Monday, October 30, 2006

Faith in Life

After writing my previous post, I read one comment. Thank you Anon 7:59 for your comment although instead of writing you a comment in return I had decided for a new post.
Faith is more than religion. Faith is knowing with almost up most certainty that it is true.

Everyday, we walk across streets. We are placing faith in walking across for at any moment we may be run over. It is improbable but the chance is there.Your faith makes it worth taking the risk. Nothing in life is for certain except that we are born and then die. Some are born with sight and find themselves blind after a tragic event. The doctors have told many of people that they may never walk, and we find more and more people with the drive to overcome what the doctors had said would not occur. They had faith. They had a certainty that they would succeed.
Statisticians would tell you that there is nothing that is 100% accurate outside of certain known laws; law of supply, law of demand. For example 1+1 always equals 2, but it is not known for certain that you will live or die today. You believe that today you won't die and so you invest your time in working to enable you to receive more in the future. If you knew without a doubt you would die today, you would not go to work but do anything that may actually kill you.

Faith is what lets you complete actions throughout the day. No, faith is not dumb. How can it when it allows us to live.
Because of faith we cannot understand government intervention. Why government intervention only proves a lack of faith in the market. Are we really to believe that government officials can control an economy better than a market that fixes itself? I think not, and I came to my conclusion through faith...

Sunday, October 29, 2006

It all returns to Faith

Its almost Halloween, not that I am a huge fan of Halloween, it is just another day... but I was writing a post upon horror films when I decided it was about time to discuss one of my favorite movies, which I do not classify as a horror film, The Exorcist.

Oh yes, people tremble at just the name of the movie. Many have only viewed the movie once and have only traces of the demonic scenes imbedded into their memory of the movie. I tend to try to speak about this movie any chance I get because what I believe the message is, even though the movie executives would rather the message be different. I won't lead you on, I'll tell you what I found in this movie that makes me smile whenever Halloween comes around, because I know it would lead to The Exorcist to be played on tv. It is like the Christmas Story for many others on Christmas. I just enjoy the Exorcist. Yea, I know I must be a Satanist to enjoy a movie with this topic, but the topic to me is not of demonic possession; but of Faith.

I first noticed this years ago when watching the movie. I like to find explanations to anything, for this reason I like watching Ghost Hunters on Sci Fi when I can since they tend to disprove any supposed hauntings. Where is the faith you might ask? Although the movie is loosely based on a true event, we do not know what actually occurred. It is really just a screen writer/book author and Hollywoods rendition of a demonic possession and exorcism. Yet, from the beginning of the film we are introduced to a young priest. This young priest is continuously attacked and has begun to lose his faith in the Catholic Church. Recall that his mother is dying; he is approached and told that if only he wasn't a Catholic priest he would be a rich psychiatrist able to take better care of his dying mother. Here is when the demonic face first rises in the young priest's dreams when he is chasing his mother.

I am not going to make this longer but just describe the loss of faith from the young priest who could find no explanations in the possessed girl's actions. His faith was so low that when the Exorcist had told him not to listen to the demon that possessed the girl the young priest could not. Remember, the demon began talking like the young priest's deceased mother, to which the elder priest remarked not to listen the demon's lies. Attacking his spirit from the beginning of the movie, I believe the demon's goal was the priest not the young girl. The Exorcist made the young priest leave the room because he knew his faith was too weak to be of any help in performing the exorcism. The next scenes are not shown, but we are next invited back into the room where the demon lived in the girl with the limp body of the Catholic priest who was performing the exorcism. It was not that the demon was too strong for the exorcism, but I believe that although the Exorcist was strong in faith that he could call out to God to wield him the power to cast the demon, his physical strength was too weak; recall he was sick since his first meeting with the demon both from a past exorcism and in the dig in Iraq. The Exorcist had needed the young priest in order to wield the power of God to cast the demon, but as the young priest had little faith he was of no use causing the Exorcist to die. Entering the room, the young priest has no choice. It appears he finally understood what it was the demon wanted and his faith grew. He knew it was he the demon wanted and called out to it, commanding the demon to take him and leave the girl. For this, I believe the movie to be about faith, that the demon left the girl for the Catholic Priest who finally found enough faith and strength that he could hold on to his physical body enough to kill himself and the demon.

Because of this movie, I am not afraid of demonic possession. I know that it is faith that wields the strength in order to cast out the demon. In this time of fright before Halloween, perhaps you should build up your own faith. Not neccessarily Catholic, but with whatever it is you have faith in. I am not here to say what religion is right, only that when you feel like you are falling you mean only to look into oneself and strengthen your faith.

The Season of Fright

Horror movies, they are forever being released and yet none give a large amount of satisfaction. Horror movies have the most sequels than any other type of genre. Just think of Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13, and even newer movies like Saw. (and people want to say they should end the Rocky series, which by the way, is released this December) Are movie executives running out of ideas that they create a new movie with the same story but add a few more twists? Yet they are continuously being released, because the public obviously is in search for a few shrieks and thrills. The same public who called The Passion of the Christ too gory, but in my opinion, the Passion at least had a great story line.
Not here to bash horror movies only expressing thought on why they are so popular. I know men who do not care for them but will watch horror films for their loved one. Why? Supposedly there is a theory tied close to being scared and to sexual arousal. Perhaps its because the girl gets scared jumps into her boyfriend/husband's chest releasing the pheremones? I am not a doctor or study the human body nor am I a student of psych, but that is a big incentive for men; that is if the theory that all men want is sex is held true.
Taking a look into the horror films we find a trend. Horror films come with cheesy acting with many no name actors who are hoping to have a break out performance (note that Paris Hilton was in a horror film). How many actors have ever won an award for a horror film? Consider Hitchcock horror and you may find yourself with a list of Hollywood stars, but his movies were inpredictable and did not include ghastly figures or grotesque death scenes, merely a taste of the unexpected or unexplained.
Besides of terrible acting the horror films tend to have the worst plots. Most have a beginning that draws you in only to leave you devasted in watching the film to the end causing yourself to ask why you watched such a predictable movie. Ok, so thats mainly the horror films of today. It is sad when M. Night Shamaylan is the only film director who continuously fools me with his plot, and he is not a horror film director(no matter to what genre others place him in). I'm not going to list the predictable endings to the horror films who only make you giggle rather than scream, but is there another trend rising? The trend of remaking horror classics? An American Haunting, Psycho, do I really need to list all the remakes? I am not sure what makes the public love horror movies, but I am not impressed. I want more depth, cause me to scream and shriek which is not blood and gore. I get that enough from movies like the Passion which made me cringe and close my eyes more than any horror film. Come on Movie Execs if you are going to say its a horror film actually make it interesting.

Monday, October 23, 2006

War is good for the economy?

I have returned to this debate more than once, and this weekend appeared to be when everyone rose the question. Why, I do not have the slightest idea, but the question was asked... er the statement was made. "War is good for the economy".

Their points?
  1. That war creates more jobs
  2. More jobs mean more families with an income
  3. More income means more money is spent
  4. The money spent creates more jobs
Cute thought and true, although the market model that they are viewing is incomplete.

Who is the main consumer during times of war? The government.
Who has raised the amount purchased? The government.
If you begin to spend more than you have what do you do? Work more to raise income.
What does government do to spend more? Usually raise taxes.
(I leave it at this point, but today the government does not increase income while increasing spending which causes a higher deficit. This is able to be done under a fiat system. One of the many arguements against it, but for my point I will leave it at raising taxes.)

Therefore, citizens receive jobs to gain income to support their family, yet their taxes are increased taking away from the income for their family. The new jobs do not neccessarily help the citizens, but did increase the amount of revenue the government received.

It returns to the same arguement as government subsidies. The government taxes all citizens and gives a subsidy to farmers to not grow as much of a product. The overbundance of the product is disposed of rather than sold. In World War II, excess military equipment was disposed in order to maintain the high level of employment for the citizens. Thus, citizens work and accomplish nothing. A return to Sisphysm, which I spoke of before. A time of full employment, but never having anything to show for it. The citizens work hard; are taxed taking from their own income; the tax is used to purchase the goods they made, but then the good is disposed of just to keep them employed. Is this really efficient? And we haven't even begun to discuss the loss of citizens who are underpaid fighting in the war...

Birthdays; Holidays; old past time

I have decided to finally post this topic, well just because I think it is time and I don't want to talk about politicks or government.

Birthdays, why do we celebrate them? We are only born once, and by using different calendars we could have multible birthdays throughout the year. Therefore, I think we should stand up for the right to save our money and not celebrate birthdays. Everyday, I have to congratulate someone for their birthday. Here's a hint, if you are passed 21 there is not much left to look forward to except for when you turn 25 and the cost of insurance falls; therefore its time to stop counting birthdays. Years come years go, we live and then we die. Why should we count just to know we are only getting older? How about you stop counting that way you feel forever young?

Well, my real point is namely on gifts. If you want to celebrate someone's birthday that is your choice, but do not waste your time by searching for the perfect gift. Most likely, whatever you buy will not be the perfect gift. Why? Because you are not them therefore you do not know for certain what they would like. You only increase the price of the gift by spending the amount of time searching for it. To save time (cost) and make the gift more efficient you should just give money or a gift card. This way, whoever you were given the gift to could buy themselves what they would like. Since they know what they would like, they will be able to maximize the gift's utility(someones rate of enjoyment).

How many times have you been given the sweater that you never wear? How many times have you given the bread maker that was given to you two years ago for your birthday but it just is returned to you at another birthday/holiday?

If it were up to me, you save your money, I shall save mine. On your birthday, you buy yourself a gift with the money you would have spent on me, and I will do the same with the money I would have spent on you for your birthday/holiday. This way, we will actually use or admire what it is we had bought for ourselves, since we know what it is that we want.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Online Gambling

I am a little upset by James Martin from Virginia Progressive. He writes some great posts, keeps the blogosphere informed upon the political races, but sometimes I believe he takes a step into the wrong side.
On Saturday, James commented upon a new law, which supposedly "cripples online gambling". Why was the bill proposed for the law in the first place, well taking from the Virginia Progressive website:

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), said he opposes all gambling, citing its “ill effects on society,” but particularly Internet gambling, which led him to draft the legislation in the summer.
All the problems that manifest themselves with gambling, even in heavily regulated states, are even worse on the Internet,” Goodlatte said yesterday. “There are family problems, bankruptcy problems, gambling addiction, gambling by minors, using gambling to launder money for criminal and terrorist organizations and organized crime. It does not help our society.

A law imposed on the rest of the American society because someone believed it to cause damage. He does not note the happiness people receive from gambling only the negative points against the action. Have we not heard this before, say with alcohol? People will gamble. They enjoy it. The internet does not have boundaries nor see national borders.

I do not gamble. I do not even smoke, but I am for smoking. Why not, if there is a call for a nonsmoking bar I am sure someone will open a bar that they do not allow smoking; no need for regulation. The point is if I did smoke or gamble, I would want to be allowed the opportunity to. It is my earnings, who is a congressman to tell me what I can do with my own self gain?

Let us note that just because a law is passed does not mean the action will stop. During prohibition the alcoholics still found ways to drink. The cost had rose to drink, but as they did enjoy the alcohol they did pay the high price. For gambling, I'd expect the same turn of events. A high price causes more gains giving gamblers a larger incentive. Once again the government attacks supply believing if they attack the suppliers they can halt the demand.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Loss of Free Speech, on the Net?

A young girl in Texas was questioned over posting a picture on the net that said "Kill Bush". I did not see the picture but, as exclaimed in the article linked in the title, it was a picture of President Bush and a dagger stabbing his hand. She is fourteen and had posted the picture on her Myspace page over her upset over certain political issues. Whats almost comical is the fact that they said her picture included a dagger stabbing President Bush's hand with only the words Kill Bush. I had wanted to see the picture so naturally, I searched Google for "Kill Bush" images. I did not find any picture that is described as the one the young lady posted on her myspace page, but I found a list of over 3,000 images. Not all are graphic but just the same, most say "Kill Bush".
Are we losing our own right to say whatever we wish, including a remark as"Kill Bush"? If a young girl can be questioned without her parents in the room, are we giving too much power to the Secret Service to impose a supposed safety? Are citizens of the United States next to be sent to Guantanomo Bay for questioning without any remorse for ethics and morals?

Friday, October 06, 2006

The Penalty of Teaching

I like reading articles on the net. I try to link to them when I can because they strengthen arguements. I have written long posts describing the articles, but if you have noticed I am trying to refrain from it. Only a synopsis is needed and you can click on the article for further reading.

A teacher in Texas had taken her students on a field trip to an art museum. She was not the only teacher chaperoning the students nor was it the first time the musuem had a students walk through as part of a school activity. The problem occurred after the field trip, when a student had told their parents that they had seen some nudity. Outcries from some rang out, and now the teacher who had led the field trip is suspended.
What makes this case more fascinating is that the school officials along with the parents had to give permission for the teacher to take the students on the field trip. An art museum is an art museum. Sometimes there is nudity in art, the art museum does not seperate art with nudity in to a room with a black curtain and black lights. For the art community, nudity is a wonderful gift that helps express nature's beauty or whatever else the artist finds the use of nudity for. But for a teacher to receive a suspension for taking students to an art museum is absurd. The art teacher is only doing her duty as a teacher, introducing the students to the world of art. Are we to have a seperate room for art that depicts climates of war and famine?
In this case, the parents had allowed their children to attend the field trip to the museum. If they had felt that their children's views were compromised they should have politely declined the invitation and kept their children at home for the day. The school officials had given permission to the teacher to hold the field trip at the art museum. The guilty party is not the teacher who had led the field trip, but the parents and the school officials who feel that students should not be allowed to view the artistic material. Next parents will claim that the "School House Rock" videos are damaging their children's minds by showing an image of a talking bill. Art is art. There is nudity in religious art; is the Sistine Chapel to lose its ceiling due to its exposure of Adam? For this, I say let the parents attack my freedom of speech through the blogosphere and I shall include the photo of the Sistine Chapel on the Creation of Adam.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Immigrants and the Economy

The Washington Post displays that the farming industry is the first to feel the impact the immigration debate has upon the the American economy. For those who enjoy fruits expect to pay a higher price. I won't spend your time by reinstating what the Washington Post had said, but I will use it to extend my arguement.

The arguement is simple. As the border tightens, the illegal immigrants look towards a job that enables them to gain year round rather than work on the fields which workers are needed only during certain times throughout the year. The decrease in workers in agriculture will decrease the amount of produce produced throughout the year which causes the price to increase.

Let us keep it simple. Assuming demand for produce stays the same, the supply will shift to the left as quantity has decreased. Remember where supply and demand intersect is the market price therefore the price has now increased. Are we to go back in time where only the rich could afford to receive the benefit of eating grapes?

Well, if we wish to have a tighter border we must have expected to pay higher taxes as to pay the wages for the border patrol, workers who build the wall across the Mexico border, and for an increase in prices upon products we buy. I am sure if we add all the costs that we must pay and compare them to the costs claimed caused by illegal immigrants we shall find that the cost of increased border tightening is higher than having illegal immigrants. For this we can put the stamp of INEFFICIENT to the policy of tightening the border.