation, remember? Or in the Book of Mormon, what were the people of Zeniff upset about? The taxes (burdens) inflicted by the Lamanites. Their grievances were to heavy to be born, so they skidaddled their hinies out of there.

Taxes means you have less money and the government has more. Honestly...when does the government ever surpass the private individual's ability to make the most out of a dollar? If your company generates $1 million in revenue and gets taxed 30%, you probably stay, right? What happens when taxes goes up to 50%? 70%? At what point do you start looking for other options overseas where there are not so many government excisions?

Everyone needs to take a basic course in economics. And if I were teaching that class I would have everyone read Atlas Shrugged. So needed right now...

Is It Just Me?

I was at the market (that's for you, Dave) yesterday waiting to buy my groceries and several of the tabloids were screaming about Jessica Simpson and how unfair it is that people are so critical of her body. But then I started thinking, if the only thing that really makes her famous is the fact that she's super hot (or can be), then isn't it only fair that people can be allowed to criticize her because she's falling short of that? I mean, she's really not selling anything else besides her sexuality. She was never a talented musical artist, and she's an even worse actress. If her only assets are her...assets, then it seems like it's her own fault for not developing more of her persona to rely upon in the first place.
If she were an athlete getting paid to hit home runs, but all she does is strike out, no one is going to even bat an eye at the fact that people are going to be critical of her. Likewise, if she's getting paid to be super hot, we can't all of the sudden throw a fit because someone is upset that she's not pulling through. There are a lot of gross men that are depending on her to come through for them. It's not fair to objectify yourself, and then decry others because they are holding you to the standards that you set for youself from the outset. Just thinking aloud...

Her Morning Elegance

Have you seen this video? It's really creative and kind of adorable. I can think of a few of you who will just fall in love with it.

Long Road Home

Last week the counseling center here at BYU had put on a symposium about pornography. I wasn't able to catch as much as I would have liked, but I did manage to see a Q&A that the counselors had at the end of the day. Just a few things that I thought were interesting:

• They likened pornography addictions to driving a car. Some people imagine that you can curb an addiction and simply put on the brakes, but it's more just shifting from drive into neutral. The drive, so to speak, is always going to be there but you can reshape a person's habits so that it will no longer be a propelling force.
  
• They encourage their clients not to set "dead men's goals", or goals that dead men can accomplish. The emphasis isn't simply to get someone to never look at pornography again, rather it's to fill that person's life with other positive outlets. I liked this point and is something that is getting more and more attention in psychology these days: it's the idea that rather than just focusing on diagnosing problems, it's better to focus on the positive outcomes as a means of creating better outcomes.
  
• The cards with the questions were submitted by audience members on 3x5 index cards in between sessions. One of the questions fielded by the counselors had filled up both sides of the card. In it, the woman had asked how a "clean" woman can stay away from "unclean" men. The word clean was mentioned about a dozen times in the reading of the card. It seemed like she was coming from a place of some deep bitterness and resentment. A lot of judgment was coming through in the tone of the question.
  

As I've associated more and more with the clinical and counseling students, it's been really interesting to me how the treatments they use tend to shy away from using shame and guilt as a means of correcting behaviors. In our church culture, this is something that is especially prevalent.

So much of the problem with pornography addiction for LDS men is that the shame and guilt that gets heaped on them drives them into isolation and further removes them from resources that might help them to learn to deal with their problem. One of the counselors who had also served as a bishop had expressed how their emphasis both as counselors and as church leaders was to focus less on the punishing aspect of the gospel, and more on the hope and pathway back for those men struggling with those problems.

It's been a neat couple of months getting to know a lot of different people. Some of them are new, and others are ones that I've known, but only just recently have I begun to get to really get to know them. I think I've mentioned this before, but I know one guy who loves to hear people's "war stories," those stories that revolve around heartache, broken off engagements, dropping out of school, lay-offs, etc.

As I've gotten older I'm finding that I like hearing those stories more and more also, just because it makes the people around me feel more real. I guess I just feel like they're more human, and it makes me feel like I can relate more to that person. A friend of mine used the phrase, "I have a past," the other day and I felt like saying, "well who doesn't at your age?" What's cool to see is how it's shaped her to become the amazing person that she is now. Another person I've gotten to know recently had been away from church activity for several years, but she came back around a few years ago and if she had never said anything about it, I would have never known.

The hardships that you go through, well, they're common to us all, in one form or another. We're given weaknesses and trials that we might be humble, so that we might come unto our Heavenly Father. For some it comes in the form of certain proclivities that can turn into addictions, for others they come through trials like divorce, break-ups, etc., but there is always a way out of the wilderness.

In September Elder Holland gave an awesome fireside on Lessons Learned From Liberty Jail. During the talk he goes into some detail about Joseph Smith's prison-temple experience while being wrongly incarcerated in Liberty Jail. One of the points that he made was that in our extremities are God's opportunities. A similar point is made at the end of Elder Neal A. Maxwell's biography as the author begins to talk about Elder Maxwell's experience with cancer and how his sufferings helped him become better acquainted with Christ and what he suffered in Gethsemane as well as on Calvary.

I just love that gospel message. Not only is there a pathway leading to Heavenly Father for all of us, there are additional ones that we can take along the way that will lead us back to the strait and narrow. If we can avoid the trap of being completely consumed with whatever difficulties we may be facing, then we can see that those roads are there and that they do indeed lead to home.

Keynes and the Proposed Stimulus Plan

I was going to lead in with the joke from Wayne's World about Dick York-Dick Sargent-Sargent York, because the author of the article I wanted to link to is by Dick Armey, but I can't really connect that joke to what I'm going to talk about.

This article by Dick Armey gives a great explanation about Keynes as critiqued by Friedrich Hadler. It's probably one of the best explanations about the problems with Keynesian economics that I've read so far. Here are a few key paragraphs:

A father of public choice economics, Nobel laureate James Buchanan, argues that the great flaw in Keynesianism is that it ignores the obvious, self-interested incentives of government actors implementing fiscal policy and creates intellectual cover for what would otherwise be viewed as self-serving and irresponsible behavior by politicians. It is also very difficult to turn off the spigot in better economic times, and Keynes blithely ignored the long-term effects of financing an expanded deficit.

Of course, despite Mr. Obama's campaign promises to adhere to "Pay As You Go" budgeting, no one seems terribly worried about paying for what will likely be a trillion-dollar stimulus package. What everyone should agree on is that the money has to come from somewhere, either through higher taxes, borrowing or printing.

If the government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If the government raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If the government prints the money, it will increase inflation, which will decrease the value of the dollar. That would, in effect, rob Paul to pay Paul back with devalued currency.

I had to read that first paragraph a couple times to really figure it out. And I think those last two paragraphs are key. In the debates and throughout the campaign, Obama spoke so often about how he is not going to raise taxes on the middle class, and that it would only go up for the top 5% or less (which is another issue).

However, with the way things have turned out, he is going to need to figure out a way to pay for the stimulus package that is going to eventually amount to more than a trillion dollars. As Armey points out, it either comes through taxes, borrowing, or printing. Borrowing, in any scenario, turns into either taxes or more printing of currency, and both of those present problems. Higher taxes is wealth redistribution and destructive to free market capitalism, and printing money results in inflation, which essentially turns into a tax (some would say even more devastating in its consequences than just taxes) of sorts on everyone.

The biggest question regarding the stimulus, I think, is will spending all this money create more money in the long run? Is it better than doing nothing? I've recently started following the blog of an economics professor at the University of Michigan (Carpe Diem), and he has been posting all sorts of indicators that suggest that the economy will be rebounding later this year. So then a logical question that may arise is to ask if Democrats are just exploiting this recession to push forward their agenda?

As people have become apprised of what is entailed in the stimulus package, it seems like the only way that massive spending increases will be enacted into legislation is by pulling the wool over the eye's of the public and not actually telling them the real reason why this package has to go through immediately. In the latest Rasmussen Poll regarding the stimulus, public sentiment has turned against the bill as only 37% favor it, while 43% oppose the legislation. That's a pretty strong shift given that just two weeks ago 45% supported it, with 42% in opposition.

I think this goes back to the comment made by William F. Buckley about how he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in a phonebook than by the Harvard faculty. For some reason, elites, especially academic ones, think they are so enlightened when it comes to knowing what's best for everyone else. They come up with far-reaching programs that are supposed to move us closer to a Utopia, when in reality, the common person knows exactly what it is that they want for themselves and that course of action is usually what's best for the rest of society as a whole. Generally speaking, what's good for me is going to be what's good for you, and nobody is better at deciding at what I want for me than me. It's that simple.

When My Kids Grow Up

I guess I should preface that with if I ever get married and actually have kids. In the event that that does occur, I hope that when my kids grow up that they have the comportment of either Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer.

When last Sunday rolled around, I was actually more interested in the Australian Open Men's Final than I was in the Super Bowl. I didn't really have any investment with either of those teams, but the thing about the Nadal v. Federer rivalry is that it's historic. Roger Federer is arguably the greatest tennis player ever, and Rafael Nadal is the greatest tennis player right now.

I wrote about Roger year or so ago, and about how much I kind of hated him at that time just because the guy is so perfect. Everything he hits is so precise, and at the same time, the guy is the perfect gentleman. He says all the right things and actually seems to mean all of it. What was worse was that he just simply owned Andy Roddick. Still does. He actually beat him in the semifinals of the open.

This is a really great article by David Wallace and how watching Roger Federer is a near religious experience. In the article he talks about having "Federer Moments" thusly:

The Moments are more intense if you’ve played enough tennis to understand the impossibility of what you just saw him do. We’ve all got our examples. Here is one. It’s the finals of the 2005 U.S. Open, Federer serving to Andre Agassi early in the fourth set. There’s a medium-long exchange of groundstrokes, one with the distinctive butterfly shape of today’s power-baseline game, Federer and Agassi yanking each other from side to side, each trying to set up the baseline winner...until suddenly Agassi hits a hard heavy cross-court backhand that pulls Federer way out wide to his ad (=left) side, and Federer gets to it but slices the stretch backhand short, a couple feet past the service line, which of course is the sort of thing Agassi dines out on, and as Federer’s scrambling to reverse and get back to center, Agassi’s moving in to take the short ball on the rise, and he smacks it hard right back into the same ad corner, trying to wrong-foot Federer, which in fact he does — Federer’s still near the corner but running toward the centerline, and the ball’s heading to a point behind him now, where he just was, and there’s no time to turn his body around, and Agassi’s following the shot in to the net at an angle from the backhand side...and what Federer now does is somehow instantly reverse thrust and sort of skip backward three or four steps, impossibly fast, to hit a forehand out of his backhand corner, all his weight moving backward, and the forehand is a topspin screamer down the line past Agassi at net, who lunges for it but the ball’s past him, and it flies straight down the sideline and lands exactly in the deuce corner of Agassi’s side, a winner — Federer’s still dancing backward as it lands. And there’s that familiar little second of shocked silence from the New York crowd before it erupts, and John McEnroe with his color man’s headset on TV says (mostly to himself, it sounds like), “How do you hit a winner from that position?” And he’s right: given Agassi’s position and world-class quickness, Federer had to send that ball down a two-inch pipe of space in order to pass him, which he did, moving backwards, with no setup time and none of his weight behind the shot. It was impossible. It was like something out of “The Matrix.” I don’t know what-all sounds were involved, but my spouse says she hurried in and there was popcorn all over the couch and I was down on one knee and my eyeballs looked like novelty-shop eyeballs.

While watching the final on Sunday, there had to be at least a dozen of those kinds of moments, moments where you can only grunt and exhale because you don't know how else to react to the sheer athleticism and perfection of the physical acts being performed. It's unreal watching Federer have these moments.

It's even crazier when you realize that Nadal has just as many of those moments, and seemingly even more, because the guy has Roger's number.

It's not just the sport that is so amazing to watch. The part I might have enjoyed the most was watching each of the champions speak following the match. I'll let Tandon from ESPN recount Federer's reaction to his latest setback against Nadal:

"I love this game. It means the world to me, so it hurts when you lose," he said after his 7-5, 3-6, 7-6 (3), 3-6, 6-2 defeat to Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open final. A win would have tied him with Pete Sampras for a record 14 Grand Slams.

Dramatic as the first four sets had been, and as surprising as the sudden end in the fifth set had been, the most emotional moment came after the match was over. Federer stepped up to the mike to make the runner-up speech, beginning gamely with, "Well, it's great for the sport."

Then he stopped and gulped, trying to fight back his disappointment. "Maybe I'll try later again," he said, finally. "God, it's killing me."

Even Nadal, in his moment of victory, was visibly moved. After receiving the trophy from Laver, the Spaniard stepped back to give his vanquished friend a hug.

Federer had to smile. "I don't want to have the last word, this guy deserves it," he told the crowd, picking up where he had left off. "So Rafa, congratulations. You played incredible, another fantastic final. You deserve it, man."

Maybe you can identify with how refreshing it is to see a professional athlete emote with such class and respect for himself, the sport, and even his most bitter rival. It was so touching to see both his and Rafa's reaction to the whole thing. I had tears well up in my eyes as I watched. Even Rafael's uncle and coach (same person) cried at the scene.

I can only hope that someday my kids will take a page out of either of these guys' notebooks and learn the lessons in class that they show week in and week out as they compete.

UPDATE: I found the video of Roger and Rafa accepting their trophies. Just check out the first few minutes.