Iowa Caucuses

The Iowa caucuses will begin in just a few hours, and I wanted to put my thoughts about the process of how we chose our presidential candidates on record before they start.

In a word, it sucks.

Powerline expressed my thoughts exactly

I guess there could be a worse way to kick off the presidential selection process than having 100,000 or so Iowans (per party) weigh in following lengthy meetings, but it's hard to imagine what that would be.[source]

The entire Iowa caucus is a bit bizarre epically the Democrat side. The Huffington Post has a good article if you want to know more about how votes are cast and re-cast and then weighted. (We will not ever know the true vote count in Iowa)

Not that I have a disdain towards caucuses in general. I actually prefer then over primaries for two reasons.

1) The people at caucuses care about their party. It is more effort to attend an hour or two meeting that will help decide the direction of the political party than it does to show up at a polling place, pull a lever and leave. Many primary's don't even check party affiliation so independents and even members of other parties can show up and vote in any party's primary. The party faithful should determine their party's candidate.

2) Caucuses breed participation. Our country is served better when regular people participate in the political process. Caucuses tend to pull people into the process while primaries do not. Many times people are recruited within the caucus meetings. This is a good thing for the parties and for the political process as a whole. Primaries simply benefit the party elite.

Having said that the weight the Media (and the candidates because of that) put on the first caucus and even New Hampshire primaries is ridiculous. Why do Iowans and New Hampshirites (if that's what their called) get more weight when it comes to deciding presidential candidates?

The Parties need to come up with a new system. We should probably do our caucuses and/or primaries on the same day.

Continue reading "Iowa Caucuses"

Collapse Iowa Caucuses

Christian Charity: Part 2

Part 2: Charity Vs. State Aid - In Practice

In part 1 I explained why State sponsored charity did not fulfill Christ's mandate to "feed the hungry", because it removed two necessary ingredients to charity, mainly free-will and self-sacrifice. It is still important, I think, to take a look at the results of our theories, see where they lead and find out the practical consequences of our theories. Therefore let's take a look at what happens when Charity is replaced by State aid.

First of all, from the perspective of the recipient, true charity is a gift. It is something you appreciate and are grateful for. If you know that a gift was a sacrifice, that you don't deserve it and very possibly would have had to go without, then you are thankful and appreciative and cherish the charity that has been bestowed upon you. There is little chance to take such a thing for granted and a sense of responsibility to make the most of what has been given.

Contrast that with State aid which turns 'charity' into an entitlement rather than a gift. An entitlement is something that you deserve, not something you appreciate. Its something to get angry about if you don't receive it, not something your thankful for. The recipient has a right to that aid, why else would they be getting it from the government unless they deserved it? The recipient of such 'charity' feels no responsibility to care for what they are given, because it's theirs, completely, as much as if they had earned it themselves. There is no higher meaning.

Secondly, State Aid tends to turn recipients into dependents. This is a result of the lack of responsibility associated with the gift. If the gift comes with a sense of responsibility then the recipient sees the need to do something to better themselves. This may or may not eventually eliminate their need for further charity depending on their abilities and circumstances, but it will almost always lead them to be stronger, better and in turn lend help to others.

If the gift comes from the State, the recipient can complacently become dependent on the Aid and there is no need to make any improvements to themselves or to help others, as they can simply get the Aid from the State as well.

Thirdly, as Christians if we turn over our 'charity' to the state we loose any ability to proselytize to those in need. Christians serving the poor and needy is the absolute best way in the history of Christendom there is to bring people to Christ. In Mat 28 Christ states

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

How can we as Christians claim to do this while at the same time relinquishing the most prosperous way of doing so to the cold, unfeeling hand of the state?

Lastly from the perspective of the giver. State Aid turns 'Charity' from a desire to help the poor to an understanding that its not our problem. Once society as relinquished charity to the state, we no longer have a need to be charitable, because it is now the states responsibility. Charitable donations go down and narcissism goes up, why worry about others when it's the government's problem. And the final result is people don't need each other.

Christians need to take back our mandate from Christ to be charitable. It can be seen that Christ's mandate has more to do than just making sure that the hungry are fed and the naked are clothed. It has to do with the very nature of what it means to be human and Christian. Christians need to keep this in mind when determining what we are doing to fulfill Christ mandate and just as importantly when we are electing our leaders so that we can remove aid from our government.

Comming Next:

Where do we draw the line?: State Aid Vs. Charity
or:
Things will get sticky

Continue reading "Christian Charity: Part 2"

Collapse Christian Charity: Part 2

Christmas begins December 25th

Shocking no? Yes it is true, however it seems that 'Christmas' starts earlier and earlier each year and for most it seems to End on Dec. 25th. Lots of stores get decked out starting on All Souls Day (no doubt they consider it the day after Halloween). I walked into a Starbucks a couple weeks ago (well before Thanksgiving) and it was Christmas in there already and I was looking for some beans to brew at home. The Owner (I know he's the owner because I am a regular there) asked me if I wanted to get the 'Christmas blend'. Huh! I was already shocked by the decorations up so I said, "It's WAY to early for that!", and proceed to purchase the 'Gold Coast blend' (which, by-the-way, is my personal favorite -- yes I am a coffee addict)

Fortunately there is this thing called Advent. It's between three and four weeks long and it's job is to prepare us for Christmas. I know Christmas is not Easter, and therefore does not need quite the prep time or penance associated with Easter, However some preparation of our hearts and souls should be done so that the idea that the Creator of the Universe has become a creature for our sakes can seep into our consciences. We also need to understand that Christ first coming is a precursor to his final coming and prepare ourselves to be able to welcome him on that occasion as well.

So for our family Advent is purple (another shocking revelation, I know). The traditional Advent wreath sits on the table with 3 purple and 1 pink candle. The Cresh is set up, but only animals are placed in side while we wait for Mary and Joseph to arrive and later Jesus on Christmas morning. The Christmas Tree is not cut down (we always get a real tree) until Gaudete Sunday, and then left completely bear until a few days before Christmas. (If it were a perfect world I would decorate the tree on Christmas, but with all the preparations needed for Christmas, it is simply to much to get everything done on one day). I don't have any outside lights, but if I did, I wouldn't turn them on until Christmas Day and leave them on until the entire Christmas season is over. (which is much longer than anyone I've seen keeps their lights on, their generally off by Jan 2nd)

I encourage every one to remember that Christmas STARTS on Dec 25th! Don't skip advent.

Continue reading "Christmas begins December 25th"

Collapse Christmas begins December 25th

Light blogging

Between vacations and business trips my blogging has taken a toll, I hope to be able to post a little between now and the end of Christmas, and return to regular blogging at that time.

Continue reading "Light blogging"

Collapse Light blogging

Letter from Qatar

Here is another installment from our officer in the field. It's a great letter and it is always interesting to see how things work inside our military. It's quite amusing actually. no snippets this time as the whole letter is great. Read the whole thing below...

Hello all!
Well I have finally been afforded the perfect opportunity to get my next e-mail out to everyone. I am currently on staff duty tonight, which means that I sit in an office and monitor several phones, walkie talkies and radios and if anyone decides to launch a missile at us I activate the siren. So yeah, pretty much I do nothing. I will get the privilege of doing this about once every other month, so you are all at least guaranteed an e-mail then!

Things have started to settle down after a few hectic weeks. I had 11 Soldiers that left my section and I received 9 new Soldiers. So we have been busy in-processing them and training them on their new jobs. Actually just getting the 9 Soldiers was quite the task in itself. I got a call on my cell phone at about 0400 in the morning and the Soldiers that we were expecting had actually just landed in Qatar instead of Kuwait where they normally would have gone first in order to in-process into the middle east Area of Operations. So when they called me I told them to stay put and I would be ready and pick them up within an hour. They called me back about 30 min later and said that they needed to get on a plane to go to Kuwait first. I said NO, NO, NO don’t do that because they will get stuck in Kuwait, but they were getting their orders from someone higher up, so I told them to give me 5 min. and I would have authorization for them to stay here and 2 min. later I had the necessary authorization for them to stay here. I called them back but they had already boarded the plane and the doors were closing. So I was bummed that I knew I was going to lose at least a day or two with them going to Kuwait. Then the next morning they called me and said that they were waiting for a flight to come back to Qatar and that they would be there sometime that evening. About an hour later I got frantic call from them because some Lieutenant Colonel walked into where they were waiting and split them into two teams and told the first team “You now work for me” and he ordered the other team to get on a bus and head to another camp located in Kuwait and they were now going to work for some other unit. Now as soon as I heard that I knew it was because Kuwait isn’t exactly happy with us. Technically we fall under the control of Kuwait, but really for our day-to-day operations we fall under Qatar. So when our Kuwait higher headquarters supervisors came to visit us a week or so prior our supervisors here in Qatar got into a yelling match with them (and won) and we are getting official orders cut to show that we now completely fall under Qatar instead of Kuwait. So I knew that Kuwait was trying to return the favor for us and show us that they were still in control too. So it took three days of lots of phone calls and e-mails and it ended up going to a Three-star generals level before it was finally settled (as if there was any doubt) that they would come down to Qatar.

The new Soldiers that we finally received are all Active Duty Soldiers and for years I had heard that Active Duty Soldiers are so much more different then Guard Soldiers, as of right not I can’t say it is for the better, but it is still a little early to know what all their strengths and weaknesses are. But the way I see it right now is that Guard Soldiers are used to getting a months worth of work done in a weekend. Where as Active Duty Soldiers managed to stretch a weekends worth of work over 30 days. Of course I think it is that same Guard mentality that drives me to stay late almost every night and get as much work done as possible in a day. But slowly I am coming to the realization that I will never ever get fully caught up on things to do around my building. The Command Sergeant Major here makes sure of that. Every morning I have to walk through the building with him and he manages to find some of the most insane jobs that I have to complete. Sometimes it is very simple and takes hardly no time at all (i.e. that chair is missing an arm, make sure you throw it away) and sometimes it is a little more involved (i.e. the pool tables look like junk, write up all the deficiencies on the seven pool tables , find a contractor to fix them and then the money to pay for it). So he definitely keeps me on my toes in that department.

The other thing that has been keeping me busy is that about every other day or so I get a phone call that some of the items from my big spending spree are sporadically arriving. So I have to go pick them up and sign a bunch of paperwork and then I have to set it up in our building and make sure it works. Not that I mind doing all that, in fact I find it very fun, but it is time consuming.

All of that and I still have my daily reports to deal with, Soldier issues, daily physical fitness exercise. We have 100+ new Soldiers arriving everyday always asking the same questions, weekly I go through the several hundred comment cards and read every one of them. 95% of them write stuff that will not change like the 4 day pass should be a week long. The one thing I always get a kick out of is that everyone thinks that their rank should be the cutoff for which Soldiers get their own room. Right now only Colonels and Command Sergeant Majors get their own room. Lieutenant Colonels and Majors both say that Field grade officers and above should get their own room. Captains say Captains and above should get their own room. Lieutenants say that all officers should get their own rooms. Master Sergeants and Sergeant First Classes say that senior NCOs should get their own room. Sergeants and Staff Sergeants think that all NCOs should get their own rooms and Specialists and Privates think that everyone should get their own room. It is really pretty funny.

Last Friday night I had probably the most fun I have had since I have been here. One of our vendors treated me and LT Mangen along with two of our Soldiers out to a special party on the beach. However, to get to the beach we got to take a 20 min. ride in a SUV over the sand dunes. Our host treated us by giving us his very best driver “Smokey” and he treated us to a CRAZY ride. It is hard to explain exactly what it was like, but we offer the same venue for Soldiers all the time and for safety reasons we only allow them to go up to 60 Km/hour however when they took us out I saw the speedometer reach at least 120 km/hour! He would go screaming down a straightaway and then he would fish tail left and right and I don’t know how he kept the SUV from tipping but he did an excellent job of pushing the vehicle to the limits. The other fun thing he would do is we would go sideways on a hill and you feel like you are looking straight done the side of the hill but somehow he managed to keep the vehicle upright.

In the next two weeks we have a BIG tournament coming up. Every year the Qatari military challenge us to a volleyball tournament. For some reason we accept every year even though we KNOW that they hire professional volleyball players to come “join” their military for a couple of weeks to train up, play against us and then go back to wherever they came from. I made the second team. And we have about 3 hour practices almost every other night and it is safe to say that I am very sore from every practice. Some of the guys on the A team are REALLY good and it is generally not a good feeling to be on the receiving end of one of their spikes. But I have definitely learned a lot about volleyball in the last few weeks and improved my own game. But it is VERY serious stuff so I am anxious to see how it all goes when we do actually play the Qataris.

Well I am sure there is more to write about, but that is all I can think of at this time. Overall things are going well and time is going fairly quickly

Jeremy

Continue reading "Letter from Qatar"

Collapse Letter from Qatar

Fixing Education

As a final wrap-up to the recent Anoka-Henepin School District Levy Vote, I wanted to throw out some ideas regarding how we fix education in this country.

Earlier I wrote that the solution was to "Give all children the choice to pick the school they want, then give them the money to go do it." This would be infinitely better than the current system of forcing everyone to pay exorbitant (and ever increasing) prices for a sub-par education, and then forcing them to pay again if they want something better.

(If anyone believes that we are not receiving a sub-par education despite many good and well intentioned teachers I encourage you to read Dumbing Us Down)

Allowing school choice would bring accountability to the schools system, remove the bureaucracy inherent in government run programs and necessarily improve education through healthy school competition. Monopolies cannot do these things, its why we generally believe monopolies are bad and our dislike of them are the reason for the many anti-trust laws (which are bad too, but that is another topic). However, somehow when it comes to education, suddenly we believe that monopolies are great and we go to the polls to support them. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either.

Let me state unequivocally that I do believe in taxpayer support for some education. Education is a public good, the past 100 years has demonstrated that as an undeniable fact, even if it benefits the individual who receives the education more than it benefits the society as a whole. However, tax based support for education should not be provided by the Federal Government, because doing so would violate (as it already does) the entire idea of having a federal vs. national Government. (but that is another topic too!). The question then becomes how does the State (or local) government support education without instigating a monopoly?

Currently education in the US is funded in the way no other system of it's kind is. Firstly not everyone needs funding from the state, yet everyone does, or at least can take advantage of our 'free' education despite the need. This would be like the Government setting up food stamps for everyone, just come in and pick them up, no need to check your income. We don't do that for those who are in need of food, why do it for education? Secondly, there is no reason why the schools need to actually be run by the government. Using the food stamps example; Government does not own the grocery stores to give the food away to the people who cannot afford it. Of course not, instead they give stamps to people that can be used at privately run grocery stores. If the government did propose to take over grocery stores (one may argue food is more necessary than education) in order to provide food to those in need there would be a public outcry if not revolt. Why is it different for education? Why are we not revolting?!!

Now we come to the question of exactly how the government should pay for education, and still allow for school choice. I am not going to propose that I have the perfect answer as there are several good ideas (and having several states workout what is best for them and using each state as a little democratic experiment which other states can look to in order to flush out what works -- is one of the best reasons to keep the Federal Government out of education). There are generally two flavors of how to do this: Tax credits or Vouchers.

Interestingly enough Utah just voted down (62%-38%) what would have been the nations first School Voucher program. I cannot speak to the reasons to the failure, but there are some who believe it was due to an overconfidence of voucher supporters. Likely three other factors were involved as well: 1) It was an off-year election and unions can drive people to the polls better in off years 2) Teachers unions have a built in propaganda machine having the children of voters in their classroom every day. People who are forced into public education will always be propagandized in this way and it needs to be fought against. 3) Some of those in favor of school choice may not like vouchers because, unlike tax credits or deductions, vouchers may come with additional strings attached.

I can sympathise with problem #3. The government does have a right to regulate that which it funds, and there is a need to be vigilant against even further encroachment of the government into our lives. The argument for Tax Credits (or deductions) is that it does not come with as much baggage.

I would argue that either would be better than the current system and any program instituted need to work actively to eliminate all publicly run schools. But despite their disadvantages, a voucher system is probably the best way to provide education to everyone who needs financial help with K-12 education. Vouchers can be used in a way that does not bring down the heavy hand of government upon us. We need to be vigilant, yes, but that is true even now, vouchers would not change that.

I am saddened to see the voucher system fail in Utah, however I believe that it will simply be the first attempt among many in the US and I would hope that we could all agree that we need to work towards the separation of School and State.

Continue reading "Fixing Education"

Collapse Fixing Education

Christian Charity: Part 1

Part 1 - The Theory

In recent times the idea of charity in Christian circles has been moving from a purely personal responsibility to larger societal responsibility. That is to say that our need for charity has been 'taken over' (at least in part) by the state.

I do not believe that I truly need to demonstrate this fact, but if you are still in doubt I point you to The Catholic Spirit, (which is my local catholic newspaper) feel free to read anything by Kathy Tomlin, the director of the Mpls/St.Paul Office for Social Justice. She opines almost every week on the state needs to tax us more so that we can be more charitable to those most in need. Although I have read this paper every week for nearly 10 years, I do not recall any article by Tomlin calling for personal charity.

I can understand the desire for this, many have a genuine desire to help others and those like Tomlin who advocate for taxpayer based 'charity' should be commended on that point. There is a broad base by which many could be helped and it seems such a simple task to just take the money from those that have it in order to help out those in need. However (you knew that was coming, right?) the problem is that charity is not just the desire to help others, you cannot satisfy Christ's call to 'feed the hungry' without both free will and sacrifice.

Without sacrifice, an essential aspect of charity is lost. For example; while I am at mass, I will often give my children a few coins to put into the collection basket when it comes around. They enjoy putting the money in the basket and I find it is good practice to get them in the habit 'going through the motions' of giving, However what they are doing is not charity. I would not allow them to refuse to put the coins into the collection basket in order to pocket the money, so they are not sacrificing anything, hence it is not charity. If you are not willing to sacrifice, you do not love. As James states in Chapter 2:

If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

Charity necessitates sacrifice, While James speaks of personal sacrifice Vs. doing nothing in this verse, surely you can't take someone else's coat and food and give it to them, I'm sure James would be appalled at the idea.

Now on the other side of the coin, just because there is sacrifice doesn't necessarily mean that there is charity. If instead of giving my children coins for the collection basket, I forced them to use their own money from their piggy bank despite their wailing and pleading to let them keep their precious coinage, they would be sacrificing, but there would be no love. Love is Charity, and you cannot be forced into love. Without free will there is no Charity.

Christ was the perfect example of what true Charity is and demonstrates these two essential aspects of Charity as no other being can. First, we see that he makes his decisions with complete freedom. Christ could have at any moment of his passion (or at any time in his life for that matter) called out to have a league of angels deliver him from his agony and take him to his heavenly throne (which is where he deserved to be), yet he did not. There is no possible greater demonstration of free will. Secondly, we see how sacrifice was also a crucial part of what Christ did for humanity. Simply becoming human was a sacrifice beyond our comprehension, but to suffer and die the way he did takes the shows how critical God believes sacrifice is to Charity. God could have saved humanity with out any sacrifice whatsoever on his part, but in His actions He shows us how inseparable love and sacrifice are.

The problem with turning over charity to the state is it removes both of these two essential ingredients to charity, and sterilizes our desire to help the poor.

Out free will is gone. As the state has us under duress with the threat of jail time hanging over our heads, our ability to act charitable is essentially eliminated. There can be no love if there is no free will. This is why God gave us free will in the first place: to love Him. If He had instead made us as robots who did everything according to His own plans, we would not be able to sin, but we also would not be able to love. There is no love without free will and no charity without love.

Although some sacrifice is made even by those who may actually love the needy (and those who advocate for state sponsored 'charity') it cannot be said that they are acting charitably because they are sacrificing other peoples money, which is no sacrifice at all. One can only make the argument that those advocates for state sponsored 'charity' are only being charitable with the money that they are personally paying in taxes that go toward state 'charities', but in that case they would be 1000 times better off using that charity in a personal way. (this will be expanded upon in Part 2)

However, even this 'willingly paying of taxes' (if that statement is not an oxymoron) cannot be considered charitable under such circumstances. Take this famous quote from Matthew 25 in regards to how we will be judged:

'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

What he does not mention is 'I was hungry, thirsty and naked and you paid your taxes so the State could care for me'. If it seems a bit ridiculous, it's because it is.

In the end if you are not giving out of love, of your own free will and making a sacrifice of yourself, it may we all well and good, but it is not charity and does not satisfy Christ's call to 'Feed the hungry'

coming soon
Part 2: Charity Vs. State Aid - In Practice

Continue reading "Christian Charity: Part 1"

Collapse Christian Charity: Part 1