Is Facebook that great?

I joined Facebook a little less than a year ago.  I thought it would be a great way to keep in touch with family, who mostly live in a different state than me.

In some ways, Facebook is great, as it makes it easier to keep in touch with people I haven’t talked with in a long time.  Most of my cousins are on Facebook, as well as high school classmates.

However, the main way to keep in touch with other people is through status updates.  For my dad and sister who frequently update, it is great.  Knowing what someone is doing during their day, no matter how inane, is a great way to feel closer to someone.   But, for the vast majority of my Facebook friends who never post anything, I don’t really get anything out of being their “friend.”  At the very least though, Facebook serves as a great address book.

Another issue is that Facebook needs some way of simplifying or curbing requests.  For some time, I was getting tons of FarmTown, FarmVille, or FarmWorld requests of some sort.  Also, anytime the user takes a quiz or uses some sort of application, the notifications are polluted with things related to that application, even when it is no longer of any interest (i.e. a personality quiz I took months ago).

Something that has been bothering me recently is that Facebook, and perhaps any other social networking site, at it’s core really just encourages little more than superficial relationships, but maybe that is just for men.  My family was going through a health issue involving one of us, which looks like it is resolved now.  I don’t mean to be petty or try to have people feel sorry for us, but during this experience I found that silly or superficial posts (of which I have done plenty) usually receive much more attention than posts involving something going on with my family.  Then again, perhaps Facebook isn’t the best avenue for such things; it can be hard to properly respond to serious issues in a little comment the size of a text message.

For people who are slightly OCD and like checking things like email, Facebook adds another thing to check.  I still use it and there is some value gained.  Of chief importance is that it does allow me to keep in contact more with a few immediate family members.

An issue I have with liberalism, Christian or otherwise

I think many Christian liberals have their hearts in the right place when it comes to helping the poor and so on.  But after a particular sermon I heard at my church, I realize the wrongness of a certain attitude that I perceive when I have talked to some of them on the blogs.  They see “rich people” as “somebody else”.

The idea of the sermon is that we see God’s stern warnings toward the rich and think “whew”, those richies better watch out!  But here’s the issue, most of us are rich.  Maybe not compared to the rest of America, but definitely so in comparison to the rest of the world, and the rest of time up until now.

To illustrate this point, the pastor visited the website http://www.globalrichlist.com/.

Seeing the rich as “other people” is not a problem exclusively experienced by liberals, I think all Americans do it to some degree. But for liberals, it is a more foundational issue of their philosophy – class warfare, us vs. them.  It’s the top 90th percentile against the top 99th percentile.  For the Christian liberals it can take a more scary and self-righteous tone.  To the Christian left, many times the rich people are seen as the bad guy.  Jesus directs his stern warning toward these “other people”, not at us.  One blogger I used to visit stated that “wealth is evil”, which is comical considering he owns a computer and a house, something beyond the reach of many in the world.  Let me guess, the amount of wealth you have is fine, but much more than that is evil? I’m so glad that God informed you what the right amount of money is.

This doesn’t invalidate liberal philosophy; there are still problems in this country related to economic issues, such as the job market and rising health care costs.  Just because we live in the most prosperous nation doesn’t mean these should be ignored.  But I think it is important to have a philosophical perspective informed by the reality that really, just about all of us are rich.

Where is this loving all-powerful force?

I haven’t been posting very much lately; I haven’t felt particularly inspired.  I would say this will be my last post in a while, but it seems that every time I say that all of a sudden I get inspired to start writing again, and I look silly.

Basically, people have philosophical and empirical arguments why they believe the way they do politically.  When it all comes down to it, people are going to believe the way they do based on their perception of the world.

My beliefs started to take on a more libertarian nature as I was finishing up school and getting into the world of work.  The idea of limited government was something I learned as a young child and tended to forget all those ideas over the course of time, but they stuck with me.  This included the idea that the fewer rules you have, the better off things are.  I believe this with football and I believe it with society as a whole.  I’ve always believed that man is inherently sinful, and because of this, I have a distrust of human nature.  Humans in power are always scarier than humans left alone.

At the center of our debate in American society is whether or not we can trust government to make decisions for us, whether people believe it or not.  Part of the problem is people don’t realize that they are giving the government more power when they actually are.  The same people who say giving the government more financial responsibility over a matter does not mean it has more control, these are the same people who insist the government does have a right to control something once it has invested in the matter.

At the end of the day, all we know is based on how we perceive the world.  We can have profound philosophical arguments and provide empirical evidence backing up this view or that view.  All I know is that, in my limited experience, bureaucracy is an ugly thing.  Sometimes bureaucracy is necessary, but I believe a bureaucrat has way more power over my life than a CEO.  A CEO of Pepsi or Time Warner or Exxon can never tell me I don’t have the necessary documentation to get a drivers license or threaten to throw me in jail for making a mistake on my taxes when it really wasn’t my mistake.   I never have to take a day off work to stand in line and buy groceries.

Of course, we do need some government in our lives, so the debate is where and how much.  I do know this though; in my experience I have never known of a problem to get better as government gets more involved.  I’ve never known of government agencies to get more efficient or streamlined over time.

When it comes to government, I feel much like the atheist.  Like the supposed “free thinking” scientists who look for a shred of visible evidence that a benevolent all powerful being exists, I do much the same in search of this omni-capable benevolent force that people trust in so much.  “Where is the evidence that such a loving and all-powerful being exists” I ask.  I keep searching for a shred of evidence, and I just don’t see it.

At the center of the health care debate, and the economy

Kat linked to a great article in which the CEO of Whole Foods lists some great steps toward health care reform.

But the reason why these steps won’t be embraced points to the fundamental philosophical differences at the heart of this debate.  Some people trust the individual, some people trust government (and no, they are not necessarily the same).

Government has decided, apparently for our best interest, that it must tell us exactly what insurance we must buy.  If you just want insurance for catastrophic events, too bad (although that’s really what insurance is for in the first place).  This may get worse:

…every American would be required to buy health insurance.

And not just any insurance: to qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. For example, under Section 122(b) of the House bill, all plans must cover hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; services by physicians and other health professionals, as well as supplies and equipment incidental to their services; prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, mental health and substance-abuse treatment; preventive services (to be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Preventive Services Task Force); and maternity, well-baby, and well-child care, as well as dental, vision, and hearing services for children under age 21.

Imagine if this pertained to cars.  You want a Chevy Cobalt or Toyota Corolla, but instead you have to buy the BMW.  Then people complain about how expensive cars are and how the free market has failed.

Or, as Kat has noted in the above-linked post’s comment section:

…I (and several others) have likened the current state of health insurance to having your auto insurance pay to put gas in your car and have your oil changed. I think that’s an apt analogy, as is having your homeowners’ insurance pay to replace lightbulbs and have a yard crew mow your lawn.

Mackey of Whole Foods goes on to list other possible reforms, such as allowing people to have high-deductible Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), abolish laws preventing people from buying insurance across state lines, and basically other things that have worked well in probably every area of the free market.

But again, many won’t buy off on policies that involve less government control and more power to the individual; many will only support policies that give more power to the government and consequently, restricts what choices the individual has.

We see this with the stimulus/TARP bills passed by the last and current administration.  Instead of cutting taxes (even if temporarily during the recession) to allow more money to flow into the economy, people want more money to go to the federal government, and it decides how best to spend the money.

So we have the two opposing philosophies.  One centered on freedom and one centered on control.  One centered on the individual and one centered on government.  And I don’t see government solving a lot of problems.

A note:

Now, don’t get me wrong:  I must issue this caveat because any time I talk of freedom some commenters start getting nervous.  Just because I talk about freedom doesn’t mean I’m talking about anarchy.  Sometimes  people get confused.  I mention the validity of people protesting the amount of taxes and what they are spent on and all of a sudden I don’t believe in taxes at all.  The individuals must have rules so that they can’t hurt other people.  But I think there is a very visible line between the government protecting people from hurting each other vs. the government deciding what is best for everyone.

Speaking of hate

CNN was doing a story on a documentary “Anatomy of Hate” in which various topics such as terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and anti-gay activists are discussed.  I haven’t seen the movie and the website is not loading for me, but what I hope isn’t the case is that the filmmaker equates all people disagreeing with homosexuality with nutcases like Fred Phelps or those who kill gay people.

That is something I see at times, where people are divided into two categories:  either you have no issues with someone being gay, or you hate gay people and are classified along with people like those who killed Matthew Shepard. (For the record, one commenter here, who happens to be gay, I think is more open-minded than that).  For some, the idea that you can not hate someone, or even care about them, yet disagree with their lifestyle, seems to boggle their mind.  These people either must agree with everyone’s lifestyle, or they must hate many people themselves, or they’ve never had a loved one make poor choices in life.   I don’t understand how people who talk of love and tolerance declare somebody public enemy number one when they mention that they disagree with their lifestyle, as we’ve seen in the past year.

Don’t get me wrong, the homosexual community has received plenty of hate.  Jesus calls on us to love everyone, and to go even as far as loving our enemies.  Unfortunately many Christians seem to pick on the sins that they themselves do not struggle with (then again, as we’ve seen, some do).  They pick on homosexuality without looking at crumbling marriages around them or at their own pornography addiction.

Personally I’m not that bothered by the MJ funeral coverage

There’s an NY congressman and an aunt of a killed soldier who are taking issue with Michael Jackson’s funeral coverage.  I don’t know what it’s like to lose a close relative before their time, thank you God, and I agree that the life of a soldier, or anyone, is just as important as Michael Jackson’s.

But here’s the thing, the importance of one’s life is not necessarily tied to how much attention their death gets. Many “average” people die every day, many before they reach old age, yet celebrities just get more attention.  Does that mean the celebrity is viewed as more important?  No.  However, more people happen to know about a celebrity, so their death is going to get their attention.  People in small families have smaller funerals, people in larger families have larger funerals.  People who interact with many others and can even be mini-celebrities, such as pastors, local politicians, the local weatherguy, will have bigger funerals, simply because more people have interacted with them directly (such as a pastor) or indirectly (like the local weatherguy).

To some degree, some people have attached too much importance to MJ’s life in relation to fallen soldiers or everyday people.  He’s simply an entertainer, yet some people have treated him like  deity.  That being said, however, the media coverage of his death is understandable.  I think another blogger has said in the past, “average people weren’t beamed into our living rooms.”  It doesn’t mean MJ was more significant than the average person, it was just more people knew who he was.

Also, I think the average person is better off when they die.  Michael Jackson’s life was a media spectacle.  Being the entertainer he was, I’m sure part of him embraced it, but another part hated it.  His life was celebrated by many, but how many people truly knew him?  When I die, I picture my life to be celebrated by my family, people who really knew me.  How many people truly knew Michael Jackson?  Also, I don’t think many soldiers want their death to be a media spectacle.

I understand the point some people are making; there are soldiers who die for our country who are not celebrated as much as an entertainer.  At the same time, however, the attention paid to someone’s death is going to be directly related to how many people they know, to some degree or another.  Therefore, it’s naturally that someone a generation grows up with will get a lot of attention when they die.

Filling in the gaps in the free market system

Grocery stores are an example, for the most part, of the free-market system at work.  If I want to shop for groceries, I have the choice of Wal-mart, King Sooper’s, Safeway, Target (the Super ones), or Albertsons.  In my 8 or 9 years of grocery shopping, food costs have not gone out of control.  They have increased, but they seem to follow inflation somewhat.  I don’t know the stats, but that’s my experience.  I think most people agree that they would rather have private grocery stores provide food as opposed to a central government office.  Long food lines as seen in the Soviet Union show the results of a planned economy.

However, even if the free market provides lower prices and more options, there will still be some people who simply can’t afford food.  However, there are programs to address this, such as WIC and food stamps.  In a way, this can be seen as a compromise or best of both worlds; the free-market system is allowed to work to produce low prices and high quality, but certain programs are in place to ensure that people get to eat.  I’m not saying the current system is perfect; people still have it rough, but there is not a large amount of the population starving.

What we don’t do is totally revamp the way grocery stores are operated and have the government run them so that everyone can eat.  However, this is what we want to do with health care.  Now, I can understand why we treat health care differently.  Health insurance premiums have been sky-rocketing for some time.  However, the medical and insurance companies are already some of the most regulated industries in the country, so it seems unfair to blame failures on the free market when that particular part of the market is not that free.

Now, I know many liberals will think this is a convenient argument, “if only the market were more free, then everything would be alright.”  But so is the argument “if only government would do more, if only there was more funding.”  So what do we do?  Well, let’s look at the pattern of other industries and other government departments.  For instance, with public schools, we spend more and more per pupil, yet see diminishing returns.  Meanwhile, people are gobbling up the chance at Charter Schools, schools that are still publicly funded yet offer parents some choice, mimicing the market to some extent.  The service, even at Wal-Mart, is far superior to the DMV.  I’ve never spent an hour at Wal-Mart waiting in line.  If I don’t like my experience at Wal-Mart, I can go somewhere else.  Wal-Mart is open on weekends.  The DMV, on the other hand, has no motivation to help me out.  Sometimes they are only open four days in the week; why stay open five, am I going to go to another DMV?  Other areas of technology have brought us rapidly improving products at dramatically lower prices; your iPod has much more hard drive space than many earlier computers the size of your bedroom.

My point is, in many areas of the free market, we see improving quality at lower prices (there are exceptions, such as oil, but a limited good will have a high price in any system).  The ones that are heavily regulated and/or funded, such as our school system and health care, we see higher and higher prices for diminishing returns.   Furthermore, the lowest employee at the DMV holds way more power over my life than anyone I will meet at the grocery store.

Looking at all sides of the issue

I don’t want to get into the debate right now about whether or not the media has a liberal slant or not, but I do believe that news stories tend to favor more taxes and government funding.  The reason I say this is that the local and national news will often focus on how lack of government funding hurts this or that program.  That’s fine, but I wish they would focus on the other side as well, how higher taxes and fees can hurt people as well.

Case in point: our cat ran away earlier this week.  We are usually really careful keeping the cat inside, because cats have a somewhat shorter life span being outdoor cats, at least in our area of Colorado, due to foxes, coyotes, and the like.  Anyway, our cat ran away, and my wife found his picture on the humane society website.  She goes to pick up the cat, and due to a new license law passed for cats this month, getting the cat back was more expensive.

The thing is, it seems somewhat unlikely that the news will report on the probability that there will be fewer adopted pets and even claimed pets due to a higher adoption cost, whereas we would likely see a story about how the humane society is struggling due to lack of funding and how the city or state needs to fund them more.

I’m not saying the license law should or shouldn’t be passed, I just think the news needs to look at the apparent good and bad of what government does.  We here about how schools need to be funded more or how these people are suffering because some government program is not in place, but we never hear about the mountain of regulation businesses face or how some poor person can’t practice their trade because of certain licensing laws.  We hear about the high price of gas at the pump and how corporations are making so much profit, but it is rarely talked about how government makes more at the pump than anyone.

I don’t quite understand this slant in reporting.  Maybe it is because people naturally think that anytime something bad happens, government should ensure that that bad thing never happens again.  I think the news caters to this.

The American church, she’s with me

The church, specifically the American church, is typically a source of criticism, by those inside and outside the church.  I will address those right now within the church.  Now, the American church is far from perfect, it is made up of imperfect people, like me.  So the church is not above criticism, and it is each member’s duty to strengthen the body; sometimes that will involve criticism and conflict.

At the same time, however, criticizing the church has almost become a cool pastime for Christians.  It almost becomes a punching bag.  Here’s the thing though, the church is my family. So when you criticize the church, you are criticizing my family, and yours as well.  Yes, the church needs to constantly be better, and I know I’ve often talked about things that need to improve.  But I see the people who are in leadership at my church.  They are good people, good-hearted people.  No, they don’t have everything figured out, but they are, for the most part, trying their best.

The point is, when you criticize the church, you are not just criticizing some faceless and remote institution.  You are criticizing the people who pour their heart and soul into the church, whether they are paid staff or people who volunteer.   They are real people, staying up late nights printing church bulletins or making signs, or people who are making decisions about who to lay off so they don’t cut out essential ministries.  The church is not evil, and the church does not represent everything that is wrong with American Christianity, as Christians often think it is ( and I suppose non-Christians as well).  It may be cool to bash the church, but guess what, the church is us.  Whatever standard to which you hold the church you should also hold yourself.  If you criticize the church in how they handle their money, you should look at your own financial decisions.  If you criticize their priorities in ministry, it is only fair to look at your own.

Again, there is nothing wrong with criticizing the church and pointing out where we, as a Christian body need to improve, just keep in mind that the church is composed of real people, and that it is composed of you and I.

19 is a terrible number

For the NBA minimum draft age that is.  When it was 18, people would go to the NBA directly from high school. This includes Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwight Howard, to name the most significant.

I think the number should be lower or higher.  If you are going to raise the age, make it like the NFL, where the player must be three years removed from high school.  That way, an accomplished player has somewhat equal options, since they only have one more year of college.

So what’s the problem with age 19?  Many players go to college one year then go to the draft.  Now, the players are happy, they can play their one year and if they are good enough, go to the draft.  The college is happy, who cares if the player graduates, they put their year in and help out the team.  So what’s the problem?  Maybe I’m a purist, but it seems to make a mockery of what college really is.  College should not be a developmental league.  At the same time, I’m not naive, I know many athletes in the major sports could care less about graduating, but by having a requirement of only one year, it exaggerates that significantly, in my view.

I’m inclined to have the minimum age at 18.  The only problem is if a player goes out for the draft and does not get drafted, they cannot then go play for the NCAA.  Maybe this should be relaxed.  That way, a player doesn’t have to bank everything on whether they get drafted or not.