Honor those in authority

I live in Dallas County, Texas, where there is both county-wide 'stay-home' and state-wide essential-business-only orders. These are based on recommendations from the Federal government and the health professionals that these leaders are consulting. The orders are specific. I don't like them. I disagree with the reasoning behind them. I think they are far too strong a reaction, and more importantly, far too damaging economically. I think they are made in error and based on faulty, or more likely, fearful reasoning.

Yet, I do not find any of the above to be a sufficient Biblical reason to disobey. Indeed, Jesus preached under Tiberius, one of the most corrupt of the Caesars, Paul and Peter wrote under Nero, who later would put both of them to death. Paul tells me I am to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13), Peter tells me I am to honor the king (1 Peter 2), and Jesus tells me I am to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (Luke 20). Honor and obedience is not given because they are earned or deserved, but to be given because they are owed and due. Despite the (lack of) reasonableness of the authority or whether I agree/disagree with the rule. I am not free to bend it or twist it to my own liking. I do what I can to honor the king, as long as doing so does not dishonor the Great King. And if I must disobey the king because of a conflict in commands, then I must accept the discipline of the king with humility.

I do not find any Biblical conflict with the current orders of Dallas County or Texas. Churches are broadcasting services online--this is a far cry from ideal, but these orders are not permanent (to date fewer than three weeks have passed and the current expiration is April 30, which is less than seven weeks in total). I can still meet friends at a park or open area, as long as appropriate social distancing is maintained. Going to the store, doing essential errands, taking walks--all of these are allowed. I have food, shelter, clothing--in truth, more than I need. The electronic capabilities of today allow me to connect with people in far greater numbers and distances than ever before. Sure, electronic means are unsatisfying (after all, we are made to be physical beings), but this is temporary. It will pass.

I don't like these orders. Just like there are certain commands of God that I don't like and would prefer to disobey (and to my condemnation, have many times). But authority is grounded in Him and it is my responsibly to honor the authorities in my life, be they parents, police, physicians, employers, or politicians. I'll seek to promote better choices and reasoning, but when the decision is made, I must submit to it.

This will soon pass. But as the orders stand today, I must obey them.

Update: You can contact your representative/senator/governor/president and let them know you disagree. Do so respectfully, but it is worth doing so. Your voice should be heard!

2009 Reading List

In an attempt to keep track of the books I have read, I am going to start doing an annual reading list.  Here are the books (those I can remember) that I read in 2009, in alphabetical order:

• 7 Harry Potter books by J. K. Rowling
• A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell
• Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman
• Charm School by Nelson DeMille
• Common Sense* by Thomas Paine
• Darkness Falls by Kyle Mills
• Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell
• End the Fed by Ron Paul
• Extreme Measures by Vince Flynn
• First Family by David Baldacci
• Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis
• Free to Choose by Milton Friedman
• Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
• Letters to a Young Conservative by Dinesh D’Souza
• Male and Female by Margaret Mead
• Men and Marriage by George Gilder
• Mere Christianity* by C.S. Lewis
• Pursuit of Honor by Vince Flynn
• Solving the Riddle of Self by John Powell
• The 5,000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen
• The Cato Handbook for Policymakers by The Cato Institute
• The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom
• The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and Its Application by Thomas James Norton
• The Discipline of Grace by Jerry Bridges
• The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard
• The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin by H.W. Brands
• The Law* by Bastiat
• The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown
• The Prodigal Son by Henri Nouwen
• The Quest for Cosmic Justice by Thomas Sowell
• The Revolution by Ron Paul
• The Road to Serfdom (Reader’s Digest Version)* by F.A. Hayek
• The Tempting of America by Robert Bork
• What Has the Government Done to our Money* by Murray Rothbard
• Windows of the Soul by Ken Gire
• Wounded Healer by Henri Nouwen

*Available online for free from Google Scholar or other sources

Housing Meltdown - Explanation

Bailout Plan

In this article , I am in agreement with most of the lawmakers, including the Democrats.  Let me quote parts of this article in references to the proposed (INSANE and STUPID) bail-out plan:

"I understand speed is important, but I'm far more interested in whether or not we get this right," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. "There is no second act to this. There is no alternative idea out there with resources available if this does not work," he added.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel's senior Republican, was even more blunt. "I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike," ..."We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well send $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis."

"Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., "I am emphatically against it."

Republicans said the sheer size of the bailout would cost each man, woman and child in the United States $2,300.

If approved and implemented, that could push the government's budget deficit next year into the $1 trillion range — far and away a record.

"This massive bailout is not a solution, It is financial socialism and it's un-American," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.

Dodd said the administration's initial proposal would have allowed the Treasury secretary to "act with utter and absolute impunity — without review by any agency or court of law" in deciding how to administer the envisioned bailout program.

"After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well," Dodd said.

I agree, I agree, I agree!  I strongly encourage you to contact your congressman and senators and tell them to vote NO for any government intervention in the markets (you can do this electronically).  Do not believe the bs that we don't have any other choice.  When businesses make stupid decisions, they are responsible for the consequences of those decisions, which in this case is bankruptcy.  It is not the responsibility of the government (and us, since we actually support it with our taxes) to bail them out.

Check out mises.org for some good and common-sense economics.

Election Choices

I think the biggest losers in this election season are the people in America (us!).  In a hotly contested race of X versus Y, what most of us don't realize is that the difference between the two candidates isn't even a single letter (to speak figuratively).  We are faced with a "choice" of very liberal or the most liberal.  This isn't a choice.  The idea that we think we even have one is rather amusing.  I've had some good discussions (and disagreement) with my friend David about this and he has made some excellent points about voting for the person you really would want in office.  We aren't just limited to a two-party system.  We aren't required to vote either Democrat or Republican.  We actually can--shock!--make a real choice!

My standard objection to voting for a third party candidate is that it is a throw-away vote.  Or is it?  I suppose it might be more like stepping outside of the box and going against the flow.  Now, it isn't wise to do something because it goes against the flow.  But let me offer one question: when did we get ourselves to a mindset that "this person will do less of X than the other person" and therefore is a better choice, when neither one is a good choice to begin with!  Would this be how we would treat sin?  What is the "lesser" sin I can commit? (I am using an extreme here as an illustration only.)

That all being said.. my last objection to voting third party is that it seems to be a little idealistic.  I still have not been able to answer my own question of: what am I really accomplishing by voting third party?  Would it be to have a clear conscience?  It's not like I would be contributing to the lesser of the evils.  Or would I?  Isn't my vote a message that says I am disgusted with both parties?  Maybe I am just too much of a pessimist to think that enough of those kinds of votes would actually make a difference.  It seems unrealistic and impractical to think it would.

I am curious... what do you think?

The Democratic Position on Oil

From http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoon.asp

Politics in Oil

From this article (my emphasis):

The world economy could get some help with the arrival of a new U.S. president, and possibly a new economic policy, "and with this new situation it is very probable that the dollar will start to recover and thus permit a readjustment of the (oil) market," El Moudjahid quoted him as saying.

OPEC members meeting in Vienna last week decided to hold production flat, insisting markets were well supplied and blaming record prices on factors outside the group's control, including speculators and what Khelil called the "mismanagement" of the U.S. economy.

This is very disturbing. I read this statement as saying something along the lines of:

Unless there is a presidential change in the November elections which changes the US economic policy to continue its dependence on the oil we provide (as opposed to seeking alternate energy source), the oil prices will continue to rise.

Not cool.

Tax Incentive

From this article:

Under the agreement announced by the White House, Boehner and Pelosi, individual taxpayers would get up to $600 in rebates, working couples $1,200 and those with children an additional $300 per child. In a key concession to Democrats, 35 million families who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get $300 rebates. [my emphasis]

Reread the emphasized part. Families who do not pay any taxes are going to receive $300. This is ridiculous. The government is taking money taxpayers have paid into the system and giving it to people who do not pay any taxes.

Peer-Reviewed Research

This article on peer-reviewed research methods caught my eye. This quote from the article sums up the subjectivity of the claim to validity based on a "peer-reviewed" status:

Couldn't a group of individuals committed to promoting their own research -- which may or may not be well-founded -- get together to form their own "journal," which they could legitimately claim publishes "peer-reviewed research"?

They can, and they do.

Credit Bail Out

I agree with writer of this article. I will go further and say that it is not the job of the government to save people when they make poor decisions. Actions have consequences. Sometimes those consequences are not pleasant. But that is part of life. This attitude that the government will/should take care of me is simply wrong. You are responsible for your own life. Be responsible!

Hillary Clinton

Yet another reason to be wary of Hillary Clinton.

Discerning Truth

A few days ago I noted that I wanted to post on discerning truth. This topic has been bothering me for a while, and I wanted to share my frustration and thoughts about it.

When I say discerning truth, I mean determining what is true and what is not. We live in an information age, and we are bombarded daily with expert after expert making statements that make the truth claim. And yet with all of these can't be true at the same time, because many of them contradict each other. We have studies that suggest that gender is physical and others that suggest that gender is sociological. Which is right? Is it reasonable to expect that one of the choices must be right?

It seems to me that one needs to develop a great ability to accept change, because what is believed to be true today may not be tomorrow. At one time, the earth was thought to be the center of the solar system; now, the sun is believed to be the center. As scientific discoveries are made, some things are proven to be true, others are proven false, and still others are shown to be partially true or false.

In addition to further discoveries, this is great disagreement on what is accepted at true. One cannot prove or disprove evolution or creation. This statement might be met with much disagreement, but we simply do not have proven evidence that proves one or the other (by this I mean a definite repeatable experiment that shows that chance changed the actual species of a living organism, or that God created the world). And so great arguments arise because (at least in my view) people are arguing on different foundations. If I accept studies X, Y, and Z as true, and you accept studies A, B, and C as true, and neither of us agree with the other's accepted studies, an honest discussion is pointless, aside from debating for the fun of it.

So much of what we accept as truth is really theory, perhaps very good theory, but ultimately theory. And the basis for truth seems to change constantly because different people and groups have different standards for deciding that something is true. For example, after reading a book on the female brain, the author convinced me that gender is genetic, because I define it as a physical thing. But my basis is the sperm's chromosomes and the testosterone explosion that happens in the sixth week of gestation. Another person may define gender in terms of non-physical attributes, such as mental attitudes or leanings. Thus, an argument over gender is rather useless until some sort of common ground can be reached on what will be accepted as true.

Thus, I am left feeling very frustrated, because how is one to have an open, honest discussion? You come from your point of view and I come from mine. Until we each understand where the other is coming from and what basis the other person is coming from, what you certainly won't have is good discussion.

One final thought and I am done. It is a silly thing for Christians to demand that non-believers accept the Bible as the basis for truth. It isn't productive to begin at that place. It's like trying to sail a ship on land.

Apple and iPhone

Yet another example of a company trying to control and lock down its consumers, to it's own hurt. In the technology industry, you don't lock down anything, unless you want a bunch of pissed off consumers. Apple needs to quit trying to prevent nerds from being nerds and embrace an open source concept that encourages innovation.

Oh the hypocrisy

So Al Gore won a Nobel for his environmental crap. And yet, as this article points out, his actions don't match his words.

It is my opinion that the environmental movement is ultimately about control, not about what is really true. This brings up another point which I hope to post in very soon, which is about discerning truth.

Interesting

I found this post to be very interesting. It is a good warning for the upcoming elections next year.

Bush Bail Out?

This is crap.

Famed bond fund manager Bill Gross said the White House should bail out the millions of American homeowners who face the dreaded prospect of foreclosure this year.

What is true is that millions of American homeowners' eyes were too big for their wallets and now they can't afford their mortgages. It is not the job of the president, Fed, or anyone for that matter to rescue people from stupidity and greed. And how would the White House bail the millions of homeowners out? With tax dollars, paid for by you and me. So in reality, if this were to happen, you and I would pay for the mortgages of other people who bought more than they could afford.

Gas price bill

I am concerned that the House passed a bill that gives the FTC more power to punish gas companies for gas prices. What this does in effect is place price controls on the gas companies, which is almost always a bad idea. Price controls create shortages because naturally, if a company is limited to the amount it can charge, it will naturally (based on the free market) divert its supplies to the place with the highest price, and ignore the places with the lowest price. I highly recommend reading Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell for a better understanding.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/34125