There's a Gold Mine In Environmental Guilt
Carbon-Offset Sales Brisk Despite Financial Crisis
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 6, 2008; A01
This is strange territory. The Dow is down. Wall Street needs a bailout. But in the Washington area and across the country, there is still a bull market in environmental guilt. Sales of carbon offsets -- whose buyers pay hard cash to make amends for their sins against the climate -- are up. Still. In some cases, the prices have actually been climbing. . .
But there is also a cultural factor, the legacy of a complicated decade defined by a "green" awakening . . . many people have learned to pay to lessen their climate shame -- and, at least for now, they don't think of it as a luxury purchase.
"I was feeling really guilty because I was basically traveling to three continents in the last month: 'I've spent basically six days on an airplane. I've got to fix this,' " said Michael Sheets, 27, who lives in the District's Logan Circle neighborhood.
So a few days ago, Sheets paid $240 to a Silver Spring-based vendor, Carbonfund.org, choosing its offsets because they were more than $100 cheaper than a comparable package from another offset seller. He got back an e-mail saying that the 52,920 pounds of greenhouse-gas emissions attributable to him for the entire year . . . "I feel much better about it," said Sheets, human resources director for an online-education company in Northern Virginia. "I don't feel as guilty about flying to Vegas tomorrow for the weekend."
Find the whole, sad story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100502518.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Kent Comments:
This is why we are doomed.
It’s not terrorism. It’s not the economy. It’s the stupidity.
If people want to give away money rather randomly, that is fine. That they can be so easily convinced to give it away for this reason reveals an underlying ignorance - and some truly perverse stupidity - that will spell the end of western civilization.
Of course, many of those who push the “environmental” hysteria and it’s associated pseudo-guilt want just that - the destruction of western civilization. Anything as beneficial as western civilization (I know it’s not perfect, but it is so much better than so many alternatives) is bound to have enemies among those who hate humanity, as so many environmentalists do.
But the fact that there is a “bull market for environmental guilt” means that far too many people have accepted the faulty premises of environmentalism. That fact points to an underlying ignorance and stupidity that I think will make the survival of western civilization impossible.
This underlying problem seems to resist any educational remedy. Environmental stupidity has become a brand of unfalsifiable hypothesis, which shows just how far away from science it has moved. Yet it is rapidly becoming the orthodoxy in the ‘education’ establishment and the domain of politics.
At this point these ‘carbon offsets’ are just the pointless foolishness of many willing victims. You will know the end is near when these foolish victims add power to their own personal foolishness and require us all to become practicing fools. Without some rather drastic changes and decisive action, that time seems close at hand.
That is why we are all doomed.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Enough Politics for Now - Kent Went to Church
Real, Relevant, Relaxed
Recently I attended a church, the motto of which seems to consist of this trinity of ‘Rs.’ It is a new congregation, or an attempt at one. I know this is supposed to be a formula that will “Reach” people - yet another ‘R’ - so I was not surprised to see the formula.
I was a bit surprised to see what some apparently think these words should mean in a church context.
It was relaxed. Relaxed, that is, until a bad attempt at a rock bank took the stage in the front of a fairly small room and began to make enough noise to damage your hearing. Then it was a little tense - at least for those of us not already hearing impaired.
As I said, it wasn’t even a decent rock concert. The lead singer seemed to have no idea how to get his voice to move to any note near what should have been the melody. He had a side-kick female singer who appeared to have a fairly good voice, but was so eager to sound like her version of a rock star that she distorted and contorted her voice into a very unpleasant sound.
The drummer was good at his craft, but in the small room, far too loud for “relaxed.”
At one point the band attempted to sing “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing.” What came out was an almost unrecognizable bit of musical gibberish instead of that grand old song.
Although you could sing along if you wished, this was clearly a performance band. There was no chance to hear the congregation singing over the ruckus of the instruments. Perhaps it was a good thing that the minister reminded us that we didn’t need to attempt to sing along during these “worship sets.” We were granted permission to engage in other worshipful activities around the room. I considered the worshipful activity of “plugging my ears for God” but decided otherwise.
I suppose that was all an attempt at musical relevance. The band apparently tried to dress in a “relevant” manner. What came out of the attempt was something that looked hauntingly like the 1970's. I didn’t know that was particularly relevant today - maybe I just don’t know REL when I see it.
The minister was a nice young fellow wearing sandals and no socks. I suppose he was shooting for the first-century “walking with Jesus” look. His sermon was not bad, but it was one of those let’s-not-get-overly-theological sermons which focus on how we feel. I know, I know - theology isn’t relevant, while feelings are very relevant. But I think the REAL Christian faith has much more to offer than that.
The little new congregation did have one interesting idea. The congregation - what there was of one - was invited to ask questions about the sermon. But strangely, the only way we were invited to do this was by sending a text message to the minister’s cell phone during the sermon. We were not invited to write our question on paper, or to raise our hands at some appropriate time.
I kept wanting to ask, “How difficult would it be to let one of us twenty people in the audience just ask you a question?” The room was small. I didn’t quite understand that, but I suspect that it would be somehow unreal or irrelevant to ask a question with my voice rather than by “texting” it. “Texting” is all the rage, you know.
Then came the time of communion via the Lord’s Supper. After the announcement that this was about to take place, over the sound system came a very strange sound. At first I thought it a CD that was skipping, or a faulty digital music file. A few odd notes tumbled out, and then repeated. It was not exactly music - more of a serious of random notes with random rhythm. Much to my dismay, this little sound began to repeat. It repeated during the whole communion time. Music that expresses beauty can be appropriate during communion. These weird sounds were not beautiful. They were not even in the neighborhood of beautiful. And they were very annoying.
We were invited to a table in the front of the small room. There, awaiting us, was a large stemmed glass full of “the fruit of the vine.” Beside it was what appeared to be some broken-into-pieces very stale dinner rolls.
We were supposed to partake via “intinction” - dipping the bread into the fruit of the vine. This is something that has popped up in the history of the church, in the past mostly as a way of serving communion to those who are sick. Again, not a big deal, but what’s the point? Is this somehow more real, relaxed, or relevant?
My problem was with the leavened bread. With the background of the Lord’s Supper in the Passover, where all leavening had to be removed from the premises, there is good reason based in symbolism to use unleavened bread for the time of communion. I think that is relevant, and fairly real, though it might not be relaxed - I’m not sure.
Just how “relaxed” are we supposed to be in the presence of God Almighty, Who is, as the Hebrew writer says, “a consuming fire”? That’s real, but it’s not very relaxing, it seems to me.
Overall, the experience was disappointing. It was clear that this church was designed for a certain subset of the twenty-somethings. The problem is that the vast majority of the area around this church is not composed of that certain subset of twenty-somethings.
Perhaps this group, and others like it, should ditch the somewhat phoney “relevant” and the out-of-place “relaxed” and stick with the real - real, heavy-duty Christianity that should make people uncomfortable and awestruck - not just relevant and relaxed.
Recently I attended a church, the motto of which seems to consist of this trinity of ‘Rs.’ It is a new congregation, or an attempt at one. I know this is supposed to be a formula that will “Reach” people - yet another ‘R’ - so I was not surprised to see the formula.
I was a bit surprised to see what some apparently think these words should mean in a church context.
It was relaxed. Relaxed, that is, until a bad attempt at a rock bank took the stage in the front of a fairly small room and began to make enough noise to damage your hearing. Then it was a little tense - at least for those of us not already hearing impaired.
As I said, it wasn’t even a decent rock concert. The lead singer seemed to have no idea how to get his voice to move to any note near what should have been the melody. He had a side-kick female singer who appeared to have a fairly good voice, but was so eager to sound like her version of a rock star that she distorted and contorted her voice into a very unpleasant sound.
The drummer was good at his craft, but in the small room, far too loud for “relaxed.”
At one point the band attempted to sing “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing.” What came out was an almost unrecognizable bit of musical gibberish instead of that grand old song.
Although you could sing along if you wished, this was clearly a performance band. There was no chance to hear the congregation singing over the ruckus of the instruments. Perhaps it was a good thing that the minister reminded us that we didn’t need to attempt to sing along during these “worship sets.” We were granted permission to engage in other worshipful activities around the room. I considered the worshipful activity of “plugging my ears for God” but decided otherwise.
I suppose that was all an attempt at musical relevance. The band apparently tried to dress in a “relevant” manner. What came out of the attempt was something that looked hauntingly like the 1970's. I didn’t know that was particularly relevant today - maybe I just don’t know REL when I see it.
The minister was a nice young fellow wearing sandals and no socks. I suppose he was shooting for the first-century “walking with Jesus” look. His sermon was not bad, but it was one of those let’s-not-get-overly-theological sermons which focus on how we feel. I know, I know - theology isn’t relevant, while feelings are very relevant. But I think the REAL Christian faith has much more to offer than that.
The little new congregation did have one interesting idea. The congregation - what there was of one - was invited to ask questions about the sermon. But strangely, the only way we were invited to do this was by sending a text message to the minister’s cell phone during the sermon. We were not invited to write our question on paper, or to raise our hands at some appropriate time.
I kept wanting to ask, “How difficult would it be to let one of us twenty people in the audience just ask you a question?” The room was small. I didn’t quite understand that, but I suspect that it would be somehow unreal or irrelevant to ask a question with my voice rather than by “texting” it. “Texting” is all the rage, you know.
Then came the time of communion via the Lord’s Supper. After the announcement that this was about to take place, over the sound system came a very strange sound. At first I thought it a CD that was skipping, or a faulty digital music file. A few odd notes tumbled out, and then repeated. It was not exactly music - more of a serious of random notes with random rhythm. Much to my dismay, this little sound began to repeat. It repeated during the whole communion time. Music that expresses beauty can be appropriate during communion. These weird sounds were not beautiful. They were not even in the neighborhood of beautiful. And they were very annoying.
We were invited to a table in the front of the small room. There, awaiting us, was a large stemmed glass full of “the fruit of the vine.” Beside it was what appeared to be some broken-into-pieces very stale dinner rolls.
We were supposed to partake via “intinction” - dipping the bread into the fruit of the vine. This is something that has popped up in the history of the church, in the past mostly as a way of serving communion to those who are sick. Again, not a big deal, but what’s the point? Is this somehow more real, relaxed, or relevant?
My problem was with the leavened bread. With the background of the Lord’s Supper in the Passover, where all leavening had to be removed from the premises, there is good reason based in symbolism to use unleavened bread for the time of communion. I think that is relevant, and fairly real, though it might not be relaxed - I’m not sure.
Just how “relaxed” are we supposed to be in the presence of God Almighty, Who is, as the Hebrew writer says, “a consuming fire”? That’s real, but it’s not very relaxing, it seems to me.
Overall, the experience was disappointing. It was clear that this church was designed for a certain subset of the twenty-somethings. The problem is that the vast majority of the area around this church is not composed of that certain subset of twenty-somethings.
Perhaps this group, and others like it, should ditch the somewhat phoney “relevant” and the out-of-place “relaxed” and stick with the real - real, heavy-duty Christianity that should make people uncomfortable and awestruck - not just relevant and relaxed.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Defeat of Bad Logic about the 'Rescue' (Bailout) Plan
Colson usually has insightful things to say on the matters about which he comments. But today his commentary is weak, very weak. Because this matter is moving rather quickly, the details of this will probably be out of date very quickly. Nevertheless, find my comments interspersed in the article below.
What's in It for Me?
The Defeat of the Rescue Plan
[Breakpoint by Charles Colson]
October 1, 2008
On Monday, the House of Representatives surprised its leaders, the administration, and, most of all, the financial community by rejecting the agreed-upon financial rescue plan. The bill will be debated again tomorrow.
Two-thirds of all Republicans and two-fifths of all Democrats voted against the plan, with predictable results. The markets tanked around the world. We saw a record 777-point drop in the Dow Jones and the worst one-day loss in the S&P 500 since the 1930s. The market recovered somewhat yesterday, but the credit crisis remains.
I don’t want to minimize this one-day stock market drop, but this is a logical fallacy that Colson should know better than to employ. While it was the largest point drop of the Dow, it was no where near the largest percentage drop - not even close. This attempt to make a bad situation sound worse makes me wonder, right here at the beginning, about Colson’s whole approach to this matter.
The explanation of why 228 representatives risked a meltdown in financial markets could be expressed in another set of numbers: Phone calls and emails from their constituents opposed the measure by a 100-to-1 margin.
Now to be sure, some, like my friend Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, opposed the rescue measure on principle. But many who voted against the bill merely reflected the will of their constituents, who wondered why their money should be used to take other people off the hook.
A very telling poll revealed that 25 percent of those polled favored the measure, 25 percent had no opinion, and the rest opposed it, largely on the grounds that it didn't affect them or wasn't their fault. And given what we saw on the television news, for once I believe the polls. The typical man-on-the-street interview went something like this: "The bailout won't help me! You bet I'm against it."
Those men-on-the-street are often not very articulate, and polls often depend upon how the question is asked. Colson does not cite the poll he has in mind, so I can’t comment about that. But it is not unreasonable for people to balk at paying - heavily - for problems they did not cause. Perhaps those men-on-the-street, and some of the rest of us not-on-the-street just now, are worried about the government creating an additional 700 thousand millions of money-credit. It is a legitimate concern. Why? Because when the government makes more money, the value of the money we have decreases.
Frankly, I was appalled. I can't help but think that these results illustrate how far we've gone down the path of viewing all politics and all of life as "what's in it for me."
As many have tried to explain, what is happening on Wall Street affects what happens on Main Street. As I record this, millions of Americans, living far from Manhattan, are measurably poorer as a result of what has been happening in financial markets.
So instead of asking "how is the common good best served?" we look to our own interest, even at the risk of a "decade of little or no economic growth" and a meltdown of the global financial system.
Frankly, I’m more appalled than Colson by his lack of depth here. This proposal before Congress is not the only approach to solving this problem. There are many others (for example, see the previous post on this blog) put forth by very knowledgeable people that just might be better. Without reviewing all those here, here are some alternative suggestions that have come from many quarters: cut government spending dramatically - very dramatically. Eliminate all corporate income taxes, and all taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains. Allow financial firms to price the assets in ways that reflect underlying values - especially when connected to real estate - rather than just what it might bring on the market today.
These kinds of things would send the economy into a dramatic upward spiral starting the day after they became law.
The proposed bailout would not serve the “common good” - it would serve the good of the political class. The fact that Congress won’t seriously consider better solutions to this problem is no reason for the rest of us to succumb to their fifth-rate proposals. Shame on you, Chuck!
It isn't only our lack of concern of the common good that disturbs me. It's also our lack of accountability. I spoke with a very intelligent young banker recently who told me that he encounters it all the time. During his time in risk management, he never heard anybody in foreclosure say, "I made a mistake taking that mortgage. It was too big."
Instead of acknowledging their accountability—their responsibility to pay the debt—they just shrugged it off, merely mailing the key back to the mortgage holder. Contrast that with a biblical sense of responsibility, of paying your debts.
Yes, this is a problem. But remember that, in the name of social engineering, in the last few decades the government has insisted that people get loans whether they can afford them or not. Whose fault is it that people responded to that? (Hint - it begins with “g”.)
Consider a broader point. I am 56 years old. During most of my lifetime our government has been involved in a never-ending race to spend more - by borrowing - than it could ever repay. The U.S. government carries a “revolving balance” that makes all the credit card debit in the U.S. seem paltry by comparison. In other words, our government, for many decades now, has set a wonderful example for us all. That example screams, “You can borrow your way to prosperity.” People have just been following the example of their Uncle Sam. Should anyone be surprised?
Why does Mr. Colson fail to mention this?
And as for accountability: where is the accountability on the part of politicians - most of them of the modern ‘liberal’ (liberal with other people’s money, that is) stripe - who bear the real responsibility for this mess?
But this isn't just about finances. No great civilization has ever been built, or maintained, on the basis "what's in for me?" That idea cannot demand, much less inspire, the necessary sacrifices to keep a civilization great, or even healthy—there's nothing to aspire to apart from fleeting self-satisfaction.
As I said, I respect the principled opposition to the rescue plan by some members. But the fate of the economy is hanging in the balance. If the American people can't look beyond the "me" and see the "we" with this much at stake, then much more than our retirement funds and our bank accounts are at risk.
If the fate of the economy hangs in the balance, how stupid is it to do more of what got us here as a supposed answer to the problem? Yes, “we” need to look beyond retirement funds and bank accounts. “We” need to stop whining and insisting that the government take care of us. We need to demand that Congress stop spending money they can only take from us, and that we don’t have. We need to remember that government is usually the problem, not the solution.
I am very disappointed that Charles Colson would make such shallow comments. He doesn’t even attempt to answer that principled opposition to this bailout that he claims to know about. If the fate of the economy hangs in the balance, is it really wise to trust the first plan proposed in Congress - the very body that set the stage for this whole problem in the first place?
What's in It for Me?
The Defeat of the Rescue Plan
[Breakpoint by Charles Colson]
October 1, 2008
On Monday, the House of Representatives surprised its leaders, the administration, and, most of all, the financial community by rejecting the agreed-upon financial rescue plan. The bill will be debated again tomorrow.
Two-thirds of all Republicans and two-fifths of all Democrats voted against the plan, with predictable results. The markets tanked around the world. We saw a record 777-point drop in the Dow Jones and the worst one-day loss in the S&P 500 since the 1930s. The market recovered somewhat yesterday, but the credit crisis remains.
I don’t want to minimize this one-day stock market drop, but this is a logical fallacy that Colson should know better than to employ. While it was the largest point drop of the Dow, it was no where near the largest percentage drop - not even close. This attempt to make a bad situation sound worse makes me wonder, right here at the beginning, about Colson’s whole approach to this matter.
The explanation of why 228 representatives risked a meltdown in financial markets could be expressed in another set of numbers: Phone calls and emails from their constituents opposed the measure by a 100-to-1 margin.
Now to be sure, some, like my friend Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, opposed the rescue measure on principle. But many who voted against the bill merely reflected the will of their constituents, who wondered why their money should be used to take other people off the hook.
A very telling poll revealed that 25 percent of those polled favored the measure, 25 percent had no opinion, and the rest opposed it, largely on the grounds that it didn't affect them or wasn't their fault. And given what we saw on the television news, for once I believe the polls. The typical man-on-the-street interview went something like this: "The bailout won't help me! You bet I'm against it."
Those men-on-the-street are often not very articulate, and polls often depend upon how the question is asked. Colson does not cite the poll he has in mind, so I can’t comment about that. But it is not unreasonable for people to balk at paying - heavily - for problems they did not cause. Perhaps those men-on-the-street, and some of the rest of us not-on-the-street just now, are worried about the government creating an additional 700 thousand millions of money-credit. It is a legitimate concern. Why? Because when the government makes more money, the value of the money we have decreases.
Frankly, I was appalled. I can't help but think that these results illustrate how far we've gone down the path of viewing all politics and all of life as "what's in it for me."
As many have tried to explain, what is happening on Wall Street affects what happens on Main Street. As I record this, millions of Americans, living far from Manhattan, are measurably poorer as a result of what has been happening in financial markets.
So instead of asking "how is the common good best served?" we look to our own interest, even at the risk of a "decade of little or no economic growth" and a meltdown of the global financial system.
Frankly, I’m more appalled than Colson by his lack of depth here. This proposal before Congress is not the only approach to solving this problem. There are many others (for example, see the previous post on this blog) put forth by very knowledgeable people that just might be better. Without reviewing all those here, here are some alternative suggestions that have come from many quarters: cut government spending dramatically - very dramatically. Eliminate all corporate income taxes, and all taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains. Allow financial firms to price the assets in ways that reflect underlying values - especially when connected to real estate - rather than just what it might bring on the market today.
These kinds of things would send the economy into a dramatic upward spiral starting the day after they became law.
The proposed bailout would not serve the “common good” - it would serve the good of the political class. The fact that Congress won’t seriously consider better solutions to this problem is no reason for the rest of us to succumb to their fifth-rate proposals. Shame on you, Chuck!
It isn't only our lack of concern of the common good that disturbs me. It's also our lack of accountability. I spoke with a very intelligent young banker recently who told me that he encounters it all the time. During his time in risk management, he never heard anybody in foreclosure say, "I made a mistake taking that mortgage. It was too big."
Instead of acknowledging their accountability—their responsibility to pay the debt—they just shrugged it off, merely mailing the key back to the mortgage holder. Contrast that with a biblical sense of responsibility, of paying your debts.
Yes, this is a problem. But remember that, in the name of social engineering, in the last few decades the government has insisted that people get loans whether they can afford them or not. Whose fault is it that people responded to that? (Hint - it begins with “g”.)
Consider a broader point. I am 56 years old. During most of my lifetime our government has been involved in a never-ending race to spend more - by borrowing - than it could ever repay. The U.S. government carries a “revolving balance” that makes all the credit card debit in the U.S. seem paltry by comparison. In other words, our government, for many decades now, has set a wonderful example for us all. That example screams, “You can borrow your way to prosperity.” People have just been following the example of their Uncle Sam. Should anyone be surprised?
Why does Mr. Colson fail to mention this?
And as for accountability: where is the accountability on the part of politicians - most of them of the modern ‘liberal’ (liberal with other people’s money, that is) stripe - who bear the real responsibility for this mess?
But this isn't just about finances. No great civilization has ever been built, or maintained, on the basis "what's in for me?" That idea cannot demand, much less inspire, the necessary sacrifices to keep a civilization great, or even healthy—there's nothing to aspire to apart from fleeting self-satisfaction.
As I said, I respect the principled opposition to the rescue plan by some members. But the fate of the economy is hanging in the balance. If the American people can't look beyond the "me" and see the "we" with this much at stake, then much more than our retirement funds and our bank accounts are at risk.
If the fate of the economy hangs in the balance, how stupid is it to do more of what got us here as a supposed answer to the problem? Yes, “we” need to look beyond retirement funds and bank accounts. “We” need to stop whining and insisting that the government take care of us. We need to demand that Congress stop spending money they can only take from us, and that we don’t have. We need to remember that government is usually the problem, not the solution.
I am very disappointed that Charles Colson would make such shallow comments. He doesn’t even attempt to answer that principled opposition to this bailout that he claims to know about. If the fate of the economy hangs in the balance, is it really wise to trust the first plan proposed in Congress - the very body that set the stage for this whole problem in the first place?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Solution Is Almost Always LESS Government
Q & A: Dave Ramsey
Interview by Sarah Pulliam | posted 9/26/2008 11:13AM [Christianity Today]
What do you think of the bailout?
I think it's a disaster. It's the largest government department ever formed in the history of man, and they are doing it in five days, and they are doing it based on a spirit of fear.
There are other things we could be doing to calm markets. All of the Bush administration appears to be in a dead dog panic. I'm afraid it's going to pass, but that doesn't mean we're going to like it.
What do you recommend instead?
Change the market accounting rules. Do away with the capital gains tax, which will cause money to flood into the market instantaneously in 24 hours. Last, if we do need to do some insurance of some of these bonds, we can insure them rather than just buying them all. Only 7 percent of them are in foreclosure, while 93 percent of them are paying, so why are we buying them all—so we can make Paulson king?
Kent comments:
Many people find this whole mess very confusing, because it is. Many financial advisor people are saying that something like what Congress is now trying to do is essential. They are wrong, and Dave Ramsey is exactly right.
Those market accounting rules require that at the end of each day, securities that no one would buy that day be counted as worthless. But a mortgage that no one wants to purchase today is not necessarily worthless. It is worth at least what the property it is on could sell for on the market, which, while it might be lower that it once was, is never nothing.
Dave Ramsey’s prescription would work, and work much better than the proposed total government buyout. But, of course, Congress - especially one controlled by Democrats - is never going to pass any such prescription. Can you guess why?
Because it is a solution that removes power from government, rather than giving government more power. Once you put the words 'remove' next to the word 'tax' Congress is sure to balk. Government meddling in markets is what caused this mess. It can be solved by taking away that very meddling.
But expecting government to limit itself is a bit like expecting water to run uphill.
Interview by Sarah Pulliam | posted 9/26/2008 11:13AM [Christianity Today]
What do you think of the bailout?
I think it's a disaster. It's the largest government department ever formed in the history of man, and they are doing it in five days, and they are doing it based on a spirit of fear.
There are other things we could be doing to calm markets. All of the Bush administration appears to be in a dead dog panic. I'm afraid it's going to pass, but that doesn't mean we're going to like it.
What do you recommend instead?
Change the market accounting rules. Do away with the capital gains tax, which will cause money to flood into the market instantaneously in 24 hours. Last, if we do need to do some insurance of some of these bonds, we can insure them rather than just buying them all. Only 7 percent of them are in foreclosure, while 93 percent of them are paying, so why are we buying them all—so we can make Paulson king?
Kent comments:
Many people find this whole mess very confusing, because it is. Many financial advisor people are saying that something like what Congress is now trying to do is essential. They are wrong, and Dave Ramsey is exactly right.
Those market accounting rules require that at the end of each day, securities that no one would buy that day be counted as worthless. But a mortgage that no one wants to purchase today is not necessarily worthless. It is worth at least what the property it is on could sell for on the market, which, while it might be lower that it once was, is never nothing.
Dave Ramsey’s prescription would work, and work much better than the proposed total government buyout. But, of course, Congress - especially one controlled by Democrats - is never going to pass any such prescription. Can you guess why?
Because it is a solution that removes power from government, rather than giving government more power. Once you put the words 'remove' next to the word 'tax' Congress is sure to balk. Government meddling in markets is what caused this mess. It can be solved by taking away that very meddling.
But expecting government to limit itself is a bit like expecting water to run uphill.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Don't Know Obama Is Christian
The headline of the Pew Research “daily number” reads:
46% - Don't Know Obama is Christian
Of course, the story that follows is all about the fact that a lot of people don’t know what “he whose middle name must not be spoken” says he is. But I’m not sure I know that Obama is a Christian. He is a politician, after all, and I tend not to believe them.
From every indication - his home church, his ministers, and everything that he says about Christianity - Obama is a follower of liberation theology. Not everything that has ‘theology’ in the name is Christian, and this one is a perfect example of that.
That is not to say that all the other politicians who claim to be Christians in fact are. And I realize that coming to the conclusion I just have is completely forbidden in our culture. Call me skeptical, but just because someone claims something, even - and especially - in religion does not require that I accept it at face value.
Is it not at least of passing interest that everyone wants to make sure we know that Obama is a ‘Christian.’ But whenever our buddy-ette Sarah Palin is connected in some way to Christianity, hands fly up in horror.
“Don’t know” can mean different things in common speech. Sometimes it means “I’m fairly certain this is not the case.” In that case, I’m one of the 46%.
46% - Don't Know Obama is Christian
Of course, the story that follows is all about the fact that a lot of people don’t know what “he whose middle name must not be spoken” says he is. But I’m not sure I know that Obama is a Christian. He is a politician, after all, and I tend not to believe them.
From every indication - his home church, his ministers, and everything that he says about Christianity - Obama is a follower of liberation theology. Not everything that has ‘theology’ in the name is Christian, and this one is a perfect example of that.
That is not to say that all the other politicians who claim to be Christians in fact are. And I realize that coming to the conclusion I just have is completely forbidden in our culture. Call me skeptical, but just because someone claims something, even - and especially - in religion does not require that I accept it at face value.
Is it not at least of passing interest that everyone wants to make sure we know that Obama is a ‘Christian.’ But whenever our buddy-ette Sarah Palin is connected in some way to Christianity, hands fly up in horror.
“Don’t know” can mean different things in common speech. Sometimes it means “I’m fairly certain this is not the case.” In that case, I’m one of the 46%.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Warming Up to John and Sarah
Since the days of Calvin and Hobbes, the “global warming” mania has largely gone without critical examination, at least in the outlets most people watch and read. This presidential election cycle, it has become an issue of some importance.
According to this report:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35009
the Republican presidential ticket is split on the matter of human-caused global warming. Palin thinks global temperature changes are not caused by human activity, McCain thinks it is the case and that we should get on with doing something about it. According to the CNS News report, McCain, in a May 12 speech, had this to say:
“The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise time-line of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."
As detestable as his Democratic opponents are, this point alone makes me shudder at the prospects of a McCain presidency. Part of the problem is the possible lack of homework on the part of the McCain campaign.
First, take a look at this report
http://wegetit.cmail3.com/l/46946/9l1d68t/j
where you can find this chart:
By all the normal measures, the earth has been cooling since 2001. Of course, in the history of the earth, this is not a trend. But in our “news culture” where it would normally be seen as a trend, not a word about it has been mentioned. But when you look at the longer trends, the whole debate becomes at least silly, and at worst sinister. In this article from NOVA
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
you can learn enough (and its not about the global warming debate) to see that the temperature of the earth has been up and down many times, most of it long, long before humans could have had any effect. That the world is warming right now, overall, should surprise no one who has examined earth’s temperature history. That those who love large and powerful governments pervert this into an excuse for more government is not surprising either. What is surprising is that Republicans - people we might expect to be somewhat conservative - should willingly acquiesce to this perversion.
Also, have a look at this collection of scientists:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
31,000 plus of whom will not only dispute McCain’s claim, but will also point out many beneficial results of global warming, should we get some more soon.
Again I say that claims of man-made, harmful global warming is the perfect political football for those who would like to dramatically increase the size and scope of government. These days, this is a given for Democrats. A couple of decades ago, when some Republicans thought “government is the problem, not the solution” you would not have expected this from the GOP.
Most people don’t realize how draconian and devastating to our economy the usually proposed “solutions” to the “problem” of global warming would be. It can be summed up like this: if you are poor, prepare to starve. If you are middle-class, prepare to become poor. If you are rich, prepare to spend a lot of your wealth buying your way around the “solutions” the rest of us will have to suffer.
When the alternative is Barry & Joe, those concerned about this matter might turn to John & Sarah. Even here, we have to wonder about John. If they are elected, perhaps Sarah will convince John - perhaps. Otherwise, prepare for poverty.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Trouble In Paradise
[See the article here.]
The Weekend's TV: There's going to be trouble in paradise
Make Me A Christian, Sun Channel 4; Britain From Above, Sun BBC1
By Gerard Gilbert
Monday, 11 August 2008
The Church of England has enough on its plate without worrying about a new television programme, but if the denizens of Lambeth Palace were watching Make Me a Christian yesterday evening, they should have been depressed by what they saw. The Channel 4 series invited a diverse group of sinners from the Leeds area to sample a Christian life for three weeks under the mentorship of a quartet of dog-collar wearers, and potential viewers would presumably be, if not exactly ripe for conversion, then at least intrigued by what modern Christianity had to offer. Ten minutes into last night's opener and most of them would have fled from this particular path to righteousness. The programme dived head-first into the sort of prescriptive, preachy and judgemental Christianity that puts people off in the first place.
Kent Comments:
I would like to complain, briefly, about these few complaints.
I can imagine the “quartet of dog-collar wearers” as typical “clergy” types who can sometimes be truly off-putting. But apart from that, several things here are worth a second look.
First, is it not typical of people today to think that anything meaningful about Christianity could be “sampled” in a three-week television show? Why take up so much of people’s valuable time? Just offer a few fifteen-second commercial-style spots. That should be enough to “sample” Christianity, shouldn’t it?
Also, is it not typical of recent attitudes to approach the whole matter as a way to see “what modern Christianity had to offer”? You might think we were shopping for socks or something of equal importance. While Christians do receive all sorts of amazing things from God through Jesus Christ, if you approach Christianity on the basis of what it has to offer YOU, you clearly are not yet ready for the Christian faith. Instead, you might want to visit your local discount department store.
Finally, take another look at that last sentence from the article excerpt above. There the writer complains that Christianity is “prescriptive, preachy and judgemental.” Those last two terms are carefully selected for negative connotation. But when you get at the substance of these three things, you find that they are an important part of what Christianity is.
Christianity is prescriptive. God does tells us what to do. If you don’t want to be told what to do, you don’t want to hang around with God. (Hint: that’s why we call Him Lord!)
Christianity does involve preaching. While it is a message of good news, it is not negotiable or customizable in any way. You can take it or leave it. But it is an “all or none” arrangement. If you don’t like that, you won’t like Christianity. (Hint: that is why we talk about repentance which is a very basic change of mind and attitude!)
Christianity does involve judgment. While everyone has heard of John 3:16, just after that comes that horrible declaration that whoever does not believe is condemned already. Which is followed up with “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19 ESV) If you don’t like judgment, you should stay away from the Christian faith.
There really is trouble in paradise. Sin got in when people refused to follow God’s prescriptions. Now we need to repent or face judgment. If all that bothers you terribly, you probably don’t want to be a Christian. Try the local country club instead.
The Weekend's TV: There's going to be trouble in paradise
Make Me A Christian, Sun Channel 4; Britain From Above, Sun BBC1
By Gerard Gilbert
Monday, 11 August 2008
The Church of England has enough on its plate without worrying about a new television programme, but if the denizens of Lambeth Palace were watching Make Me a Christian yesterday evening, they should have been depressed by what they saw. The Channel 4 series invited a diverse group of sinners from the Leeds area to sample a Christian life for three weeks under the mentorship of a quartet of dog-collar wearers, and potential viewers would presumably be, if not exactly ripe for conversion, then at least intrigued by what modern Christianity had to offer. Ten minutes into last night's opener and most of them would have fled from this particular path to righteousness. The programme dived head-first into the sort of prescriptive, preachy and judgemental Christianity that puts people off in the first place.
Kent Comments:
I would like to complain, briefly, about these few complaints.
I can imagine the “quartet of dog-collar wearers” as typical “clergy” types who can sometimes be truly off-putting. But apart from that, several things here are worth a second look.
First, is it not typical of people today to think that anything meaningful about Christianity could be “sampled” in a three-week television show? Why take up so much of people’s valuable time? Just offer a few fifteen-second commercial-style spots. That should be enough to “sample” Christianity, shouldn’t it?
Also, is it not typical of recent attitudes to approach the whole matter as a way to see “what modern Christianity had to offer”? You might think we were shopping for socks or something of equal importance. While Christians do receive all sorts of amazing things from God through Jesus Christ, if you approach Christianity on the basis of what it has to offer YOU, you clearly are not yet ready for the Christian faith. Instead, you might want to visit your local discount department store.
Finally, take another look at that last sentence from the article excerpt above. There the writer complains that Christianity is “prescriptive, preachy and judgemental.” Those last two terms are carefully selected for negative connotation. But when you get at the substance of these three things, you find that they are an important part of what Christianity is.
Christianity is prescriptive. God does tells us what to do. If you don’t want to be told what to do, you don’t want to hang around with God. (Hint: that’s why we call Him Lord!)
Christianity does involve preaching. While it is a message of good news, it is not negotiable or customizable in any way. You can take it or leave it. But it is an “all or none” arrangement. If you don’t like that, you won’t like Christianity. (Hint: that is why we talk about repentance which is a very basic change of mind and attitude!)
Christianity does involve judgment. While everyone has heard of John 3:16, just after that comes that horrible declaration that whoever does not believe is condemned already. Which is followed up with “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19 ESV) If you don’t like judgment, you should stay away from the Christian faith.
There really is trouble in paradise. Sin got in when people refused to follow God’s prescriptions. Now we need to repent or face judgment. If all that bothers you terribly, you probably don’t want to be a Christian. Try the local country club instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)