Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Oprah: Religious Leader?
I've always disagreed with Christians that argue that Oprah had a dangerous religious agenda. I would watch an occasional episode of Oprah and would hear her encouraging people to give and to live right and I honestly never heard her say anything terribly objectionable. After all, as a Christian, I view hundreds of non-Christians on tv every week who do not try and convince you of a religious agenda. After viewing this video on Youtube, I realize that I have been wrong.
Here's a link to this short video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QgKIkruHZko&feature=related
I don't want anyone to misunderstand my post today to say that I think Barack Obama agrees with Oprah or that I agree with the organization that has produced this video. I don't know anything about the group that made this video. The only thing I can say is that this video produces some very clear evidence of Oprah's beliefs and shows that she is beginning to promote these beliefs to her massive worldwide audience.
If you're reading this and you're not a Christian, it would make sense that this would not necessarily alarm you or upset you. Although, as an atheist, you may agree that Oprah has joined the ranks of other famous "religious leaders" in the world today. So if nothing else, this video is probably interesting and informative to you.
Here's a link to this short video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QgKIkruHZko&feature=related
I don't want anyone to misunderstand my post today to say that I think Barack Obama agrees with Oprah or that I agree with the organization that has produced this video. I don't know anything about the group that made this video. The only thing I can say is that this video produces some very clear evidence of Oprah's beliefs and shows that she is beginning to promote these beliefs to her massive worldwide audience.
If you're reading this and you're not a Christian, it would make sense that this would not necessarily alarm you or upset you. Although, as an atheist, you may agree that Oprah has joined the ranks of other famous "religious leaders" in the world today. So if nothing else, this video is probably interesting and informative to you.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Inconsistent Politicians
My concern over most of what I see in politics (Republican and Democrat) is that there is very little consistent philosophy to govern how decisions are made. Certainly I've heard what conservatives and liberals are supposed to stand for but I find most often that their voting record and their actions do not back up the position they would "claim" to take.
It could be that their "incentives" matter. I come from an economics background where there was mutual agreement that "incentives matter" when it comes to economics. For example, if you want to produce more "clean fuels" than you need to give people the incentive to go after it. A financial subsidy or a grant to people exploring these options does this. If you want to detour a particular crime, create an extremely tough punishment for it and enforce it. That crime may not go away but it will go down because you've created "incentives" for potential wrong-doers.
I hope I'm not the only one who realizes that politicians are sinful people just like we are and they are motivated by incentives. And their profit incentive or leisure incentive is best achieved if they can maximize their votes... or at least get 51%. Ahh... and for me, this explains their inconsistent philosophies and actions. Politicians do not have the strongest incentive to do what is best for the government or for the people or for the country (they do have some incentive... it is just not their driving force)... but they do have a big incentive to do what gets them re-elected. In fact, this is arguably their biggest incentive.
So why isn't this a good thing? This is democracy right? Allowing the people to elect their candidate is a purer motivation than just profit? Well... not if you see how this incentive plays out in just about every politician in every election everywhere.... Here's my soapbox...
I've heard an analogy that I think sums up politicians and why they do things that are not right.... lets say you live in a very tiny town of 1,000 people. The Mayor wants to get re-elected but he's running against someone who is very sharp, very smart, and is going to really generate great income and great things for their community. So in order to win, he's got to find a way to get 51% of the votes. In this case, he decides to run on a platform to raise taxes by 20% on the richest 250 people in his town and redistribute the money to the other 750. Is it bad for his economy? Of course since it will run off business owners and employers who have a "profit" incentive. Is it ethical? Of course not. Will the wealthy 250 hate him. Absolutely. And will he win the election? You bet.
This presidential race is going to be a lot of that. Again... from both sides. It doesn't have to be rich and poor. Sometimes, there are ways to benefit the rich people that get a person elected through policies that are not good for the government. Mostly we see this when special interest groups get special things from the candidate they've endorsed. And many times, its not the big issues but the small issues that can sneak in and when added up, become the most harmful. For example, a special tax levied on a small group of people such as the cigarette industry. Sure, the politician may lose the votes of some of the smokers, but since they will gain more votes than they lose, who cares if it is ethical or beneficial. Again, the incentive is for the politician to adopt the policies that eventually get them elected.
My question is whether this is wrong either way? What do you think?
It could be that their "incentives" matter. I come from an economics background where there was mutual agreement that "incentives matter" when it comes to economics. For example, if you want to produce more "clean fuels" than you need to give people the incentive to go after it. A financial subsidy or a grant to people exploring these options does this. If you want to detour a particular crime, create an extremely tough punishment for it and enforce it. That crime may not go away but it will go down because you've created "incentives" for potential wrong-doers.
I hope I'm not the only one who realizes that politicians are sinful people just like we are and they are motivated by incentives. And their profit incentive or leisure incentive is best achieved if they can maximize their votes... or at least get 51%. Ahh... and for me, this explains their inconsistent philosophies and actions. Politicians do not have the strongest incentive to do what is best for the government or for the people or for the country (they do have some incentive... it is just not their driving force)... but they do have a big incentive to do what gets them re-elected. In fact, this is arguably their biggest incentive.
So why isn't this a good thing? This is democracy right? Allowing the people to elect their candidate is a purer motivation than just profit? Well... not if you see how this incentive plays out in just about every politician in every election everywhere.... Here's my soapbox...
I've heard an analogy that I think sums up politicians and why they do things that are not right.... lets say you live in a very tiny town of 1,000 people. The Mayor wants to get re-elected but he's running against someone who is very sharp, very smart, and is going to really generate great income and great things for their community. So in order to win, he's got to find a way to get 51% of the votes. In this case, he decides to run on a platform to raise taxes by 20% on the richest 250 people in his town and redistribute the money to the other 750. Is it bad for his economy? Of course since it will run off business owners and employers who have a "profit" incentive. Is it ethical? Of course not. Will the wealthy 250 hate him. Absolutely. And will he win the election? You bet.
This presidential race is going to be a lot of that. Again... from both sides. It doesn't have to be rich and poor. Sometimes, there are ways to benefit the rich people that get a person elected through policies that are not good for the government. Mostly we see this when special interest groups get special things from the candidate they've endorsed. And many times, its not the big issues but the small issues that can sneak in and when added up, become the most harmful. For example, a special tax levied on a small group of people such as the cigarette industry. Sure, the politician may lose the votes of some of the smokers, but since they will gain more votes than they lose, who cares if it is ethical or beneficial. Again, the incentive is for the politician to adopt the policies that eventually get them elected.
My question is whether this is wrong either way? What do you think?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Ruining Your Life
Each morning, me and a group of guys on staff are reading through the rough draft of a new book by Jarrod Jones that is all about ruining your life. Each chapter shares a tip on a great way to ruin your life. Today we read about thinking you're in control.
That's a pretty interesting thought. I mean, how can you ruin your life just by thinking you're the one in control. In his book, Jarrod shared a story about a man who spent his life filming and studying bear. As his belief in his own control of the situation increased... he would get closer and closer to these wild animals until one day... the bear showed him who was really in control. He was killed.
But I don't think death is the only result of ruining your life. I see homeless people walking by me near my neighborhood in downtown Nashville every day and I wonder, what happened to them? What is their story? Did they think at one time that they were in control of their drinking or drug habit? Did they think they were in control of how they would grow up and what they would be? Surely they had aspirations to be a fireman or a policeman or a rock star or something other than a homeless person.
But even being homeless doesn't mean your life is ruined. I've heard that the suicide rate among the richest 5% is the highest of any income level. Do they lose hope because they believe they are in control and life still stinks?
Just some thoughts for today. What are yours?
That's a pretty interesting thought. I mean, how can you ruin your life just by thinking you're the one in control. In his book, Jarrod shared a story about a man who spent his life filming and studying bear. As his belief in his own control of the situation increased... he would get closer and closer to these wild animals until one day... the bear showed him who was really in control. He was killed.
But I don't think death is the only result of ruining your life. I see homeless people walking by me near my neighborhood in downtown Nashville every day and I wonder, what happened to them? What is their story? Did they think at one time that they were in control of their drinking or drug habit? Did they think they were in control of how they would grow up and what they would be? Surely they had aspirations to be a fireman or a policeman or a rock star or something other than a homeless person.
But even being homeless doesn't mean your life is ruined. I've heard that the suicide rate among the richest 5% is the highest of any income level. Do they lose hope because they believe they are in control and life still stinks?
Just some thoughts for today. What are yours?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Jesus, Save Us From Your Followers
This Easter, I got into a discussion with Josie's grandmother about Christians (Josie's my wife). Granny shared with me how her church had kicked out the mayor of their small town when he agreed to pass a bill allowing beer to be sold locally. His wife, now a widow, is still bitter about that issue and apparently, so is Granny. She eventually left that church.
It got me to thinking. How did Jesus treat people when he walked the earth? I remember reading where he was always getting "religious" people upset because he would eat with sinners and even worst, IRS agents (i.e. tax collectors). I wonder if he would have sat with the church leaders as they voted to get rid of the mayor or if he would have been dining at the mayor's house.
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine told us of a bumper sticker he read on the back of a car that said simply "Jesus, save us from your followers". As a Christian, my first reaction was a little defensive... but over time and after hearing stories like Granny's... I'm beginning to understand it a little more.
It got me to thinking. How did Jesus treat people when he walked the earth? I remember reading where he was always getting "religious" people upset because he would eat with sinners and even worst, IRS agents (i.e. tax collectors). I wonder if he would have sat with the church leaders as they voted to get rid of the mayor or if he would have been dining at the mayor's house.
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine told us of a bumper sticker he read on the back of a car that said simply "Jesus, save us from your followers". As a Christian, my first reaction was a little defensive... but over time and after hearing stories like Granny's... I'm beginning to understand it a little more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)