Logic

Before the government can give you something it has to take it away from you or someone else first. This bail out plan has to be funded from somewhere, it is not magic money. We're all going to have to pay for it. The 700 billion dollar package is going to be bad for our money supply and you will see your purchasing power weaken. The bad debt is basically assets that were bought at one price and are no longer valued at those prices. People defaulted on the their loans and the bank has taken a hit on the loans to these overvalued properties. It makes no sense for the government to hold on to these assets, what are they going to do with them? Hold and sell them when prices come back up? They're definantly not going to come back up to the prices we have seen in 04 and 05. We just have to face the facts. Ron Paul is like the wiseman that nobody listens to because he does not tell them what they want to hear, instead he only tells them what they need to hear. How childish is that? Have greater strength and responsibility in yourself. I know that's hard but it will be good for us in the long run.

Short Sentences

Technology has improved our lives. Communication has become quicker and less formal. Online communication is less human. We place less attention on our messages. We assume people know what we are talking about. There becomes confusion. More emailing is needed. Time becomes more essential. We place even less time writing emails. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Emailing is a more preferred use of messaging and at the same time contains less information. The loss in nonverbal communication reduces the full interpretation of the message. Though things becomes faster they also become less efficient.

Blog Log

Is SMU challenging enough? Smiley felt it upset that some kid's thought we weren't challenging enough. SMU too easy?

Blog Log

I was talking to Claire about the significance of having a drinking age of 21. I am sure you have opinions that you would like to share too. 

Here is where you can find our talk....Drinking at the Age of 18

Blog Log

Hello there! Leth and I were discussing the importance of practice. How important do you think it is? Follow the link....Practice Practice Practice!

Faith

In my philosophy class we have been discussing the Problem of Evil from the perspective of Philosopher Mackie. The problem is actually very difficult to solve if you believe in God and it has caused much debate in our class. I often find myself scratching my head just trying to figure it out for myself. The problem goes a little like this:

Philosophers will accept each of the following three postulates:

1. God is omnipotent
   
2. God is omnibenevolent
   
3. Evil exists
   

However one cannot accept all 3 postulates together. To hold two true leaves the other false. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and evil clearly exists why is this so? Would not it seem that a perfectly good being would wish to eliminate evil and if he had the power to do so he would do so? Is it because God cannot destroy evil? No he would not then be omnipotent. Is it because he has leniency to evil? No he would not then be omnibenevolent. And Evil clearly exists.

What becomes even more confusing then is that Philosopher Mackie shows that each attempt to explain why evil exists can be convincingly refuted.

1. For example one might say that God could not have created good without creating evil and so this is why evil must exist.
   

   However Mackie will show that that statement puts a restriction on God's power. If God is truly Omnipotent then is it not possible that he may create Good without evil? Surely this seems possible so we cannot say that an omnipotent God should be subject to rules as this seems contradictory
   

   
    

2. One might say that God created evil on purpose so that a greater good can be achieved in the presence of evil. For example courage could not be brought about unless fear and malice existed. Or generosity could not occur without the existence of suffering.
   

   However Mackie will point out that there also exists a greater evil that can be achieved in the presence of evil. He provides that cowardice could not exist without fear or malice existing and similarly cruelty could not exists if suffering did not exist. Mackie then goes on to show that any greater good that could be brought about in the face of an evil there can equally be brought about a greater evil that could not have existed without the evil. This he points out answers nothing. The argument can be extended out to an infinite order of good and evil.
   

   
    

3. One might say that God could not create Free Will without creating Evil.
   

   Mackie says then a wholly good God would have seen Free Will as a greater virtue than evil if he wished Free will to exist. But he asks then if evil existed so that a being could freely choose between good and evil why could not God create a being that freely choose Good every time when presented the option between good and evil? Why are there some being who choose evil? Clearly God would have this ability when he designed us if he was omnipotent. But one might argue that God cannot do what is logically
   impossible. But Mackie is quick to ask what is logic? Is not logic created by God himself? Are there rules that exist that even an omnipotent being must follow? There are some that even say Logic is the way God arbitrarily chooses to think. Mackie extends into deeper arguments of the Free Will defense but which I will not explain here for the reasons of time and space.
   

These are challenging questions. As a logical person I am constrained to interpret my faith in a logical fashion. I will not accept from my faith that which is contrary to science but I will accept where science falls short. Questions like these are not just for the philosophical they concern us. I have found that many young people are losing their faith but I don't think it is a sin to question because questioning is important part of discovering the truth. Science has always seem to differ on faith in important issues but we live in a society where science has been continually evolving and continually disagreeing with some parts of our faith. Our job is to learn how this continually conflicting information can coexist. I wanted to know how do you guys handle this and perhaps Mackie might have introduced some things you need to think about as well.

Blog Log

Nathan and I are having a blast discussing policy, ethics, free markets, federal government and much much more.

You can read along right over here....Healthcare x2

Blog Log

Hello again,

Nathan was so courteous as to respond to my comment on his post about healthcare that I engaged in discussion with him again. Check it out here....Comment on Healthcare Dialogue

Blog Log

Nathan had an ethical consideration on his hands as he argued National Healthcare. I provided insight as to some problems such a policy would cause. You can read more about it in this think: Healthcare

Outline for Argument Paper

Reason: There exists a fundamental difference between the way an individual is brought up in Western Culture and in Eastern Culture.
Evidence: “In contrast (to the West), the traditional view, especially in Asia, has been that the individual is nothing until shaped and refined through interaction with others… The Hindu person is produced consciously and deliberately during a series of collective events.” (Finding Flow 79)

Reason: Individuals brought up in Eastern Cultures seek out unity and common values in relationships.
Evidence: East Asians perceive people as inseparable from other people, so that ‘the relationship, rather than the individual, may be a fundamental unit of consciousness”. (qtd. Placing the face in Context 367)

Reason: Individuals brought up in Eastern Cultures spend more time and are more concerned with the people and things outside of their own self.
Evidence: “East Asians have a more ‘holistic’ pattern of attention, perceiving people, objects, and events in terms of their relationships to other people, objects and events rather than in terms of their distinctive properties…People raised in the Western European tradition find it easy to isolate an object from its context; East Asians do not…East Asians are more alert than North Americans to relationships and context”. (Placing the face in Context 366)

Reason: Meaningful and long lasting relationships require two conditions: Compatibility between goals and willing to invest attention in the other person’s goals
Evidence: “A relationship that leads to order in consciousness instead of psychic entropy has to meet at least two conditions. The first is to find some compatibility between our goals and that of the other person or persons… The second condition for a successful interaction is that one be willing to invest attention in the other person’s goals…When these conditions are met, it is possible to get the most valuable result from being with other people-to experience the flow that comes from optimal interaction.” (Finding Flow 81)

Claim: Adopting Eastern ideology in social and family settings leads to more successful and meaningful relationships.


It’s tough to maintain long and meaningful relationships; the high divorce rate is a good example. The way our economy is organized through the merit and reward system trickles down into our culture and we find ourselves with bad relationship skills. If we adopt just in our social life Eastern values and ideals we will posses better habits and find these meaningful relationships we seek.

National Healthcare?

I was sitting at the doctor's office the other week with an inflamed lower left lung waiting for my name to be called. Across from me there was a mother sitting with her son. She had been there since I arrived. The lady at the front desk called her over with some problem involving the insurance company. I couldn't make out exactly what they were talking about but what it appeared to be was that the mother had a sick child and her insurance company would not cover the visit for this particular doctor. The mother inquired about the cost of the visit uninsured, the lady at the desk said, impassionately, $250. The mother left. As I sat there I felt a string of moral remorse for the sick child and concerned mother. Flash forwarding to the pharmacy. I was in Walgreens leaning against the corner of a wall sitting on a cushy chair waiting for the pharmacist to fill the medication the doctor had proscribed for my lung. An old man walked to the front of the pharmacist's counter. He was there to pick up a prescription that had been filled a week ago. The lady pulled the drug from a cabinet behind her and asked him if he knew that his health insurance company declined to pay for the medicine. He said in an innocent manner, "I guess so" and asked what the cost would be. She said "$100". The man stood back for a second and said "$100 bucks? For that little thing?". The lady asked, "Would you still like to pay for it?". The man said "No Thanks" and walked away.

I looked at the floor. I was experiencing a moral dilemma. You see I believe in capitalism, that its design, in all of Adam Smith's wisdom, is superior to any form of socialism or communism. But yet here I was watching two people denying themselves health care because its cost. I asked myself "Could National Healthcare be the solution?" .

A National Healthcare system would not deny anyone any coverage because of price, all individuals would be able to enjoy medicine, doctor visits, and treatment required to continue to live. The government would have the power then, to hold costs in check and would be able to experience giant economies of scale given the large client list of the American Public. But what would happen to the overall quality of healthcare? Doesn't the government, by restricting profits of the pharmaceutical industry and prices that doctors can charge, inhibit the game changing component that good old competition brings to the table? Would the level technology that has advanced over the years deteriorate because companies could no longer profit from their creation? These questions are tough and the answers so subjective. Do you guys have any idea as to which might be the better solution?

 

Blog Log

Powerade posted an interesting post on Love on Reality Shows and Online Dating Services. I thought online dating services were a pretty good idea. What do you think?

Heres the link....Love on TV

Blog Log

Audacious Mind posses a provocative belief on his blog "Who is the best basketball player of all time?"

P.S.,

He doesnt think its Michael Jordan.

21 Means 21

All these posts on the drinking age being 21, the pseudo-explanations behind lowering them, and the opinionated reasons of the prevalence of teen drinking are all uninformed and ill researched. The real reasons behind the drinking age are based on sound evidence if anyone ever took a few minutes to read them over.

I assume that advocates and dissenters of the legal drinking age still have one goal in common: to reduce the number of alcohol related injuries and deaths.

1. First and foremost: The brain of an average human being continues to develop until their mid-twenties. During the period before this the mind goes through intensive and critical changes that can be altered and damaged through the use of alcohol. "Damage from alcohol at this time can be long-term and irreversible" (Brown SA, Tapert SF, Granholm E, Delis DC). Occasional and Moderate drinking can inhibit learning and memory functions especially in youth. "Adolescents need only drink half as much as adults to suffer the same negative effects" (Pyapali GK, Turner DA, Wilson WA, and Swartzwelder, SH). Alcohol is a dangerous drug for youth, "Alcohol is a leading contributor to injury death, the main cause of death for people under age 21. Annually, about 5,000 youth under age 21 die from alcohol-related injuries that involve underage drinking. This includes injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes (about 1,900), homicides (about 1,600), and suicides (about 300), as well as unintentional injuries not related to motor vehicle crashes" (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 2003; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2004; Smith et al. 1999; Levy et al. 1999; Hingson and Kenkel 2004)
   
   
   

   
   

   
   

   From the WHY 21 website (www.why21.org/teen) the following facts and their citations are given:
   

• Alcohol impacts both behavior and brain function differently in adolescents and adults. (3)
  


• Adolescents are more vulnerable than adults to the effects of alcohol on learning and memory. (4)
  


• Alcohol affects the sleep cycle, resulting in impaired learning and memory as well as disrupted release of hormones necessary for growth and maturation. (5)
  


• Alcohol affects all parts of the brain, which affects coordination, emotional control, thinking, decision-making, hand-eye movement, speech, and memory. (6)
  


• Adolescent drinkers perform worse in school, are more likely to fall behind and have an increased risk of social problems, depression, suicidal thoughts and violence. (7)
  


• Binge drinking is extremely dangerous for adolescents given that their brain is especially vulnerable to alcohol-related damage. (8)
  


• People who begin drinking in their early teens are not only at greater risk for developing alcoholism sometime in their lives, they are also at greater risk for developing alcoholism more quickly and at younger ages, especially chronic, relapsing alcoholism. (9)
  

1. Now that the ill effects of alcohol on youth have been established and have been credited as to be substantially severe, let us explore if the quantity of alcohol related injuries and deaths have increased or decreased due to the drinking age.
   
   
   

   
   

   I was tracing posts and discussions on the topic of underage drinking and the teen drinking law when I came to a particular comment. A blogger expressed the following "(I believe) those under 21 would drink much more responsibly if there was not a possibility of punishment". I was caught scratching my head for a second. I thought when you raise the consequence of a particular action than that act decreases. So I thought for a second…is it possible that by reducing the consequences of this particular action, underage drinking, that the consequences, the number of injuries and deaths, would decrease? I set out to research.
   

   
   

   
   

   Adrian Lund is the President of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
   

   
   

   
   

   Thirty years of study at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has indicated that "lowering drinking age brings increased highway deaths" and "raising drinking age reduces fatal crashes" (Adrian Lund). A number of studies were done by the IIHS and other organizations on the fatality rate of teen driving in 1970 when the country lowered the voting age to 18 and 25 states lowered their drinking ages from 21 to 18, 19, and 20. "IIHS's first study in 1974 looked at two states and one Canadian province that lowered the drinking age, carefully comparing their experience to that of adjacent states that did not change. That study showed that the number of 15-20 year-olds involved in fatal crashes increased in the jurisdictions that lowered the drinking age" (Adrian Lund) "Studies show teen crashes (particularly nighttime and single vehicle fatal crashes) increased in states that lowered MLDA (minimum legal drinking age)." (Williams et al., 1975; Whitehead et. al., 1975)
   

   
   

   
   

   By 1984 22 states raised the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) and again studies were done on the fatality rate of teen driving. "Subsequently, in the late 1970s, states began to increase drinking ages again. Again, it was possible to compare states that made this change to states that didn't. Again, we saw a change related to the drinking age — this time, fatal crash rates declined as teen drinking and teen drinking and driving declined…The 21-year-old drinking age is saving lives." (Lund)
   

   
   

   
   

   To address the blogger I encountered above, I think he is completely wrong.
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

   The Center of Disease Control also commissioned a study on the fatality rate of teen driving. Their evidence is depicted on the chart below:
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

(CDC review of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving Shults et al., 2001)

As you can see by forming a linear regression line the net percentage change of aggregated car crashes increases when the MLDA is lowered and decreases when the MLDA is increased.

Say what you will about the teen drinking age but it's hard to argue with numbers. "Lowering the drinking age to 18 would increase the number of 18-20 year-olds dying on our nation's highways…Others too would die in crashes involving drinking teenagers" (Lund)

To add partially to a fellow bloggers words: All in all if you can give your life for your country don't give someone else's too.

In summary the reason behind instituting the Minimum Legal Drinking Age at 21 was because it significantly reduced the number of teen related fatal car accidents and penalized youth for harming their minds and bodies. Lowering the MLDA "is not the path to reducing the problem of teenage drinking — it is a proven formula for increasing the number of dead teens. Clandestine underage drinking is a problem, but lowering the drinking age is not a solution." (Lundi)

Citations

Alcohol and the Teen Brain." WHY 21. 2007. MADD. 26 Feb. 2008 <http://www.why21.org/teen/>.

Lund, Adrian. "Protecting Teens From the Dangers of Alcohol Use and Abuse: Wishful Thinking Versus Science." Insurance Institue for Highway Safety. 9 Oct. 2007. Insurance Institue for Highway Safety. 26 Feb. 2008 <http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/min_drinking_age/default.html>.

Blog Log

Hi there, a fellow blogger is going through a tough time and decided to use our blogging excercise as a tool for some emotional discharge. I thought I'd offer some advice and maybe you could too...
It hurts so much

Constitution: Still Relevant?

Recently I had dinner with a friend of mine and we started talking about politics and current events. We discussed how dangerous the world has become and how we are in more harm today than pre 9-11. This is when he suggested "We should take a more extreme measure in our approach because the situation has become desperate." To which I said "Whatever we do we should still be within the limits of the constitution and I think we are over-stepping this quite a lot these days". That's when my friend said "Well perhaps that needs to change, how relevant is a document written 200 years ago, applied in today's context of world affairs? After all when the constitution was written there were only 13 states, Britain and France were the superpowers of the world, China and India were Isolationists, the Central Banking system did not exists, and the Republican and Democratic parties were hundreds of years from being established." These were persuasive points and they raised some concerning questions. How effective can a 200 year old document of governance be when the situation that it was written in is so politically, financially, socially, and morally different today?

I slipped into a deep thought for the rest of that night pondering such a provocative question…and I came to some conclusions.

It is my belief that the constitution is perhaps the greatest longstanding document of governing that has ever been written in history. Not even the Roman Empire ruled with such liberty, strength and egalitarianism. The founding fathers were very wise and possessed intellect hundreds of times greater than even the smartest of public policy writers in our generation. They were so smart that they understood they still didn't know very much. So they wrote a very powerful instrument for change inside the document giving flexibility that would still represent the changing values of a growing society in America, barring some basic principles like inalienable rights. I think the wisdom of the founding fathers and the constitution still has strong relevance in a diverse and conflicted world. Chaos was widespread in their time, just like in ours but their agenda wasn't to eliminate chaos from the world it was to minimize chaos for the American people. But that's just my perspective, what do you think? Does the constitution still hold relevance in handling issues like Iraq and Iran, the small or big government debate, social security, abortion, or many other issues?

Blog Log

I read a rather interesting post from blogger Interesting Point. This person touched on a subject about money and happiness here at SMU that I think you should check out and give some of your own personal perspective.

Money Can't Buy Happiness? What?

Foreign Policy

Late last year I wrote a blog in which I spoke about the need for the United States to have an interventionist foreign policy (see “Big Brother America” October 2007). I talked about how some countries in this world posses very deadly weapons that if misused could cause terrible havoc in their region. I also spoke of such implications like the domino effect and mutually assured destruction and the need for a type of instrument to step in and stabilize seemingly unstable and dangerous problems.

Towards the end of the December, with the winter break, I was able to catch up on the elections and research some of the candidates. It was then I found an interesting candidate-Ron Paul. What was interesting about this man was that he was a Libertarian running for the Republican nomination. His message was in the interpretation of the constitution, something that was quite the deal maker for me. One of the notable points in his policy was his view on foreign policy. He was for non-interventionism. At first this contrasted extremely with what I felt the role of the U.S. should be but, like all good humans, I didn’t dismiss him without listening to his reasons. His views stem from the constitution and the founding fathers. According to Ron Paul the founding fathers wanted a non-interventionist foreign policy. Now I give much credit to the founding fathers, they were very, very smart people to whom we owe everything that we find in this country, so my interest grew more. Ron Paul believed that the federal government should run with strict adherence to the constitution, a plausible argument, and that if it does not explicitly state within the constitution that the federal government has those powers then those powers belong to the state under Amendment 10. So through all this I was sitting there and saying boy this guy makes sense. Now Ron Paul is not anti-war, he believes there are reasons when we should go to war and that is through constitutional powers. The constitution states that the country should only go to war when A. our national security is threatened and B. with a declaration of War by congress (House and Senate).

So I stand corrected. Sure one could make the argument for the need for a type of instrument or strong power to step in when things get out of line in this world but the reason not to go is even stronger. The founding fathers were very intelligent people, much smarter than I. They understood public policy and government at levels so intimately that they devised a document for governance, the constitution, that still holds a country together 200 years later. Having a non-interventionist foreign policy is economical. We can save tax payers trillions, focus on our country and our citizens first, strengthening domestic programs that can help struggling Americans and return more money back to the states so that they may address the needs of their people without having to fight other states for federal money (pork barreling). Having a non-interventionist foreign policy is safer. By avoiding entangling alliance, getting our nose out of other countries businesses, and not bullying the UN we can improve our relations with other countries.

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”
Thomas Jefferson
Inaugural Address 1801

Why Blogger?

I felt sad for the gentleman who wrote "Final Post". It is not very often you read a post that has been prepared as to be read conditionally at the time of the author's death and it gave me an interpretation not felt before.

Why do we blog, why bother? Andy said "Blogging put me in touch with an inordinate number of smart people, an exhilarating if humbling experience". I agree with him. We blog (that is most of us) to discuss, to exchange ideas, and to come away with a more informed understanding of the things we blog about…sometimes even when we don't expect it. Andy realized that the way he thought about things sometimes was inferior, that he was misinformed, or lacked the appropriate mind to understand why, "When I was young, I was smart, but the older I got, the more I realized just how dumb I was in comparison to truly smart people." And that's not unusual, that is how we grow. Through a system of interaction, being wrong, and making mistakes are we given the opportunity to better ourselves. But only the opportunity is given, not the fruits of success that comes with exercising it, you have to commit to the opportunity to receive that, Andy said "But, to my credit, I think, I was at least smart enough to pay attention to the people with real brains and even occasionally learn something from them. It has been joy and a pleasure having the opportunity to do this." The yearn for intellectual exchange is what Andy sought every time he put his "thoughts on (virtual) paper", it is what I seek every time I bring my idea's to my keyboard, blogging is the means by which we attempt to achieve these things. This is why we blog.