The Problem of Charity as a Solution

One of the point Libertarians, and Conservatives in general, fail to address when it comes to capitalism is the “losers.” Capitalism is based on the premise that there will be “losers.” When I say losers I mean the people at the bottom or the unskilled workers, those that do not have a skill or are simply not capable of having a skill. This could even be people with a skill but stuck where they are due to a lack of opportunity. This WILL happening in capitalism and has to. Not everyone can move up and not everyone could be the boss, I mean who would do the work? If everyone is a highly skilled supervisor, there would not be anyone to do the actual work. The sad reality is that some people just are not good enough to do a simple task, for whatever reason and will not prosper in capitalism.

The question is what do we do for or with these people? My answer would be to give them a minimum wage that allows them to support themselves and/or assistance from the government so they do not simply die in the streets.

Obviously Conservatives are against any type of government redistribution or government aid. If one can actually get them to admit that these “losers” exist, their responses and solutions are minimal. So, after reluctantly admitting the existence of losers in capitalism say “sometimes you get a bad draw” or “every system has losers in it.” They have no solution to the problem, so I can simply assume their conclusion would be to let them starve in the streets because they do not believe in a minimum wage, a livable wage, or government assistance. If this is your conclusion, you are a shitty person, period.

Those that have actually spent more time understanding Free Market Capitalism have realized this problem and have come up with a solution. Their solution is charity. They say that those that are struggling will receive assistance from charity, freely given charity and not something that the government takes and redistributes without input of where that money goes. In theory, like a lot of the things in Free Market Capitalism, this sounds like a reasonable solution to the problem, I mean Americans donate billions do dollars every year. But like most things in the Free Market Capitalism mindset, this idea is intellectually shallow and not based in reality.

Why is it that people prefer giving to charity? There are two reasons. First, they can give the amount they want or afford. This is a fair. But second, they give to WHO they want. Yesterday in a discussion someone gave the solution to fix the problem I explained above to be charity. So I asked if they were okay with giving charity to someone that is unskilled and lazy. Here was the response…

“charity is personal… Person by person”

Exactly. Charity is given to who one perceives needs it or who one chooses to give to. If you paid attention to the last presidential election, one of Mitt Romney’s biggest points was that liberals are just lazy moochers. Obviously liberals would not be part of the group getting this charity money (whether they are lazy moochers or not.) There is also blatant racism in this country. Obviously those people do not need charity. Charity for Muslims or atheists? HA! Forget those Godless heathens. Charity for gays? For people choosing to live a life of sin? Certainly not! That is the problem with charity. It is limited to who one decides needs it, not based on the reality of who needs it but based on personal opinion or preference. Many religious groups are very charitable, but that charity goes to those of the same religion, denomination, or church.

Free Market Capitalists do not like taxes because they want some say in where their money goes, like they do in charity. They do not like taxes being spent on people they do not see worthy of receiving them. This is exactly why charity fails on a large scale and this is why government assistance is needed. Without the government stepping in the only people receiving charity would be people “like them.” Maybe we decide the only people that need charity are middle-class Christians that just need that 4th TV to put in their child’s room. Absurd? Charity is personal…All it takes for large scale suffering is being part of a minority race, religion, political group, or whatever. Charity is only about helping people that think the same way you do. It is just like a theocracy, it is great as long as it is YOUR religion…if not, it is the worst thing in the history or humanity…ask Americans about Islamic theocracies, they will tell you.

Once again, the Free Market utopia falls apart when put into the context of logic and reality.

The Capitalistic Myth of Demand for Workers

When it comes to debates about raising taxes and raising the minimum wage I always hear the argument that businesses will not hire more people or will fire people, thus causing the unemployment rate to go up. This is a complete myth. The demand for workers is set. Let me give an example…

Mike has a sandwich shop. His shop requires two people to run it. He has one person making the sandwich and one person on the register which does prepping in the back during the slow times (also working as the manager.) This is the bare minimum that can handle the customer flow of the shop. If Mike does not have two people, he cannot run his business.

If taxes go up he cannot fire anyone because he needs two people to run his shop
If he has to increase their pay from $50 a day to $100 a day he must do it because he needs two people working.

The amount of employees needed to do a job or run a business is fixed regardless of their wages or the taxes. You either pay the required workers of your fail. All the time when businesses fail owners blame the economy. Watch any of the struggling restaurant shows…they blame the economy, the customers, or the fact they cannot pay a head chef. The reality is 1. Their food sucks 2. Their service sucks 3. They have no idea what their numbers are.

Businesses fail because their product is the problem. Let me quote billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban…

Maher (reading question from internet): If the government raised your taxes Mr. Cuban, would you still be a billionaire, still create jobs, and still invest in this country?

Cuban: Absolutely. They can take my taxes from 35 to 39 percent, I won’t even notice it.

Cuban: Here’s the reality. If you have enough money in the bank, your marginal tax rate doesn’t matter. Either you’re investing or you’re not. You’re not making decisions [based on that]. I’ve looked at thousands of business plans. On Shark Tank we see 20 a day. Not one single time have I ever had a discussion about taxes in making those decisions. Not once.
They don’t matter. Either it’s a good investment or it’s not.

Either it is a good investment or it is not, taxes do not matter. It is about running a good business and producing a quality product. Also, if you watch Shark Tank they have NEVER asked what they pay the employees. They have asked what they take as a salary and about sending production overseas, but NEVER how much they pay their employees.

Here is the reality…

You need a certain number of people to run a business. If you employ MORE people than is NEEDED, you are making a STUPID business decision. Why would you hire more people than you need? We may as well flush money down the toilet.

The only argument I can think of to hire more employees than is needed is to help people out or reduce the amount of work employees have. To that my response is, if we are in the business of helping people out, how about paying them a wage they can live off of? People will actually work harder and have a better attitude if you pay them more.

If a company says they HAD to fire people because of wage increases, tax increases, or providing health insurance, they are either LYING or do not know how to properly run a business.

If you want to talk about raising prices, let’s have that discussion, but do not blame the employment rate on taxes or wages.

Where is Your Outrage and Call for War Against North Korea?

When we were first considering bombing ISIS I was against it. I said we need to stay out of the Middle East. Many people, usually Conservatives, tried to take the moral high ground and tell me what horrible people the people in ISIS were. I make the argument we should have never gone to war in the first place with Iraq but Conservatives tell me what a horrible person Saddam was.

Obviously Conservatives want to validate any military action by saying “they are bad people.” They want to be the world police. But I ask you this…If you hold the moral high ground, if you are ridding the world of evil, I ask you, where the hell are you when it comes to North Korea?

Here is a bit about a former body guard for Kim Jong Il.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/world/asia/north-korea-bodyguard-kim-jong-il/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

In the article he talks about how this family rules based on fear, that they will simply cut people’s head’s off when they are having a bad day. This does not come as news to anyone with moderate knowledge of what is going on in our world. This is not new. Here is the Wikipedia page on their prisons…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_North_Korea

The UN has compared North Korea to Nazi Germany, some say it is worse…

http://theweek.com/article/index/256523/north-korea-isnt-nazi-germany-mdash-in-some-ways-its-worse

In addition to this North Korea has poked fun at us by advertising it is testing nuclear missiles.

Nuclear weapons and human rights violations comparable to the holocaust, and you are silent on the issue? If you are going to take the moral high ground and validate our need to bomb the Middle East, you need to answer, where the hell are you on this? Are you simply ignorant on this topic because the media is not spreading their Islam propaganda? Maybe you need to rely less on propaganda to support your wars.

Stop Feeding the Ebola Media Monster!

I am so sick of hearing about this Ebola thing. The misinformation and overreaction is mind blowing. I have been trying to ignore it, but this article really pushed me over the edge…

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/nurses-on-the-ebola-front-lines-are-as-brave-as-any-soldier.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

This article says that EBOLA nurses are as brave as soldiers. Oh stop it! Seriously? Before you flip out on me and exit out of this, let me tell you where I am coming from. My wife is a nurse. She works in OB and delivers babies. My I am not debating that nurses are not brave, they most certainly are, my issue is with the emphasis on Ebola. In addition to having the ability to read a Wikipedia page on Ebola, I have talked with my wife about the topic. Just yesterday she was all upset because her mom was arguing with her about it. Her mother is all worried about her catching Ebola and she shrugs it off.

Before I go further into this, I will explain what my wife does and why her mother is concerned. Working in OB her job is to care for mothers that are about to give birth and caring for her and the baby afterwards. She assists throughout the entire process and occasionally delivers the baby herself when the doctor does not get there in time. Anyone that has given birth or seen a birth knows that it is very messy. There is always blood involved and often urine and feces involved. After the baby is born, there is the afterbirth, which is when the placenta comes out. It is a very messy job that involves a lot of bodily fluids. Of course my mother-in-law is aware of this which is why she is freaking out over the entire thing.

Another thing that is scary is that many of her patients are immigrants or not citizens at all. Just the other day she delivered a baby of an African woman. The woman lived in Africa and came to the United States only to have the baby. She was able to do this because she had family in the country. Why is my wife not overly concerned about Ebola even though this very patient could have had it? Simple…training.

Most nurses these days have four year degrees in nursing. My wife has a BS in Nursing. They train nurses for four years on how to deal with sick people. They teach the dangers of contact with bodily fluids on top of having protocol. They have things such as the double glove method to keep nurses from getting in contact with fluids. In my wife’s job there certainly are cases when she gets fluids on bare skin, and when she does she quickly cleans it off with alcohol wipes.

The reality is there are TONS of diseases one can catch being a nurse, many of them much easier to catch than Ebola. Anyone that has read a Wikipedia page would know Ebola is not airborne, but is transmitted by blood and other bodily fluids. It is comparable to HIV and hepatitis and is getting about the same reaction as HIV got when that was the thing. According to Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburgh, “it takes effort to get infected with both of these viruses [HIV and Ebola,]”

When I asked my wife what she is most concerned about when it comes to her job, her answer was Tuberculosis, which can be spread through the air. She said she is more worried about hepatitis, than Ebola, when it comes to blood.

Are nurses courageous? Of course, they come in contact with things that can kill people every day! To paint these Ebola nurses as heroes is a real slap in the face to all of the other nurses. If you want to recognize nurses for their heroic jobs, I will be the first one to voice my support, but stop acting if few nurses were doomed to be infected, as if they were standing there with their mouths open with the patient puking into them.

Like Dr. Amesh Adalja said, it takes effort to get it. He is not suggesting that these nurses were trying to get sick, simply that if they would have been following standard procedure (of what should have been) and using their medical training, there should be no reason they were infected. No one wants to see someone get sick and potentially die when they were caring for someone but stop feeding this media-driven craze over Ebola and stop painting “Ebola nurses” as heroes when my wife, and the nurses she works with, could face a dozen things could kill them TONIGHT.

America’s Ignorance and Stupidity When it Comes to Muslim Countries

Once again we have Bill Maher saying stupid stuff about religion. Though I am a fan and find him correct most of the time, he keeps sticking his foot in his mouth about religion. I do not understand why he refuses to listen to the experts on this topic. This time though, it was not just Bill Maher, but our liberal media. Both sides, liberal and conservative, seem to be equally ignorant or stupid about the topic of religion, Islam, and the Middle East. I have spoken about this issue before but I wanted to do a blog dedicated to the topic because it really needs it. Religion, especially Islam, is very misunderstood in this country and for whatever reason, no one cares to listen to the experts.

The thing that made me feel the need to type this up was Reza Aslan’s interview on CNN. Before I show the video, I want to give his credentials…

Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa’s Writers’ Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion, from the University of California, Santa Barbara.[7][8][9] His dissertation was titled “Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework.”-Wikipedia

If anyone is confused about Religious Studies I would suggest either Googling it or reading my blog about it before you continue because it is more than reading the Bible or “studying God.”

Here is the interview.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/09/30/cnn-tonight-reza-aslan-bill-maher.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FNgRGButZCG

I expect that kind of crap from Bill Maher when it comes to religion but CNN shows the larger problem. “Muslim countries,” “Muslim countries,” Muslim countries,” he really hits the nail on the head with everything he said. To keep saying “Muslim countries” as if they are all the same is stupid. It is more than ignorant because he is there educating them on the topic and they ignore him. That is stupid. He is pointing out the fact that not all Muslim countries are the same and Americans appear to be completely clueless to this. Before I get into Muslim countries, let me do the exact same thing with America…
Do you believe these pictures accurately represent America?

Would you be offended if I said those pictures accurately represented most, or the average, American(s)? If you do not believe that is fair, why is it fair to do that to the Muslim world? Do you simply not realize the way we portray Muslims is not representative? The way we portray Muslims is the minority of Muslims, this is the point Reza was trying to make.

Contrary to popular belief, Religion is not the biggest driving factor in people’s actions, culture and society is. In Religious Studies we look at religion from all the different angles including sociological and anthropological (cultural) and it is painfully obvious that these issues are due to culture or society and not religion. The Sunni-Shia rift is a CULTURAL argument. We know culture and society are the driving factors because they both SHAPE religion. Religion can shape culture and society but culture and society are the bigger force. We know this because different cultures and societies with the same religion are very different. Also, if religion was the driving force, why are there so many denominations? The reason is people do not agree. Whether that disagreement is societal or personal, it is more powerful than religion because religion was changed because of that.

This is exactly what Reza was talking about. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is an AFRICAN problem. Here are a few maps of FGM and Religion. Click on the pics to enlarge them

It is certainly a problem in a very specific part of the world, mostly Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It does certainly appear to be in areas that are Muslim, but Christian majority countries in Africa also have an issue with it. One map echoes what Reza was saying about Ethiopia. Ethiopia has around 75% of women experiencing FGM and they are a Christian majority…

According to the 2007 National Census, Christians make up 62.8% of the country’s population (43.5% Ethiopian Orthodox, 19.3% other denominations), Muslims 33.9%, practitioners of traditional faiths 2.6%, and other religions 0.6%

If this were strictly a Muslim issue we would expect to see around 1/3rd, not 3/4th. This shows it is clearly a cultural thing, not a religious thing. You may want to point out that the Arabian Peninsula is not Africa. Actually it is, in a cultural sense. If we trace culture backwards we will see that Arabs are a Semitic speaking peoples, and the Semitic language originated in Africa. Here is a map…

You will notice that only a few pockets of people in Iran are Semitic peoples. That is because the Iranian peoples are Indo-European peoples. This is the nature of the Sunni-Shia rift, the culture, not religion.

Besides FGM, how do we typically portray Muslims? Radical terrorists that treat women worse than dogs? As Reza says, that is certainly representative of certain countries, such as Saudi Arabia. No one is debating that the way SA treats their women is primitive and barbaric or that their beheading of people is alright. The problem is this is not representative of all Muslim countries. Would a Muslim country that saw women as inferior elect one as their head of state? As Reza mentions, seven women have been elected head of state in majority Muslim nations, another one was appointed…

Tansu Çiller, elected prime minister of Turkey, 1993-1996
Benazir Bhutto, elected prime minister of Pakistan 1988-1990, 1993-1996
Mame Madior Boye, appointed prime minister of Senegal, 2001-2002.
Megawati Sukarnoputri, elected president of Indonesia, 2001-2004
Khaleda Zia, elected prime minister of Bangladesh, 1991-1996 and 2001-2006
Sheikh Hasina, elected prime minister of Bangladesh 2009-
Roza Otunbayeva, president of Kyrgyzstan, 2010- 2011
Atifete Jahjaga, elected president of Kosovo 2011-

And actually throughout the history of Islam women have been leaders or held positions of power…

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_female_political_leaders

Like Reza asks, how many female leaders have we had here in the US?

Many Muslim nations are very secular. Take Turkey for example.

Turkey has been a secular state since it was founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923. He introduced the secularization of the state in the Turkish Constitution of 1924, alongside Atatürk’s Reforms. These were in accordance with the Kemalist Ideology, with a strict appliance of laicite in the constitution. Atatürk saw headscarves as backward-looking[original research?] and an obstacle to his campaign to secularize and modernize the new Turkish Republic. The issue of the headscarf debate has been very intense and controversial since it was banned.[1] Turkey is a secular country and over 95% of its people are Muslims.[2] It has resulted in a clash between those favouring the secular principles of the state, such as the Turkish Army,[3] and those who are more conservative with their religious beliefs.-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey

The United States needs to grow some secular balls and ban the headscarves! Seriously, I am not for that, but look at a Muslim country our secularizing the United States, impressive for a primitive and oppressive, conservative religious people. *Sarcasm*

I can point out leaders and point out facts. I can tell you about my experience with Muslims in the Religious Studies department at the University of Minnesota. I can tell you about my classes in Middle Eastern studies and Islam, but I have a more effective method. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will save on the typing and post some pictures.

While in the Air Force I spent time in two Muslim countries. The first was Kyrgyzstan…

Islam is the dominant religion of Kyrgyzstan: 80% of the population is Muslim while 17% follow Russian Orthodoxy and 3% other religions.[70] A 2009 Pew Research Center report indicates a higher percentage of Muslims, with 86.3% of Kyrgyzstan’s population adhering to Islam.[71] The majority of Muslims are non-denominational Muslims at 64% while roughly 23% are Sunni, adhering to the Hanafi school of thought.[72] There are a few Ahmadiyya Muslims, though unrecognised by the country.-Wikipedia

The second was the United Arab Emirates…

Islam is the largest and the official state religion of the UAE. The government follows a policy of tolerance toward other religions and rarely interferes in the activities of non-Muslims.[77] By the same token, non-Muslims are expected to avoid interfering in Islamic religious matters or the Islamic upbringing of Muslims.

The government imposes restrictions on spreading other religions through any form of media as it is considered a form of proselytizing. There are approximately 31 churches throughout the country, one Hindu temple in the region of Bur Dubai,[172] one Sikh Gurudwara in Jebel Ali and also a Buddhist temple in Al Garhoud.

Based on the Ministry of Economy census in 2005, 76% of the total population was Muslim, 9% Christian, and 15% other (mainly Hindu).[77] Census figures do not take into account the many “temporary” visitors and workers while also counting Baha’is and Druze as Muslim.[77] Among Emirati citizens, 85% are Sunni Muslim, while Shi’a Muslims are 15%, mostly concentrated in the emirates of Sharjah and Dubai.[77] Omani immigrants are mostly Ibadi, while Sufi influences exist too.[173]

People of all faiths or no faith are given equal protection under the country’s constitution and laws.-Wikipedia

While we were deployed, we had a shared folder of pictures taken while on our trips. That is where most of these pictures were taken from. The only purpose of these pictures is to show how the women dress and their freedom. Click on the pictures to enlarge them

Here are a few pictures from Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan has a mixed population of Russians and Kyrgyz. They have a heavy Russian influence and 64% of their Muslims are non-denominational Muslims. It is safe to assume that in these pictures the white people are Russian Orthodox (the Kyrgyz look more Asian) and not Muslim but the point is how WOMEN are treated in a Muslim country.

Here is a picture from a typical market place. The women here are dressed the same way you would find them dressed in Europe or America. They are also out there by themselves, no men needed.

Here is a picture from what I believe is a class trip. If it were not for the background you might assume this was a group of American kids.

The next three pictures are of the two lovely women that worked with us in linen exchange at Manas Air Base. They are there by themselves, no men. You will notice me in a picture with one of them and I am certainly not related to her.

On to the UAE. This was a fun trip. The people were so diverse. You have very conservative Muslims with the women covered from head to toe all the way to what we typically see here in America. The pictures that truly show how oppressed women are is best illustrated at a water park. Here are pictures taken from the shared file of a trip to the water park. Keep a close eye on what people are wearing and who they are with.

I want you to focus specifically on these two pictures. Notice that in the back ground there is a woman with a hijab with her face shown an in another it appears her face may be completely covered.

The range of diversity rivals and probably surpasses the United States. They have very conservative to very secular or liberal. I know recently on the news they showed a picture of a female UAE pilot, which Fox News thought was appropriate to make fun of, calling it “boobs on the ground” and saying she would have problems parking the plane. So apparently in America the idea of a female pilot is something to joke about but in the UAE women have the right to be one and their armed forces see them as just as capable as a man to do the job. It really makes me wonder which country has the problem with women being equal, Muslim UAE, or Christian America. Here is the picture of that woman and also a picture of other female pilots in the UAE Air Force. Notice that half of the women have their head covered and the other half, do not.

Is this what you thought a Muslim country looked like? This is exactly what Reza Aslan was saying. Not all Muslims countries are the same and vary greatly with how conservative or secular they are. Some Muslims countries surpass the United States when it comes to the equality of women. Some are more secular than the United States. I would argue that some run their countries better. Take UAE for example. They have billions, possibly trillions, from their oil. Instead of letting it sit in banks accounts, like we do here in the United States, they have been putting it back into the country to build infrastructure and some of the most beautiful buildings in the world. They have turned it into a tourist destination. They have a ski resort inside of a mall. Like Reza says, to say “Muslim countries” to suggest that all Muslim countries are like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or Afghanistan is STUPID.

I leave you with some pictures of the UAE and what they have done with their oil money. I ask that you think about what billionaires have built for America recently…

The Greatest Singer You Have Never Heard Of

With all of the crap going on in the world I thought I would do a bit that does not involve politics. I wanted to introduce people to arguably the best singer in the world because you probably do not know his name. His name is Marc Martel. You have probably never heard of him because he is a Christian rock singer. He and his band (Downhere) have been successful in that area winning multiple Juno Awards, which is the Canadian version of the Grammys. Here is a song by Downhere called Let Me Rediscover You…

For me, I was underwhelmed by his singing. It’s good an all but does not really sound any different than the dime a dozen pop singers. Admittedly, Christian rock and pop are not genres I typically listen to which may be why I was unimpressed. So why am I arguing that he is possibly the best singer in the world? That would be his singing outside of the pop realm.

Looking at multiple lists, or hearing the opinion of anyone that has half a clue what they are talking about, Freddie Mercury of Queen is typically in the top 10, top 5, and often number 1. Just as a refresher, here is Freddie Mercury and Queen singing Somebody To Love…

In 2011 Marc entered a contest to join Roger Taylor (the original drummer for Queen) to be part of the Queen Extravaganza Live Tour. Here was his audition tape…

Do I need to mention that he won? Do I even need to say anything? He was simply unbelievable. Some people have even said he was lip sinking the bit. To clear that up, and just show how close he is to Freddie, here is a video with both Marc and Freddy singing…

You can tell there are two different people singing, their timing is slightly off from one another. Other than that, they are spot on, as close to a perfect match as one could find.
Matching Freddie is one thing, but when I want to hear real singing talent, I listen to opera. One of my personal favorites is Andrea Bocelli. You can read about him here if you are interested…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Bocelli

His singing has been criticized, but it is hard to argue with over 100 million records sold. Nope, not a typo, 100 million. (Insert Taylor Swift joke here…)

Here is Bocelli singing Nessun Dorma…

Let’s now take a look at Marc Martel taking a shot at singing some opera. Here he is singing the same song…

For not being classically trained and simply watching Youtube videos, I would call that a solid attempt and when I say solid attempt, I mean better than Bocelli. For fair comparison to the best singers, here is a video of Pavarotti singing the same song.

Marc clearly is not as good as Pavarotti, but Pavarotti is one of the great tenors of the 20th century. I can hear the opera snobs getting huffy about how good Pavarotti is not, but seriously, how low would one rate him? Top 20? The fact that Marc is going to be compared to people like Bocelli and Pavarotti is significant in itself. We are comparing the guy to one of the best in the world? And did I mention the guy sounds just like Freddie Mercury? Without any training he is towards the top in the opera world and then combined with his rock and pop singing it is hard to argue against the guy being one of the best singers in the world. Either way, I hope you all enjoyed listening to him. According to his website…

http://marcmartelmusic.com/

He has an album coming out in September called ‘Impersonator,” which he says is more of a rock album. Now THAT is what I want to hear him sing!

Are Universities Politically Bias?

In this blog I wanted to address the claim that Universities are funded by people with political agendas that are very different than they were 35 years ago.

I cannot comment about what Universities were like 35 years ago, because I did not go to one 35 years ago. Also I cannot speak on all Universities but only a couple. The two Universities I can comment on are the University of Minnesota, my school, and the University of St. Catherine, an all-girl Catholic University that my wife went to. Naturally I am biased and believe the UofM is better than most schools, but if I step back, I am sure it is on par with most major state Universities. I wanted to address two points, University funding and teachings.

The funding is tricky. We have two types of Universities, public and private. Obviously private Universities receive funding from private sources, so I am more interested in public Universities. Traditionally, public Universities are funded by the state and decisions can be made by state governments. This does imply that public Universities in a particular state can have a conservative or public influence, which is why I naturally cringe at names of Universities from Red states. The reality is that many schools in Red states are consider “public Ivy schools” and are very good schools by any standard.

Though it is true that the percentage of state funding for state Universities has gone down, Universities have many ways of generating revenue that is not linked to outside public funding. The price of tuition has gone up at a rate of many times the number of inflation. It cost me right around $8K for my last semester (so $16K a year) at the UofM and I live off campus and do not pay for the meal plan. With those things, the average cost of tuition for the UofM is around $15k a semester or $30K a year.

Here is a source for those numbers…

http://www.ohe.state.mn.us/sPages/TuitionChart.cfm?State=MN&pageID=101

The University of Minnesota has around 50K students. If most of those students are paying $30K a year, the revenue would be around $1.5 billion. Obviously a good number of students do not live on campus, and even though there are other things they pay for, such as parking (cost me $25-30 per week) a nice conservative number would be $1 billion a year generated. In addition to that, college sports bring in hundreds of millions of dollars. On the topic of sports, TCF Bank Stadium is the country’s most expensive college football stadium coming in at just under $350 million. Nearly half was paid for by the state of Minnesota, the other half by the University (which the students pay for though a “stadium charge.”

The point I am trying to make is that Universities are not dependent or influenced by single donations with political influences. YES, it is TRUE that outside donations can fund much or all of certain departments at a University, but those are usually graduate programs and are in the areas of business, law, and medicine. The idea that multiple departments, especially undergraduate programs, are funded by or influenced by a single political view is not realistic. Universities are too big, cost too much money, and are cash cows. To say they are funded by people with political agendas is like saying corporations are funded by people with political agendas, more the opposite is the case.

BUT let’s say there are political agendas. I will explain my educational experience at the University of Minnesota and my wife’s at St Catherine University. As I said before, I am biased towards my school and I am also biased towards the way I structured my education. Unless my bias is correct, my experience is more the normal and not the exception.

I will briefly explain my education. I first became a Religious Studies major (not to be confused with theology) and then picked up an Ancient Mediterranean Studies major. I also picked up a minor in Jewish studies. Because of my majors, I wanted to go into teaching, so I became an education major (which is basically taking a class in every area of study.) Because of the requirements of the education major, I dropped my AMS major 3/4s of the way through and became a history major instead. I did however end up dropping the education major because I decided against teaching because I could not handle an additional two years of school with two kids.

Because of all the changes my education is very complicated. An Area of Concentration is defined by having 4 classes in a specific area that are linked or connected. Between my RS major and my History major, I could have the following AoCs:
Judaism/Jewish Studies
Christianity
Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)
Ancient Mediterranean Religions
Religion in America
The Evolution-Creationism Controversy/History and Philosophy of Science and the Design Arguments
Middle Eastern History
Western/US History
Modern History

As you can see, there are many different views that can be promoted on both a Liberal and Conservative side. The department of Jewish Studies naturally takes a more “pro-Israel” view point, but that is evened out with classes in history, the Middle East, and Globalization.

Nearly every single class I took in the RS studies department was taught by a believer. This is also the case for Ancient Mediterranean Studies. At the same time it was taught in a scholarly way. Even though they all believed, it led me and others, more towards atheism. For others it did the opposite. The key is that they were not pushing one belief either way.

The real truth teller is my experience with The Evolution-Creationism Controversy/History and Philosophy of Science and the Design Arguments.

I took classes in this area in the following departments:
Biology
Education
Philosophy
History
History of Science
Religious Studies

One of the biology courses was taught by a biologist and admitted atheist. He also expressed that everyone has a bias and his is certainly biology. The class in the Education department was taught by a Conservative Evangelical Christian. One in the RS and Phil department is an Existentialist with a Ph.D. from Harvard (he is very Christian.) Others in Philosophy were epistemologists. And then there were the typical historian view.

When covering much of the same material, in many different departments, it is easy to pick out different types of styles. The biologists taught different than the historian and both taught different than the philosopher. There was one thing in common though…besides minor details here and there, they all agreed with each other. Though Biologist Randy Moore, Sehoya Cotner, and Mark Decker are trained in the area of science, they have authored a number of respect books on the history of the evolution-creationism controversy. Nothing they said (Science-biology department) contradicts what Ph.D.s in the areas of History of Science and Philosophy of Science (Both Liberal Arts-Humanities departments) have said.

More importantly it is HOW people are taught and WHAT people are taught. I have only had one professor tell me what to think, and that was the Ph.D. from Harvard. All of the others teach HOW to research, how to evaluate a source to determine if they are credible. They teach basic philosophical, scientific reasoning, and statistics. We are taught how to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. The classes are discussion based and all sides of a debate are addressed. With one exception, we were never told WHAT to think, who to vote for, or what religion we should believe in. We were taught accurate material that was scholarly and peer-reviewed, while being given the opportunity to do our own research to invalidate what we were being taught. The senior paper had to be new and original, a topic that was barely been touched on because there is no point is rewording a few people’s books. Proper research and science do not have political agendas. Science does not care if evolution is true or false or if climate change is man-made. Religious people and those in the energy industry care about whether it is true or false, science does not. That has been my experience at the UofM.

My wife went to St. Catherine University. She received a BS in Nursing and minored in theology. Oddly enough we agree on nearly every point, including religion. She says that not a single teacher or professor told her what to think, the same as has been my experience.

There is one very telling fact. As a Liberal, I often hear jokes about how Conservatives are uneducated. The reality is that college undergraduates are about 50/50 Liberal/Conservative. It skews more Liberal with post-graduate degrees, but the undergraduate numbers are curious. In addition to the numbers, many friends, family members, and acquaintances went to the UofM and are Conservative. What explains this and what explains these numbers?

Is it because Universities are either Liberal or Conservative? Possibly, but then why are Conservatives coming out of Liberal UofM? If they have a political motive or agenda, they are certainly doing a poor job of pushing it on people. I mean a 50% success rate when the students coming in are already at 50%?

Sure, I get there are bad teachers and professors, maybe even entire departments that tell people what to believe and who to vote for but I am sure that is the vast minority and is not representative of most Universities. Or maybe the wife and I live in the one state that got it right, the one state that has schools that do not just tell people what to believe, but how to think and reason. It is possible that we went to the best schools in the country…but if I were forced to make an educated guess, I would guess this is how the vast majority of Universities work…

Is Modern Day Israel Entitled to Exist?

I am getting so sick of the general Israel pseudo-experts running around on Twitter and in the media with their undying love for Israel. The ignorance on the topic is mind-blowing and the statements are absurd. I have been told repeatedly to read a history book. Well I did…a dozen of them…

A major in Religious Studies, focusing on Ancient Near Eastern religions and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam,) a major in History, focusing on Ancient Near East and the Middle East, and a minor in Jewish Studies does not get one much in life but there is one thing is does do. It gives me the ability to explain basic Middle Eastern history and conflicts to self-proclaimed know-it-alls on the Right and Left. They tell me to read a history book even though I know for a fact they did not do it themselves. To be honest, they did not even look to Wikipedia. I figured I would take the privilege to explain a few of the claims I hear made about the Israel-Palestine conflict using just a couple of 500 page books.

The first claim I want to address is the claim that the Jews have a right or are entitlement to the land of modern day Israel. They argue that this land is rightfully theirs, given to them by God, and that they have lived there for thousands of years.
I will give them the last part, the Jews have lived there since Biblical times. As far as the rest, it is simply laughable. Nowhere else in history does such an irrelevant state receive such a deep sense of entitlement. Yes, you read that correctly, I said irrelevant. I will explain my reasoning.

When I say irrelevant, I am talking about their time as an independent state and an independent state with influence in the region. An example of an irrelevant state would be like the Republic of Texas. Texas existed as an independent nation from 1836 to 1946. If you did not know that, it is not surprising. Unless you enjoy general trivia, the only place one is taught about this is in Texas. As far as the history of the world goes, the Republic of Texas is completely irrelevant. Let’s explore the history of Israel.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not a history book. Some parts are historically significant, or accurate, but much is not. What we do in history is take all of the texts and archaeology and compare them. Based on all the combined evidence we attempt to establish a historically accurate narrative. Doing this, we can determine things such as the emergence of Israel.

The very first mention of Israel, outside of the Bible, is on the Egyptian stele of pharaoh Merneptah, which dates to around 1,200 BCE. Even though we have evidence of people living in these lands dating back to around 10,000 BCE, the first people we can call Israelites do not appear until 1,200 BCE.

Right around 1,000 BCE the largest and only significant national state was established and lasted for nearly a century. During this time it had three rulers, Saul, David, and Solomon. Here is a picture of the Kingdom of Israel.

To put in to perspective how significant this was, I will quote one of those 500 page history books…

“For nearly a century at the beginning of the Iron II period (1025-586 BCE,) most of Palestine was organized as a national state with a dynastic figure…

The formation of a state in Iron Age Palestine…was an extraordinary event. Never before in the millennia of sedentary life in the eastern Mediterranean had a territorial state existed in that land. And following the dissolution that would occur fairly soon, never again until the mid-twentieth century would this narrow stretch of the ancient Fertile Crescent be home to an autonomous cultural entity under local leadership.” –Carol Meyer, chapter 5 Kinship and Kingship: The Early Monarch p.165 found in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael Coogan.

There is your state of Israel. Three kings, one century. After Solomon died in 928 BCE, the kingdom was divided into two political entities, Israel (Samaria) and Judah. They are pictured here…

They were different states with different political agendas. We see the conflict in the literature of the Bible, we see one source that is clearly Judah biased and one that has an Israel bias. They were an autonomous group. The kingdom of Judah is entirely irrelevant. We find few references of Judah outside of the Bible. Samaria was in existence for nearly 200 years and was significant under only Omri and Ahab.

“Other historical sources, however, suggest that with Omri and his son Ahab, Israel entered upon an era of strong leadership and political-even international-prominence.” –Edward Campbell, chapter 6 A Land Divided: Judah and Israel from the Death of Solomon to the fall of Samaria p. 219 found in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael Coogan.

Samaria lasted from 928-720 BCE. In 720 BCE Assyria invaded and conquered Samaria. They exiled people to other areas of Assyria control.

Due to cooperation with the Assyrians, the state of Judah was allowed to exist. It existed until 586 BCE when the Babylonians conquered the Assyrians. The elite of the community were exiled to Babylon.

While in Babylon, a significant portion of the Hebrew Bible was written and edited. In 539 BCE Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered the Babylonians and allowed the exiled Jews to return to their homeland in the Edict of Cyrus.

From this point on, the area of modern day Israel was controlled by a number of different peoples and empires. Here are a few…
Alexander the Great
The Roman Empire
Persians again
Roman Empire
Byzantium Empire
Muslim Caliphate
Crusaders
Ottoman Turks
They then came under the control of the British in the British Mandate. The British Mandate allowed them to create the modern state of Israel after WW2.

If we look at roughly 12,000 years of history, the modern state of Israel existed, as a whole, for one century and the northern part (Samaria) for two, while only being prominent under two rulers. The idea that those who can trace their ancestry back to the ancient Israelites and Judahites are somehow deserving of this land is laughable. Did those people LIVE in that area for thousands of years? Sure, of course they did, and in other places. Other people also lived their also and have just as much claim to the land as Jews do. Is the fact that it is their ancestral homeland good enough of a reason to go in and create a state for them? That could be the case for dozens of peoples. What about the Kurds? Are they not deserving of their own state? They are a minority and persecuted in all of the countries they are in. We could easily make a Kurdish state and the people already live there, so why not? Why not restore nations for other peoples around the world? Why not give our lands in America back to the American Indians? Who makes the decision which fallen states we resurrect?

The fact of the matter is that Israel has no more of a right to exist than a Kurdistan would. Jews want to live in their ancestral homeland? A lot of people do…and they could have, under Muslim rule like they had been since Islam came about. The only reason Israel exists is because of the influence of Christianity in the West and because Britain and the power (through the mandate) to create it. Besides, how great is it for the West to have an ally right there in the Middle East?

Inheritance: Another Hypocrisy of Capitalism

I constantly hear people that support Free Market Capitalism (FMC) complain about things such as a redistribution of wealth. The claim is that those that are successful in capitalism are hard-working and innovative and those that are not successful are not. A redistribution of wealth allows those who do not work hard, and do not innovate, to share in the prosperity capitalism has to offer. If this is the case, how does inheritance fit in with FMC?

I think everyone would agree that capitalism is based on a level playing field and those that work hardest, those that innovate (to create better products or reduce cost,) prosper, or are the winners.

Let’s look at Sam Walton, arguably one of the greatest capitalists of our time. Mr. Walton certainly made the best of the capitalistic system and created Wal-Mart. From 1982 to 1989 he was the wealthiest person in the United States. Love him or hate him, respect his business or not, according to our capitalistic system, he deserves every bit of his success. Mr. Walton is the epitome of capitalism. He created a superior product (whether that be cost or innovation) and dominated the market. He became extremely wealthy because of capitalism.

But what about his kids?

The Walton Family Fortune according to The Forbes 400 Richest People in America

• Christy Walton and family US$36.7 billion[4]
• Jim Walton US$34.7 billion[4]
• Alice Walton US$34.3 billion[4]
• S. Robson Walton US$34.2 billion[4]
• Ann Walton Kroenke US$4.7 billion[4]
• Nancy Walton Laurie US$4.0 billion[4]

The Walton family is worth a combined $148.6 billion. Explain to me how they are entitled to this wealth? Did they innovate or work hard? Did they start on a level playing field? They certainly did not start on a level playing field as Sam Walton was one of the richest people in the US. They were not required to innovate, simply maintain what their father put into place. They were also not required to work hard because Mr. Walton was worth billions. The only reason these people are wealthy is because their father won the game of capitalism. They did not work hard, they did not innovate, and the only thing that entitles them to billions of dollars is their name. This is exactly the same as redistribution of wealth, except that the wealthy get to choose who it goes to.

The rules of capitalism only apply when someone is not given a free ticket to success. The Carnegie family is worth billions even though they have not done a thing since the 1800s. Inheritance completely contradicts the very premise of capitalism but highlights another key point…greed. A redistribution of wealth and starting on an uneven playing field is okay, as long as those you prefer prosper from it…

Kevin Love: So Overrated

I am so sick of hearing about how great Kevin Love is. He has got to be one of the most overrated players out there. I live in Minnesota, so I follow the TWolves slightly, but I am a Heat, or more specifically a LeBron and Bosh, fan. I have always been a fan of Love, but the truth is he is a highly overrated baby, and I will prove that by looking at the other former TWolve name Kevin…Garnett. Both are Power Forwards/Centers, big guys that can shoot the ball, and both were rebounding leaders. I will also throw my boy Chris Bosh in the mix because he is the forgotten part in Miami But his game, size, and position is similar to the Kevins.

I am going to compare Bosh’s Toronto years, Garnett’s Minnesota’s years, and Love’s career by using 3 categories: Playoffs, Stats (PPG, RPG, Shooting %), and players around them.

Let’s start with the future HOFer, KG. When KG was with the Wolves, they were the team I followed. He was my favorite player until LeBron came around, and when he was traded and won a title in Boston, I was happy. He did so much for the TWolves and never had a team put around him. I wanted him to leave so he could win a title.

Let’s take a look at KGs career stats…

Career: PPG 18.6, RPG 10.3, FG% .497, 3P% .277, FT% .790
Career Highs: PPG 24.2, RPG 13.9

I would say his averages dipped once he teamed up with Pierce and Allen, and since he has gotten older. Without doing any math, his PPG look to be around 20-21 PPG and 11-12 RPG while with the Wolves. The career highs were both with the Wolves.

Next up, Chris Bosh…

Career: 19.2 PPG, 8.7 RPG, FG% .498, 3P% .310, FT% .800
Career Highs: PPG 24, RPG 10.8

As with Garnett, his numbers dip slightly after joining Wade and LBJ. His numbers roughly look to be 20-21 PPG, 9 RPG while in Toronto. Career Highs were both with Toronto.

Lastly, Kevin Love…

Career: PPG 19.2, RGP 12.2, FG% .451, 3P% .361, FT% .815
Career Highs: PPG 26.1, RPG 15.2

Oddly enough, Love and Bosh have the exact same career PPG average, and all three guys have similar numbers. Here are the leaders in the following categories…

Career PPG: Bosh/Love
Career RPG: Love
Career FG%: Garnett/Bosh (only .001 separates them, a virtual tie)
Career 3P%: Love
Career FT%: Love (all very close in this category also)
Career High PPG: Love
Career High RPG: Love

The conclusion on the stats is that Love is a better rebounder, with Bosh being the worst of the three. Bosh and Garnett are better shooters, but Love is slightly better than Bosh, with Garnett being the worst, when it comes to the three point shot. All are pretty even on FT%. Statistically, they are all fairly even players with each being slightly better in one area over another.

How do these players compare when it comes to getting their teams to the playoffs? This one really tells the story. Here are the results of Garnett with the Wolves, Bosh with the Raptors, and Love with the Wolves…

Garnett:
Playoffs: Y/N
95-N
96-N
97-Y
98-Y
99-Y
00-Y
01-Y
02-Y
03-Y
04-Y (Western Conference Finals)
05-N
06-N

In Garnett’s 12 years with the Wolves, they made the playoffs eight of the twelve years. They made the playoffs eight straight years, and all the way to the Conference finals in 2004.

Bosh:
Playoffs: Y/N
03-N
04-N
05-N
06-Y
07-Y
08-N
09-N (Bosh was posting career highs and they were the 5th seed until Bosh was injured for the season, they fell out of contention.)

Bosh lead his team to the playoffs two out of seven years, and probably would have done it another time if not for an injury. Nowhere near the level of Garnett, but he was capable of leading a team through the regular season.

Love:
Playoffs: Y/N
Love
08-N
09-N
10-N
11-N
12-N
13-N

Love has not led his team to the playoffs in any of his six years with the Wolves (I do understand he was injured one of those years.)

The question that remains is about the players around them. Obviously Garnett and Bosh have won titles when they were put with better players, but how do they match up before that point?

Bosh:

I would argue he had the worst team around him. He literally had no one around him his entire time in Toronto. There is literally one name worth mentioning, Jermaine O’Neal, whom he had for a grand total of one year. I have never really heard of any of the rest of their players during that time. Bosh showed that he had the ability to lead a bunch of no-names to the playoffs.

Garnett:

Garnett arguably had the best players around him, but only for a couple of years. He had Stephon Marbury for three seasons, but they made their Conference Finals run when he had Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell, each of which only played there for two seasons. These are the BEST guys Garnett had, and calling them “stars” is pushing it, yet he was able to lead that team to the conference finals. The reality is that for seven straight years, Garnett led a bunch no-names to the playoffs.

Love:

I would argue that Love had the best players around him for more seasons. Most would argue Garnett did, either way, I think it is fairly even. The Wolves certainly had a number of top prospects that turned out to be busts. It was not a lack of trying to add talent to the team. That being said, Love has had Ricky Rubio (two years), Nikola Pekovic (four years), and Al Jefferson and Michael Beasley briefly. The fact of the matter is that Love’s teams were no less talented that Bosh especially, but even Garnett. There is no excuse for not having led the Wolves to the playoffs, at least a single time. ESPECIALLY when looking at this last season. Having Pek and Rubio, and losing a lot of close games, shows that he is not a leader and is certainly not clutch.

I suppose there is still one area I did not address…Defense…

Sure, Love rebounds really well, but has never been known for his defense. Let’s compare defense…

Love:
BPG: .5
SPG: .7

Bosh:
BPG: 1.1
SPG: .8

Garnett:
BPG: 1.5
SPG: 1.3
2008 NBA Defensive Player of the Year
9x NBA All-Defensive First Team
3x NBA All-Defensive Second Team

Clearly Garnett blows both of them out of the water but Bosh is a step up defensively over Love. I am sure this plays a role in their abilities to lead (or not lead) a team to the playoffs.

Is he an elite player? I suppose, but really there is no excuse for never leading a team to the playoffs in a league where more than half of the teams make it. If I had a choice between Bosh or Love TODAY, I would take Bosh without giving it a second thought. Kevin Love is Chris Bosh without the defense and leadership. That being said, Love would be perfect in Cleveland. He does not need to worry about being a leader there, LeBron can handle that, he just needs to be a walking double-double. I know some experts, like Stephen A. Smith, are saying Cleveland (or any other team) is not offering enough for Love. Of course they are. What is the other option? Keep Love? So one more season of not making the playoffs and then get nothing for him? He is going to leave Minnesota because he needs someone to lead a team for him so he will probably go to Cleveland anyways. At least get Wiggins…