« Loving my warm, fuzzy Jesus bear | Main | 10 books to read before you die »

January 27, 2009



The Democrat's stimulus bill just passed the House a few minutes ago. It is amazing to me that they don't understand fundamental free enterprise economics. Whenever the government hires businesses to handle projects that are funded by the government, either the business hires people to work for them for a few months to complete the project and then lays them off so they are out of work again, or the business has to depend on the government funding another project so those employees can continue to work. Otherwise, they will become unemployed again. In either case, the government has to tax the American people to pay for the initial and any followup projects. The government becomes this huge "consumer" who doesn't work to have the money to "buy the projects". They just tax the rest of us.

A far better alternative is to lower the taxes on businesses so they can hire more workers along with lowering the taxes on the individuals who can then buy more of the goods and services the businesses provide. That way, long term employment and business growth are established that aren't funded by increasing taxes which take money from the real consumers.

It seems wise to me that the government should never "go into business" but simply provide the tax incentives for the marketplace of businesses and workers to function. The growth of the United States into the economic super-power it is was built on that philosphy. The government has a role limited to making necessary laws, enforcing those laws, providing for financial, educational and internal stability for the country and maintaining a strong defense.

The Democrat's philosophy can only be justified by those who have an elitist view of national life, i.e., that the smart politicians know better how to spend our money than we do, and therefore, that we need to give our money to them and wait to be served when they get around to it. The success of such an approach is still waiting to be demonstrated by any strong historical example. To now, there hasn't been one. I doubt that the new leaders in Washington will be the first. All that will happen is a prolonged recession.

Resident Atheist

I hardly think that the small fraction of homosexuals that have been guilted or abused into acting against their happiness and natural tendencies without later recanting pokes holes in the 'genetic' theory. They still have the feelings. They are just abstaining from acting upon those desires.

What's more, it really doesn't matter. Whether an individual chooses the lifestyle or has it thrust upon them only really matters in the eyes of those who wish to discriminate. Somehow it is deemed more palatable if the person has placed themselves in the predicament. I argue that it shouldn't matter. As long as no one is being hurt, couples should have the right to be happy and awarded the same protection under the law.


RA, you've raised some of the fundamental issues related to homosexuality. But it seems you have also made a couple of assumptions in your assessment.

First of all, as we got into a while back, there are differing opinions about whether or not homosexuals can actually change their orientation. There are many homosexuals who have come out of the lifestyle not based merely on guilt or coercion from others. Have there been some who have experience guilt and abuse from Christians and the Church? Without a doubt. And as I've suggested repeatedly the Church has a lot to answer for in that regard. But there are also those who have made a decision of their own volition to come out of homosexuality. And it could be argued that it is for their own happiness and fulfillment, which clouds the issue further.

The second assumption concerns the idea that people have a right to be happy as long as no one gets hurt. That assumes, for example, that children who grow up in same-sex environments are not adversely affected by it. Kerby Anderson has written on this subject, in which he says, "Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents."

Regardless of whether one agrees with the research, there is still the issue of where the couples' happiness ends and the happiness of others begins? After all, who defines what it means to be "happy"? A rather gruesome true life story highlights the tension. There was a story a few years ago of a man (a self-confessed cannibal) in Germany, if I recall, who placed a wanted ad looking for someone who he could have over for dinner (literally). The person had to voluntarily participate, and in the end, did so. However, the cannibal was prosecuted (as he should have been, in my opinion). This extreme example is based on the assumption that both people who made this arrangement did so because it brought them some kind of (perverse) fulfillment. And yet we roundly condemn the action of both.

At the end of the day, it comes back to the fundamental question, "Why do we draw moral boundaries where we do?" If happiness is the criteria for determing the answer, it can become a slippery business.

Eric Page


You're debating a straw man. You said that "Somehow it is deemed more palatable if the person has placed themselves in the predicament" and seemed to attribute that to "those who wish to discriminate". Who exactly made the statement that it's more palatable?

The comments to this entry are closed.