Wow. Make sure to read the date this was published.
Christians in Germany during WWII
Thanks to Thinking Christian for posting this.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Missing perspective
As usual, much of what is lacking in the news is just perspective.
Here's an article that inspired me to back off of the instant polls and
updates. It is written by Tony Woodlief He is frequently insightful
without being inflamatory (a difficult propositition.)
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/03/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-christian-voter/
Here's an article that inspired me to back off of the instant polls and
updates. It is written by Tony Woodlief He is frequently insightful
without being inflamatory (a difficult propositition.)
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/03/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-christian-voter/
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Best abstinence lesson ever
When my husband and I were dating, my future mother-in-law told me a story that was the best story I've ever heard encouraging abstinence.
She told a story about a couple much like us, in college, engaged, with plenty of freedom. But she's an OB nurse, and she met this couple in the hospital when the woman was giving birth. The couple knew they couldn't give the little baby girl the life they wanted to give it, with stability and money, but they had decided give it life. The time came to have the baby, and then give it to the parents who were going to adopt it.
My mother-in-law told about how the couple had a separate room to say goodbye to the baby, to send it off to its new life. She told about how they walked out of the hospital crying, with no baby to hold. She told how they knew they were doing the right thing for their family and for the baby, but that it was still hard.
After having 3 babies and 2 early miscarriages, this story means even more to me, but even at the time I was tearing up. I decided that this would not happen to my fiance and me. That story and the consequences the other couple faces brought life to the choices I made every day. Thanks, mom.
*I know, it could also encourage birth control. I guess it depends on who you are.
She told a story about a couple much like us, in college, engaged, with plenty of freedom. But she's an OB nurse, and she met this couple in the hospital when the woman was giving birth. The couple knew they couldn't give the little baby girl the life they wanted to give it, with stability and money, but they had decided give it life. The time came to have the baby, and then give it to the parents who were going to adopt it.
My mother-in-law told about how the couple had a separate room to say goodbye to the baby, to send it off to its new life. She told about how they walked out of the hospital crying, with no baby to hold. She told how they knew they were doing the right thing for their family and for the baby, but that it was still hard.
After having 3 babies and 2 early miscarriages, this story means even more to me, but even at the time I was tearing up. I decided that this would not happen to my fiance and me. That story and the consequences the other couple faces brought life to the choices I made every day. Thanks, mom.
*I know, it could also encourage birth control. I guess it depends on who you are.
Comprehensive Abstinence sexual education
The other day I listened to a radio show (Diane Rehm or Talk of the Nation, most likely) with a number of participants from all sides of the sex education debate. What it came down to was this:
The Comprehensive woman pointed out that by pointing out the failure rates, teens might think "well, they all fail, I may as well not use anything." I would point out that teaching about birth control and the naturalness of sexual activity (with or without marriage) might lead teens to think "well, everyone is doing it, I must be a dweeb if I'm not." (I heard a talk about "50 ways to yes" which told stories about how you present something changing the chances that it would be accepted: I think this is one of those cases.)
Look, I'm for teaching about condoms. But then let's teach about the failure rates too. Let's teach kids that they don't need to use their bodies to get the emotional support they seek. Let's teach kids better ways to have someone who loves you than having a baby. Let's teach kids that they are so valuable that their sexuality is not something to experiment with, but something to cherish. Let's teach kids that not doing it is the normal pattern. Let's teach kids that they are more than their sexuality, that they have a mind, emotions, and a body apart from sex.
From what it sounded like on the radio, neither the comprehensive nor the abstinence only groups have much of a difference from this program, and if they would start listening to each other, they would find that out. Unless both the women were lying about their actual positions...
- Abstinence only educators say that they provide information about contraception, it is not a focus of the course.
- Comprehensive educators say that they provide information and relationship skills which encourage kids to choose abstinence.
The Comprehensive woman pointed out that by pointing out the failure rates, teens might think "well, they all fail, I may as well not use anything." I would point out that teaching about birth control and the naturalness of sexual activity (with or without marriage) might lead teens to think "well, everyone is doing it, I must be a dweeb if I'm not." (I heard a talk about "50 ways to yes" which told stories about how you present something changing the chances that it would be accepted: I think this is one of those cases.)
Look, I'm for teaching about condoms. But then let's teach about the failure rates too. Let's teach kids that they don't need to use their bodies to get the emotional support they seek. Let's teach kids better ways to have someone who loves you than having a baby. Let's teach kids that they are so valuable that their sexuality is not something to experiment with, but something to cherish. Let's teach kids that not doing it is the normal pattern. Let's teach kids that they are more than their sexuality, that they have a mind, emotions, and a body apart from sex.
From what it sounded like on the radio, neither the comprehensive nor the abstinence only groups have much of a difference from this program, and if they would start listening to each other, they would find that out. Unless both the women were lying about their actual positions...
Friday, July 11, 2008
Letters from a broad...: Just write it down
This post from C.L. Hanson says a lot of things I had been thinking about, and I really liked it up until her last comment:
The problem with this argument is that the definition of marriage would depend on who decides what the traditional family is. As I see it, there are at least 4 actors in marriage: the people making the commitment, the community, the state and God. For the purposes of this discussion we will ignore God---I hope to cover this on another post.
As Chanson points out, no one can stop the couple/family from considering themselves married. If the community or the state doesn't acknowledge it, this can cause inconvenience (or even loss of life, as pointed out by one of the commenters) but this individual right cannot be denied.
The community gets involved in recognizing the couple and supporting them in their lifelong commitment. This is not something that can be changed by the state. The state can determine how the community treats the couple, but they really can't determine how the community feels about the couple. In many cases, the primary communities of homosexual couples or polygamist families are fully behind their commitment. But there are some communities who don't recognize or support interracial marriage, or call it marriage, for goodness sake! You can't just tell people, "you must support and recognize this couple, because we say so," although you can tell them that "you must treat and act toward this couple the way we say."
The state is the third actor. The state determines the rights and responsibilities of the couple. So if one person wants to sever the marriage, the state sets the rules about how the contract is broken. The state tell each party what they can do, and how the couple interacts with various other legal entities (corporations, the tax collectors, hospitals, for example, but not individuals).
I was also interested to see in Chanson's comments that she equated the record keeping of motherhood with the record keeping of marriage. Motherhood is a biological fact, which is recorded by the state, which goes along with a set of responsibilities related to the biological fact. One can transfer the responsibilities through adoption, but the biological fact remains. Now that many couples don't have children together, the biological fact of marriage is severed from the cultural expression of marriage.
After thinking about this, I suppose I can see the argument a bit better. It goes like this: homosexuals (or polygamists) deserve this certain right to be married because they are just like the heterosexual couples, and not to allow it is just plain discrimination. But as Chanson points out, marriage is much more than something proposed by the state, and it seems to me that people who want to legislate the term "marriage" being used by the state about homosexual marriage are trying to influence the feelings of the community by changing the state. They'd be better off just changing the state, and then getting the community behind them by slower steps.
Note: this post is not about my own personal feelings about legalizing homosexual marriage, which are not settled. It's only about Chanson's argument that the state should not get out of the marriage business, which I think has some flaws.
The practice of having a pair-bonded (mating) couple who have declared to their community that their bond is permanent is something that exists in every culture, and is a part of the human condition. I don't think it's useful to act like there's nothing distinct about it or that being someone's spouse is no different than moving in with your siblings to save money.It seems to me that she is saying that the state has an interest in preserving (or documenting) traditional, family marriage, as long as it is her definition of tradition (a mating couple) and her definition of family (which includes polygamists and homosexual couples, but not other versions of families). This seems a little hypocritical, and gives the argument back to religious conservatives, who say "Yes, and traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman."
The problem with this argument is that the definition of marriage would depend on who decides what the traditional family is. As I see it, there are at least 4 actors in marriage: the people making the commitment, the community, the state and God. For the purposes of this discussion we will ignore God---I hope to cover this on another post.
As Chanson points out, no one can stop the couple/family from considering themselves married. If the community or the state doesn't acknowledge it, this can cause inconvenience (or even loss of life, as pointed out by one of the commenters) but this individual right cannot be denied.
The community gets involved in recognizing the couple and supporting them in their lifelong commitment. This is not something that can be changed by the state. The state can determine how the community treats the couple, but they really can't determine how the community feels about the couple. In many cases, the primary communities of homosexual couples or polygamist families are fully behind their commitment. But there are some communities who don't recognize or support interracial marriage, or call it marriage, for goodness sake! You can't just tell people, "you must support and recognize this couple, because we say so," although you can tell them that "you must treat and act toward this couple the way we say."
The state is the third actor. The state determines the rights and responsibilities of the couple. So if one person wants to sever the marriage, the state sets the rules about how the contract is broken. The state tell each party what they can do, and how the couple interacts with various other legal entities (corporations, the tax collectors, hospitals, for example, but not individuals).
I was also interested to see in Chanson's comments that she equated the record keeping of motherhood with the record keeping of marriage. Motherhood is a biological fact, which is recorded by the state, which goes along with a set of responsibilities related to the biological fact. One can transfer the responsibilities through adoption, but the biological fact remains. Now that many couples don't have children together, the biological fact of marriage is severed from the cultural expression of marriage.
After thinking about this, I suppose I can see the argument a bit better. It goes like this: homosexuals (or polygamists) deserve this certain right to be married because they are just like the heterosexual couples, and not to allow it is just plain discrimination. But as Chanson points out, marriage is much more than something proposed by the state, and it seems to me that people who want to legislate the term "marriage" being used by the state about homosexual marriage are trying to influence the feelings of the community by changing the state. They'd be better off just changing the state, and then getting the community behind them by slower steps.
Note: this post is not about my own personal feelings about legalizing homosexual marriage, which are not settled. It's only about Chanson's argument that the state should not get out of the marriage business, which I think has some flaws.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Do I believe in evolution?
When the republican candidates were asked if they believed in evolution, 3 of them did not raise their hands. Many people took this to mean they were anti-science or just plain stupid.
If someone asked me if I believe in evolution, I would have a hard time deciding whether to raise my hand. I definitely believe that the beaks of the Galapogous finch have evolved over time due to natural selection, I believe that bacteria adapt, that human selection can cause traits to change. As the old joke about infant baptism goes: "Believe in it? I've seen it done!"
I would probably even believe that natural selection caused species to change over millions of years, even though we have never "seen it done." The time periods we are talking about are so unimaginable, that anything might happen.
I do not believe in unguided, impersonal creation. I don't believe that random chance mutation plus natural selection alone explains why we are here, what we do every day. I don't believe that evolution explains the beginnings of life (and neither do the scientists, that is a different topic). I absolutely do not believe that evolutionary theory disproves the existence of God, or that science can inform us of ultimate meaning in the universe.
I believe in God, not in evolution, whatever I may think about the truth of the theory of evolution. Based on my experiences and others' experiences, the "evidence of the heart" as well as my senses and reason, I think that's a better bet.
If someone asked me if I believe in evolution, I would have a hard time deciding whether to raise my hand. I definitely believe that the beaks of the Galapogous finch have evolved over time due to natural selection, I believe that bacteria adapt, that human selection can cause traits to change. As the old joke about infant baptism goes: "Believe in it? I've seen it done!"
I would probably even believe that natural selection caused species to change over millions of years, even though we have never "seen it done." The time periods we are talking about are so unimaginable, that anything might happen.
I do not believe in unguided, impersonal creation. I don't believe that random chance mutation plus natural selection alone explains why we are here, what we do every day. I don't believe that evolution explains the beginnings of life (and neither do the scientists, that is a different topic). I absolutely do not believe that evolutionary theory disproves the existence of God, or that science can inform us of ultimate meaning in the universe.
I believe in God, not in evolution, whatever I may think about the truth of the theory of evolution. Based on my experiences and others' experiences, the "evidence of the heart" as well as my senses and reason, I think that's a better bet.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
How to pick a president
Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian pointed out a great article from Christianity today about how to pick a president: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/17.22.html
It points out that while policy can be important, more important is character. They go through the classical virtues and Christian virtues to show how each (or the lack of each) influences the outcome of a presidency.
They also point out many reasons that agreeing with a person on policy will probably not guarantee any particular policy being followed, from a recalcitrant congress to acts of God. I would like to add that in all likelihood, there is no candidate with whom I would agree on policy. Thus the best I can hope for is someone who makes decisions in a way that I can respect and understand.
It points out that while policy can be important, more important is character. They go through the classical virtues and Christian virtues to show how each (or the lack of each) influences the outcome of a presidency.
They also point out many reasons that agreeing with a person on policy will probably not guarantee any particular policy being followed, from a recalcitrant congress to acts of God. I would like to add that in all likelihood, there is no candidate with whom I would agree on policy. Thus the best I can hope for is someone who makes decisions in a way that I can respect and understand.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Elites
Well, I wanted to post a comment on my friend's blog, but it kept not being quite coherent enough for prime time. So I'll post what I want to say on this blog which noone ever reads...
Chanson has an excellent post about why she is leery of the "elitist" label. I agree pretty much with her entire post (not completely, of course!). One phrase that stuck out for me was that acquiring knowledge requires a certain amount of humility. Another idea I really appreciate is that even the stupidest ideas have merit.
It struck me as I was thinking about this that elitism as a search for excellence is not a bad thing at all. We should be as proud of our intellectual elites as we are of our athletic elites. However, many times elitism goes hand in hand with arrogance and social division.
Two examples of "elites" which are harmful are in medicine and journalism. Imagine a doctor, a specialist, examining a patient. She is expert in her field, perhaps the leading specialist. She has fully examined the patient and knows what is wrong. However, her expertise gets in the way of her actually listening to the patient when he describes something that doesn't fit with what she knows is wrong.
Second is the attitude non-religious reporters have when they report on religious people. There is often an air of "I can't believe that someone actually thinks this! Isn't it weird?" There is often scorn or wonder in their voice as they talk about the latest crazy thing the fundies have done. The reporter hasn't been able to see the value in the beliefs of the other person, or even see the other person as someone who has actually thought about their beliefs in any sort of rational way. The attitude seems to be, "I am smart, I can't see how anyone believes this, the other person must be stupid!"
One of the commenters on the thread said something like, "noone wants to be told how to live his life..." Right! and the elite should not have the right, just because of their intelligence, to tell the stupid how to live.* This arrogance is exactly what I am talking about, this dehumanization of people because they are less intelligent than you. Soon you get disdain for people who believe differently than you do (because, after all, you are the smart ones!) and more division and less conversation. *The intelligent elite should have the right to try to convince others that their way is best---but the intellectual elite have (quite frequently, actually) been dead wrong.
One last thing: we don't talk about elite housecleaners, or elite plumbers. Why is that? We don't talk about elite stay at home moms (except to make fun of the "supermom" tendency). If being an elite is really something that is available to more than the very smart people you hand out with, why don't we allow people who are entirely different than us to be elite?
One more last thing: as far as I know, the best way to get past thinking that intellectual elites should decide how the other half live is to get to know non-elites as people. As chanson said, even the least intellectual opinions still have value. I know that I can get to know non-intellectuals and work with them at church. Where does a non-theist person go to have his presuppositions challenged? It's not enough to read other opinions (although it is valuable), you have to get to know the people, in person is best. Where does this happen?
Chanson has an excellent post about why she is leery of the "elitist" label. I agree pretty much with her entire post (not completely, of course!). One phrase that stuck out for me was that acquiring knowledge requires a certain amount of humility. Another idea I really appreciate is that even the stupidest ideas have merit.
It struck me as I was thinking about this that elitism as a search for excellence is not a bad thing at all. We should be as proud of our intellectual elites as we are of our athletic elites. However, many times elitism goes hand in hand with arrogance and social division.
Two examples of "elites" which are harmful are in medicine and journalism. Imagine a doctor, a specialist, examining a patient. She is expert in her field, perhaps the leading specialist. She has fully examined the patient and knows what is wrong. However, her expertise gets in the way of her actually listening to the patient when he describes something that doesn't fit with what she knows is wrong.
Second is the attitude non-religious reporters have when they report on religious people. There is often an air of "I can't believe that someone actually thinks this! Isn't it weird?" There is often scorn or wonder in their voice as they talk about the latest crazy thing the fundies have done. The reporter hasn't been able to see the value in the beliefs of the other person, or even see the other person as someone who has actually thought about their beliefs in any sort of rational way. The attitude seems to be, "I am smart, I can't see how anyone believes this, the other person must be stupid!"
One of the commenters on the thread said something like, "noone wants to be told how to live his life..." Right! and the elite should not have the right, just because of their intelligence, to tell the stupid how to live.* This arrogance is exactly what I am talking about, this dehumanization of people because they are less intelligent than you. Soon you get disdain for people who believe differently than you do (because, after all, you are the smart ones!) and more division and less conversation. *The intelligent elite should have the right to try to convince others that their way is best---but the intellectual elite have (quite frequently, actually) been dead wrong.
One last thing: we don't talk about elite housecleaners, or elite plumbers. Why is that? We don't talk about elite stay at home moms (except to make fun of the "supermom" tendency). If being an elite is really something that is available to more than the very smart people you hand out with, why don't we allow people who are entirely different than us to be elite?
One more last thing: as far as I know, the best way to get past thinking that intellectual elites should decide how the other half live is to get to know non-elites as people. As chanson said, even the least intellectual opinions still have value. I know that I can get to know non-intellectuals and work with them at church. Where does a non-theist person go to have his presuppositions challenged? It's not enough to read other opinions (although it is valuable), you have to get to know the people, in person is best. Where does this happen?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Obama worries
I really like the speeches I have heard from Obama. I especially like his rhetoric about bringing the country together. I really think that this country has too many people fighting hard to make sure they never compromise, since compromise might imply that they don't believe what they say.
However, along with the nice (very inspiring) speeches, Obama's actions do not back up what he says. although he talks about compromise, his actions are of someone who isn't willing to give even an inch. He is rated as one of the most liberal senators. He voted against the "born alive" act (and from what I heard, worked actively to put it down). These do not give me much hope that he will actually be able do do what he is talking about, bring the country together. They sound more like someone who will bring the people who agree with him together.
On the other hand, McCain has a long history of going against what partisanship would dictate to build bridges across parties. He has actually worked with people to make real progress on (say) campaign finance and judges, even when he doesn't get all that he wants. He seems willing to give on some issues in order to do what is best for the country.
We have already had 8 years of someone inexperienced who talks a good game of bipartisanship without much effect (and Bush actually had a better track record of working with Democrats than Obama does). I'm ready for some action instead of inspiration.
That said, I would not be unhappy if Obama gets elected. I'm just skeptical that he will be willing to deliver on the bipartisanship part of his platform.
However, along with the nice (very inspiring) speeches, Obama's actions do not back up what he says. although he talks about compromise, his actions are of someone who isn't willing to give even an inch. He is rated as one of the most liberal senators. He voted against the "born alive" act (and from what I heard, worked actively to put it down). These do not give me much hope that he will actually be able do do what he is talking about, bring the country together. They sound more like someone who will bring the people who agree with him together.
On the other hand, McCain has a long history of going against what partisanship would dictate to build bridges across parties. He has actually worked with people to make real progress on (say) campaign finance and judges, even when he doesn't get all that he wants. He seems willing to give on some issues in order to do what is best for the country.
We have already had 8 years of someone inexperienced who talks a good game of bipartisanship without much effect (and Bush actually had a better track record of working with Democrats than Obama does). I'm ready for some action instead of inspiration.
That said, I would not be unhappy if Obama gets elected. I'm just skeptical that he will be willing to deliver on the bipartisanship part of his platform.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
ID is not creationism
Everyone who wants a philosophical discussion of ID(intelligent design) should go to Thinking Christian. I really respect Tom Gilson's wisdom and patience in talking about this subject, especially considering how excited people tend to get. He is in general much more coherent than I am, these are just some thoughts I've had in reading comments about this debate.
I just wanted to address something that has been confusing me for a while. Often when people are talking about ID they say something like "It's just creationism" or "It's creationism dressed up to be more palatable for the general public." Here's the definition of creationism from answers.com:
The reasons many people give for confounding ID and creationism seem to be:
It seems to me that the two are the same only if you define creationism and ID using circular reasoning. According to the definitions above, they are related but not the same.
Another thing I don't understand is that people say that ID proponents are trying to get their fake science taught in schools. From what I have read, most of the proponents are trying to get the difficulties in evolutionary theory taught in schools. Why would this be a problem for evolutionists? It seems to me that presenting the difficulties might even inspire a budding scientist (sort of the way I was inspired by the idea of the "missing link:" Wouldn't it be cool to be the one to find it!) When evolutionists say that ID is just a way to get religion into schools, they are worse than creationists who say that evolution is just a way to get atheism into schools, since Dawkins for example explicitly says the latter, while ID supporters deny the former.
Many people seem to imply that if you support ID, you are somehow denying that evolution ever takes place. Then they talk about viruses, or finch beaks, or some such thing that obviously has taken place, and say that the ID proponent is an idiot. Here's the truth: many people who support ID (and in fact, many creationists) do not deny these types of evolution.
I personally have no trouble accepting evolution as it has been studied. However, the evolution supporters have not shown (and cannot show) that God did not create the world. They cannot prove through scientific means the idea of Philosophical Materialism, which says that matter is all that exists.
I would be happy if PM were gotten out of the schools, and if there were a statement that while science studies only material things, (scientific materialism), it cannot make any statements about the existence of something in addition to matter. I wonder if the combatants in this debate would be satisfied with this. Probably not.
I just wanted to address something that has been confusing me for a while. Often when people are talking about ID they say something like "It's just creationism" or "It's creationism dressed up to be more palatable for the general public." Here's the definition of creationism from answers.com:
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.Here's a definition of intelligent design (I think from the Discovery Institute):
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selectionHere's what I don't understand. If ID were proven correct, it would not prove creationism. Creationism implies the God of the Bible, creating in the way Genesis implies (separate species, that order, some people saying 6000 years ago in 6 24 hour periods, no macro-evolution,). ID just implies some intelligence but says nothing about how it was done, who did it, and what happened after that intelligent cause.
The reasons many people give for confounding ID and creationism seem to be:
- the ID movement sprang from creationist sources (the textbook with "creationism" changed to "ID", for example)
- many ID supporters are also religious
- ID is not science, therefore it must be religious.
It seems to me that the two are the same only if you define creationism and ID using circular reasoning. According to the definitions above, they are related but not the same.
Another thing I don't understand is that people say that ID proponents are trying to get their fake science taught in schools. From what I have read, most of the proponents are trying to get the difficulties in evolutionary theory taught in schools. Why would this be a problem for evolutionists? It seems to me that presenting the difficulties might even inspire a budding scientist (sort of the way I was inspired by the idea of the "missing link:" Wouldn't it be cool to be the one to find it!) When evolutionists say that ID is just a way to get religion into schools, they are worse than creationists who say that evolution is just a way to get atheism into schools, since Dawkins for example explicitly says the latter, while ID supporters deny the former.
Many people seem to imply that if you support ID, you are somehow denying that evolution ever takes place. Then they talk about viruses, or finch beaks, or some such thing that obviously has taken place, and say that the ID proponent is an idiot. Here's the truth: many people who support ID (and in fact, many creationists) do not deny these types of evolution.
I personally have no trouble accepting evolution as it has been studied. However, the evolution supporters have not shown (and cannot show) that God did not create the world. They cannot prove through scientific means the idea of Philosophical Materialism, which says that matter is all that exists.
I would be happy if PM were gotten out of the schools, and if there were a statement that while science studies only material things, (scientific materialism), it cannot make any statements about the existence of something in addition to matter. I wonder if the combatants in this debate would be satisfied with this. Probably not.
Monday, March 24, 2008
To my father-in-law
My husband's father called last night, and after talking about the kids for a long time, he started talking about one of his new favorite topics, the economy and how bad it was. I became a bit snarky (for me, he may not have noticed) and started playing devil's advocate for a while. I should not have done that, it was not helpful for either of us I think. I'm sorry. But I have been getting more and more annoyed about the discussion on the radio of the economy, and I've tried to figure out why.
Here's what I've come up with:
Here's what I've come up with:
- Everyone seems so surprised that there is likely to be a recession. I personally have been predicting this recession since I was in seventh grade and the stock market crashed. Occasionally it looked like one of the past recessions was going to be The One, but they never ended up as terrible as I thought they would. If a seventh grader can look forward and say, "sometime in my lifetime the country will go through horrible economic trouble," why do all the radio experts seem surprised?
- Many people seem to think that this is going to be the worst downturn ever. It is possible that this is true: however, I don't think we are in nearly as dire straits as we were in the Great Depression. On the other hand, it is not likely that the worst economic problems our country has had are behind us, just statistically speaking (of course, this depends on whether you think the world is coming to an end imminently or at some time in the long distant future). Every serious downturn is the worst for some reason. That said, the downturn that affects you personally is the worst ever.
- When people disagree about the causes or solutions for the economic problems, they imply that the other side is immoral, stupid, greedy, and has no understanding of what the real problem is. Here's some news: intelligent people can take the same inputs, mix it with some of their own analysis of the past, and come to different conclusions without any moral implications. Everyone has their own presuppositions (like, "Government is the only actor big enough to solve this problem" or "Government is historically very bad at solving huge economic problems") but most analysts are not trying to help out their friends in big oil, for example, they are trying to figure out what is the best course for the country. You might disagree with their conclusions, but at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they came to them honestly.
- When people talk about solutions for the problem, they assume that their solutions will work. My father-in-law pointed out that one of the reasons we may have gotten into this mess is the loosening of trade restrictions. On the one hand, the global boat rose and we in the US have access to cheaper clothes, electronics, and useless junk. On the other hand, sectors of the US economy are completely broken, and it is unclear how to fix it. The economy is complicated, and what seems like a simple solution will almost definitely fail or cause some other unintended consequences. On the other hand, we can never know what would have happened if we hadn't pursued that policy...
- The media is calling this a crisis. What word will they use when unemployment gets to 10 percent and the economy has been shrinking for 2 years? My grandma once told me that the stock market always seems to be falling. This was when the market was hitting record highs! But she only saw (and the media only reported on) market drops. I am very frustrated with the apparent glee with which the media is over reporting on every slight problem, while ignoring bright spots (like the foreclosure rate falling in NC...) My husband would tell me not to be surprised, why should I expect anything different. I suppose he has a point, but it is still frustrating.
- In general, recessions are caused by sin (or greed or other moral failings, if you don't believe in sin) committed by everyone (including me) and are not avoidable, although it may be possible to mitigate the ending.
- My major responsibility for this recession is to look after my neighbor (i.e., individual people (who I know personally or through organizations) who need my help) and not to try to solve the global problem.
- I have a responsibility to live frugally, which I am not living up to at all right now (but I'm working on it!)
- That said, I do have a responsibility to look at what the global leaders are doing and point out things that will make things worse, when they are obvious.
- We need to teach more personal finance in schools. Anyone who gets an adjustable rate mortgage when interest rates are historically low is not thinking clearly (ok, almost anyone---I can see that there are some situations where it might be necessary.) Right now I'm trying to teach my 5-year old that you can't spend money twice. Many college students (and older people ) haven't learned this lesson.
WARNING!
What you are about to read is probably poorly written, badly expressed, and hard to understand. It's the best I can do on my schedule, between watching 3 kids, trying to keep the house in order, and playing sudoku.
I only have two qualifications for writing any opinion: I listen to a lot of radio, and I am trained as a mathematician. The combination means that I get fed up easily with bad arguments that I hear day after day. It does not mean that I have a deep understanding of politics, economics, science, or religion. But if something does not logically follow from the premise, I can point that out and maybe try to figure out where the disconnect occurs. Unfortunately, since I don't write as well as I'd like, it may be that my explanations are less coherent than the original argument.
In addition, I reserve the right to be illogical on my own blog.
The other qualification I posses is a willingness to be wrong. Feel free to point out flaws in my own logic, but please be kind to me or I will stop writing.
You have been warned. Happy reading.
I only have two qualifications for writing any opinion: I listen to a lot of radio, and I am trained as a mathematician. The combination means that I get fed up easily with bad arguments that I hear day after day. It does not mean that I have a deep understanding of politics, economics, science, or religion. But if something does not logically follow from the premise, I can point that out and maybe try to figure out where the disconnect occurs. Unfortunately, since I don't write as well as I'd like, it may be that my explanations are less coherent than the original argument.
In addition, I reserve the right to be illogical on my own blog.
The other qualification I posses is a willingness to be wrong. Feel free to point out flaws in my own logic, but please be kind to me or I will stop writing.
You have been warned. Happy reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)