About Me
- Jake
- So this is my blog. I'm a random person so this will be a random blog. It will cover a smorgasbord of topics from God, politics, religion, stupid customers, movie quotes, stupid products, and just all around funny situations that occur in my life. Be prepared for the ride of your life!
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Intern Speech - A Defense of Stateless Marriage
"We as libertarians believe that less is more (in terms of government anyways.) Libertarians agree, almost completely, on eliminating government’s role in a variety of issues, but there are still a few issues where large disagreements remain. Take marriage for example: there is a large group that believes the government should be involved in order to protect everyone’s rights while another group believes that government has no place in marriage.
In my opinion, marriage should be a personal issue and not regulated by the government. While it may cause some problems with the current tax code, adoption laws, etc., marriage should be removed from the state’s authority, and left up to churches and organizations.
Government should not be involved in this very personal institution. Marriage should be left to individuals and their churches and / or organizations. I say organization for those who do not attend church or practice a religion. If I, personally, do not believe that homosexuals should get married, I would go to a church that does not allow that. If I wanted to get married to another man or I supported others that do, I could find a church that supports gay marriage. It’s that simple. No laws have to be passed. No one is forced to accept another’s morality. When we try to legislate our morality, things get really messy, really quick.
With this approach to the subject, problems do arise. I personally have a passion for working with kids and I plan to adopt when I get older. The first questions and issues I have with a stateless marriage, have to deal with adoption. What happens when a couple adopts and then they break up? Who determines custody of the child? To be honest, there is no easy answer to this. When dealing with children, more precautions are needed. They cannot protect themselves like adults can. An option to deal with the adoption problem would be to set up agreements before the adoption takes place as to how it would be handled if a divorce came about. Another, less pleasing option, would be to require adoption agencies to set up these agreements before hand. This would require state intervention, but it would be nothing like the marriage monopoly that we currently have. Also, because state has the authority to protect its citizens, if children are being hurt by their parents or are being mistreated due to the circumstances they are in, the state could step in.
If a couple has children on their own, the same principals would apply. Hopefully they would set up an agreement as to the children, but in the divorce settlement they could also sort out the issue.
On the same lines, what happens to property and possessions when there is a divorce? If a couple believes that this will be an issue (not all will obviously) they can write up a contract with a lawyer to go along with their church wedding agreement. By making sure that they have an agreement set up before, they will have no problems if they separate. Property issues are much easier to deal with than the issue of children.
In order for the state to get out of the marriage business we would also have to reshape the tax code. The institution of marriage is so intertwined with the tax code, everything must be shifted. The government uses this pairing to try to encourage certain moral activities (like getting married instead of living together to pay less taxes). The government should not be in the morality business. A fair tax or a flat tax system would eliminate the reason for tax incentives and allow marriage to be free from the tax code.
While there are problems with removing the state from marriage, they can be resolved with a little thought and practicality. However, if we continue to allow the government to control marriage, it will dictate what we believe in regards to morality and invade even further into our personal lives."
Monday, May 9, 2011
Welp. This is it.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Christians Above Politics? Not Hardly.
To impact this world for Christ, you have to be in this world. Sitting on the sideline watching everything pass you by will not give you a platform to speak from. We have to be active in this world – in all areas – in order to be, first, seen and then, heard.
Not to continually get on my soapbox but possibly the reason that Christians don’t want to become active in politics is because they see the contradictions of the two major parties. Republicans, the typically Christian party, voices support for freedom but never actually supports it completely. Democrats support freedom as long as you don’t get too Jesus-y on them. There is no happy medium… But wait! There is! Libertarianism allows everyone to have the freedom to do whatever they want. Yes this will allow bad things to happen but people are more likely listen to the message of Christ if your not trying to legislate their beliefs away (either side).
Monday, May 2, 2011
Celebrate Justice, Not Damnation
Last night on Facebook – and probably Twitter as well – there were numerous posts celebrating Osama’s death. While a celebration for justice and the men and women in the military is right and I would say, necessary, celebrating a man’s death is wrong. As a Christian I cannot do this. I also saw one status on Facebook last night that read, “Burn in hell, Osama. God bless America.” This status was from a Liberty student. This shocked and appalled me. How can a God-fearing Christian wish for someone to go to hell? No matter what his crimes were, Christ loved him and died for him.
I completely support our military, don’t get me wrong. This is not to degrade them or their contributions. They have served valiantly for their country (albeit in a war that is illegal and immoral) and they should be treated as the heroes they are. A side note: Ron Paul’s argument that Osama could have been dealt with by a small force is a good one. Wasting ten years and trillions of dollars on one man, seems like a waste when it could have been done in a much simpler way.
After this event we must be on our guard. He had so many devoted followers that so deeply believed in his convictions that there will be backlash from this. They will come after America and her allies. We must be on guard.
Christ calls us to love our enemies. He wanted Osama to see His love, but in the end, Osama did not. This is a sad fact, but one that we live with. With this, we should not judge all Muslims this way. They are a group of people who Christ loves just as much as any Southern Baptist congregation here in the States. It is our job to reach them. Occupying their lands and constantly fighting them, is no way to further the Gospel. A conversion at gun point is no conversation; it’s a last ditch effort to save one’s skin. Ezekiel 18:21-24 says, “But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.” This plainly shows that God does not enjoy death, even the death of the wicked. However, it is the punishment for our sins. Romans 3:23 says “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” If everyone has sinned, should we not celebrate at every funeral?
My convictions lead me to value human life over most anything. I deeply enjoy my liberty but I would sacrifice it to save a life (as long as it was my choice, not a government’s). I am a fierce advocate for the pro-life movement and I could never support a candidate that did not support life as well. While Osama did not share my deep rooted convictions, he was still a life. I wish he was given a trial so at least if the death penalty was used, it would be just. In our attacks on the compound where Osama was killed, the U.S. killed several children. Was that a fair trade? I’m not so sure. Their lives were extinguished after just a few short years. That is something that should be mourned.
I am happy that this is now over. Osama, a man who has caused so many so much pain and death, is now gone. Through this however, another man is now burning hell. This is no reason to celebrate.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Practice what you preach!
Monday, April 25, 2011
Drawing to a close or a new start? We'll see...
On Tuesday, I delivered all of Cato's papers by myself. It didn't take too long though. I did CT and we finished up the CJUS week. We talked about how to deal with police (after we had to deal with police the night before. Ultimate Frisbee on the capitol lawn.) We also went to the Freshman Hill Briefing.
On Wednesday, we went to the freshman hb.
On Thursday I wasn't feeling so well so after I did CT I went home and napped. For four and a half hours. And I took medicine. And orange juice. I think it worked. While sleeping I received an email from Bob Goodlatte's office about the resume I sent. I have an interview this week for a staff assistant position. Wish me luck!
On Friday my parents came up and we had lunch. We also went to the People's Church (new NCC) for a Good Friday service. We watched Robinhood and Gulliver's Travels as well.
Saturday I helped with the Eggstravaganza for Ebz. I had a blast! We all had dinner at Barracks Row at this Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican place. It was good.
Sunday we went to Ebz for the Easter service and then we went to Eastern Market. That night we went to Columbia Heights to see Jason play drums at the Gala NCC location.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Criminal Justice Week at Cato
Monday - I did Cato Today (MWF) and our topic for CJUS Week was legalization of drugs.
Tuesday - I worked on Caitlyn's RSS feed and the topic for CJUS was the 2nd amendment and safety
Wednesday - I did Cato Today and the topic was plea bargaining. That video made me very mad. People are tricked into taking pleas by the system. Horrible
Thursday - The topic was wrongful convictions. Also another video that made me mad. Basically people were arrested falsely, then they were forced to rat on someone (making it up) to enter into a plea bargain, and then that person was arrested. And the cycle repeated until there were 7 guys. Finally a random guy was caught and he said he did it by himself, but the other guys were still locked up. Stupid system.
Friday - I did Cato Today and we had a Hill Briefing on Transportation with Randal O'Toole. Pretty interesting. We also had the State of the Institute where Ed Crane and David Boaz spoke. Those guys are awesome! Ed is a funny guy!
Saturday - I helped fill the communion bags for NCC
Sunday - We went to Fort Stephens and got to see the cannons and the place where Lincoln came under fire
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Arrested Development: Libertarian Philosophy from our dear friend Buster
Take the Westboro Baptist Church's protest of military funerals. I personally hate that. Those men and women served their country with everything they had (for a war that should not have happened) but those that protest their actions have that right. Just because I don't agree with someone is no reason for me to try and silence them. Our government is there to protect us from harming each other; but that does not mean that it can stop us from doing completely morally apprehensible things. As long as it doesn't hurt someone physically, then freedom reigns supreme.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Two weeks... (again)
Tuesday - I did an email and a fax. EXCITING! Not really
Wednesday - Cato Today. MWF this week. I met the new lady in our department, Laura Renz. I did another fax and email at the spur of the moment for the freshman policy series. We had the op-ed seminar.
Thursday - I did a fax and email list for the freshman congressman. We had a seminar on the Constitution as well.
Friday - I did my professional interview with Caitlyn. Boy is she a talker. But it was great. I learned a lot. I did CT and a couple emails. I also worked on updating 4 databases for Laura. One day there and she's already bossing me around. Haha. She's actually really nice.
Saturday - We went to celebrate Kayon's birthday at the Cheesecake Factory in friendship heights.
Monday - I finally got the email sent out for the freshman policy series and I started dropping off some literature for the series as well on Capitol Hill. That evening, on the way to drop off some mail, I saw Al Frankin walking home.
Tuesday - I worked some more on Laura's databases. I did CT (TR) and I went to a hill briefing on Libya. We met with Nita Ghea about our op-eds and she said mine was a very interesting topic.
Wednesday - I spent almost four hours on capitol hill delivering the rest of the literature for the freshman policy series. In a period of one hour I saw Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Carl Cameron from Fox. Pretty awesome.
Thursday - CT
Friday - Went to Lynchburg
Saturday - Saw Phantom of the Opera (LU). Awesome!
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
My Letter to the Editor
"Was vote against Boucher rigged?
Virginia’s longest serving U.S. Congressman, Rick Boucher, is beloved by all of the people of his district, having served them through 14 terms. He received 68 percent of the vote in 2006 and was not even contested in 2008. So does anyone think it a little strange that he lost his seat garnering only 46 percent of the vote?
It reminds me of the curious result in South Carolina where an unknown, unemployed black man named Alvin Greene beat a well known state senator with 59 percent of the Democratic vote in the primary. He then lost the general election 68 percent to 28 percent to Jim Demint, the incumbent Republican.
Did Rick really lose? He deserves this theory be presented: It has been documented time and again by the best computer scientists in the country that 80 percent of America’s votes in 2010 were tabulated by hackable, inaccurate, unreliable, electronic voting machines. After a university team hacked into California machines, that state outlawed electronic voting machines for the 2010 election. In another instance, computer scientists tested the vulnerabilities of a mock District of Columbia election in 2010. They were able to infiltrate the online system and change votes without leaving a trace.
Do the research and you will find that this is a taboo subject. Perhaps it is because both parties are involved. I don’t know!
There are several documentaries out there exposing the fraud. One was produced by HBO, called "Hacking Democracy." Bev Harris at blackboxvoting.org has been on this for years. This, in my opinion, is the reason Boucher lost. It does not deserve to be pushed under the rug by those in charge of voting in the Fightin’ Ninth. Rick Boucher’s congressional career could have been terminated because of it.
Gary Carrier Bristol, Tenn."
My response:
"Mr. Carrier is mistaken that Mr. Boucher’s loss in November was the result of a 'rigged' election. It was the result of the people of the ninth district of Virginia changing their minds about the Congressman. While the results of the election were much different from previous years, and would have to be for Mr. Griffith to win, that does not automatically point to foul play.
Boucher received 46 percent of the vote in 2010. In 2006, (the last year it was a contested race) he received 68 percent. While this 22 percent difference is quite large, Boucher himself knew it was going to be a tough race. According to OpenSecrets.Org he spent 2.9 million on media, campaign expenses, and administrative support in 2010. He only spent $828,000 in 2006 on the same items.
Boucher lost because the ninth no longer wanted his services and he most definitely saw this change coming."
Monday, March 28, 2011
Another Week in DC
Monday, March 21, 2011
A sweet reminder of home...
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Two weeks...
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Parental Units
Monday, February 21, 2011
Ain't Presidents Grand?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Bourbon Babies! "Somebody hit her with the ugly stick"
Friday, February 4, 2011
Thai, mushrooms, and emails...
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Why Libertarianism Fits With, and Exemplifies, the Christian Faith
This is just my preliminary thoughts on the subject. I hope to really get into this at some point from both angles. Here is just the Christian angle.
"Many Christians today feel that the Republican Party is the only option that fits with their faith. They feel that the “morals” exemplified in the party so closely resemble their own, that they have to support the party. While I personally agree with some of the moral issues that the Republican Party takes a stand on, I do not agree with the Republican way of implementing them. I consider myself a Christian Libertarian. Many, from both sides (Christian and Libertarian), would stare at me with wonder at this pairing of seemingly contradictory words. These two things are in fact compatible. I would go so far to say that this worldview is best acted upon through this political philosophy.
Christians in today’s time have fallen down on the job. We do not have the passion that the early church had and because of this, we are losing the fight in society. In order to “shore up our defenses,” we attempt to legislate our views and morality. If we can outlaw drugs then our society will become more moral; so we think. If we legislate morality, the actual morality that we are trying to uphold is warped and lessened greatly. When we force people to act a certain way by fear of punishment, there is no morality; just fear and disdain for the overbearing authority. In order to truly reach the culture around us, we must do it on our own: through relationships and personal interactions. Legislation cannot induce morality. If people are allowed to choose what they do and how they act, then when they make good moral decisions, the decisions are actually good and true.
Christians take the easy way out when we take our moral rules and obligations and apply them to the general public. Its almost as if we are jealous that they can have fun so we have to make them “suffer” as we do. This is not true faith. It is laziness and immorality at their pinnacle. To truly win a society and make it “moral,” we must win their hearts. We must regain the passion that once made Christianity so enticing and show that to the world.
If we (Republican Christians) enact our morality into legislation when we are in power, what do we expect the other side (“Godless” Democrats) to do? It does not take a genius to see what will happen, and what has happened. If we try to enforce our beliefs on those who do not share them, when they become the ruling party they will most definitely strive to enact their policies as well. When they do, we cannot complain. We did the same.
Take a look at Genesis. God created Adam and Eve for companionship. Did you get that? He CREATED them. He chose how they would be. Every. Single. Aspect. Not long after their creation they disobeyed him and fell into sin. They were given the free will to do what they pleased even if it went against what God wanted for them. (I hold that it was still His will but that’s another discussion.) The Republican way of doing things does not recognize this. They try to tell people how to act through coercion. God wants us to come to him of our accord (with the Holy Spirit’s guiding).
Man is fallen. Dr. Metallo would be proud of that statement. Man is a sinful being. If we place people in a position of power, that sinful nature is tempted even more than a normal person. It is magnified beyond belief. Government is necessary but not the type we have today. Our founders created a governing system with a very small central government because they knew that men governed themselves better than a government can. Because of the size and magnitude of our present government, the greed and immorality of man has been expanded so much that the government rarely functions effectively. The founders confined the government by establishing certain actions that the government could take and then delegating the rest either to the states or to the citizenry. Today’s government has ignored these rules (aka the Constitution) and has stolen power from the states and the people."