Happy Halloween!

Although in many ways this defies reason - I absolutely love holidays. Especially the consumer-driven frivolity that most today hold (Halloween, Christmas, Easter, St. Patty's, etc.) I say, these holidays give us an excuse to be childish in an acceptable way and increase the revenues of costume, decor, other consumer product, and candy companies. It's a win-win. (I do greatly respect people's devout observances of religious holidays. I just was not raised in an environment where that was the case. Therefore, in lieu of being a hypocrite, I openly present my views of holidays: A fun excuse to be frivolous, creative, and spend time with family and friends. Also, I'm not one for merely celebrating the fact that I'm alive, so holidays are a great reason to celebrate life itself even if that is not in a religious context.)

Holidays can also be a great opportunity to engage your creativity (through such avenues as designing a costume, a decorative scheme, or a unique holiday feast) that might otherwise fall to the back-burner. I'm fortunate enough to have a profession where I have to be creative every day, but I've had many jobs where this was not the case. And, once those creative juices are flowing who knows what you can do with your seemingly ordinary mundane tasks?

So, please don a crazy costume, eat too much candy, and enjoy an evening of frivolity! After all, this serious world we live in today will still be waiting in the morning.

Advice of the Day

Learn Excel early on in your life. It's really not a hard program to use, but it's like learning a foreign language - if approached a young age it's incredibly easier to decipher and command.

Everyone should be required to have working knowledge of all basic Microsoft Office programs before graduating from college regardless of major. I distinctly remember only making one PowerPoint presentation and creating one Excel workbook in college. Meanwhile, I wrote nearly 200 papers. Those papers helped hone valuable skills that I use everyday. However, taking crash courses in PowerPoint and Excel on the job can lead to some interesting (often painful) results.

On a related note, props to Microsoft for planning to release free versions of its office suite with Windows 2007 (to be released in 2010.) The spokesperson did add a caveat about the online programs not functioning as well... as an explanation on how they plan to recover for any losses in the software revenue. They probably should have cleared that comment with Marketing, but they have nothing but time to develop and provide top quality products. As much as I trust Microsoft and its ability to innovate and adapt to meet the times (both in its business and technology), it always seems to drag its feet which is not beneficial to its image - especially to web-savvy clients who, for some reason, often favor Macs. Still, kudos for effort and for officially embracing Cloud Computing.

Palin: Caribou Barbie or a Victim of the Right Wing Conspiracy?

This entry needs to be prefaced by saying that I am most likely WAY off base. However, in a discussion the other evening about Palin's candidacy, her previous political behavior (in Alaska), and her general character (not moral per se, but her typical demeanor, actions, etc.) I was thinking that her public portrayal has not aligned with her previous reputation - or even her initial appearances following her introduction as McCain's VP running mate. During those, she was poised, intelligent, and articulate. Sure, her accent and colloqialisms still appealed to working class values-voter America, but she appeared to equally appeal to the Republican cultural elite (which is strong, although not nearly as big as that of the Democrats) who were still bemoaning the choice of McCain.

So, how did Palin result in being portrayed as Caribou Barbie - as shallowly entertaining and demeaning as that lablel is? There are several things that contribute to this outside the accent and being from Alaska (as a native Wisconsinite, I fully understand the joy other people get from making fun of people with northern accents who grew up in the woods. We might as well be space aliens.) First, shame on the campaign for keeping her sequestered. It would be one thing if that caused her to come out blazing in debates and interviews. But, to then only emerge with variations of the same stump speech is not acceptable to an electorate eager to learn more about a candidate - especially a little known candidate (although I still would trust America's hands in Palin's over Obama's any day.) Of course the Media are going to pounce on such behavior...

The second is direct result of the sequestering - Katie Couric's interview was catastrophic. Palin couldn't name one periodical or book she was reading - despite claiming that she is a voriforous reader. How is that possible? Say Time, Newsweek, The Anchorage Daily News (or whatever that paper is), ANYTHING. This is what leads to my conspiracy theory...

Why would an intelligent, driven woman who is making history with her candidacy be willing to portray herself as an idiot on national television where her voters are scrutinizing her? Because her advisors told her to. The GOP isn't known for its upright campaign strategies to say the least, but they also are conniving if nothing else. To give McCain some credit, I think he tries to get above this at least a little, but politics is politics so there's only so much one can really do.

Why, might you ask, would the campaign approve such tactics? Because they are also afraid of what she might say... honest people that hit a cord with mainstream America are dangerous to the political machine and should be marginalized as much as possible so as to not destruct it too much. But, especially with the former Republican base, such a candidate is necessary. They don't care if McCain is a maverick, has some leanings toward Reagan conservatism, and will appoint Supreme Court Justices that would strike down Roe v. Wade. They want a candidate in ways like George Bush: Someone who doesn't sound like he (or she) is from Washington where everyone is rich and corrupt, is willing to protect all life, and will make sure that our nation upholds moral principles despite the opinion of the rest of the world. Palin fits the bill perfectly. So, despite being from Alaska, graduating from U of Idaho instead of Harvard, and having 5 children, if she presents herself as well-read in areas that conservatives deem unacceptable, she is finished. What true conservative reads the NY Times? So, some brilliant strategist decides to make her not give any specific answers... afterall, being vague and not saying anything of substance is better than having to refute a misstep of consequence especially with all the blunders McCain makes on a daily basis.

That's my conspiracy theory in a nutshell. I hope I'm wrong in some ways, but not in others because I really don't want to believe that John McCain was that careless in choosing a potential leader of America (Palin will be the leading force in the GOP for years to come regardless of this election outcome.) I also need to point out the things that incited my curiousity other than my general disbelief that a woman that made me tear up with joy and excitement when she accepted the nomination could become Caribou Barbie. Those are Lorne Michaels' comments about her SNL appearance and Daniel Henninger's Wonderland Column this week.

If I am right, a message to Sarah Palin: Show America what you're truly capable of these last two weeks before the election! Impress us with intelligence, pragmatism, leadership, and poise. That will hit home more than simple language and attack politics.

Great Description of Politicians

Thanks Don Boudreaux for continuing to share your astute opinions. From Cafe Hayek on Tuesday:

"...The general lesson here is that politicians are akin to faith-healers. Both pose as wizards; they use enchanting words to push crackpot potions. The faith-healer dupes his customers into believing that he will suspend medical reality; the politician dupes voters into believing that he will suspend economic reality. Both are frauds."

Glad to see as always that I'm not the only one who doesn't believe in the magical powers of the government. Too bad, unlike the average Obama supporter, I can't dupe myself into feeling good about my reality - the reality one where my husband and I would be better off financially if I quit my job (under Obama's tax plan of course.) I think Adam Lerrick addresses that issue well today in a Journal editorial.

I heard people calling for another "Boston Tea Party" when the bailout was passed... imagine what might truly happen if household making between $75,000-$150,000 begin being taxed at the "rich people" rates. I'm just guessing that socialist policies, i.e, "spreading the wealth around," won't sound so appealing then.

Amazing... Thanks SNL

Amy Poehler's rap for Sarah Palin was one of the most enjoyable bits I've ever seen. Sarah Palin may not be qualified to be president, but at least she's a good sport about things. Besides, people enjoy comedy more than politics anway, right? Therefore, one point for Palin for being a candidate with a sense of humor...

Obama's Welfare State

Have you seen Obama's new economic plan? Well, you should read it... carefully. In sum, he wants to put 40% of Americans on some kind of welfare (yes, tax "rebates" that are for more than you originally paid in taxes are in fact welfare, not your God-given rights as citizens. Some of us worked hard for that money, paid it to the government because we had to or would be thrown in jail, and will never see a cent in return because we are responsible and don't have children, a car, or a house we can't afford.)

Where I come from, we were always taught that welfare is a necessary evil to be avoided at ALL costs unless living without it means starvation or homelessness. And, that area happens to be one of the poorest per capita of any region in these great United States. The reason why this is taught is because hard work, ingenuity, and resourcefullness are all virtues to be valued and praised. The underlying reasoning being that if you work hard enough and can look outside the box that you will be okay. Even if that means shooting a deer for meat and planting a garden and canning your vegetables for the winter. After all, if you can build your own house, why the hell does the government need to give you one?

So, thank you Barack Obama for devaluing hard work, ingenuity, and resourcefullness because we're in tough economic times. For some people, it doesn't take a stock market and financial services industry crash for them to have tough economic times, and you don't see them asking for "bailouts" for lifestyles they couldn't afford in the first place.

I would like to reiterate, stealing is evil (even God says so.) And while we should give unto Ceaser what's Ceaser's and God what's God's that doesn't mean that Ceaser can take what's mine. Redistribution of the wealth is evil. Communism is evil. I have treatises I could post on each of these subjects, but will refrain since this is only a blog. However, the day that a genuine wealth redistribution is passed in America is the day I move to Ireland or Grand Cayman with all my capitalist notions and work ethic with me. It's a bad state of affairs when Ayn Rand is sounding rational.

Asian Markets Plunge

The Nikkei closed at a 9.38% loss.

I really have nothing worthwhile to say about this. It's just staggering and upsetting. Who knows what the next few days will bring for the global economy.

A Google or Mozilla Problem?

I used to be incredibly loyal to Internet Explorer. Mostly because I didn't know any better. Before the last 2 years, I didn't care much about what was going on in the technology space as long as I could access my gmail account, facebook, and Google search. And, part of me was very proud of this - Why care about technology when you can read about ancient Greeks? (albeit certainly not in the ancient Greek itself...)

Amazing how things change. Now, my job centers around me being technologically savvy. I still doubt that I will ever have any programming or computer science skills to speak of, but I have to stay on top of what's going on in the tech space so I can pass it along to my company's customers or potential customers. I also must possess a working tech literacy so I can translate techie's ideas into appealing English so that they can in turn sell their products and services (it's amazing how difficult this can be if you do not understand what the product or service is...)

However, my technological knowledge base shifted when I was introduced to Mozilla Firefox search browser about 3 years ago. At the time, it had a "tabbing" feature that IE did not and was generally faster at enabling Google searches. It also came with the snazzy Google toolbar. All great things. Of course, IE has since done just about everything to catch up with Mozilla since then, but I still prefer Mozilla because until recently IE often had more problem running applications I regularly use (except Webex... ) With the release of Mozilla 3.0, I seem to have nothing but problems with Mozilla. Or at least when it is trying to open Google applications.

This leads me to ask: Is Google sabotaging Mozilla's effectiveness because it released its own internet browser?

I would certainly hope not based on Google's goal of providing the Internet to the masses with ease at any possible location. If this is indeed the case, shame on Google. Google has gained its reputation by being the best (anyone remember the release of Cuil at the end of July?) and should go forward with the same approach. I'm certainly not going to cease using Google and its apps (since I'm obviously posting on Blogger), but will be hesitant to embrace new ones going forward. On the other hand, maybe it's simply a glitch in the new Mozilla browser. Regardless, this is a problem Google should be aware of since it's reflecting negatively on them, which never helps with user loyalty regardless of how cool a new app may be. And, Mozilla should be aware of the problems with Google apps as well if it wants to keep its nitch user-base happy.

On a slightly related note, if Apple tries to make me download Safari one more time when I'm updating iTunes I might have to buy a Zune when my old iPod finally stops working. This illustrates the beauty of technological innovation: there's always something new, better, and faster to keep all the tech company's on their toes thus creating better products for us mere users.

The Vice Presidential Debate Effect

I now have 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Biden was Biden and Palin Palin. Palin didn't tank and Biden didn't wow. Way to keep the status quo guys.

On a separate note, I understand that the Wall Street crisis was in large part due to, oh let's say Wall Street. However, demonizing wall street is getting a little old. How about Washington? McCain/Palin were GREAT at pointing out the flaws in the "good old boy network" of Washington when Palin was chosen as the VP nominee. And now? All we hear is that McCain warned his fellow Senators in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie needed to be regulated more closely. And that Sarah Palin understands what it's like to sit around the dinner table and worry about your personal finances. (For some interesting accounts of Greenspan discussing Fannie with several Senators, check out this article.) Good for McCain's ability to pick up on that fact, but he still wasn't able to accomplish anything with those warnings and what about actions since then? Does McCain never talk to Wall Street? What about his actions on the Commerce Committee? Why did he change his mind on the bailout so quickly? (I happen to agree that he needed to, but not without a better explanation. I'm sick of hearing "We have to help the American people. Get Main Street back on its feet." I agree, but how do you propose doing so?

These are all things that need to be explained, and I have been behind McCain since he was losing in the primaries.

The Third Commandement and the Alliance Defense Fund

Not to overtly endorse Fox News, but this article refers to a new initiative purposed by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization that claims to be the “Christian” version of the ACLU, which calls on pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit in an attempt to challenge IRS rules that prohibit non-profits from endorsing political candidates under the auspices of the free exercise clause of the first Amendment. They claim that “The Internal Revenue Service, in conjunction with radical organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have used the Johnson amendment {the IRS code in question} to create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear for any church that dares to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office or issues”.

With this new initiative, The Alliance Defense Fund might possibly have swept aside moveon.org as my least favorite quasi–political/legal organization working in the US. They apparently missed that whole 3^rd commandment thing from that esoteric, outdated Old Testament. To wrap one’s secular political and public policy viewpoint in the holy cloth of God’s sanction by suggesting an implicit Biblical endorsement of a particular viewpoint through a specious line of moral extrapolation is I suspect the kind of thing that commandment suggests avoiding. Perhaps, I am wrong and it doesn’t go any further than to suggest one is only sinning when they put the word “God” in front of a choice expletive. Who can know?

So back to the point: Why should we as Christians stand up against this new initiative and appeal to our pastors not to get involved? I will release a point by point explanation over the next few days\weeks as time permits. The points will include risks to the financial health of churches, basic theological problems with such approaches, the very secular worldly reasons this issue is being pushed, and, if time permits, a review of why this is bad constitutional law in addition to some philosophical thoughts on why we have the Establishment Clause.

1. The Risk to the Financial Health of Individual Congregations.

The first prudent issue a congregation member should examine before endorsing the ADF plan is what is the risk with and what might be gained from joining with the ADF in this cause. The risk is the loss of non-profit status. The potential gain is the ability for a religious organization to endorse (in every sense of the word) political candidates and remain a non-profit. We will begin by exploring more fully what loosing non-profit status would mean for a church and the probability of realizing such a risk.

First, the realistic chances of this issue being overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. This particular IRS code is about as clear cut and settled of a law that one will find. It is important to understand that the Supreme Courts loves precedent. The Supreme Court expects incredibly compelling new reasons to upturn established law because of their preference towards the status quo. If you think I am wrong please read O’Connor’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. She wants to overturn Roe v. Wade but does not out of respect for precedent. This reveals a great deal about what goes on in the mind of a Justice deliberating a decision.

So the question becomes: Can the ADF provide a compelling reason under the Constitution that this should be overturned? The details of the IRS code were constructed carefully in an attempt to strike a proper balance between the free exercise [of religion] clause and the establishment clause (which prohibits the state establishment, i.e., support, of any church or religion) in the First Amendment. For example, under the current code, pastors, in their individual person, can endorse political candidates as well as preach from the pulpit moral and religious precepts that should guide parishioners’ electoral decision making up to the point of an explicit endorsement of a candidate. It is disingenuous of the ADF to suggest that the current law would have prevented churches from speaking out from the pulpit against an issue such as slavery or to broadly condemn, as a Church, those in Washington who supported such sinful policies.

It is of a high probability that the court will hold with the IRS code because the code does not overtly infringe on the free exercise clause and any further liberality in the law would run a dangerous course smack into the Establishment Clause (will explain more in the next post). Most experts agree the ADF case is one of long odds to even be heard, let alone won.

So when the Supreme Court effectively upholds the Johnson Amendment, the church body, not the pastors or the ADF lawyers, will be bear the tax burden the IRS will lay at there door. The church will be subject to for-profit entity taxes and will be assessed certain steep penalties as well. Having seen much in the way of church finances I suspect this change in legal status would bankrupt many churches. Further, if the church remains solvent it will lose valuable resources given for the holy purpose of ministry. If a congregation or church leader believes this extra bit of freedom expression is truly necessary to fulfill God’s commands they should, through their individual governing laws, change the church’s legal structure to accommodate such speech. Bob Jones University is a good example of an organization that did just that. This way the individuals who have to bear the financial burden of such decisions are the ones involved in the process of making it. It is abhorrent for lawyers who know the real probability of victory, or worse are too incompetent understand it, are promoting such irresponsibility. Engaging in the promotion or execution of risky behavior without bearing any material risk is what one could call “Moral Hazard” and it is what the ADF, like Washington and Wall Street before, are peddling. It is wrong. For the sake of your church’s divinely appointed responsibility to meet the ministry needs of the church body and to serve the specific missions into the community and the wider world, stand up against any further “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” or its like.

When Everyone is the Greater Fool

The presence of great societal action in America amazes me. Actually, it doesn't amaze me, it makes me laugh. Despite the claims of what truly collective efforts can accomplish in America (think the Space Program, universal healthcare, education reform, The Great Society, etc.) are, the truth is that Americans often do act collectively. And that collectivity is almost always rash and self-serving. This is no surprise to me and my vast skepticism of [good] human intentions. However, the current crisis is a perfect example. The Journal had a great editorial today that discussed this matter and I think its points are accurate.

First, no one was complaining when the banks informed them that they could take out mortgages they could not possibly afford previously - where funding was based on credit scores, not real data such as income, debt, and assets. Thousands of people swept up these loans and moved into mcmansions (at least here in Atlanta.) Then, those mcmansions amazingly jumped in value! "What luck!" those mortgage holders thought to themselves. "And really, what is the worst thing that could happen? My house is gaining so much value that when my ARM re-adjusts in 3-5 years, I'll just re-finance or sell my house at its new higher value. Stupid bankers, they're just GIVING money away. Woo hoo!"

Well, those bankers are certainly reaping the benefits of their stupidity. However, everyone - mortage holders, bankers, and politicians who gained initial vast popularity by saying that "Every American has the right to own a home!" - are now suffering largely as a result of a theory a friend introduced me to: The Greater Fool Theory. The theory is very transparent. Basically, the investors know they are buying bad debt, but are confident that there will be a "bigger fool" who will buy the debt from them allowing them to get rid of the bad debt while still turning a profit on fees (and hopefully a jump in value too.) This creates a market bubble - such as the tech bubble of the early 2000s and the housing bubble - which eventually must pop. The unfortunate thing is that the housing bubble showed that everyone was the greater fool. This was certainly aggravated by implicit governmental guarantees of mortgages, but that's a post for another day. Everyone believed that they were gaining "safe" money that would only continue to grow at unrealistic rates. After all, the housing market is the DisneyWorld of investing: It makes all your [Main Street American] dreams come true.

So, what does this say about American societal action? First, Americans are clearly capable of group action. And, apparently incredibly easily manipulated by anything they think will benefit them (which doesn't seem to be universal healthcare or education... maybe because they're not quite so bad as they're made out to be... that's simply a supposition though.) Second, crises rule the day. Americans (and most people who are above subsistence-level existences) LOVE to panic. This may also be a geographical phenomenon where Atlanta has the most concentrated group of panickers, but interesting nonetheless. Bank runs, gas lines, credit crunches which can be an amalgamated disaster if not stopped. The funny thing is that they can be stopped... if people insist on being calm and not fueling each others' fears. But, people don't want to take that kind of responsibility so the magical government must intervene to save the day. This will most likely will work because people will gain back their market confidence (in a subconscious way for most,) yet is certainly not ideal and even opposed by most because they see it as bailing out Wall Street, not Main Street. And all those "rich people" deserve it for being greedy. Wow - American hypocrisy at its very best.

So, what lessons are to be learned from this mess? In my opinion, the most important is a lesson learned in Econ 101: There's no such thing as a free lunch (or certainly not a free house.) If something seems to good to be true, it is. This obviously won't help the situation, but keeping it in mind for the future may help people immensely. The second is related: If people are taking a free lunch en masse, RUN! Or, exploit their stupidity for your own gains, just be careful because if you play the greater fool game there's always a chance that it will be you. And, just to be safe, my family will always own a large track of land with a fully equipped cabin in a rural, wooded area in case one day the government isn't able to bail [the collective] us out. Some politicians might call that an example of clinging to "guns and religion." I just think of it as good sense.

Updated Full Text of the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008

Nothing like 451 pages of legislative goodness to ward off a possible emergency...

I have not had the time to wade through this... although I'm glad to see all the reminders that "the taxpayers' risks must be kept to a minimum" and that things such as homeowners' abilities to remain in their homes, safety of retirement funds, and economic enhancement need to be "kept in mind." Thanks for that reiteration Congress... always good to know you have the rhetorical interests of "main street" at heart.

Why Reason?

A quick explainer on the blog title...

The authors of this blog are huge fans of reason, love rational actors, and admire logic in all its forms (especially syllogisms.) I would like to think that most people feel the same, but am skeptical. This is not to say we don't have biases, but genuinely enjoy having reasonable and well thought out discussions about the world. It also doesn't mean we think we are the only or a supreme "voice of reason." Instead, we merely like to voice what we see to be reasonable and hope others find it to be so as well. And, if not, we would love to know in attempts to gain a clearer vision of reality in any topic we are addressing. Or, at the very least to entertain a point of view we may not have considered previously, although we certainly try to be thorough.

That being said, another equally adequate title for this blog would be "Really?" If you have seen the Saturday Night Live skit, you understand what I mean.