Watched Obama's speech

I didn't really want to watch, I wanted to see the Cubs game but my father and step mother wanted to, so... I hear people raving about his speech, and it was a pretty good one. I did notice a few bones thrown towards those of us with more libertarian outlooks. He talked about personal responsibility, parental responsibility, the importance of reducing parts of the government that don't work, and the freedom to work towards our own goals.

I read a Cato thingy about how the Democrats might be in a position to appeal to libertarians. According to their polling, up to 25% of people in the US have what would be considered libertarian tendencies (defined as wanting smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and strong civil liberties) even if they don't consider themselves as such. That could make for a significant swing vote. Traditionally, libertarians have voted republican. Truth be told, there really hasn't been a libertarian republican since Goldwater. The republicans have held onto the "smaller government" mantra for a while. They did, that is, until this president. I think W. has actually added more to the government than LBJ did, and that's something. Add to that the ongoing social conservatism, and the absolute trampling of the constitution and civil liberties, and it's not hard to to come up with reasons libertarians are a little dissatisfied with the republicans. The Democrats have held the high ground on so called social liberties (especially with gay rights), but have an awful record with other civil liberties like issues of gun control and other, more mundane liberties like what you're allowed to eat (see the NYC ban on transfats and the busting of street vendors in San Jose for selling bacon hot dogs against city ordinance..). I do think those things have been overshadowed by little things like the denial of habeus corpus. So the dems reaching out to that group is, I think, significant. It isn't just trying to look more centrist, they are actively courting the libertarian-minded voters.

I think it will be fun to watch McCain throw W. under the bus in the upcoming convention. It's really his only chance as far as I can see. I'm not sure how the democrats can screw up this election, but we should never underestimate the incompetence of the democratic party...

Just remember this. As good as Obama's speech was, it had no more significance than any other soliloquy given by any actor. Anybody can say anything. Anyone can promise anything. Talk is cheap, talk from politicians is worthless. I think the comparisons to Abe Lincoln are a little premature. Obama has yet to actually do anything, Abe has a pretty significant legacy. The appropriate response to Obama's speech is, "Prove it." He has promised the moon, with no downsides. He has laid out ideas with absolute certainty that he knows what is best and has taken all contingencies into account. In short, he made a very good POLITICAL speech, we should take his ability to do any of this stuff with many heaps of salt. Right now, he is saying what he needs to say in order to get elected, nothing more. Why would you trust him more than any other politician? He is what he is...

Technorati Tags:
democrats, libertarian, obama, republicans

My plans

Everyone keeps asking what my plans are. I have been a little vague, but things are looking like they're coming into better focus. I would like to pursue the teaching English thing, overseas that is. I really enjoyed it. After being in a job that was not what I wanted to do, having a job that is fulfilling is pretty addictive.

Yes, I could go and get a sales job. If I got motivated enough (read, if I needed money badly enough) I'd do pretty well. There is always money to be made selling things, and I am very confident i could do it. I really don't want to go back to that world though. I enjoyed teaching photography, the best part of the sales job was teaching people how to get the results they wanted, and teaching English was a blast.

My general plan is to stay stateside through the spring and then go somewhere. I already have an application in at a place in Turkey. A friend of mine (who came to Yemen after reading my blog) is teaching there already. So far, it sounds like an ideal set-up. You get the CELTA training from them plus it's possible to take grad courses there as well.

It's also possible that I might go get the certification first. That'll take several thousand dollars, so we'll see how the finances stack up. Speaking of finances, I may have to go get a job. I'll worry about that once I'm done with the current project I'm working on.

So that's my basic plan. I'm going to try to enjoy this place while I'm here, and I'm going to attempt to see my family as much as I can as well. I've learned to appreciate some things while I was gone :-)

Vacation?

I'll be going down to the outer banks next week. Rick has rented out a big beach house and there will be a gaggle of people there. This includes 5 kids. To be fair only 3 of them are really running around, but that will probably be enough :-) Anyway, I plan on having my computer with me so hopefully I will keep up with the blogging and maybe even get some writing done...

I'm surprised

I was doing a little reading about the differences between the Orthodox churches and the Catholic ones here and I found something that really surprised me. They do not believe in the concept of original sin! They believe that all things are born innocent and without sin. That has some bearing on how they view Mary, but I think that it's a bit of a minor thing (as a non-Catholic).

I have to say, I think that it's rather refreshing to hear that there are Christians that believe that we are born without sin. Are there any other churches that believe that? The article also does a good job in communicating the different "feel" to the theologies. I'm not sure which one I find more compelling, but it's nice to see it explained so well. I wish the Orthodox were better known here in the states, I think that it's a church worth looking into.

Technorati Tags:
religion, orthodox, catholic

A Strange Dream

I dreamt that I had come out of something, school, work, something or other and there was a table advertising free pancakes sponsored by the Republican party. I'm no fan of republicans, but PANCAKES! So I wandered over there and sat myself down. There were three older ladies there, very prim and proper, and they looked at me rather circumspectly.

I knew what I was in for, but I waited until the food was there. And like good waiters, they waited until I started eating to start in on recruitment. I don't remember exactly what was said (you know how dreams are) but they amounted to complaining about the moral decay of the nation (an argument I haven't really heard in a couple of years thank God), the importance of protecting America's interests abroad, and the general faith of electing the right people to carry out the right projects.

I couldn't help myself, I had to point out that the Democrats had just as much faith in that last thing as the Republicans. I then asked them what Barry Goldwater would have thought of that. I had fun telling them that I would have voted for Goldwater (especially considering his opponent) but the Republicans hadn't produced another guy worth electing since then.

The ladies didn't have any idea on how to respond since the current republicans (minus Ron Paul) are much more like the democrats than their historic record. Seriously, can you think of too many differences between W. and LBJ? Expanding wars, rapidly growing government, and most of all, an abiding sense that the government can "fix" any problems that came up.

This is the real reason I can't get excited about this election. Both parties sound almost alike to me in most things. It also amuses me when someone bitches about how so and so in office is ruining things by his policies. It never occurs to people that someone they don't like will eventually be in office. It also never occurs to people that the only sure fire way to avoid political policies that they don't like is to make sure that whoever is elected has precious few opportunities to enact policy. Smaller government with less power is the way to avoid corruption and to avoid power creep, especially with the party you don't like in power.

With my little speech over, I woke up. And then I went and made pancakes...

Technorati Tags:
obama, mccain, democrats, republicans, libertarian

HDTV. Really?

Since I've come back and started watching TV again, I've been stunned with the hype surrounding HDTV. I actually watch one, and it's nice. There's no denying the better picture but honestly, after the first couple of times I saw an HDTV program, I didn't notice it any more. This seems like a real technical advance, but I don't think it does much to improve the experience.

One thing that really does improve things is the surround sound that usually comes with the HDTV channels. That's something I learned way back when I was selling surround sound systems. Even with a so-so TV, the experience could be dramatic with a good sound system. I have fallen in love with concerts on channels like VH-1, with the right system, it is amazing...

So when the time comes for me to buy a TV (it'll happen eventually) I'll look for the best deal I can, but I won't obsess over the picture quality. I will get a nice sound system though...

I'm reading a new book

It's a little light reading entitled "The Logic of Political Survival." I had heard of this work before and it intrigued me. In it, De Mesquita et. al. tries to explain how bad policy is often good politics and how good policy is actually bad politics.

He takes a rather cynical view of politics (something that I can identify with) but it works rather well for explaining things. It turns out that if you see governments as essentially collecting taxes and then distributing them, you can make sense of what most governments do most of the time. This applies to the worst autocracies and dictatorships as well as to the highest functioning democracies in the world. It's nice to see a theory that applies to all types of governments.

I have never really read any political science work before, but I'm diving into the deep end. Bruce De Mesquita is actually a controversial figure in this realm. As far as I can tell, he has gained this notoriety by actually using mathematics to formalize his theories. Game theory is very well known to economists, but it has come very late to the political science realm. Deep down, I wonder if the people that oppose this approach resist because they can't handle the math. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened...

This is one of two political science books that I have wanted to read for a while. I own the other but have never gotten the chance to read it. "The Calculus of Consent; Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy" by Tullock and Buchanan (Buchanan won the Nobel prize for it) started the entire field of political economy. In short, they had as their premise that politicians are motivated not by altruistic thoughts but by self interest. Their ability to accurately predict how government bodies act pretty much proved that their approach is sound. It turns out that politicians aren't saviors, who knew?

I think that books like this should be mandatory reading, especially during an election year. I'll report back with any amazing things I learn as I read...

Life in general...

If you didn't know, I have a gig scanning negs for a woman that my father knows. It's interesting, her father was a historian of the sailing ships on the Chesapeake Bay. The oldest negs I've come across so far have been from 1936. There's some nice stuff. That's a good thing because there are 2500+ of these things, so I'm glad I enjoy seeing them. Unfortunately I have been forbidden to share them, so you'll just have to use your imagination...

I'm getting stronger, I can now walk the 1 1/2 miles around the house without too much difficulty and even do it again later on at night. That's a big improvement. I'll keep working on that and my general strength.

I'll need it too, the week after next i will be going down to Nags Head for a week. There will be 5 (5! What am I nuts?) kids there from the ages of 1 to 7 I think. It should be... interesting. Wish me luck...

Until then, I'll just keep scanning away. There will be boats in my dreams pretty soon..

The Drinking age

A recent article in the Baltimore Sun (here) talks about how a bunch of university presidents want to lower the drinking age back down to 18. They have a handful of reasons. Binge drinking is a problem, but so are the activities that students do to avoid being caught on campus. Students go off campus to drink, and that is going to involve driving... One over-riding concern is that since drinking below the age of 21 is illegal, the college's hands are pretty much tied when it comes to education. They can't be real aggressive in outreach because it will look like they are encouraging under age drinking.

To me, this is the biggest problem with not only alcohol, but all drugs. Kids do all of them, but to come out and talk to them about it often makes some parents upset. There is an eerie parallel with birth control here... One thing that I did not know is that there is no national drinking age. Congress cleverly attached an "incintive" to the transportation bill. The states don't "have to" have a drinking age of 21, but if they don't they lose 10 percent of the money...

Anyway, I'm not sure that lowering the drinking age is a good thing or not. Certainly, there are, like all laws, unintended consequences that come along with this law. It would be a good idea to look into options, including lowering the drinking age. A big problem is that it is political suicide to even bring that up in many places. So we're not likely to ever know if lowering the drinking age could alleviate the problems or not...

I should have known better

I had been hearing good things about the new Batman movie and I admit, I was intrigued. When dad offered to take me, I said sure. I usually don't watch movies, I can't remember the last time I went to the theatre to see a movie. It's been at least 6 or 7 years. This surprises people, they can't understand why I don't go. I have never really understood why people enjoy doing it. Sure, it can be a great experience, but it is usually a total waste of time.

This movie is no exception. I had heard how "dark" the movie is, how action packed it is, and how "powerful" a performance Heath Ledger gave as the Joker. What a load of BS. This movie is no different from any other pile of steaming feces that Hollywood churns out on a regular basis. It was predictable, had ridiculous dialogue, no characterization to speak of, and I was actually bored in the middle of it. I can think of 4 or 5 comic book stories off the top of my head that are head and shoulders above this, including some Batman ones...

Ledger's supposedly "amazing" performance amounted to him trying to channel a combination of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" and Freddie Crugar in the first "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie. He's playing the Joker folks, it is fundamentally impossible to give an amazing performance in that role. The best you can do is make it creepy and I don't even think he did that.

After the film, my father told me something that I have heard all my life and I have never understood. He said that it was important to see a movie once in a while, even if it's bad. It's a common thought, but no one has ever been able to tell me why it's a good thing to pay for and sit through something when I could have been doing any number of other things that are better. This goes for bad music and bad books too. In my experience, most movies suck and are a waste of my life. I won't make the mistake of going to the theatre again for quite a while.

More than ever, this movie has me worrying about a country that thinks this is a good film. I'm even more worried about a culture that thinks this is good entertainment. It doesn't have any redeeming values that I can think of. You don't learn anything from it, it's expensive, and it isn't even interesting to look at. There are about a zillion films that are more exciting if action is your thing. I literally don't understand why anyone would like this film...

Wedding Pictures are Up!

I finally got the film developed from Beth's wedding and there were even some decent pictures on it. It was shot with my Konica Hexar camera. I haven't put too much film through it, so I'm still figuring it out. I need to figure out the framing when I'm wearing my glasses, I don't seem to notice the top frameline in a vertical position. Need more practice...

You can see them here

Queasiness, breast feeding, and kidney transplants

My stepsister posted an update on how her one year old is doing. He is the picture of health, and as large as the average 2 year old. The doctor mentioned that they might want to think about weaning him soon to which Kelly responded that she plans on breast feeding him up to the age of three.

My initial reaction was, "WHAT?! You can't breast feed a kid for that long, he'll be screwed up for the rest of his life!" With a little more thought, I've come to a more nuanced view. It's true that from a 37 year old's perspective, breast feeding at three years old is a little weird. But I have to keep reminding myself that that 3 year old will not have the thoughts of this 37 year old. It's also true that there is all sorts of evidence that breast feeding is very good for kids. I'm not aware of any studies that show mental issues with prolonged breast feeding. I don't know about them because I've never looked for them. Of course I've never looked for studies on breast feeding in general, but I still have heard of the studies about the benefits of breast feeding. And of course Kelly has probably looked into this... She could be wrong, but she's got a better chance of weighing the pros and cons than I do, so I say, "Whatever you think is best.."

I still feel queazy about breast feeding a three year old, but at the end of the day, it's not my call, and it's really none of my business. It reminds me of the issues surrounding the idea of selling kidneys. Most people (including myself) have an instinctual revulsion to the idea, but should that be enough of a reason to allow people to keep dying? The usual arguments are that people shouldn't benefit from giving a kidney, people will be killed for their kidneys, that poor people will be "taken advantage of," and of course, ewww!

Right now, everyone involved in a kidney transplant benefits, except the donor. The recipient gets off dialysis and will probably live a normal life, and the doctors and hospital get paid. The donor gets a warm feeling for doing the right thing. Imagine how many more kidneys would be available if people were paid for them?

You can't just slap any old kidney into a person that needs one, so killing people would have to be very targeted and involve a lot of research for it to work... I don't see that happening.

As far as the poor being taken advantage of, that is just PC talk for the poor are too stupid to be trusted. Besides, who is being taken advantage of, the person that agrees to give up a kidney for cash or the person that is motivated by emotion and/or guilt? In the end, it reminds me of Kelly's decision. It's none of my (or anyone else's) business if someone wants to sell a kidney, it would certainly save lives. Maybe we should just suck it up and deal, I think the world would be a lot better place if we did.

The Bible

One the things I enjoy when I come back to Gloucester is talking with one of my friends. G. is a super good guy and is the one that turned me onto the advantages of considering oneself a Christian. He's a very genuine guy and we can stay up to all hours talking religious stuff. I feel a little bad in thinking this, but I also like the fact that he goes a little further into the deep end with the stuff than I do. I don't feel quite as crazy...

Anyway, he does make me think quite a bit, and that's a good thing. The only trouble I have is that he's one of those people that believes that the Bible really is the "Word of God." I have some issues with that (read about them here if you're interested) perspective. The Bible was constructed folks, it was put together by men. Men wrote it, men put it together, and it was men that said that it is word of God. The Bible never says that it is the definitive anything, let alone the word. How could it? The Bible didn't exist until well after all of those books were written. I'm not saying that the Bible isn't worth reading or that you can't learn a great deal from it, but I am saying that we don't know who wrote those books or how "accurate" they are. I'm not even going to get into the various issues with translations...

If you're really interested in what the Bible means, you should go and talk to the organizations that put it together. The church that put that together already had its beliefs hammered out for the most part, and the Bible they constructed reflects those beliefs. The Orthodox and Catholic churches now argue over which one is more authentic, but either of them will give you a much more fleshed out, more nuanced view of what the Bible means than any protestant church or Bible study ever will.

The difficulty is that the people that believe in sola scriptura (like my friend) are constitutionally unable to go to the churches that could help them the most. There is a totally unreasonable hatred of anything Catholic in protestant circles. The Orthodox is mostly unknown here, especially in the south, but a casual protestant observer would be forgiven for mistaking them for Catholics.

I can understand not liking the Catholic church, but why deny the history? Why try and reinvent the wheel? If you believe the Orthodox churches, they've been at this for 2000 years. What are the odds that someone in a mega church is really going to add a lot to what has already been gone over before? Or for that matter, why do people think that they can take on a book like the Bible on their own and understand it better than a church that had a hand in making it?

Isaac

Nationalism is creepy

Have you seen the footage of the guy heckling Obama for not saying the pledge of allegiance? You can get a link to it and some really good commentary about it here.

One of the more striking things I learned when I was in Yemen actually came from some Germans (thanks Karl). They were more than a little scared when I told them that it is common to start many things, not just official business with the pledge. Baseball games, social organizations, and in many places school days are started by it. My friends told me that there is no chance of that happening in Germany. One of the after-effects of the second world war is the Germans distrust of nationalist displays. Seen in that light, the pledge does seem rather sinister. It looks even more sinister when you read the background of the pledge and it's original salute, you can see it at the link above.

The Best thing about the opening ceremonies

The opening ceremonies were amazing. I don't usually go in for that kind of thing, but they did it right. Everyone is talking about how much money they spent on it, around $300 million. Think of it this way, if that had been done in the US or in Europe, it would have cost a billion dollars, easy. The dollar still goes a ways in China...

The general thematic organization of the even was China through the ages. I was happy and sad that there wasn't a single reference to Mao or the "Cultural Revolution." I was happy because it looks like they may have started to put that terrible part of their history behind them. It is sad though to not even recognize the amount of suffering at the lives lost due to the misguided principles of Mao. The Chinese have broken away from him, and things will continue to get better and better...

Technorati Tags:
olympics, China, mao, cultural revolution

Technorati Tags:
China, cultural revolution, mao, himan rights, religious freedom

Olympics

My favorite sports are baseball and ice hockey, but I enjoy watching sports in general. SO every time the olympics comes around, I'm usually glued to the TV. There are some things that I always enjoy, like gymnastics and volleyball (the real stuff, not the silliness on the beach, more on that in a sec.) but I also enjoy seeing things I haven't watched before. This year my favorite new to me sports are team handball and archery.

Team handball is very similar to water polo and lacrosse in style. It isn't as violent as lacrosse and it's faster than water polo, it reminds me quite a bit of ice hockey in the overall speed. It's a quality sport, but you can tell that the really good athletes are doing something else more popular...

The archery isn't all that exciting really, but it is amazing. They shoot at a target whose bullseye is 4.8 inches across from 270 feet away! Watching them hit that thing with so much pressure on them is pretty amazing.

As usual there is a bunch of stuff that doesn't do much for me too. Track and field doesn't do anything for me, and most swimming doesn't excite me very much either. I will say that the 100m relay was pretty exciting though. The silliest thing I've seen is the synchronized diving. Diving is kind of dull anyway, but the synchronized thing is just silly.

I have been calling the beach volleyball "Babes in Bikinis" because that seems to be the main draw to the sport. The guys game isn't even worth watching. It is a much slower, seemingly less athletic version of the indoor variety of volleyball. I'm sure it's more fun to play, but the indoor, the real volleyball is by far a better sport to watch overall...

In any case, it is always interesting to see athletes going all out and the olympics always brings that out of them. Oop, gymnastics is coming on, gotta go!

Technorati Tags:
gymnastics, olympics, handball, diving, archery