Why I'm not Anxious about 2018

When I was a kid, I used to be afraid of taking communion. I grew up in church, and was taught to respect the sacrament. And then there's the verses in the Bible that say disrespect for the Lord's Supper is the reason “why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor 11:30). So even though I had accepted Christ as my savior, when it came time for communion, I did some serious soul-searching! I wanted to make sure I was right with the Lord!

The truth is, that attitude I developed in childhood kinda stuck with me. Now don't get me wrong - it's a good thing to have a regular time for soul-searching and making sure everything is right. But I was missing the other side – the most important part of communion.

My church has a watchnight service on New Year's Eve to bring in the New Year with food and games, and then communion and prayer. Out of habit, I immediately began my prayer time by searching my heart to make sure everything was right between me and God. But then, it was as though God stopped me, and focused me on one word – communion. Communion isn't a time of fear. It's a time of togetherness and fellowship. Enjoying being with each other. We had just finished a meal together as church family, and enjoyed being together. The communion service is supposed to be just that same thing, with Christ.

“I want to go into 2018 together,” it seemed that God was saying. And my focus changed. 2018 isn't about what might go wrong in the world, or even what I'm supposed to be doing. Communion to start a New Year is a reminder that we enter the new year hand-in-hand with our Savior. He wants to enter this new year together. Together. There is no reason to be anxious when walking together with the Lord.

So, I raise my communion glass to the Lord as the clock strikes midnight – “Together, bring on 2018”.

Computer Psychology

(This was a project from college.  Re-sharing for your enjoyment. © May 2005 by David Lorimer)

Computer Psychology

by Dr. David W. Lorimer, MdUp

A normal understanding of computers

Most people view computers as inanimate objects. Their only purpose is utilitarian - they are simply machines that are to do what one asks them. They are a sophisticated hunk of metal that can somehow help us though life. Because of this, we feel no guilt when we insult or injure them. If it is just an object, a machine, then it can be treated in any way we please.

Broadening the perspective

Is the issue really so simple? Might there be a little more to this? Computers are extremely complex machines, and thus deserve more in-depth analysis.

I fear that our mass of machines has changed our attitudes as humans. Before all these technological gadgets came along, everything that was encountered was either alive or completely inanimate. We talked with people, worked and played with animals, and grew plants. On the other hand, stones, dirt, and water were entirely inconsequential in relational aspects. Now, we don’t know where to place these technological machines, so we have placed them inappropriately in the middle. We view them as inanimate objects that we can relate to. We view it as a one-way relationship, however. We relate to the gadget, but it does not relate back. People fight, animals kick, and plants react, but computers just sit there, right? Wrong. We view computers as machines, inanimate objects, and thus we justify anger frustration and violence toward them. We would never do this with humans, however. Is there really that much difference?

Understanding your computer’s feelings

How does a computer react emotionally? We can gain a lot of insight on computer psychology by relating computers to humans. Humans have basic emotional needs for love (attention, companionship, affection, appreciation, etc.), security, and purpose. Humans have one thing that computers are lacking – the ability to be a self-starter. We would all recognize that humans are dependent on humans. In much the same way, computers are dependent on humans. They have limited functionality on their own.

So how does your computer react when you yell at it? What is the effect of your anger toward it?

Correcting our attitude

It is 6:00 am. Fred is soundly sleeping. Suddenly, a shrill scream blasts through the room, and he jumps out of bed! Realizing it is his alarm clock, his smashes down on it with his hand. When that doesn’t work, he throws it across the room where it breaks into pieces and dies. All the while, he is sputtering angrily.

We have just witnessed a felony in the view of computer psychology. From Fred’s perspective, the alarm had just committed a high crime. But who was in the wrong?

The night before, Fred, knowing that he had an early appointment, asked his alarm clock to wake him up at 6:00, no matter what. His alarm clock was poised like a sentry all night long in order to fulfill his request. In the morning, it risked its own life attempting to wake him up, just as he requested. But Fred’s reaction was inappropriate. Instead of a violent reaction, Fred should have politely thanked his alarm clock for such faithful service. Without it, he would have missed his interview for his new job.

Instead, the same procedure happens the next night. This time, however, the alarm clock is hurt and very sad. He wants Fred to know how much his little alarm clock is worth. So, he decides not to wake Fred up. About 8:00, Fred soars out of bed, shouting curses at his alarm clock. Again, Fred physically abuses the clock, then throws it in the trash. At this point, the psychological trauma has rendered the alarm clock ruined.

Fred, as many of us, failed to realize the psychology behind the alarm clock’s actions. If we would understand how these “inanimate objects” feel, we could save ourselves a lot of heartache.

Most of us have unreasonable expectations of our technological gadgets. We expect 100% perfect performance from them. Many studies have shown how devastating this attitude is toward humans. It is the same with computers. Computers put up with an awful lot. Your computer wants your attention, it wants your affection. It wants to know that you care about it, that you love it, and that you’ll be there for it. It wants to feel that it has a purpose in life.

Instead, most of us use our computers without thanks, without commitment, and often, without permission. We complain that it is too slow, can’t do anything right, will never amount to anything, and that we will have to get a new one pretty soon. All these comments are extremely damaging to the poor computer’s self image. Soon enough, our prophesies become self-fulfilling, and the computer reaches such a depressed state that it can no longer function properly. Here, we often just it away, still without any regard to its needs or feelings. Many of these “ruined” computers have become useful members of society again with the proper counseling. However, they retain the emotional scars forever.

I knew man whose printer would randomly print out sheets of paper with little hearts on them. He was asking me what was wrong with it. What he didn’t know was that his printer was trying to show its affection toward him. But his reaction could have been terribly devastating to his poor printer. He was repaying its love with, “What’s wrong with you? Can’t you do any better?”

I encourage you to use verbal affirmation and communication with your computer. Is it really so weird to talk to a computer? We yell at them when we get upset. Why not compliment them when they do well?

If we will truly think about a computer’s feeling, it would save a lot of heartache on both sides. We would have less “computer trouble,” which is often simply misinterpreted emotional response. Next time you work with a computer, think, “if this were a human, how would I act?” It could change your whole relationship with technology.

Making the change

Your attitude that is developed toward your electronic gadget will affect all of your life. The anger you start your day with when you attack your alarm clock starts your day on the wrong foot. 

Put computer psychology to work. Find the anger and bitterness that you have toward your computer. Forgive it. It may not need forgiven, but you need deliverance.

Try it. Tomorrow, start by thanking your alarm clock. Your whole day will be different.

Rees Howells, Intercessor, by Norman Grubb

Rees Howells, Intercessor

by Norman Grubb

A Book Review

Short Review:

This biography will blow your concept of prayer. If you're a Christian, and want a deeper prayer life, and especially if you are discouraged or a skeptic about prayer, definitely read this book.

Long Review:

Intercessor is a biography of Rees Howells, a man who God taught to pray. It just tells the story of Rees Howells, but as it does, it reveals a level of prayer that many of us have never even dreamed of. In this book, prayer is not a beggar's list presented to God. In fact God told Howells he wasn't allowed to pray – unless God told him to. You'll want to read the entire book – each chapter challenged me in a different way, and the book as a whole left me reeling, asking God for insight in my own life.

Related Book: Remarkable Miracles

Remarkable Miracles by G.C. Bevington

Remarkable Miracles

by G.C. Bevington

A Book Review

Short Review:

Miracles through prayer. This book will blow your mind. The story of an odd little man, with Bible-story-style answers to prayer.

Long Review:

Wow, I don't even know how to take this book. It's an autobiography of G.C. Bevington, a man with a remarkable testimony, an odd and eccentric life, and such crazy results from prayer that you might not even believe it! I found it difficult to connect this book to my own life, but I loved reading the stories of how amazing results can come through prayer! The writing style is a bit rough (like he's just talking out loud), but the stories are engaging, so you don't notice too much. It will leave you thinking – no, marveling!

--

You can find some older versions of this book for free online, under the title Remarkable Incidents and Modern Miracles Through Prayer and Faith, by G.C. Bevington

Related Book: Rees Howells,Intercessor

I'll Take My Persecution Comfortable Please

I'll take my persecution comfortable please.

As long as it stays over there

It can happen; I don't care.

I'm quite happy to pray

As long as it doesn't come my way.

But if it has to be

Lord, here's how to do it for me:

Kill me quickly; Kill me dead

Why don't you shoot me in the head?

I have no drive

to be burned alive

Crucifixion's not my style

I think stake-burning rather vile

I really don't prefer

a prison inter –

Or burning, or starving

or freezing, or carving

Chopping or sawing

Animals gnawing

Stabbing, impaling

limbless and wailing

Drowning and pleading

dismembered and bleeding

De-toed or de-eyed

Ripped hair, or deep fried

Boiled, roasted, or seared –

How about just weird?

Please, just shoot me dead

or poison me instead.

Lord, I'm in the ring

but torture isn't my thing.

Converts killed in front of my face

living with mockery and disgrace

Watching my spouse and children

beaten, slaughtered, sold at auction

Raped, made slaves,

trained in evil ways

Disposable moms

future walking bombs

This isn't what I signed up for

when I accepted you as Lord

Oh Lord – One small exception I'll make.

Some short prison sentence I'll take.

I need to do some writing anyway

so that they'll remember me someday.

Then – Kill me quickly; kill me dead.

Why don't you shoot me in the head?

I'll take my persecution comfortable please.

Say friend,

How much do you love Jesus?

© 2009 David W. Lorimer

Is an unborn baby a viable human life?

JONES: Sir, please state why you believe murdering unborn children should be a legal and protected practice.

SMITH: It isn't murder, and it isn't a child.

JONES: How can you argue that it isn't a child? Genetically, the baby is 100% human. It's a human baby when it is born. Why do you say that it isn't a human baby before it's born?

SMITH: It's a non-viable blob of tissue. It's not a human because it cannot live on it's own. It's not murder because it's non-viable. It wouldn't live anyway.

JONES: I see. Bailiff, would you kindly take a large vice and crush the witness's head?

SMITH: What!? You're asking the Bailiff to kill me!?

JONES: No, I'm not. It's not murder. I have determined that you are non-viable.

SMITH: But I'm living on my own right now! I'm alive! I'm perfectly viable!

JONES: No, sir, you're not. You see, if I removed you from the earth's atmosphere right now and pulled you into outer space, you would die quickly. So you see, you're non-viable.

SMITH: But that's a totally different environment! If you leave me here, I'll be perfectly fine.

JONES: You said it exactly. You see, an unborn baby is perfectly viable. If we leave it right where it is, it will continue to live and to grow. It will be born and transition naturally to the stage where you agree it is viable (birth). It will do all of this automatically.

You argue that the baby is not viable because if we suddenly yanked it out of its environment into a different one, it would die quickly. But as I demonstrated, so would you. That baby is perfectly viable in the environment that it is in, if we leave it there.

Therefore, by your own words, you have demonstrated an unborn baby to be a viable human being.

Don't Think and Drive (17)

Random and funny things observed while traveling.

Deanna and I just got back from a trip to Orlando, Florida.  In addition to high prices and amazing weather, there were a lot of funny things!

One day, in the space of just a few hours, I saw:

• A McDonalds with real plates . . . and a bistro . . . and an ice cream parlor . . . and bowling lanes. (yes, seriously) (Pictures below)
   
• A woman in the men's restroom.  (She worked at the convention center, but it's still weird!)
  
  And the best one:
• The SPEAKER'S Cell phone went off while HE was speaking, lol.
  

Our hotel door said "This door is kept locked 24 hrs a day".  I never saw it locked, not even at night.

One speaker's powerpoint encouraged every college to seek training for their "Faulty and staff ..."
(Hey, if they're faulty, they need training!)

McDonalds

Ronald in the McDonalds Arcade

Still McDonalds :)

 Some Great Pictures:

That is the weirdest looking helicopter I have ever seen!

Please make up your mind . . . !  (Below ... not below ...)
Lol, I've seen corrections before, but corrections on the SAME label?

A clear case of racial discrimination!

My Comments on the Ken Ham and Bill Nye Debate

I greatly enjoyed the debate between #KenHam and #BillNye.
My thoughts are many, and probably too much for one post, so I'll try to summarize.

1) Both of them did a great job.

2) Ken Ham clearly presented the Christian worldview upon which the Creation model is based.  He even presented the gospel 3 separate times!

3) Bill Nye The Science Guy presented a number of clear challenges to the creation / Biblical model as presented by the Creation Museum.  He had some facts and good practical challenges.
a) Some of these were terribly unscientific and illogical (but presented in a way that would make people question).  For example, the argument about rapid speciation.  That's a valid argument, but no scientist in their right mind would accept an AVERAGE as a challenge.  It should be presented as exponential with a maximum cap.
b) On the other hand, some were very valid challenges, that were not met satisfactorily by Ken Ham.  Ham needed to answer the ice, tree, and fossil challenges.

4)  Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye with two fundamental questions at the beginning, which Bill Nye NEVER responded to.
4.1.) According to the evolutionary model, how do you account for logic and the laws of nature?
For those who argue that Bill Nye won the debate, you have to come back to this question.  Nye's arguments were based on logic and the laws of nature, but evolution cannot account for them.  That's a serious problem in the evolutionary model.

4.2.) Name one technology that could not have been invented by someone with a Christian / Creation model.
Bill Nye kept insisting the entire debate that the creation model would destroy intelligence and progress, and is "unpatriotic".  But he never answered this question.  Even some of the scientists and technological advances he referenced were Christian creationists or developed by them.

4) Ken Ham spent a lot of time drawing clear lines between Observational Science and Historical Science.  This is extremely important to his model.  If people realize this difference, the whole "science" claim of evolution falls to pieces.  Bill Nye simply denied it, without answering the challenges from Ken Ham.  However, from an outside perspective, Ham spent too much time there, and it looked like a lame cop-out.  (It isn't - it's fundamental, which is why he kept starting there.)

5) Unfortunately, for a person who relies entirely on science, Bill Nye stepped outside the rules of logic several times during the debate, engaging in logical fallacies and name-calling.  This was unnecessary.
Remember this part?  -- Bill Nye to Ken Ham: "My problem is you!"
But just the week before, Bill Nye was insisting that people remember "The debate isn't about our personal beliefs, but whether the model holds up to science."  So ... I found it "troublesome" that he stopped challenging the model and started attacking personally.

6) Unfortunately, Ken Ham did not go head-to-head against the evolution model very strongly.  He could have, but chose not to.  The debate was about the models, and I would have really liked to see him present his battery of facts that an evolutionary model cannot explain.  He has them.  I've heard them.  But he chose not to use them, and I think this really hurt the purpose of the debate.

7) Ken Ham kept his poise, professionalism, and cool the entire debate.  Kudos.  Bill Nye, on the other hand, resorted to emotional manipulation (the who patriotism bit), name-calling, insults (KY people are ignorant), and as I mentioned earlier, logical fallacies and attacking Ham personally.  That hurt his argument.

8) Ken Ham had answers where Bill Nye did not. (Major score for the creation model)
Nye:  I don't know. (Tells a joke).
Ham: We actually have a book that tells us why that is.

9) It's very difficult for two people to debate who don't accept the other's fundamental foundation.  Lol.  Ham's foundation is that God exists and the Bible is true.  Nye's foundation is that if there is a God, he has nothing to do with the world, and the Bible is irrelevant.  (He demonstrated that his fundamental foundation is NOT science, like he claims, because he dismissed out of hand a historical book that SHOULD be studied scientifically, even from someone from his perspective.  He did not allow Biblical testimony to even be considered.  He also stepped outside of reasonable science several times himself.)

This is why I think the person who presented the most challenging facts (Nye) appeared to have an upper hand.  But Ham was hacking at the foundation, and Nye couldn't defend his.

10)  Bill Nye kept claiming that the Creation model couldn't make and evaluate predictions.  Ken Ham kept saying that it does.  Ken Ham is right, and Bill Nye looked silly.  Ken Ham gave over a dozen predictions in his presentation.  He is also right in saying that even the predictions from the evolutionary model are actually based in the Creation model. (remember that question Bill Nye didn't answer?)
Nye kept insisting, but it stopped being scientific argument, and ended up crowd-control.

11) Additionally, Bill Nye ignored other things Ken Ham said, and kept saying, "I'm still waiting for you to ...", when in fact Ham had already addressed several of them.  To be fair, there were some he did not reply to, and he should have.

12) Bill Nye waited until Ken Ham could not respond to offer his most insulting challenges.  That's not even professional.  That's just rude.  Ham presented his questions to Bill Nye at the very beginning.

13) Both men believe their models dogmatically.  Ken Ham basically said that his belief is fundamentally in the Bible and it won't change.  He would not allow the Bible to be removed from his platform (this is valid).
When challenged about the dating methods in the Q&A, Bill Nye made it clear that he would not allow those methods to be removed from his platform (this is also valid).

14) To summarize, BOTH of them left the best challenges to their model unanswered.  And both need to answer them.

Is Leadership Inborn, or Trained in Early Years?

The authors of my current Master's textbook, Tolbert and Hall (2009), explained that there are the “big five” personality characteristics that are commonly associated with leadership.

They are

“1. 'Surgency' (or extraversion)

2. Conscientiousness

3. Emotional stability

4. Agreeableness or cooperativeness

5. Intellect” (p. 93)(From Digman, 1990)

These five characteristics are associated with effective leaders. If a person is significantly lacking in some of these areas, it is likely he or she will not be an effective leader.

This research indicates that three of the five characteristics (conscientiousness, emotional stability, and cooperativeness) are usually trained during the childhood formative years. From personal experience and observation, it is very difficult to learn conscientiousness and emotional stability after one's formative years. One's intellectual capacity may be determined at birth, but requires training to reach its potential. I am unsure of how much true extraversion is inborn or learned. However, a pseudo-extraversion can be learned. At least four of the characteristics require training, and three of them must be during the formative years! Thus, those raising children are the ones responsible for forming leaders.

References:

Hall, R. H., Tolbert, P.S. (2009). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes, 10th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN:978-0-13-244840-6.

What is Loyalty?

I want to be a loyal person. I want to be loyal to my friends. What do I do when I find out that one of my friends is doing something wrong? Wouldn't it be disloyal to turn them in? Doesn't being loyal mean sticking by someone, no matter what? If I tell someone, I'll be a rat and a tattle-tale. I'll have broken the confidence of my friend. I would be a bad friend, wouldn't I? But helping them cover up seems wrong too. What do I do?

I believe that the understanding of the concept of loyalty is of critical importance here. For my business ethics class, I recently read an article by Robert A. Larmer that addresses this issue. Larmer addresses this issue so well, I will simply refer directly to his arguments.

I encourage you to take a few minutes and read the whole thing. I found it extremely helpful, and I believe you will also.

(All quotations below are from “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty” by Robert A. Larmer, which I read in Taking Sides by Newton, Englehardt, and Prichard, 2012, pp. 184-189. Most are sections taken from homework submitted for 560 - Business Ethics at Aspen University. Emphasis/bold mine. I have modified some words to apply more to friends than business. The meaning is unchanged.)

Larmer first explains that people often consider loyalty and confidentiality to be high duties and ethics. Reporting on someone “seems a violation of these duties and [many] argue that it is an act of disloyalty and hence morally wrong”. A person “must choose between two acts of betrayal, either her [friend] or the public interest, each in itself reprehensible”.

“Behind this view lies the assumption that to be loyal to someone is to act in a way that accords with what that person believes to be in her best interests. . . . I think this view . . . is mistaken . . . by ignoring the possibility that [reporting someone] may demonstrate greater loyalty than not [reporting]”.

“I am not, for example, disloyal to a friend if I refuse to loan her money for an investment I am sure will bring her financial ruin; even if she bitterly reproaches me for denying her what is so obviously a golden opportunity to make a fortune”.

“A more adequate definition of being loyal to someone is that loyalty involves acting in accordance with what one has good reason to believe to be in that person's best interests. . . . We [often] accept that a person thinking that something is in her best interests is a sufficiently good reason to think that it actually is. Other times, especially when we feel that she is being rash, foolish, or misinformed we are prepared, precisely by the virtue of being loyal, to act contrary to the person's wishes”.

Larmer presents three important points about loyalty.

“First, to the degree that an action is genuinely immoral, it is impossible to say that it is in the agent's best interests. We would not, for example, say that someone who sells child pornography was acting in his own best interests, even if he vigorously protested that there was nothing wrong with such activity. Loyalty does not imply that we have a duty to refrain from reporting the immoral actions of those to whom we are loyal”.

“The [friend who reports wrong behavior] may be demonstrating greater loyalty than the [friend] who simply ignores the immoral conduct, inasmuch as she is attempting to prevent her [friend] from engaging in self-destructive behaviour”.

“Second, loyalty requires that, whenever possible, in trying to resolve a problem we deal directly with the person to whom we are loyal. If, for example, I am loyal to a friend I do not immediately involve a third party when I try to dissuade my friend from involvement in immoral actions. Rather, I approach my friend directly, listen to his perspective on the events in question, and provide an opportunity for him to address the problem in a morally satisfactory way.” . . . “This principle of dealing directly with the person to whom the loyalty is due needs to be qualified, however. . . . There may arise cases where acting in a person's best interests requires that one act independently and perhaps even against the wishes of the person to whom one is loyal. Such cases will be especially apt to arise when the person to whom one is loyal is either immoral or ignoring the moral consequences of his actions. Thus, for example, loyalty to a friend who deals in hard narcotics would not imply that I speak first to my friend about my decision to inform the police of his activities, if the only effect of my doing so would be to make him more careful in his criminal dealings [and, I might add, give him time to hide the evidence before the police arrive]. . . . Neither is a loyal [friend] under obligation to speak first to [a friend] if it is clear that by doing so she places herself in jeopardy from [someone] who will retaliate if given the opportunity. Loyalty amounts to acting in another's best interests and that may mean qualifying what seems to be in one's own interests, but it cannot imply that one take no steps to protect oneself from the immorality of those to whom one is loyal. The reason it cannot is that, as has already been argued, acting immorally can never really be in a person's best interests. It follows, therefore, that one is not acting in a person's best interests if one allows oneself to be treated immorally by that person. Thus, for example, a father might be loyal to a child even though that child is guilty of stealing from him, but this would not mean that the father should let the child continue to steal”.

“Third, loyalty requires that one is concerned with more than considerations of justice. I have been arguing that loyalty cannot require one to ignore immoral or unjust behaviour on the part of those to whom one is loyal, since loyalty amounts to acting in a person's best interests and it can never be in a person's best interests to be allowed to act immorally. Loyalty, however, goes beyond considerations of justice, in that, while it is possible to be disinterested and just, it is not possible to be disinterested and loyal. Loyalty implies a desire that the person to whom one is loyal take no moral stumbles, but that if moral stumbles have occurred that the person be restored and not simply punished [this assumes, of course, that the person will be punished]. A loyal friend is not only someone who sticks by you in times of trouble, but someone who tries to help you avoid trouble”.

Therefore, Larmer argues, a true friend will always address any wrong or immoral behavior.

• First, if it isn't likely that there is danger of coverup or personal harm, you should talk directly with your friend and address it. Give them the opportunity to correct their behavior and make it right. You should not promise that you won't tell anyone. Instead, inform them that if they do not correct their wrong behavior, it is your duty to them, to God, and to others to involve other people.
• Second, if they do not amend their own behavior (or if they claim to and you find out they have not), it is right for you to turn them in to the proper authority. It is morally wrong for you to take their blame for them, cover up for them, or to allow yourself to be harmed, used, or mistreated in order to protect them in their wrongdoing.
• Third, depending on the situation, because you are their loyal friend, you should be the one to help restore them after their punishment and encourage them to lead a moral and upright life in the future.
  In some cases however, especially in dating/romantic relationships, in order for the person to be truly restored, you may have to step out of the relationship and perhaps even the friendship. If you sticking with them is helping prevent them from getting right with the Lord, you are hurting them, encouraging their immorality, and hindering them from redemption. As a loyal friend, in order to truly help them, you may have to step out of the relationship and trust God to take care of them. Seek Godly counsel from older, mature Christians if you are in a dating situation where you are aware of immoral behavior.

Does Limiting Price Gouging Work Against the Market?

A question I came up with in discussion from my MBA work. :)  If you're into supply and demand, I'd appreciate some discussion. :)

After reviewing issue #9 in Taking Sides by Newton, Englehardt and Pritchard, please give your opinion on this discussion question.

(
For reference if you do not have the book, you can find Zwolinski's argument here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1337654
and Snyder's Here:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/37353308/whats-matter-price-gouging
See also:
http://knowledgeproblem.com/2009/05/13/price-gouging-is-it-wrong-should-it-be-against-the-law/
)


Taking into account both Snyder's view and Zwolinski's views on price gouging and supply and demand in the wake of a natural disaster, does regulation on essential goods actually create a market disparity?  For example, let's consider generators and beer.  Snyder used generators as an example of something that merits price regulation because it is an essential good.  He also referred to beer as a non-essential good that does not need to be regulated.  There is no moral wrong with charging higher prices for it, because its lack does not hurt anyone, and those who purchase it should be only those who can afford the higher prices.  Understood.  Now, let's take a look at Zwolinski's discussion on signalling in supply and demand.  Let's say that generators are selling at a 30% profit, and the price is limited to that profit range.  Beer, however, is selling at a 150% profit, because of no price limitations.  If a vendor has limited space on his next supply truck, will he a) fill it with generators, or b) fill it with beer?

In this instance, Zwolinski's argument can be clearly seen.  It appears, in fact, that limiting price gouging creates incentive to NOT supply the needs that are most important.  If there were no price limitations on the generators, they would command a premium price, and vendors would be more likely to attempt to secure a greater supply.  If the essentials are regulated, and the non-essentials are not, the market actually creates incentives for vendors to focus on the non-essentials.

What are your thoughts?

Communism vs. Capitalism

Just read part of the 1848 Communist Manifesto and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for my Business Ethics class. Below is part of my essay in response.  I didn't have time to write as much as I wanted. :)

"Newton, Englehardt, and Prichard (2012) stated, “Adam Smith was absolutely correct if he is taken to be describing capital formation; but when it comes to the distribution of the wealth the free market has created, his mechanisms have no way of ensuring justice” (p. 3). So capitalism is indeed an excellent way to create capital. So why doesn't a society adopt a Marxist approach to the distribution of the wealth that capitalism has created? There is a significant problem with the communistic approach to re-distribution of wealth. The re-distribution methods espoused in communism undermine the motivating forces behind capitalism. In other words, while in the process of re-distributing wealth, communism eliminates the very mechanism that is creating wealth. The result is that capital creation will diminish, eventually dropping the standard of living of everyone in the economy, but most often the poor, who are the very people communism claimed to be trying to help.

When working with theories and models, it is of crucial importance to know if the model accurately represents reality. Capitalism and communism are both models for the handling of economy. Which represents reality best? Capitalism is based on the observation that humans are generally self-seeking. Self-interest motivates a willingness to work in people who otherwise would be unwilling to work. Hyeonseo Lee is a woman who escaped from North Korea. She described an incident that had a profound impact on her. She saw people dying from lack of basic needs, and everyone else just passed by them. “Nobody helped them, because they were so focused on taking care of themselves and their families” (Hyeonseo, 2013). Sometimes, those of us who live in a very prosperous society where taking care of others seems like second nature can forget about what happens when everyone is suffering. The model of capitalism fits what we observe of basic humanity. People are willing to work to better themselves. In the Bible, Proverbs 16:26 observes, “The appetite of laborers works for them; their hunger drives them on”. But if others will take care of them, their motivation for work lessens. The Bible warns against handouts. Thessalonians 3:10 says, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Communism, on the other hand, argues that people are willing to work for a common good, even at a relative loss to themselves. “True communism depends on human nature being basically altruistic” (Communism vs. Capitalism, 2013). There may be some truth observable in this to a point. But as I studied in other textbooks, people assign value to their altruistic work, thereby actually gaining personal value in exchange for what they give away. What happens when this personal value is gone? One can observe that people are generally unwilling to make sacrifices that hurt themselves unless they can see some gain from it. For example, if everyone in a society works an 8-hour job each day, and all are taken care of by the government with an equal “wage”, it is likely that everyone will continue happily. However, would someone in this situation be willing to work a 12-hour day while everyone else works only an 8-hour day? Not unless he can see a benefit from doing so? That benefit may be personal betterment, (such as overtime in capitalism), betterment of another, avoidance of punishment, etc. But if he cannot see any result from it, and if he is given a choice, human nature indicates that he will avoid it. However, capitalism appeals to this specific element of human nature. A person is willing to make a sacrifice for the betterment of himself or the betterment of another from which he derives personal value.

Therefore, the model of capitalism best matches reality and human nature. It may not be the perfect model, and it certainly does not solve all the ills of mankind. But capitalism meets the reality of human nature. It understands human nature, and builds upon it a system proven to generate wealth.

I would add however, that the best implementation I am aware of is capitalism guided by Biblical / Christian morality. Capitalism alone certainly allows for certain groups of people to take advantage of other groups of people (communism also allows for this). Capitalism guided by moral principles may be the best approach. The best examples of the implementation of capitalism that I am aware of are where capitalism operates inside a set of cultural expectations that are distinctly Biblical / Christian morals. People may not realize the origin of the values they hold, but they happen to match. These values help to keep the selfish tendencies of mankind in check. For example, the United States has a highly-developed business ethics system which brings capitalism and biblical morality together into a society and economy that has been one of the strongest on earth."

Quoted block from Module 1, Completed Assignments. David Lorimer. 560 – Business Ethics. Aspen University. Professor Sherrie Campbell. Submitted 03/23/2013.

References:

 Newton, Englehardt, Prichard. (2012). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society, 12th/E. McGraw-Hill ISBN: 9780073527352 .

 Lee, Hyeonseo. (2013). My escape from North Korea. Retrieved March 22, 2013 from http://www.ted.com/talks/hyeonseo_lee_my_escape_from_north_korea.html .

9 Quick Tips for Writing a Convincing News Article

9 Quick Tips for Writing a Convincing News Article

… and other stories

We've all seen them – compelling news articles proving things that may not be true. Here are some quick tips to write your own top-selling news articles about anything!

1. Make a Bold Statement in the Teaser Headline

It doesn't have to be true. In fact, it's probably most effective if it's not. This is the headline that everyone is going to see, so make it good. Most people aren't going to click on your article anyway, so make sure the teaser headline says exactly what you want them to believe.

Example: “Curiosity Rover: Water on Mars!”

2. Write a Compelling Article Title

Your article title needs to be true, at least technically. But since most people won't read the article, be sure that your title makes them believe what you want them to.

Example: “NASA's New Findings Prove Water on Mars?”

The question mark is your friend. Use it a lot, especially in the beginning paragraph.

3. Prove it in the Subtitle

If a reader likes your headline, chances are, he'll read the subtitle next. Again, this may be all he or she is reading, so be convincing, and use that question mark!

Examples: “Curiosity's latest samples indicate something many earthlings have long thought impossible. Have we found water on Mars at last?”
or

“The latest studies indicate a strong link between population growth and disease.”

4. The First Paragraph is your Argument

The majority of people who have read this far won't read past the first paragraph. Be sure that the first paragraph implies your conclusion. You want people to believe your statements in the first paragraph, assuming you prove them later in the article. (Please note: Proof is not necessary, see below)

5. Use Words Like “Linked” and “Indicates” a Lot

Research indicates the use of special words is correlated with an increased percentage of people who believe what is implied. In 98% of cases, language is linked with people's specific beliefs.

Example: * clears throat *

Bonus: “May have” also sounds like proof. “Early reports indicate that the man may have embezzled as much as $1 Million dollars.” (Even if the guy is innocent, this kind of language convicts him in the readers' minds.)

6. More Then 90% of Effective Articles Use Statistics

You must have statistics. A full 87% of people surveyed indicated that they are more likely to believe a claim if it is backed up by statistics. Don't worry. You can prove whatever you want with statistics, even the opposite of what the statistics originally indicated (remember that word?). You don't have to pay thousands of dollars to commission a survey. All you need is some carefully spun words.

7. Eyewitness Interviews Tell the Story

Be sure you include quotes. If you have relevant statements from an authority, use them. But for most news articles, a quote from any eyewitness will win your audience. Your witness can be an authority, a passerby, or a drunk – it doesn't matter. Your advantage? You get to chose what words show up in your article.

Examples:  Susan Thomas, one of the first people to witness the scene, cried, “It was terrible, just terrible.”
or

“I was drinking a cold pop, and all of a sudden, I had sharp chest pains.” (The soda might be irrelevant to the story, but by using the quote this way, one can indicate the pop may have caused the chest pains).

8. Always Tell the Truth

But save it for the very last paragraph or second-to-last paragraph. Most people won't read it anyway, so this is where you can be honest to preserve your integrity. Don't counteract your previous words. Just clarify them. Remember all those “linked”, “indicates”, and “may have”s you used earlier? Here is where you clarify them. Oh, but you can always throw in a statement like “at this time” to make your readers believe your statements will be proven true in the future.

Example: “As of the time of writing, NASA has not confirmed these statements. But scientists are enthusiastically awaiting Thursday's press conference. A NASA spokesperson promised that NASA has “some really exciting news to share.”

9. The Comments

Ignore them. Haters Gonna Hate.

For a full example that I wrote just to illustrate, read:

http://dlorimer.blogspot.com/2013/02/research-finds-link-between-high.html

For more great examples, check out Yahoo! News

This one is particularly good:

http://news.yahoo.com/dark-matter-finally-found-big-news-coming-soon-144840916.html

http://news.yahoo.com/rare-star-explosion-creates-galaxys-youngest-black-hole-115516887.html

I wanted you to read this one (it's part of what my previous blog was based on), but it appears that yahoo has removed it.  (Yahoo's story was just like what I describe above, unlike the news story their story was based on).  Here is their title:

Mars Curiosity rover finds water, simple carbon compounds

Research Finds Link Between High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Hurricane Katrina; Other Natural Disasters

Is the taste worth the risk? More people are abandoning soft drinks and other unhealthy foods once they discover what it is truly doing to them. Is death the latest to be added to the list, including diabetes and obesity?

High-fructose corn syrup is on the chopping block again today, after recent reports found links to Hurricane Katrina. A study released yesterday by Anheuser Busch called attention to the high death rate among HFCS users. This follows an independent study, commissioned in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, which suggests that victims of natural disasters are often HFCS consumers. “The public needs to be aware of the danger”, said the New York City Commissioner. “They should have had earlier warning.”

But perhaps the most shocking findings relate to Hurricane Katrina. Katrina claimed the lives of over 1800 people in 2005. When asked about their deceased loved ones' lifestyles, many survivors admitted the victims consumed HFCS. “The last time I saw him, he was out on the porch,” Mary Jenkins managed, between sobs. “He was just relaxing with his drink. He had no idea that would be the last thing he ever did.”

But in fact, research now indicates that as many as 87% of the hurricane victims had used HFCS within the last week. And when that's added to the fact that HFCS is linked to obesity, diabetes, poor grades, low self-image, depression, and fatigue, many people are beginning to wonder why it isn't already illegal.

It may be too early to know for sure. The FDA has not yet reviewed any of the most recent claims, and HFCS remains on the list of approved ingredients for large-scale consumption in the United States. One advocacy group says that may change, however. They plan to take HFCS to task with an FDA panel this June.

Source:
Baloney Network - "All the news that isn't true."

The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer

The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer

A book review

Short review: Read this book! It is a tremendous presentation on Christian thought, life, and living by A.W. Tozer. It was so good I had to read it again!

Long review: I really don't even know to explain this book, except that it is excellent. So i'll just share some significant things. This book is a tremendous presentation on Christian thought, life, and living by A.W. Tozer. He deals with a proper understanding of God and our relationship to Him. He presents a complete view of what it means to be a Christian; a holy person in such open and honest detail. He confronts many common areas of struggle that Christians face today. Not only was this book challenging to me personally, I sent it to a few friends who were in situations that Tozer deals with exactly! Also in this book, Tozer has one of the best explanations of the Old Testament Law in relation to New Testament revelation that I have ever heard. It's so good that I read the first part twice before I ever finished the rest of it the first time! Make this one high on your to-read list!

Confessions by Saint Augustine

Confessions by Saint Augustine

A book review

Short review: I recommend reading the first book (it's divided into short "books"), but don't waste your time with the rest of it. Augustine's presentation of who God is in the first book is astounding, and brought me into worship and praise of God.

Long review: In my opinion, this book starts out great and gets progressively worse until an absolutely miserable ending. (Just being honest). Augustine's presentation of who God is in the first book is well worth the read. It is powerful. However, as the books continue, Augustine seems to deal with issues about which he is less and less unsure. It's a classic, so I read the whole thing. But other than the beginning, It really wasn't all that fantastic. Augustine reveals that his early philosophy was unorthodox, and it seems to have continuing effects on some of his ideas. He shares his testimony, struggles, and challenging growth in philisophical context, and it is interesting. My impression of about the last third of this work is that he was exploring ideas that he really didn't have any idea what he was talking about. Read the first "book" for sure, and maybe about half of the total work. But save yourself the time, and go read something else after that.

When Knights Were Bold (A Book Review)

When Knights Were Bold, by Eva March Tappan

Short Review:

First, I want to clarify a misunderstanding that I held from the book's title. It is not an adventure book. It is more simply an easy-to-read Medieval history. If you have an interest in the Middle Ages, I recommend this book as some light reading to broaden your understanding of the era.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It is neither boring, nor adventurous, and it found it to be the perfect book to read a chapter before bed. It broadened my understanding of the Middle Ages, and corrected some "fairy-tale" misperceptions.

Free Text and Pictures:

http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=tappan&book=bold&story=_contents

Free Audio Book:

http://librivox.org/when-knights-were-bold-by-eva-march-tappan/

Don't Think and Drive (16)

Random and funny things observed while traveling.

I've decided to name my car Alexis. I just want to be able to say, "Yeah, I travel in Alexis . . . " "I own Alexis . . ."

I think I would rent the truck that advertised in large letters "fuel-saving chassis skirts!", except that no one had bothered to actually put them on the truck - they weren't there!

"Sorry restaurant closes at 9pm." Great restaurants are open all night?

"Subway parking only". - I expected to see this sign underground.

"Must be 21 to enter this area". I didn't go, because I'm not 21 anymore . . .

"No Parking: Doctors Only" So I can park there? (I'm not a doctor).

"Handwashing Instructions:
Thoroughly wash and dry hands" -- No kidding, lol.

"The firm concentrates on selling to either small, medium-sized, or large customers." LOL! (They meant small, medium, or large businesses.)

Restaurant sign advertising:
"NEW
Fajita
GrillBurger
Lemonade"
-- sounds positively disgusting.

Something about Wendy's "Natural-Cut Fries" bothers me. What? Do they grow them that way?

Some dress codes are strict, but this one takes the cake!
"Girls: Dresses or skirts and blouses with sleeves, knee-length or below" (Those are some LONG sleeves!)

Check out these great pictures, also!

1) Deanna spotted this one. The sign says "Walk-ins Welcome". LOL. I love this one.

2) We found a boy who fell in a puddle! lol

3) Now THAT is some AMAZING Cologne!

Evolution Died of Pneumonia

(Short version - read only until dashed line)

Bill: "Imagine you have severe pneumonia. You will die, unless you get the right medication quickly. A pharmacist escorts you to a room where base chemicals sit on shelves, clearly divided into types, but unlabled as to what they are. There are 60 different chemicals in the room, and you are assured that the correct chemicals to save your life are included. You must choose the right combination that will create the medicine that will save your life. Incorrect combinations create poisons that will kill you except for a few neutral combinations that won't hurt you (but you will still die of the pneumonia). Only one creates the drug needed to save your life. Remember, you don't even know the number of chemicals included in the lifesaving formula - you must guess that too. How likely are you to be right?"

Pete: "I am going to die."

Bill: "Now, let's say that the entire world's population has this severe pneumonia. Each one of them gets to try to create the formula that will save their life. We now have 6 billion attempts, instead of just one. How many people are going to survive?

Pete: "Well, I suppose a few would. Maybe a couple hundred?"

Bill: "Actually, as best as we can tell, the chance of anyone out of the 6 billion people getting the right combination is 1 out of 8 followed by 96 zeros. That's nearly a googol against any of the 6 billion surviving. But ... for the sake of argument, let's take your number. 200 people managed to guess correctly somehow and survived.

Now here comes the tricky part. How many of them could remember which chemicals they chose?"

Pete: "Oh dear - probably only 1 or 2."

Bill: "So how is the next generation (if there is one) going to survive the next pneumonia epidemic?"

Pete: "Well that's simple. The two that survived will write down or tell in detail the location and order of the chemicals they chose to their children."

Bill: "And here is the inherent problem with evolution, Pete. You see, in order for good mutations or accidents to be passed on to the next generation . . . you have to require intelligence. It's one thing to argue that chance processes can happen, but why can we simply assume that they're just 'passed on to the next generation'? You see, there has to already be an order, a system, an intelligence in place in order for those genes to be passed on. Where did THAT come from?

--------------------------------------------------

Pete: "But early cells simply grew and divided - they didn't have to procreate,"

Bill: "They grew and divided? Why? Where did the information for growing and dividing come from? Do you see how this doesn't make sense? If a cell somehow did manage to come into existence, where did it get all that information that we just assume it had? We consider it simply inherent to cells -- simply inherent to life. Maybe it is exactly that - simply inherent."

Pete: "You're arguing for a creator?"

Bill: "Why not? I believe that Z-pak you're taking for your pneumonia was specifically designed and created by a drug company. It's not even living, and I don't think it's any more than 13 chemicals in combination. Why wouldn't I believe that our bodies, which are living and so very much more complex, were created also?"

Pete: "But science says--"

Bill: "Science says that the z-pak was created, yes. And it also says that the human body is much more complex. Science does NOT say that man evolved. Science is study involving the observable and repeatable. That's why we know the z-pak was created -- by observation and repetition. But science cannot claim evolution. Individual scientists can claim it, for they are men and women with beliefs and faith, just like us. And so many scientists have claimed it. And many scientists have also claimed that God created the world, humans, and everything else. Neither of those is science. That's faith."

You see, it is complete foolishness to believe that Zithromax was designed by a drug company and at the same time to believe that your body was just a random happening.

Don't Think and Drive (15)

Random and funny things observed while traveling.

Southern Trip Edition

When I was on trio, we stayed in "camp accommodations". You know, a sweaty-smelling room with humidity way too high, no air conditioning, with 14 other guys who have vowed not to sleep? And the shower you get to use is a concrete bunker with no windows and nobody bothered to change the light bulb, with cracks in the wall so large you can see through them, and 2 inches of standing black water in the bottom? (You think I'm exaggerating - ask me about some stories!)

Well, guess what the ADULTS stay in!? I am apparently old enough now to be an adult. I had a double-bed, A/C, and a private bath at most of the camps I went to!! Check out the best one:

One camp I went to had a resident peacock. I didn't know these things can fly, often hang out in trees, and crow ...!

Road Names are always interesting. But you don't have to be a genius to name a street. Here's some I spotted:

"Cross St"

"Minor Rd"

"Frontage Rd"

What's the next ones? "Narrow Rd" and "City St"? LOL

I just love the Signs you see along the roads:

"Caution: School". No kidding!

"Wi-Fi Hot Tub" - this I've got to see!

"Clay Building Supply" - convenient last name :)

"To Future 26-W" -- We only had enough money for the sign, lol. Go ahead, take the exit. Right now, you launch of a bridge that's yet to be completed, but in a couple years, we'll have that fixed!

Ok, seriously - a hotel sign that says "Clean and Nice Folks"? That's what I look for in a hotel.

"Horseback Riding Zip Lines" - sign me up! This sounds like the adventure of a lifetime! LOL

"Camping -- Next Right" - in light of recent events, I found this extremely comical. (For those of you who are wondering, Mr. Camping predicted the world was going to end, and was wrong. He predicted again ...)

"New Steak Menu!" - They discovered that old steaks don't sell well.

Billboards:

"Go to church or the devil will get you" - Sorry guys, but I had to laugh. On a billboard? For adults?

"Heavy Traffic Can Be Such a Blessing ..." (Unfortunately for the advertiser, the trees had grown so tall no one could read the next line ...)

"World's Largest Sheet Sets" -- huh? Unfortunately no one makes beds this size. :( (I believe this was a problem of placement on the sign. I think World's Largest was supposed to go with "As Seen on TV", but well, they put it iin the wrong place.)

"Sweet Local Peaches" - Spent the next 3 minutes trying to figure out if this was advertising a dating service ...

Churches:

"Kodak UMC" - Come experience a God-Moment! ... I mean a Kodak-Moment ...

"The Church" - Yup, that was their name. Says it all.

Ok, I thought this hilarious! "Department of Mental Retardation" Please call if you would like to become more retarded ...

I thought this department was housed in DC!

Just compare the "Uses Most Energy" rating with the "This model uses: "

1) They found it necessary to explain "qualified person".

2) "Failure to follow these instructions can result in death or explosion." Yeah, a friend of mine tried to service his own water heater. He must have done something wrong. He exploded.

P.S. Sorry I don't have pictures for all these signs, but I hear it's quite dangerous to take pictures while trying to drive ;)