Saturday, April 19, 2008
Expelled
I was fortunate last night to be able to see Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It is exciting that the issue of Intelligent Design in higher education is now in the national spotlight. Granted, as Stein points out in the movie, the media is slanted toward the Darwinist side, so this probably will not get as much coverage as a Michael Moore film. I read some reviews on it already, and almost all of them said the film was poorly made, created poor arguments, and wasn't that funny. This behavior from reviewers is exactly the point that Stein made in "Expelled". There is a wall in the middle of society that is trying to keep people from seeing (just seeing, not believing) the theory of intelligent design. I thought Stein did a great, not perfect, job on this film and applaud him for taking on the establishment of the scientific community that has excommunicated anyone who even mentions that intelligent design is worth discussing.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Salmon Days
My accountancy professor told us about "Salmon Days":
"It's when you swim upstream all day only to get screwed and die."
"It's when you swim upstream all day only to get screwed and die."
Friday, April 11, 2008
I Was Semi-Featured in a Newspaper Article!!!
Last night I was invited to a pro-Affirmative Action forum after I posted a piece supporting the abolition of AA on a pro-AA Facebook page. I really enjoyed the opportunity to speak out against the AA cause, or rather, support Ward Connerly's initiative to get the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI) on the ballot this fall. Unfortunately I was one of only two people who said ANYTHING against affirmative action. It would have made for better discussion had more supporters of Connerly been there, but I'm glad I was there to voice a dissenting opinion. You can look at the MoCRI initiative here. Here's a bit of the article from the Columbia Missourian:
The discussion Thursday in the Life Sciences building, organized by the Missing Minority Campaign, was designed to open dialogue between those for and opposed to the initiative. In a crowd of over 50 people, however, only two supporters of the initiative may have been the only ones to attend. Michael Alexander, an MU student, said he didn’t feel overwhelmed about stating his position in a room full of opposition. He said he wants to reach the same goal of equality, but has a different strategy.
Alexander said he doesn’t believe a race-based scholarship can fix some social disadvantages minorities face, such as inadequate schools. Additionally, whites shouldn’t be overlooked because they lack the color to be considered for a certain scholarship.
“It should have nothing to do with the color of your skin,” he said.
Antonio Williams of By Any Means Necessary said he believes minorities need affirmative action for the same reason Alexander opposes it.
Williams said that minorities need additional help because they are often given inferior education. He is a high school student with a 3.5 grade point average, but scored a 15 on the ACT. (The rest of the article is here
I quoted Martin Luther King Jr. to the group to show how twisted their view is on this issue. MLK said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Needless to say, that ticked off quite a few people that I used MLK's words against the AA cause. But, would MLK REALLY want blacks to get preferential treatment because of their skin color? No way! He was opposing the use of skin color to be used for ANY decision, whether it be a cause for discrimination or promotion.
The discussion Thursday in the Life Sciences building, organized by the Missing Minority Campaign, was designed to open dialogue between those for and opposed to the initiative. In a crowd of over 50 people, however, only two supporters of the initiative may have been the only ones to attend. Michael Alexander, an MU student, said he didn’t feel overwhelmed about stating his position in a room full of opposition. He said he wants to reach the same goal of equality, but has a different strategy.
Alexander said he doesn’t believe a race-based scholarship can fix some social disadvantages minorities face, such as inadequate schools. Additionally, whites shouldn’t be overlooked because they lack the color to be considered for a certain scholarship.
“It should have nothing to do with the color of your skin,” he said.
Antonio Williams of By Any Means Necessary said he believes minorities need affirmative action for the same reason Alexander opposes it.
Williams said that minorities need additional help because they are often given inferior education. He is a high school student with a 3.5 grade point average, but scored a 15 on the ACT. (The rest of the article is here
I quoted Martin Luther King Jr. to the group to show how twisted their view is on this issue. MLK said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Needless to say, that ticked off quite a few people that I used MLK's words against the AA cause. But, would MLK REALLY want blacks to get preferential treatment because of their skin color? No way! He was opposing the use of skin color to be used for ANY decision, whether it be a cause for discrimination or promotion.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
In Response to Missing Minority Campaign Rallies
I'm pretty sure that the reason everyone likes the idea of affirmative action is that it "creates equality" among races. This is an honorable goal. However, how do we best get "equality" among races? The only way this happens is if we become metaphorically colorblind and DO NOT take into consideration skin tone.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.
In Response to Missing Minority Campaign Rallies
I'm pretty sure that the reason everyone likes the idea of affirmative action is that it "creates equality" among races. This is an honorable goal. However, how do we best get "equality" among races? The only way this happens is if we become metaphorically colorblind and DO NOT take into consideration skin tone.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
An Argument Against Abortion
When I hear anyone (especially Christians) defend the legality of abortions in America (or anywhere else) I want to puke. We have this idea in America that even though the vast majority of us don't think abortion is right, it's not really our place to tell someone else they can't have one (and by "have one" I really mean kill their baby). This is a ridiculously weak argument though. The vast majority of Americans believe raping their neighbor is wrong and the state should act by throwing rapists in jail. We all made a moral judgement about rape and realize rape deserves jail time. Abortion is no different. If we shouldn't make abortion illegal because other people might not think it's wrong, then murder, rape, theft, etc should not be illegal. We should have no moral laws.
I also hear the argument that making abortions illegal would cause many women to die in "back-alley" abortions done by non-professionals. Sure, that would happen. But since abortion was legalized in 1973 over 50 million American citizens have been slaughtered before they were even allowed to leave their mothers' wombs. That's over 5 times the amount of people killed in the Holocaust. As I recall, we don't take the Holocaust lightly. Neither should we take abortion lightly.
Another argument is that abortions don't kill living human beings; humans aren't alive and viable until they exit the womb. The problem with this is that children have been born exceedingly early and have not immediately died. There is no particular date that scientists can set as the ALIVE moment. We know that beginning at conception new cells are created and compounded. Thus, life begins at conception.
The idea that children in the womb are not viable is also a terrible argument. By viable I mean that they could live without help from the womb. In that case, yes, unbirthed babies are not viable. But then again, neither are birthed babies. Leave any baby alone without supervision for a few days and it will starve to death (or freeze, etc). A two year old cannot take care of itself. It is certainly not "viable". Beyond the spectrum of babies, some severely disabled people are not "viable". Some mentally and physically handicapped people are unable to feed themselves, clothe themselves, or find shelter. Without outside help, these disabled people would certainly die quickly. Yet, do we consider these people to not be alive because they are not "viable".
Anyway you look at it, abortion is cruel, immoral, and disgusting. And anyone who supports killing babies should be ashamed and change their ways. Just 150 years ago slavery was widely accepted as a normal practice. Most in the South enjoyed the use of it and many in the North didn't think it was their place to stop the practice. Yet looking back on it, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't think slavery was despicable. Hopefully it won't take 150 years and hundreds of millions of babies to come to the same conclusion about abortion.
I also hear the argument that making abortions illegal would cause many women to die in "back-alley" abortions done by non-professionals. Sure, that would happen. But since abortion was legalized in 1973 over 50 million American citizens have been slaughtered before they were even allowed to leave their mothers' wombs. That's over 5 times the amount of people killed in the Holocaust. As I recall, we don't take the Holocaust lightly. Neither should we take abortion lightly.
Another argument is that abortions don't kill living human beings; humans aren't alive and viable until they exit the womb. The problem with this is that children have been born exceedingly early and have not immediately died. There is no particular date that scientists can set as the ALIVE moment. We know that beginning at conception new cells are created and compounded. Thus, life begins at conception.
The idea that children in the womb are not viable is also a terrible argument. By viable I mean that they could live without help from the womb. In that case, yes, unbirthed babies are not viable. But then again, neither are birthed babies. Leave any baby alone without supervision for a few days and it will starve to death (or freeze, etc). A two year old cannot take care of itself. It is certainly not "viable". Beyond the spectrum of babies, some severely disabled people are not "viable". Some mentally and physically handicapped people are unable to feed themselves, clothe themselves, or find shelter. Without outside help, these disabled people would certainly die quickly. Yet, do we consider these people to not be alive because they are not "viable".
Anyway you look at it, abortion is cruel, immoral, and disgusting. And anyone who supports killing babies should be ashamed and change their ways. Just 150 years ago slavery was widely accepted as a normal practice. Most in the South enjoyed the use of it and many in the North didn't think it was their place to stop the practice. Yet looking back on it, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't think slavery was despicable. Hopefully it won't take 150 years and hundreds of millions of babies to come to the same conclusion about abortion.
Friday, January 18, 2008
An Audacious Take on Barack Obama
It’s difficult to sit back and listen to Big Media laud Barack Obama for his campaign of “change”. If an alien from outer space turned on a TV today, it could legitimately come to the conclusion that Obama is an American messiah. Few critiques of Senator Obama can be heard or seen on major “news” networks or national newspapers. He is promoted by Oprah and others as an “agent of change;” a fresh perspective for Washington. As many accolades as he receives, you might assume he really can change the way Washington runs. Then again, if you look at his record and his positions, you might see that he is the same as every other Democratic candidate in recent history.
Obama’s views are not new. They are not fresh. They are not Washington-changers. And they are surely not views that will facilitate bipartisanship between 1600 Pennsylvania and democrats and republicans on Capitol Hill.
Here’s a quick list of Obama’s views, see if you think these are issues republicans will work with after bipartisan talks. He supports socialized health care (which will cost trillions to overhaul the current system and get everyone covered), he supports killing innocent unborn babies (liberals call this aborting a “pregnancy”), he will lower taxes on the middle class and then raise taxes on the wealthy (Robin Hood was a good movie, but that doesn’t work in actual government), he wants to increase the role of FDR’s outdated New Deal programs, he wants to raise the minimum wage (subsequently raising unemployment), he is pro-Big Labor, he’s anti-corporations, and he has voted to make it easier for individuals to file for bankruptcy.
Honestly, is that a list of stances that would facilitate success in bipartisan talks? Obama is not going to change the face of Washington. When we get through all the political muck, it is absolutely obvious that Obama is only going to further the strife between the two parties. He is certainly no messiah.
Obama’s views are not new. They are not fresh. They are not Washington-changers. And they are surely not views that will facilitate bipartisanship between 1600 Pennsylvania and democrats and republicans on Capitol Hill.
Here’s a quick list of Obama’s views, see if you think these are issues republicans will work with after bipartisan talks. He supports socialized health care (which will cost trillions to overhaul the current system and get everyone covered), he supports killing innocent unborn babies (liberals call this aborting a “pregnancy”), he will lower taxes on the middle class and then raise taxes on the wealthy (Robin Hood was a good movie, but that doesn’t work in actual government), he wants to increase the role of FDR’s outdated New Deal programs, he wants to raise the minimum wage (subsequently raising unemployment), he is pro-Big Labor, he’s anti-corporations, and he has voted to make it easier for individuals to file for bankruptcy.
Honestly, is that a list of stances that would facilitate success in bipartisan talks? Obama is not going to change the face of Washington. When we get through all the political muck, it is absolutely obvious that Obama is only going to further the strife between the two parties. He is certainly no messiah.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
