During the conversation I ran into Ashleigh, a 21-yr-old schoolgirl who seemed full of inexperience and strong opinions. For example, she touted environmental responsibility – and indeed wanted everyone to learn a “deeper understanding of poverty” that would permeate their lifestyle choices like what car they drive… yet later admitted that she herself drives an SUV (so much for that “deeper understanding”). Even better… in her blog she recently posted that this carton right here is racist (!?) and she wants people to contact the editors of Christianity Today to “firmly let them know this is not acceptable” (wait ’till you actually see the “racist” cartoon).

Anyways… I engaged this girl in attempted logical discourse – which, for your entertainment, I have included here. My discussion responses are in normal text, my reflective commentary for you is in italics, and some highlighting has been added by me for emphasis.

The Discussion

Ashleigh:

[...] I appreciated the Earth Day snippet, but I also thought it was rather wimpy. It seemed to focus only on “People in the U.S. have too much food,” when in reality, that’s not the biggest problem as far as how the U.S. contributes to environmental degradation. [...] U.S. Americans are so deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor, and most of them don’t even know it. There are so many ways to continue expanding sponsors’ understanding of poverty that will impact their whole lives (what kind of house and neighborhood they live in, who they vote for, what they drive, where they shop, etc.) [...] I do understand that you will need to restrain your critiques at points– honestly, not all people are ready for them. [...]

Oh boy, a lefty… and a quick check to her blog reveals she’s only 21 and appears to still be in college… yet seems to know so much about “U.S. Americans” and their lack of all her good qualities. Here I go.

@ Ashleigh
I find your comments offensive.

I’m not sure how much of the world you’ve seen (or even if you’re out of school yet), but the United States (and the West in general) is a gold-standard of environmental goodness next to the rest of the planet. The countries that Compassion helps are often huge polluters and it’s only with the help of the US and the West (including the people you call “deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor”) that Compassion can keep doing what it’s doing for the poor.

We don’t need finger-pointing at Compassion’s generous sponsors – obviously they already must have some “understanding of poverty” to be a sponsor in the first place.

If transparency means that this blog is just going to be about bashing the United States then the superficial marketing style of blog is looking pretty good.

Ashleigh:

Interesting thoughts, Steve. I’m sorry you were offended by my comments. Let me try to clarify:

While I agree that other countries contribute to pollution, most people don’t have cars, multiple TVs, computer, etc. like we do here. Compared with the rest of the world, the carbon footprint of those of us in the U.S. is huge! I agree that we need better environmental standards across the board, but in many areas the U.S. trails behind other advanced industrialized nations in leading the way. For example, the U.S. decided not to sign in on the Kyoto Protocol.

Similar situations exist not only as far as environmental issues go but in a multitude of areas. The U.S. has pushed forward a lot of positive progress in the world, but it is not squeaky clean. There are points at which the U.S. government or businesses have quite intentionally taken advantage of others. All countries do this– not just the U.S. The U.S. just happens to be a position of power, so complaints are rarely heard.

I am not saying bitter finger-pointing is the answer, just that a lot more than $32/month is required if we really want to take on global poverty. Poverty is a complex problem to solve even when everyone wants to solve it. (That’s why economists like William Easterly and Jeffrey Sachs argue with each other about the best way to move forward!) We all always have more to learn, and there may be some very large changes individuals, institutions, and governments of many countries, including the U.S., must make if we are all to do our part.

Yeah, first of all I’m glad we didn’t sign Kyoto. Second, by “the U.S. government or businesses” do you mean businesses like the neighborhood pub? Or more like the local tattoo parlor? Or perhaps you are referring to some big, straw-man, evil corporation business led by a fat, white, male, cigar-smoking, suit-wearing, yacht-sailing CEO having his shoes polished by Mexicans… you know, the guy your liberal professors constantly harp about?

Before I could even address the politics of her post someone beat me to it.

Jore Lund:

We accept that there is much diversity of opinion on topics outside of the ones that bring us together. We choose to “prefer on another in love” and not focus on differences that could result in divisiveness.

This does result in some holding of the tongue, but it is worth it. I love to see liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working side by side in obedience to Christ. Frankly, the process of laboring together with those of different opinions than my own, while respecting each other, has done more to alter my views than any sort of verbal banter.

If this blog becomes a location for knock-down, drag-out discussions of controversial topics then I think we are eroding something precious.

Compassion’s purpose is not to create a hot-bed of social discourse. As one wise Compassion friend taught me; we are trying to help people see Christ in the children that are living in poverty, and give them an opportunity to be Christ to these children.

So as we try to push the outside of the envelope, let’s not rip the paper.

@ Jore
Well spoken. I think we can credibly have a fulfilling and Christ-honoring discourse here (despite our varied ideologies and perspectives) if we leave the politics and student activism out of it. There are plenty of blogs for that.

Ashleigh:

I don’t think we’ve really gotten into politics.

Is simply admitting that the U.S. isn’t perfect (nor is any other country) so political? People sin against each other, and I think it’s important to remain open to confronting and confessing sin as necessarily. Nehemiah confessed on behalf of his Israelite ancestors– is it inappropriate for us to do the same?

She’s really backpedaling at this point. Apparently ALL she did was admit “that the U.S. isn’t perfect”, and even the Bible says that America isn’t perfect. I’ll make sure to remember in the future that if I say anything offensive it’s merely me pointing out that nobody’s perfect. Anyways, despite indications of leftist retardation I’m going to try and help her.

@ Ashleigh
I think that there is a line between honest self-critique and politically charged rhetoric. For instance, saying “Americans are so deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor” is wholly leftist and is not only political, but (in my opinion) is painfully erroneous. Although it may further Obama’s kingdom… it doesn’t further God’s kingdom, which is why we’re here.

With regard to Compassion’s generous sponsors: Have you ever been to a church on a Sunday night where the preacher was scolding his church for its shabby Sunday night attendance? The trouble is… he’s yelling at the wrong people! Don’t be too quick to convict the $32/month sponsor when you don’t know what else they’re doing (besides their support of Compassion) to further His kingdom.

You’ve got energy and spirit and I don’t want to mute that… only to help you channel it to maximize your positive effect on your circle of influence.

Ashleigh:

Steve,
I majored in political science and took a class on international political economy. Though you may disagree with my opinions (and opinions they are), they are valid views and not inherently anti-Christian as you seem to imply. My concern is for the poor, a concern which plays a pivotal role in God’s kingdom, though I realize people have different ideas of the best means by which to help the poor. I would appreciate it if you would refrain the from unsubstantiated bashing of certain political identities without even knowing if I claim them as my own.

I am not in any way trying to say Compassion sponsors aren’t generous people. I just know that in my own life, $32 is only so significant. I am still struggling to understand how I can truly give up my white U.S. American privilege that others might be blessed. $32 is a step for me, too, but I feel called to something higher than that. I think it’s important for us to wrestle with what it means to love the poor beyond simply offering a monthly donation, even one that is heartfelt.

I feel I can speak to this part of the Compassion sponsor experience because I am one, and I know what a struggle it is to truly integrate values of compassion and justice into one’s everyday life. It’s a journey I’m not finished with.

I appreciate your kindly meant closing, but that, when combined with your earlier remarks about my guessed age feel patronizing.

Maybe we can continue to discuss the ideas behind my original post rather than the specifics? I essentially said, (1) Compassion isn’t perfect and should be upfront and (2) the U.S. isn’t perfect and should be upfront. I don’t know how anyone could argue that either of these entities are perfect (even if you believe they’re mostly good!). Do people agree that an important part of this blog’s role would be engage with difficult issues like the struggles of both Compassion and the U.S. to bless the world’s poor with integrity?

Ok, I burst out laughing when I read how she’s majoring “in political science and took a class on international political economy”. With merely a few credit hours of study she’s been transformed into a global economist!! Good Father in Heaven, its a miracle!!

Notice that my mention of Obama is “bashing” to her… which is precisely why everyone should be really bashed in any form at some point in their life – so that our bash-o-meters are calibrated and don’t register false positives. She also seemed taken aback that I would insinuate she supports Obama without knowing for sure – apparently her own blog post using phrases like “my dear Barack” surrounded by near-romantic politi-gah-gah isn’t conclusive.

Still, I’m going to try and help her…

@ Ashleigh,
Ahh, much better… hardly any political rhetoric this time.

Did you notice that your latest comment centered around _your_ own experiences, struggles, and challenges in reflecting Christ to the poor… whereas your earlier comment seemed to center around what _others_ were or were not doing? Do you see the fundamental difference in the way it reads and the perceived attitude?

And while the US and the West definitely have their issues governmentally, open critique seems to be a bit beyond the scope of this blog (although any moderators are free at any time to tell me to go jump in a polluted third-world lake). Although, we can always write our elected officials and let them know our feelings regarding upcoming legislation, current events, and foreign policy. Perhaps a good blog post might be about about just that.

I actually like what Chris was saying the best with regard to the blog “having a blend of posts that run the gamut from promotional, to informational, to educational with some being silly, others being serious, some asking questions and others answering questions”.

Ashleigh:

Steve,
Thanks for your thoughts, but I’d appreciate you let me be my own editor. I’m an adult that can take responsibility for my own thoughts and expressions; I don’t take back my initial comments, nor did I write these later ones in an attempt to please you. As I stated before, despite your good intentions, these kinds of questions and comments are patronizing and hurtful.

If you would like to respond to the new questions/ideas I presented, feel free.

Thanks,
Ashleigh

The Conclusion

*sigh* Poor Ashleigh.

My wife, the nurse-type, has taught me to initially give grossly obese humans the benefit of the doubt… because it is conceivably possible, however unlikely, that their condition is from a freak “gland” issue or some other medical condition that they either did or did not bring upon themselves. The aforementioned fellow definitely appeared to be a self-infliction.

But I also believe in freedom. I think everyone is free to eat however they choose to within their means. I say “within their means” because I think there is something fundamentally flawed with being obese AND collecting public assistance. I’ve covered this before including the sometimes non-usefulness of WIC.

For instance, does it make any sense to give food stamps to obese people? Okay, there could be the extreme exception for medical reasons, loss of a provider, natural disaster or other misfortune. But I mean, really… on the whole is someone who is obese really in need of assistance getting food? Aren’t those people’s layers of lipo-love-flesh a testament to the fact that they have a ready supply and are indeed eating very well, thank you?

So if you have your own money then you should be able to use it to buy whatever food you like (healthy or unhealthy) and eat it in whatever quantities you like (dainty or super-sized) however often you like (first breakfast, second breakfast, elevensies, and so on). My communist state of New York has already banned trans-fats from restaurant use in some areas – even though this has problems of its own.

And recently we find that misguided (read authoritarian) politicians in Mississippi want to ban fat people from restaurants!? How insane is that? Granted, I’ve seen some of the largest people anywhere at the local Chinese buffet squatting in a booth and scarfing down every fried morsel they can get their greasy, stubby fingers on. But so what? It’s a free country, right? Or at least it WAS.

Here’s the rub… to be a FREE country you have to enforce two very important principles. First, people must have free choice. Second, people must bear the consequences of their choices (both good and bad) . This is tremendously important. Consequences to one’s own actions is a feedback mechanism that must not be tampered with or the delicate balance that allows for free choice will be disrupted.

If people want to eat gluttonously, that this their free choice. Then, if they want to fly somewhere, and their large torso won’t fit into a normal airplane seat, then they can buy two tickets for adjacent seats or choose another form of travel. If their morbid obesity causes severe medical problems, they need to figure out how to pay the upcoming medical bills or go without medical attention. If they are wealthy and can pay medical bills without batting an eyelash, good for them. If they used their free choice to acquire health insurance, good for them. If they used their free choice to blow their money on non-essentials, then they should rely on family and friends to help pay their bills (NOT the government).

If the government stepped in and “cushioned” everyone whose gluttonous lifestyle caused huge medical bills, then that combined with finite resources would create the need to start dictating to people what they can and cannot eat. This is bad, but is necessary in a socialist state where health care is “provided”. The UK is already projecting huge costs to the public over the next few decades due to the terrible obesity “problem”. Who knows what further behavioral restrictions will be put in place there. That is exactly why I’m 100% opposed to ANY form of universal healthcare.

Here are some pics (and you can view the full photoset here):

During the conference Adobe released new and highly anticipated versions of many of their software products, the most exciting for me being Flex Builder 3 Beta 2. They also demo’ed some prototype software they are working on for future release, such as an application called Thermo that allowed a developer to convert a designer’s comp into an actual front-end user interface with relative ease [here's a video clip].

Each night of the conference included “After-hours lounges” featuring 8-player LAN Halo 3 on Xbox 360′s, and 4-player LAN Quake 4 on high-powered PC’s. I sampled both with pleasure.

Here are some random observations I made during the conference:

• More guys had pony-tails than girls did
• More female attendees were divorced than were married (I assumed – based on their age, lack of any “ring”, and propensity to prattle on about their kids)
• Many of the featured conference speakers sported the casual look (jeans and a button up shirt)
• There was constantly a source of food and drink from 8am until midnight each day

A rudimentary perusing of the vegans’ literature and “statements of faith” [my term] will shock most sensible people. While the pursuit of humane treatment for animals is noble – and something I greatly agree with – the thought that by simply not eating meat, fish, or dairy (and actually a bazillion other things you’d never think were animal-related) you are avoiding negatively affecting the natural environment and the animal kingdom is laughable… laughable in a riotous hyena-slapping kind of way [and I recommend a little more iron from red meat might stimulate the brain waves into clearer thinking].

You see… as a living creature ourselves, humans consume their surroundings. We breath the surrounding oxygen… we eat the surrounding plants and animals (mmm… tasty animals)… we occupy the surrounding shelter. We actively displace the natural environment – be it plant or animal – that would otherwise occupy our space… and we consume the food and resources that would otherwise sustain that nature we are displacing. We partake in a society that burns fossil fuels. Every day we live pollutes the land. We are the antithesis of environmentally-friendly.

So the very existence of a vegan is a paradox at best… and vegans having children is outright hypocrisy. Each living vegan is negatively impacting the plant and animal kingdom. The only way to really, truly stop adversely affecting the environment is to kill yourself. So any vegan who is spreading their “faith” has obviously not killed themselves, and decided that selfishly living in knowing exploitation of nature is better… and should thus not be taken very seriously.

And besides… if we weren’t meant to eat animals, why are so many made of steak? Those wishing to truly help nature and the animal kingdom should visit Ted Nugent’s hunting website or Easy Wild Game Recipes.

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, “It’s Not Easy Being Green.”

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.” Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

Barack Obama exclaims in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and he calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be very, very careful how you vote!

Dear Children,

It has come to my attention that many of you are upset that folks are taking My name out of the season. Maybe you’ve forgotten that I wasn’t actually born during this time of the year and that it was some of your predecessors who decided to celebrate My birthday on what was actually a time of pagan festival. Although, I don’t mind… I appreciate being remembered anytime.

How I personally feel about this celebration can probably be most easily understood by those of you who have been blessed with children of your own. I don’t care what you call the day. If you want to celebrate My birth feel free to do so at any time by showing love to others as I have shown Love to you.

Now, having said that let Me go on. If it bothers you that the town in which you live doesn’t allow a scene depicting My birth, then just get rid of a couple of Santas and snowmen and put in a small Nativity scene on your own front lawn. If all My followers did that there wouldn’t be any need for such a scene on the town square because there would be many of them all around town.

Stop worrying about the fact that people are calling the tree a holiday tree, instead of a Christmas tree. It was I who made all trees. You can remember Me anytime you see any tree. Decorate a grape vine if you wish: I actually spoke of that one in a teaching, explaining who I am in relation to you and what each of our tasks were. If you have forgotten that one, look up John 15:1-8.

If you want to give Me a present in remembrance of My birth here is my wish list. Choose something from it:

1. Instead of writing protest letters objecting to the way My birthday is being celebrated, write letters of love and hope to soldiers away from home. They are terribly afraid and lonely this time of year. I know, they tell Me all the time.

2. Visit someone in a nursing home. You don’t have to know them personally. They just need to know that someone cares about them.

3. Instead of writing George complaining about the wording on the cards his staff sent out this year, why don’t you write and tell him that you’ll be praying for him and his family this year. Then follow up. It will be nice hearing from you again.

4. Instead of giving your children a lot of gifts you can’t afford and they don’t need, spend time with them. Tell them the Story of My birth, and why I came to live with you down here. Hold them in your arms and remind them that I love them.

5. Pick someone that has hurt you in the past and forgive him or her.

6. Did you know that someone in your town will attempt to take their own life this season because they feel so alone and hopeless? Since you don’t know who that person is, try giving everyone you meet a warm smile it could make the difference.

7. Instead of nit picking about what the retailer in your town calls the holiday, be patient with the people who work there. Give them a warm smile and a kind word. Even if they aren’t allowed to wish you a “Merry Christmas” that doesn’t keep you from wishing them one.

8. If you really want to make a difference, support a missionary, especially one who takes My love and Good News to those who have never heard My name.

9. Here’s a good one. There are individuals and whole families in your town who not only will have no “Christmas” tree, but neither will they have any presents to give or receive. If you don’t know them, buy some food and a few gifts and give them to the Salvation Army or some other charity which believes in Me and they will make the delivery for you.

10. Finally, if you want to make a statement about your belief in and loyalty to Me, then behave like a Christian. Don’t do things in secret that you wouldn’t do in My presence Let people know by your actions that you are one of mine.

Don’t forget; I am God and can take care of Myself. Just love Me and do what I have told you to do. I’ll take care of all the rest. Check out the list above and get to work; time is short. I’ll help you, but the ball is now in your court. And do have a most blessed Christmas with all those whom you love.

I LOVE YOU,
JESUS

5 Myths About Turning Out The Vote

By Michael McDonald
Sunday, October 29, 2006

If you’re an upstanding U.S. citizen, you’ll stand up and be counted this Election Day, right? Well, maybe not. Just because Americans can vote doesn’t mean they do. But who shows up is what decides the tight races, which makes turnout one of the most closely watched aspects of every election — and one that has fostered a number of myths. Here are five, debunked:

1. Thanks to increasing voter apathy, turnout keeps dwindling.

This is the mother of all turnout myths. There may be plenty of apathetic voters out there, but the idea that ever fewer Americans are showing up at the polls should be put to rest. What’s really happening is that the number of people not eligible to vote is rising — making it seem as though turnout is dropping.

Those who bemoan a decline in American civic society point to the drop in turnout from 55.2 percent in 1972, when 18-year-olds were granted the right to vote, to the low point of 48.9 percent in 1996. But that’s looking at the total voting-age population, which includes lots of people who aren’t eligible to vote — namely, noncitizens and convicted felons. These ineligible populations have increased dramatically over the past three decades, from about 2 percent of the voting-age population in 1972 to 10 percent today.

When you take them out of the equation, the post-1972 “decline” vanishes. Turnout rates among those eligible to vote have averaged 55.3 percent in presidential elections and 39.4 percent in midterm elections for the past three decades. There has been variation, of course, with turnout as low as 51.7 percent in 1996 and rebounding to 60.3 percent by 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, in fact, is on a par with the low-60 percent turnout rates of the 1950s and ’60s.

I remember hearing back in 1996 and 2000, amidst the campus “Rock the Vote” slogans, all the rhetoric with regard to politicians “disenfranchising” the youth of America. The media were heartbroken that today’s youngsters were turned off by politics, and that somehow this meant that something was wrong with politics, and that politicians needed to start resonating with young skater punks and slutty beeper-chicks.

Frankly, modern culture has so cultivated a generation of fast-food entertainment addicts that the fact of the matter is young voter-eligibles don’t vote because it bores them. And of course, they believe they have the right to be entertained by all. Politicians in drag with little chirping LED buttons would “resonate” more, you see.

Personally, I’m glad when politics is wicked boring… because it keeps the easily distracted and the entertainment junkies away, and that produces a higher quality result (in general) in the election.

2 Other countries’ higher turnout indicates more vibrant democracies.

You can’t compare apples and oranges. Voting rules differ from nation to nation, producing different turnout rates. Some countries have mandatory voting. If Americans were fined $100 for playing voter hooky on Election Day, U.S. participation might increase dramatically. But in fact, many people with a ballot pointed at their head simply cast a blank one or a nonsense vote for Mickey Mouse.

Moreover, most countries have national elections maybe once every five years; the United States has presidential or congressional elections every two years. Frequent elections may lead to voter fatigue. New European Union elections, for instance, seem to be depressing turnout in member countries. After decades of trailing turnout in the United Kingdom, U.S. turnout in 2004 was on a par with recent British elections, in which turnout was 59.4 percent in 2001 and 61.4 percent in 2005.

Americans are asked to vote more often — in national, state, local and primary contests — than the citizens of any other country. They can be forgiven for missing one or two elections, can’t they? Even then, over the course of several elections, Americans have more chances to participate and their turnout may be higher than that in countries where people vote only once every five years.

This one really speaks for itself. However, I don’t think voting once every two years is even approaching the level of voter fatigue. For crying out loud, it’s only once every two years?!

3 Negative ads turn off voters and reduce turnout.

Don’t be so sure. The case on this one is still open. Negative TV advertising increased in the mid-1980s, but turnout hasn’t gone down correspondingly. The negative Swift boat campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) apparently did little to depress turnout in the 2004 presidential race.

Some academic studies have found that negative advertising increases turnout. And that’s not so surprising: A particularly nasty ad grabs people’s attention and gets them talking. People participate when they’re interested. A recent GOP attack ad on Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), a Senate candidate, has changed the dynamic of the race, probably not because it changed minds or dissuaded Democrats, but because it energized listless Republicans.

We’ll have to wait to see whether the attack on Ford backfires because voters perceive it as unfair. That’s the danger of going negative. So campaigns tend to stick to “contrast ads,” in which candidates contrast their records with those of their opponents. When people see stark differences between candidates, they’re more likely to vote.

I saw the Ford ad he speaks of and thought it was hilarious. I think the attack ads are effective. I think they mobilize the “base”, even though I only partly even agree with the concept of “mobilizing the base” in the first place.

Now some apathetic or undecided voters may be turned off by the negative ads, but not many… and when you hear people tout numbers claiming the voters want positive campaigns, don’t believe it. People, because we are a miserable lot of pulp-lovers, are drawn to salacious details of impropriety and corruption. It’s like a reality show or a soap opera. If the negative ads didn’t work they wouldn’t be used… it’s that simple.

4 The Republican “72-hour campaign” will win the election.

Not necessarily. You can lead citizens to the ballot, but you can’t make them vote.

Republicans supposedly have a super-sophisticated last-minute get-out-the-vote effort that identifies voters who’ll be pivotal in electing their candidates. Studies of a campaign’s personal contact with voters through phone calls, door-to-door solicitation and the like find that it does have some positive effect on turnout. But people vote for many reasons other than meeting a campaign worker, such as the issues, the closeness of the election and the candidates’ likeability. Further, these studies focus on get-out-the-vote drives in low-turnout elections, when contacts from other campaigns and outside groups are minimal. We don’t know what the effects of mobilization drives are in highly competitive races in which people are bombarded by media stories, television ads and direct mail.

Republican get-out-the-vote efforts could make a difference in close elections if Democrats simply sat on the sidelines. But this year Democrats have vowed to match the GOP mobilization voter for voter. So it’ll take more than just knowing whether a prospective voter owns a Volvo or a BMW for Republicans to eke out victory in a competitive race.

This election is the first I’ve ever heard about this super-whamo-dyne GOP 72-hour race for the cure. Sounds like more of a mystical Dem-demoralizer to me… make’em think you’ve got magic pixie-dust that’ll hack into voting machines untraceably.

5 Making voter registration easier would dramatically increase turnout.

Well, yes and no.

In 1993, the Democratic government in Washington enacted “Motor Voter,” a program that allowed people to register to vote when they received their driver’s license or visited a welfare office. Democrats thought that if everyone were registered, turnout rates would increase — by as much as 7 percentage points.

But while many people registered to vote, turnout didn’t go up much. Subsequent studies found only small increases in turnout attributable to Motor Voter, perhaps 2 percentage points.

Sizable increases in turnout can be seen in states with Election Day registration, which allows people to register when they vote. This may be related to the fact that lots of people don’t make up their minds to vote until Election Day, rather than months in advance when they get a license.

Personally, I hate anything that makes it easier for people to vote… including (and especially) lazy people. Or easier for people who don’t plan for the future (i.e. election day). Chances are, if registering ahead of time to vote – and looking up ahead of time where you need to go to do so – is too much work for you to be bothered with, then your vote most assuredly should NOT count.

The best election results are during periods of inclement weather and heavy reality show programming.

Greece bumped the US Team (filled with NBA players) out of gold medal contention… Greece having only a single NBA player on its roster. This feels just like the 2004 Summer Olympics where the US got bumped from the gold medal round by Spain (I think). Geez… in the 2004 Summer Olympics we couldn’t even beat Puerto Rico, one of our own territories?!

Face it… United States basketball, embodied by the NBA, has become a spectacle… a spectacular exposition of attitude and showiness performed by grown, whiny children. We care more about dunks and 3-pointers than any of the fundamentals of the sport. Our fast-food entertainment culture desires the flash and sizzle of hard drives to the hoop and aerial acrobatics… not the mundane execution of 12-foot pullup jumpers and dependable foul shots. The NBA suits, knowing flash equals cash, restrain their own refs from calling the two-step rule on the big “playmakers” as they take 3-and-a-half steps to the hoop. Hey, if the crowds sing then the registers ring – somebody show me the money.

But alas… this perverted form of basketball encounters the truly objective challenge in the face of international competition. Are the NBA tricksters the best? Are the US court magicians superior? Nope. It turns out that a basket made from a 15-foot jump shot is worth the same as one made in a spectacular alley-oop. Without the Figure Skating judges giving points for “Artistic impression” the US style of flash over substance gives no advantage… and is possibly a disadvantage.

Things weren’t always like this. Remember the 1992 Summer Olympics? Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and the rest. We utterly cremed the opposition. But these players listed were the best. They had the fundamentals of the sport down cold. They knew (even and especially Jordan) that flash was great, but it was SECONDARY to getting the basketball in the basket. People like to say that today’s players are the best there ever were. *cough* What?! I think not… just look at how they do against other countries whose teams aren’t filled with cash-pumped players and whose people would rather watch soccer.

Now you may also say, “Hey, this is all because so many of today’s NBA All-stars refuse to play in non-cash events.” It is true that today some all-stars duck out of representing their country in international competition (which is a blog post for another time), but that is only a further testament to their selfish, glitzy mentality… and probably reveals a deep fear of being embarassed by teams they outwardly perceive to be inferior. Do you really think that these results would be any different if there were different US players there? Not in today’s NBA. We’d be better off using our college team all-stars.

Here’s an excerpt from the article linked at the top:

As they warmed up before Friday’s semifinal against Greece, the U.S. players put on a jam session for the fans.

Dwight Howard dunked emphatically. Dwyane Wade bounced the ball off the backboard, caught it and stuffed. Elton Brand jammed an alley-oop pass. Finally, LeBron James flew down the lane for a tomahawk.

As the crowd roared, the Greeks lined up at the other end and shot free throws. The moment foretold Greece’s 101-95 victory in the semifinals of the world championships.

The U.S. has dazzling skill; the Greeks are a dazzling team.

“We have to learn the international game better,” U.S. coach Mike Krzyzewski said. “We learned a lot today because we played a team that plays amazing basketball and plays together.”

[emphasis added by Negative99.com]

You have to learn the international game better?!? If that means you have to learn how to score more points than the other team, then YES, you’re right. Bless my soul, though, but I thought scoring more points was the key to American basketball as well.

This is why myself, and a growing number of others, don’t watch the NBA. How long until March Madness 2007?

Let us look at this phenomenon on a familiar micro-scale… the video game. In Wired’s article the economics of today’s larger scale games, specifically its MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft, were examined for their effect on the mental captivity of their audience… the player. It was found that scarcity, not abundance, was a key ingredient to an engaging experience. Now, while every gamer loves a challenge, why would rich and fantastical environments with limitless resources not attract everyone who’s dreamed of making Trump Tower look like a taco stand? It’s not attractive because it’s not hard… and as it turns out, hard is fun.

Economics is loosely defined as choice under scarcity. After all, in the real world, there’s only so much to go around. You can’t always get what you want, and unfulfilled desires give rise to markets. But in a game world, there’s no inherent reason for scarcity. Game designers have given us plenty of utopias where we can have all the mithril we want, to buy whatever we want whenever we want it. Problem is, those worlds turn out to be dull. For example, the developers of Active Worlds made everything in the game free. Players built enormous houses – in which there was nothing to do. The game never quite caught on. That’s why today’s newer massive synthetic worlds make life hard. It’s why we have to scheme, fight, and occasionally beg for food, shelter, transportation, and great big flaming swords.
- Geekonomics, Wired Magazine – April 06.

Take a game like World of Warcraft… when you’re not fighting bands of enemies (or following the foolhardy Leeroy Jenkins into a deathtrap) you’re fishing, leatherworking, skinning, tailoring, or any of several otherwise mundane tasks. If you want choice armor and weapons you have to earn them. If you want a sweet ride of a mount you need to pay some mad duckets. And if you want the gold you have to earn it, lawfully or otherwise. It’s not easy, but this game is growing in players and servers every day. It’s hard, but it’s fun.

So why is hard fun? I’m not much for the rambling of psychologists, but a clue may be found in the seminal work of former University of Chicago psychology professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He has a theory called Flow.

Flow is a mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing, characterized by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity.
- Flow, en.wikipedia.org

While the full concept is no doubt complex (and not without its more dubious assertions) the basic premise is simple. Activities that possess “flow” usually share a few common characteristics: clear goals, focus, loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, distorted sense of time, direct and immediate feedback, balance between ability level and challenge, sense of control, and intrinsic reward. If we look at this list we can quickly see the parallels with successful online videogames.

More than just in massive multiplayer games, there are smaller bite-size examples as well. Recently a small Flash game aptly titled Flow (created by Jenova Chen for his University of Southern California thesis project) gained notoriety when word of it quickly circulated through the blogosphere. In true Digg or Slashdot fashion Chen’s thesis website was flooded with online visitors in just a few days. Why, you ask? Is this game some gargantuan leap of Flash ActionScript technology? Nope. It’s small, simple, and patterned after Csikszentmihalyi’s principles of flow… making it unquestionably fun. There’s no record of high scores (there’s no score at all), but more than a few curious surfers found themselves engrossed in the wonderfully entertaining and aesthetically pleasing world of a small sea creature. Diving deep into the ocean to nibble little bright wisps of nutrition while out-swimming competitors was never so much fun!

Economics in games… flow in games… what’s the point? In the safety of the video game microcosm the behaviors of people reveal themselves in ways applicable to the “real” world. The same flow theory principle of ability-challenge balance that buries a fast-money-MMORPG is the principle that makes games like World of Warcraft flourish. This is, consequently, the same entrepreneurial drive that powers real-world capitalist economies over socialist or communist structures. The same lethargic undertones of the government collection of resources and subsequent reallocation can stifle the creativity and ingenuity of a people just as easily as reckless riches can kill a game. Think this is all a stretch? Think again.

This classic risk-reward model has proved itself over and over. Who would argue against the fact that the drive to excel is greatest where there is much to gain through excellence and nothing to gain through inactivity? This gain can be in the form of needed bread and water or a fleet of luxury cruise liners. If you were getting free food, would you then feel the need to grow it? Of course not… not unless your food source was going away sometime soon. If you got unlimited free healthcare would you have any incentive to stay healthy and make good choices? Of course not… we’d have a whole society of Keith Richards competing in the X-Games. If you knew your report card would be straight A’s would you study as hard? Not likely. And If you knew your concerted efforts towards a lofty career goal were sure to gain you nothing would you reassess your goals and reallocate your efforts? Of course you would…and you’d be right to. It’s all about the balance… the flow… the scarcity of resources… the risk and reward. What we demonstrate in our virtual worlds only mirrors our real instinctual behavior… and flow will engage us regardless of the venue, digital or actual.

So the next time someone asks what things would be like if everything was free, cleave them in twain with your battle axe and take their gold… because hey, if you survive you’ve earned it.

• Geekonomics, by Edward Castronova, Wired Magazine – April 2006
• Flow (psychology), en.wikipedia.org
• World of Warcraft, en.wikipedia.org
• http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/

It was dry… twelve percent humidity is only good if you have lunger. There are many perverts who are rich and like to gamble… they were stumbling around drunk almost everywhere. If you want the proverbial $4.99 lobster dinner you have to wander into very “shady” areas… because on the classier portions of The Strip the idea of cheap food (or cheap anything) is a farce.

I’ll have to post on exhorbitance soon, because it was everywhere and it needs to be analyzed. What is too much? Vegas prides itself on excess… on being the fastest, glitziest, gawdiest, hottest place around. I saw a lady while in line at the café (in the Bellagio) who wore a nine carat diamond ring!? It was ginormous and looked so ridiculously big that in any other venue I’d peg it as fake without another thought. Another woman (working as hostess of the café) casually remarked how she had lost her 4-carat stone on her ring. There was enough bling to rebuild Solomon’s Temple a few hundred times over.

And not to be outdone… the silicone was abundant. Dare I say there were more plastic breasts than at a mannequin factory. And the outfits were meant to display the goods… but much good would it do them with all the attention-snatching skin ads found in nearly every degree of a full geometric arc. I couldn’t imagine being a woman trying to maintain some sense of self-esteem about my body in Vegas. I couldn’t imagine bringing kids to Vegas, either.

Now, for a place sure to be hit with fire and brimstone I have to say it was beautiful. The massive money machine can buy lush gardens, groundskeeping, and landscaping like nowhere else. I could have spent the whole time taking pictures if I wanted. Speaking of… here are a few shots from my Vegas 06 photoset:

Primary places visited (there were many more we minorly visited): The Paris, The Venetian, The Bellagio (our favorite), Mandalay Bay and its Shark Reef, and the Las Vegas Hilton and its Star Trek: The Experience.

Well, today in church another blend of reasoning overtook me. The thoughts of Chardonnay and fat collided again in my mind… let me explain. (To my non-Christian readers this may be a bit foreign but you should read on.) There was chatter in my church regarding the drinking of alcohol by Christians and insinuations that temperance is holiness (a notion that a rational Christ-follower would easily dispel since Jesus himself drank alcohol… and, in fact, Jesus was readily accused of being a drunk by the 1st century version of some people in my church). Anyways, there was, in this chatter, the obligatory Bible references used to ask if drinking wine was beneficial and honoring and glorifying to God… of course the questions were asked in such a way that it’d be uncomfortable, even arrogant, for most people to definitively answer yes to any of those questions for anything except maybe for prayer and fasting. (A more honest and practical approach would be to ask if it dishonors God) I mean, really, could you really say that it glorifies God to eat dessert… dessert which is loaded with saturated fats and sugar… useless calories that do not benefit our “temple”… usually eaten for the vulgar epicurean delight of its devourer? (sounds sinful to me… get the fires goin’!) I say that obesity, the abuse of food, has far greater in-roads in the church-goers I know than alcoholism, the abuse of alcohol. However, abstinence of dessert sounds pretty ridiculous (especially to obese church-goers)… and it just doesn’t have the same resonance with the ole-timers as temperance-talk. Needless to say, the leanings of the chatter were as evident as the slant a peace-protester-turned-journalist would put on an “objective” news story from Iraq… the facts stated were correct, but the way they were delivered and the parts that were left off bias the story and reveal the chatterers agenda. (To be fair… I don’t believe the agenda today was intended to deceive anyone.)

So be certain that, on their own, I don’t think it is any more wrong to eat dessert than to drink alcohol. Be certain that there are those who think alcohol is wrong (for everyone) and who would sway you to come to their conclusions with them. A great comedian, Conservative and Christ-follower, Brad Stine, wrote a book touching on this very topic and this very comparison between alcohol and dessert. The book is called Being a Christian Without Being an Idiot, and while the literary editing is a bit rough, the content is funny, smart and extremely relevant. If you are one of my fellow Christ-followers (and hopefully better at it than I) this book is a must read… at the very least to be aware of some prevalent idiocy pitfalls. And while you’re at it it wouldn’t hurt to watch any of Brad’s multiple comedy DVDs. He’s also been a featured speaker the last 3 years at Promise Keepers and I suspect he’ll be there again this year.