Monday, December 26, 2005

A Simple Way to Solve the Abortion Issue
Richard Posner once suggested a system for adoption of baby selling. This attracted huge amounts of criticism from both the left and right. The criticisms seem to be in two forms. One is that it is wrong to sell humans (but giving them away is fine.) The other seems to be that it would mean that only rich families could afford adoptions. It seems that 40% of Americans are interested in adoption but are worried about the costs. This cost comes in time and money however if you could buy babies straight from the parents large amounts of costs would be avoided. For instance anyone with no criminal record would be able to bid for the rights to adopt the child. Depending on the supply available it might be how much the mother must pay to give up the child. This would have the effect of reducing abortions due to the fact that abortion has large emotional costs and small financial costs. Also anti-abortion groups would probably be willing to subsidize bids for children who are still going to be aborted. This system works well with or without legal abortion. Legalized abortion would raise the mother's asking price. This benefits the mother because she now has extra money and has avoided the emotional turmoil of
money. This significantly benefits the child too because they aren't killed and would be adopted by families higher up on the socio-economic ladder than they are. The criticism based on the fact that you can't sell humans is ridiculous. Why is it any better to give away humans than selling them?

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Why I wish that stores would be in a Christmas not holiday spirit
The reason is one of pure asthetics if a store says Happy Holidays they will probably have something like Frosty the Snowman playing this is terrible music. However if they say Merry Christmas than the music playing might be something better like Joy to the World or some such. I can take overt Christianity on my songs but I can't take Frosty the Snowman.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Intelligent Design
A court in Pennsylvania has ruled that intelligent design is an establishment of religion and therefore it is unconstitutional to teach it as a science course. I would like to explain my opposition to this decision. Intelligent design has become a major debate with both sides unwilling to differentiate between two issues. One issue is its constitutionality the other is its advisability. The fact is that intelligent design as science is garbage. It extrapolates to nothing and is pointless to teach in science class because it is a dead end. It encourages science to give up quickly and say, "We can't understand how this works so therefore it must be beyond human comprehension." Therefore there is no reason to teach it not as science and not as religion. Intelligent design is almost a non-denominational form of creationism. It is saying Some Intelligence (insert name here) created all life. Because it is not an establishment of any religion it is constitutional. The real question for the court was is it science or is it religion. If it is religion it is possibly unconstitutional, but if it is science it is definitely allowed. The fact is that intelligent design is definitely science it asks a question of how something happens and explains the given facts. It isn't incredibly good science in my opinion which is why I would not vote to teach it if I was on a school board. However a court rather than scientists deciding what science is good enough is pointless. This is because a court is not as scientifically knowledgeable. If a court had decided what was science we would be much poorer and stuck to the first written opinion on the cause of something. Darwin would be banned and we would be studying Lemark's theory of inheritance which has nothing to do with genetics and basically says if Arnold Schwarzeneggar has children they will have huge muscles because Arnold lifted weights. The Big Bang theory would be removed and Einstein would be unconstitutional because he challenged the science of Newton which everyone knows is true. Therefore intelligent design is science possibly the correct science but in my opinion is bad science and should not be taught.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Much of the opposition to the Iraq mission we're in is based on the rather racist assumption that Arabs are too evil/stupid for democracy. The thing is that so far democracy in the Middle East has had as much sucess as democracy in Africa. However political correctness (in this case correct) insists that it has nothing to do with racial differences. In the Middle East liberals must balance their support for government building with their contempt for the war. Therefore they must deny that Iraq can handle democracy. My only dilemma about this war is that our government's job is not to save lives but to protect America. Even with this in mind I have two justifications for going in. 1. Given that we aren't living in a libertarian paradise we must utilize our life-saving resources for the best gain. That is Iraq where we are saving 10s of thousands of lives a year. We save these lives by eliminating Saddam who was a mass murderer but also by lifting our sanctions which killed many Iraqis (not 100s of thousands but 10s of thousands). The large problem is that people refuse to put a value on human life arguing that a life is priceless. Therefore they end up not valuing human life at all. Those who are called callous for putting a monetary value on life are the ones who truly realize what life is worth (to the last dollar). However to those who claim life is priceless how do they explain suicide bombers or soldiers falling on a grenade to protect their friends. These people are putting a value on their life and are putting something above it. (This may be twisted or noble but it is the value they truly believe their life has.) 2. Even if government shouldn't spend money to save lives I still believe we should be there because a stabilized democracy does not attack America. Iraq will not attack Israel or support terror as a terrorized democracy dependent on the U.S.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Elections in Iraq have been going on sucessfully. This seems to disprove the extremely racist arguement that Arabs aren't sophisticated enough for democracy (on the other hand their voting rate is down 20% and nobody will ever be as popular as Saddam). The arguement against going into is very interesting. If we should spend roughly 50 billion dollars (inflation adjusted) to save 1000 lives in New Orleans why shouldn't we spend 400 billion and 2,000 lives to save 10s of thousands of lives a year (due to a lack of Saddam, sanctions and increased prosperity). Also we now have a country which is not a supporter of terror and instead is a large drain on terrorist resources. Terrorists have commited themselves to fighting in Iraq and can no longer back out. Iraq is one of the least effective places where they spend their terrorist dollars and lives. They have a terrible kill-ratio and must use their dollars attacking fellow Arabs something which never drums out support. The terrorists lack an exit strategy from Iraq unless we provide them with victory by giving them the country. In addition terrorists are losing access to the second most oil-rich nation and the large support Saddam Hussein gave them. (Yes Saddam Hussein did support terror unless you believe blowing up Jewish civilians isn't terror.) Only if we abandon Iraq again will we lose the benefits of a major ally in the region.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

The Chronicles of Narnia.
This movie was surprisingly good. First of all it didn't try to be too clever with its dialogue. Also the characters acted and looked as they should in the book. Plus there was great British accents which are key to any movie. ( A great example of this is Chicken Run. You take a good movie and add British accents and you have a great movie.) The characters were well acted although from about five minutes into the movie you hate Susan and Edmund. Lucy I disliked dispite the writers wishes. The action was patterned on Lord Of The Rings and was done well. The movie also didn't try to be more overtly Christian than the book and left it to the intelligence of even the most oblivious viewer. All in all I would give it 3 and 1/2 stars.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Congress... Making Libertarians look better and better.
Flush from the sucess of the steroids hearings Congress has turned to another travesty in sports. Congress has decided to hold hearings on the BCS. Yes with high spending, a war and high public contempt for Congress they have decided to attack something which has no relation to them. Congress obviously feels that they have the right to investigate anything and everything. Remember Congress is doing this on our dollar all for the importance of hearing testimony from spurned schools. What comes next Congress investigating the instant-replay system or hockey's shootouts or maybe Congress should decide the results of prizefights.