Fair Tax

I don't know how many of you are familiar with FairTax, but it's fair to say I'm a disciple of it.

FairTax would replace our current tax system, including payroll and income taxes, with a federal sales tax in the ballpark of 23% on all purchases. Any spending up to the poverty limit would be tax-less.

Income taxes discourage income and encourage spending - this is entirely backwards. While it is gaining momentum in the House, I'm fairly certain it will never happen. But that doesn't mean I can't blog about it!

Gore's Not Crunchy...

...he's hypocritical.

This ought not be excuse to rip environmentalists everywhere, but if you're going to pimp Mother Earth, you have to join the crunchy train.

I Don't Get It

Ron Santo, once again, got denied from the Hall of Fame.

There are, I think, a few things at play:

a.) Little regard for small-ball 1960s baseball, or atleast its effect on offensive numbers,
b.) Little regard for offensive juggernaut eras, including the 1920s and 1990s,
c.) Communal idiocy.

Those three combine to distort our judgment of historical context.

Then, a la Tim Raines v. Rickey Henderson, you have Santo playing at the same time as Brooks Robinson (of whom Santo was better, but Robinson was sexier), right before Mike Schmidt and George Brett, right after Eddie Mathews.

I used to think Santo belonged out. Then I thought about it, and after doing so I can't imagine what I was thinking.

The Veterans' Committee is comprised mostly of living Hall of Fame members. I'd love to sit any of them down who voted against Santo and get a good grasp for their HOF criteria...I'm just not getting this one.

Eric Zorn's Got It

Today is election day in Chicago (and Ottawa, IL). Richard Daley is about to win his record 6th term in office as Chicago's mayor. No one can think of a great reason to vote against him, until I read Eric Zorn's blog here.

Here's the thesis:

A system in which the man or woman at the top can take re-election for granted might as well be a dictatorship...A mayor--or any elected official--should fear at all times that he's just one juicy scandal, one appalling dereliction, one botched crisis or one hamfisted act of disregard for public opinion away from unemployment.

Amen! If you're a Chicago resident, go vote for someone not named Daley!

Path to Peace: True Dialogue

Flipping channels last night, apparently Channel 27 in Madison is doing a bit of an expose on the relationship between the area’s practicing homosexuals and their respective churches. Some are hurt because they “aren’t accepted,” etc.

Mainstream Christian thought is that homosexual acts are morally wrong, though the dignity of the practicer remains, and therefore must be loved and embraced always. The act is likened to any other sin (ought to be remedied), the actor to any other sinner (in need of God’s grace, a work in progress). Whether one agrees with that or not, it’s not going to jive well when:

a.) the issue at hand, sexuality, is much more closely aligned with human nature than, say, drinking or gambling habits, and,
b.) those who practice homosexuality tend to self-identify as a homosexual person.

I can’t stress enough the damage that the second one has on meaningful dialogue. And, of course, without meaningful dialogue, we’re going to have churches that hurt their own flock rather than pastor it, and hurt feelings on the side of the congregation. In essence, we’re going to have the fuel of the homophobic fire.

One would not hear someone say “I am a drug addict,” without an understanding that either:

a.) they really mean “I’m working on fixing an old drug problem,” or
b.) “I currently do drugs” though my identity is not defined by drug use.

And, as either of those tenets are a given, the potential for dialogue is not destroyed. Either the first is true, in which case the user recognizes a problem that warrants fixing. Or the second is true, in which case the potential end of drug use does not equate to the end of the person entirely.

The homosexual community replaces both tenets with:

a.) My existence is defined by the fact that I do what I do with members of my own sex, and
b.) If you’re going to love and accept me, you have to love and accept that I do what I do with members of my own sex.

Translation -- we can’t talk about that thing you do over there, and I have to deal with it. Dialogue: over.

Currently, almost all homosexual chatter today is centered around to what extent ought society embrace those with homosexual inclinations. Wrong discussion. The end of homophobia will not happen whilst the debate centers on anything besides something along the lines of the existence of natural law, its potential application to sexual practice, and the (im)morality of said practice.

Either the homosexual community or mainstream Christianity is wrong on that one. The end of that debate will certainly spawn a new peaceful era between the two, such that Channel 27 can go back to reporting on other really important things.

My End in Mind

When I want grow up, I want to be Pat Graham.

Pat Graham is the father of my wife’s former roommate. He owns a small-town men’s clothing store in quasi-rural downtown Ottawa, IL. Pat hasn’t climbed Mount Everest, or cured cancer. He’s not going to appear on Oprah. He’s not the man that pop culture finds inherently interesting.

Instead, Pat is quiet decency combined with principled simplicity put inside of a Norman Rockwell painting. Think apple pie meets Knights of Columbus hall meets George Bailey.

His small business is losing out to the Wal-Martization of his area while his community does nothing; so he takes on city hall and runs for mayor. Family-centered all the way, he and his wife have graciously sacrificed any hope or need they may have had for the benefit of their kids.

Listening to the toast he gave at his daughter’s wedding last summer, I couldn’t help but think, “wow, this is a man living the American dream.” One works their whole life running various businesses to feed their family and hopefully give to the world, without really knowing if there’s anything in it for oneself. Then one of life’s moments hits you, your daughter’s wedding, and you look around. Here’s that awesome woman you’ve loved and whose been with you since waybackwhen. Here are six great kids who adore you and the whole world would be proud to call their own. Here’s a reception hall full of people from around your area who have known you forever and have nothing but admiration for you because of a life spent helping anyone you’ve ever met. And now, here’s your first-born child on her wedding day, and you see her and you know that a lifetime of others-centeredness has finally come back around to thank you for being you.

If that’s not building a culture of life, I don’t know what is.

Mr. Graham is not the richest, or smartest, or holiest, or anythingest man you’ll ever meet. Mr. Graham is instead the greatest example I’ve seen as to what results when pure integrity meets hard work over the course of a lifetime.

If you know of someone like him, go out of your way to say thanks.

Go Vote

Attention Wisconsin Residents: GO VOTE!

I know it's a boring election day, but go vote! While I'm at it, might I recommend Joseph Sommers for Supreme Court? Ok, I will. Vote for Sommers!

State Journal, Appling, BOTH of you Calm Down

The state of Wisconsin is working on a bill that would forbid the interference with breastfeeding in any public place. Of the things that can be discriminated against in a public place, breastfeeding isn’t even close to as important. Precedent has been set that this ought to be done.

(By the way, I think it’s absolutely hilarious that hippies who raised my generation on formula all had hippie kids who are now coming back to the crunchier breastfeeding that their predecessors abandoned.)

For whatever reason, in their reporting on the bill the Badger Herald decided to get a comment from Julaine Appling, the executive director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin. To make matters worse, Appling took them up on the offer…

"Breast-feeding is very natural. However, I don't think that we need to have legislation that gives special sanction to it…Just because something is normal and natural, it doesn't mean we have to condone (it)."

Appling is entitled to an opinion on the pending legislation. I happen to disagree with it, but that’s ok. The State Journal’s Susan Lampert Smith, though, doesn’t think it’s ok. She takes an entire op-ed to really dig in. You can read her piece here, but here are some juicy quotes…

“Now, it turns out Appling wants to save us from the horrors of public breast-feeding.”

“The Badger Herald quoted her as being opposed to a bill that outlaws discrimination against nursing mothers. She doesn't oppose breast-feeding itself, but believes it must be done with discretion.”

“But then again, we really shouldn't have people like Appling who purport to be pro- family coming out against those who truly are.”

Like I said, Appling probably should have kept her mouth shut. That being said, what her actual comments indicated doesn’t merit that kind of blasting. One could even argue that Smith is putting words in Appling’s foolishly-opened mouth.

I think they both need a time out.

Critiquing Socialism in Health Care

Of all issues, the one that will most effectively test our belief in the free market will be how we handle health care. The future of our economic system of choice is in question, for better or for worse, and that alone makes for the issue to be an important consideration.

Additionally, though, we will not have a true culture of life as long as we both a.) have the means to effectively care for everyone, and b.) continue to go on without all receiving said care, more or less.

Bearing that in mind, it would seem that the obvious solution is some form of socialized medicine. All receive care, the cost comes out of our taxes. Simple.

The problem, of course, is that this system does nothing to lower cost, the escalation of which is what got us here in the first place. The world’s most advanced medical technology, a strict regulatory environment, a litigious plaintiff-centered liability setting, an increasingly inactive lifestyle nationwide, the removal of the cost burden from the consumer to insurance companies, and public insurance for healthcare’s largest demanders (seniors) have all jointly caused acceleration in health care cost, and the inequity in receiving it that one would thus expect. Socialized medicine does nothing to refute any of these, and in fact enhances them.

I don’t have a third method that I’m bringing to the table. I know this, though: socialized medicine should not be considered until it can be proven sustainable. I highly doubt it can be sustained without some sort of system that reunites consumers with cost, at least somehow.

Obama, Take 2

I'm driving home last night, reflecting on my Obama thoughts from prior in the day. "Under what circumstances might I feel good about voting for Obama?" I asked myself.

Well, if a more anti-life candidate came from the GOP. Like Rudy Giuliani.

Here's to a race featuring any two other candidates besides a Giuliani/Clinton combo. Yikes...

Why I’m Rooting for Barack Obama

While I’m not endorsing his candidacy for President, Barack Obama is one of several Democrats who I could live with in the White House.

I think he’s a bit more lefty than he gets credit for, but I haven’t seen anything suggesting closed-mindedness. I’d far prefer an open-minded liberal to a closed-minded crunchy con.

But if Ralph Nader can stay out of the way, Barack Obama is the only candidate running for the White House that was anti-War on day one. And on the hugest issue in national politics, Obama has one fewer hurdle to clear than Hillary, who voted for the invasion but will get zero conservative backing.

If the major parties gave me another slew of anti-life candidates, I won’t say I wouldn’t necessarily vote for Obama. Having an open mind and being the best chance at ending Hillary’s political aspirations, though, is good enough reason for me to root for him.

Modern Day Know Nothing

In case you didn't know, John Edwards has some anti-Catholics working on his campaign staff.

Here in 2007, it's the last acceptable form of discrimination!

I'm not big on politically correct speech, but it does nonetheless need to be called out.

Thoughts on Retirement Criterion

The Chicago Cubs have decided that they will not shortly be retiring Corky's #21 jersey. Former Cardinal weenie Jason Marquis will wear it this year.

Apparently the Cubs will wait until Corky's possible undeserved election to the Hall of Fame before making a final decision. That, of course, is baloney, as Ron Santo isn't in the Hall and yet his #10 jersey has been retired. To be fair, Santo should be in the Hall, though. (Name 10 better 3Bmen of all time. You can't.)

In addition, Ferguson Jenkins and Gabby Hartnett are Cub Hall of Famers of the number-on-my-jersey era. Neither have their respective numbers retired.

My own take is that if you added considerable value to the fanbase, that's number retirement worthy. That Sosa happens to be a lying thug is merely the bed that was made by the front office for years of oblivion.

A Lyons Den Endorsement

First in this blog's short history. I'm mildly excited.

Encouraging my Wisconsin-based readers to vote for Joseph Sommers for Wisconsin Supreme Court. Primary's coming up on February 20th.

He's endorsed by members on either side of the aisle, outside-the-establishment, and he gets it.

Free Market of Thought in Health Care

There was a girl who enrolled in my high school my senior year. A Muslim, she had gone to a Catholic High School nearby, up until the point that their dress code no longer permitted a garment she wore on her head. (Shame on me for not knowing the proper name of said garment). Out of religious beliefs, she was unwilling to change her dress, so she enrolled at my public high school to finish it out.

The student and her family had her beliefs. The Catholic High School had theirs. Neither were going to give, so someone had to change. The student took her brain, and her tuition check, to a different school that permitted the garment.

Nobody forced the school. Nobody forced the family. No one thinks this is odd. No one is calling for reform.

Yet, the same thing happens in the health care industry, and it becomes a gigantic political issue. Here’s a [slightly slanted] article from today’s Chicago Sun-Times. Many of you might be familiar with conscience clauses that a number of states have passed permitting health care professionals from opting out of treatments that they find morally wrong. Many others don't like these laws.

One way or the other, how is this even something that needs to be regulated? While I suppose that having said clause in law is better than not, it’s already in the Constitution. (Although, that’s subject to interpretation). I’m certain that every pharmacy and health care provider in the country is more than competent enough to handle this issue on their own. If Walgreen’s contractually requires all pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill – including the anti-abortion ones – and they do not, they will be fired, as well they should. If said pharmacist has a conscience clause in his contract with CVS who then requires the same thing, CVS should be held liable.

We’re not robots, we are people. We all bring differing credos to that which we do. Some want to check it at the door, some want to negotiate it in the door. That there’s an expectation out there that all people should always check it at the door always, submitting ourselves to the whims of future employers and the public-at-large seems oddly Wall-esque to me.

We aren’t bricks in walls.

Sarcastical Film

Viewer Discretion is Advised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvsADU2OOWM

The Cracks of Liberalism

You can read the definition of liberal here.

Save the stuff about being a member of certain political movements, who would suggest that being a liberal is a bad thing, philosophically? Due to clause 8, I would.

Definition 8 says: “open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.”

Ugly.

Not ugly because I hate open minds. FAR from it. But there are two key sections in that definition that bubble my blood a bit: 'tolerant', and 'free of…conventional ideas'.

First, the former. Does anyone want to go through life being tolerated? Does anyone want to spend their life merely tolerating others? I have never heard toleration as an ideal end in itself, and if one takes a closer examination of the word, it’s actually quite unattractive. “You there, with race A and gender B, with religion C and political affiliation D, all of which I happen to dislike or disagree with, I tolerate you.” How is that loving? The word “tolerate” implies a hierarchy where one is better than the other, the latter oughting to be thankful for tolerance from on high.

We have a higher calling. It’s called love. Tolerance doesn’t come close.

Number two can be as serious a dilemma. Freedom from conventional ideas is great, provided a competing unconventional idea is simultaneously brought to the table for us to examine and debate. Without it, we have a smorgasbord of options without singular favorites. All religions are to be preferred over any one. All political thoughts are to be preferred over any one. All tendencies, preferences, policies, etc., are to be preferred over any one.

The problem, if it isn’t obvious, is that such aggressive passivity leaves us with an embrace of a nothing blob of post-modernism vanilla. Truth dies, or at least the idea that truth itself even exists. Any discussion we can have about anything quickly turns into a dance around the eggshells of the liberal credo: don’t ask, don’t question, and certainly don’t object.

I’m all for open-mindedness, but wisdom demands a certain skepticism. Without it, we’re just not at all wise.

Thinking Economically about Stewardship

Various news services are reporting today that over 113 scientists worldwide have concluded it to be "very likely" that global warming exists and is manmade.

If you've been in the environmental camp for long, this post probably isn't for you.

There are many who will read this article and laugh. "We can't prove the existence of global warming, or that it will have a negative effect." There is a bit of truth there, as many researchers are politically motivated, we have incomplete data, and we can't control for all relevant variables.

That's still irrelevant, though. In Economics, there's a certain statistical model for making decisions without knowing for certain the consequences of each choice. You take the likelihood of an outcome happening, and you multiply it by the cost (or benefit) of that outcome.

For instance...should I sell drugs? Well, if I have a 25% chance of getting caught (the likelihood), and the consequence of getting caught is a 2-year sentence (the cost); basically by deciding to sell drugs, I'm embracing 6 months in prison, irregardless of whether or not I get caught.

Let's apply that to environmental stewardship for a second...should we care about global warming? And, for kicks, let's be really conservative with our numbers.

Assume there's a .1% chance that the scientific community is right (the likelihood).
If they're right, we lose all land and civilization within 12 sea feet of the oceans; New York, DC, Miami, London, Rome...(the cost).

Economic Cost of ignoring the issue = .001 * A whole lot = A whole lot

Forget being convinced for a second. Do you, the global warming skeptic, still think we don't at least owe this issue more thought than proving why we can't prove why you're wrong?

City of Optimism?

Maybe I was wrong about Chicago's pessimistic tendencies.

89% of Tribune Sports readers are picking the Bears.

For the life of me, I don't understand why everyone in the national media is picking the Colts, considering the Bears are better at:
1.) Running the ball
2.) Defending the pass
3.) Defending the run
4.) Special Teams
5.) Coaching, and
6.) Turnovers.

My prediction: Bears 30, Colts 21. Bear down Chicago Bears!

NL Central Thoughts

In order of finish last year:

St. Louis (83-78), World Champions, Greatest Team in MLB, 3-Time Reigning Division Champions
The division's best offense should still be really good. Aaron Miles (!) has been replaced with Adam Kennedy, but Jim Edmonds is a year older and Juan Encarnacion is still himself. The Cards should have a decent-not-great rotation again, provided Kip Wells isn't awful.

Houston (82-80)
They basically lost Andy Pettitte, and then replaced Willy Tavares with Carlos Lee. The latter alone is worth 4 wins. If Brad Lidge closes like his talent would suggest, and Woody Williams forgets he was born during the LBJ administration, they should take the Central.

Cincinnati (80-82)
Yawn. Five years ago, this team had a future. The surest way to blowing a team's hopes is having Jim Bowden as your GM. Fortunately for the Reds, he's out. They're still 2 years away from suggesting a real shot.

Milwaukee (75-87)
One looks at some of the moves Milwaukee has made this winter, and there's reason for optimism. Damian Miller is now Johnny Estrada. Doug Davis is now Jeff Suppan. A hurt JJ Hardy is now a healthy one. Those three moves alone could have put Milwaukee into St. Louis land (around 83 wins). Then there's the bad news: Carlos Lee is now Corey Koskie, effectively negating each of those pluses.
If Milwaukee pitches out of their mind (with a healthy Sheets and Turnbow getting turned off), and Hardy learns how to get an OBP of at least .330, this could be a .500 team.

Pittsburgh (67-95)
I'm as interested in seeing the Pirates this year as I am anyone. No joke. If there's some untapped power in Freddy Sanchez's bat (I could see it either way), then Sanchez-LaRoche-Bay is a legit heart of the order. The bad news: that's all they have in that lineup. I'm told their rotation is studful, but I'm not betting on it. They still need someone to set the table (that's a recurring theme for this division).

Chicago (66-96)
The single biggest reason to look forward to watching the Cubs? Not Soriano. Not Zambrano. It's Derek Lee being healthy and it's not even close.
Soriano's free agency signing was the most overrated move by anyone in the offseason. No joke. Finally, for the first time in his career, he decided to draw more than 40 walks last year. If one looks at his numbers with any skepticism at all, one sees a player playing for a contract, and I just can't assume he's going to be the '06 version of himself with the Cubs.
But Derek Lee is good.