WAL-MART- A SHINING EXAMPLE
By Ryan Hampton
You better watch it- the anti-free-market finatics are working and have been working on a goal- to destroy Wal-Mart. It’s not just minimum wage that they want, apparently they want to destroy any business that seems to have success.
Many of them probably mean well. They have a heart, and their heart tells them that Wal-Mart is greedy, and regulations should be put on Wal-Mart. They think with their heart, but sometimes I wish people could think with their brains instead.
They even have a new movie coming out now- WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Prices. It is supposed to change the way you think about our favorite family friendly store. They, according to these people, cut people’s pays, and make prices so low that they will enter into the monopoly. Never mind that we thought the same thing of Sears, and it never reached the monopoly and no government interference was needed. It’s time we start digging a little deeper into this issue. What is a monopoly? Well, it is where one business controls all or just about all of a given area. But there is two kinds of monopolies: the government controlled, and the free market controlled. The free market, as it has with Wal-Mart, keeps prices low. The government applies force to do whatever it wishes. Why don’t we complain more about the government’s monopolies? Look at education (a government/teachers union controlled monopoly), and the phone services that used to be government controlled monopolies. Sometimes, the same people who want the government to put regulations on a free market monopoly (which Wal-Mart is not even completely in yet) want the government to continue to use force in government schools, and other government controlled monopolies. This is the ground-work for communism.
We think that Wal-Mart is bad for “under-paying” employees. But I don’t even know how under-payment can exist in a free market, other than someone being underpaid and doing nothing about it (which is their own fault). We hear of a few horror stories of people working at Wal-Mart, but none of them were forced to work at Wal-Mart. If they got mad at Wal-Mart and left, then fine, but don’t turn to the government for help. Unfortunately, they’ll listen to the “poor working consumer.” For most Wal-Mart employees, if Wal-Mart went out of business, it would do more harm to them than good. Wal-Mart is a good starting place in a lot of ways. It is a hard job, and you don’t get paid a lot of money, but you can work yourself up the ladder of free trade, and then be the business man, and do what Wal-Mart did to you.
Fortunately, there are some people in the media, or who get a lot of attention, who are supportive of Wal-Mart. Ted Turner said, "America is about competition and rising above that competition. That's at the basis of what makes our … economy and our society tick." He is right. That is why Wal-Mart. Is successful. They have taken on the competition head on, and have done good with it. But we get the idea that they leave nothing for us with all the money (never mind they save us money when shopping). We think that as said on Talladega Nights, “If your not first, your last.” We are not falling behind because Wal-Mart is mean. We can always get ahead ourselves. Another example, which was used by philosopher David Kelly, is that of a pie coming around after supper. "It's like we're all children sitting around the dinner table and a pie comes," said Kelley. "If I get a bigger piece, you get a smaller piece. But in reality, there's no mom there putting a pie down on the table. We're producers, we create wealth." He is right too. Wal-Mart has created wealth. They have done nothing more than find a good strategy to make money- and it worked. We can all find good strategies, and we can do good. Partly due to technological advances, and partly due to business, we are advancing economically. We make more money than in the past. If Wal-Mart went out of business, we would be no better off- we’d probably be worse off. Wal-Mart would definitely be worse off. Get the government out, and let Wal-Mart continue to be a shining example of a free market.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
National Treasure
National Treasure 01/15/2007
I saw National Treasure a couple of nights ago for the second time, and I figured I would give you some thoughts on how I thought the movie was. I thought it was a good movie. It had a good story line, and the actors and actresses were good. Though the movie was not a comedy, there were several funny parts in the movie. The movie also was somewhat historical (even though the movie is mostly fiction), and brought up a lot about our founding fathers. But beyond all this, perhaps the best thing about the movie was that it was almost completely clean. This was a movie that would in most cases have much cursing and rude humor, but in this movie there was little or none of that. The movie was rated PG, probably for the few semi-violent scenes, and a complicated story line, but could have easily been turned into a PG13 rating (a pg13 rating that would be an R rating in 1960 perhaps).
The movie, in case you haven't seen it, was about a man born under the family line of those who supposedly held the knowledge that there was a national treasure- a treasure of world history artifacts going back for thousands of years. The treasure was held by the free masons. Some of the founding fathers were masons i.e. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. in fact, about half of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence were masons. Of course the story line exaggerated the facts most likely into a fictional story, with a few truths. Finally, someone in the family line held the first clue that had been passed down, and he decided to search for the treasure, even against his fathers advice, who was skeptical to the movie. However, this man worked hard with the partnership of his friend, Riley, with the mindset that you have got to do what is considered wrong to do what is right- just as the founders of this country did. They did have enemies, however. They had to work against others in search of the treasure. Of course, like most movies, the end works out good for the good guys and bad for the bad guys. The Declaration of Independence was stolen, and it help lead the way to more clues in search of the treasure. With the help of a worker at the national archives in Washington D.C., the treasure was found, by the good guys, who then split the treasure with the world, symbolizing the balance of power the founding fathers wanted for the country. Just as one man does not get all the treasure, so not one man gets all the power in a government.
The movie was not political, but it did indirectly bring up a few questions, questions answered best with the philosophy of a conservative or libertarian. The movie put emphasis on the founding fathers, and their desires. At the end, there was even a comment made by Nicholas Cage, the biggest star in the film, about balance of power, which the founding fathers did to help minimize government. The movie also portrayed the Declaration of Independence, and included a moving line about how different the founding fathers spoke compared to people of today. If we spoke and talked the same way our founding fathers did, we would be much smarter and wiser about our government, those that represent us and are supposed to protect us.
So with this in mind, I encourage you to pick up and look at the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or some other important national document (not the original of course), and read it, and read it thoroughly. Try to understand more about what our founding fathers had in mind for this country.
I saw National Treasure a couple of nights ago for the second time, and I figured I would give you some thoughts on how I thought the movie was. I thought it was a good movie. It had a good story line, and the actors and actresses were good. Though the movie was not a comedy, there were several funny parts in the movie. The movie also was somewhat historical (even though the movie is mostly fiction), and brought up a lot about our founding fathers. But beyond all this, perhaps the best thing about the movie was that it was almost completely clean. This was a movie that would in most cases have much cursing and rude humor, but in this movie there was little or none of that. The movie was rated PG, probably for the few semi-violent scenes, and a complicated story line, but could have easily been turned into a PG13 rating (a pg13 rating that would be an R rating in 1960 perhaps).
The movie, in case you haven't seen it, was about a man born under the family line of those who supposedly held the knowledge that there was a national treasure- a treasure of world history artifacts going back for thousands of years. The treasure was held by the free masons. Some of the founding fathers were masons i.e. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. in fact, about half of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence were masons. Of course the story line exaggerated the facts most likely into a fictional story, with a few truths. Finally, someone in the family line held the first clue that had been passed down, and he decided to search for the treasure, even against his fathers advice, who was skeptical to the movie. However, this man worked hard with the partnership of his friend, Riley, with the mindset that you have got to do what is considered wrong to do what is right- just as the founders of this country did. They did have enemies, however. They had to work against others in search of the treasure. Of course, like most movies, the end works out good for the good guys and bad for the bad guys. The Declaration of Independence was stolen, and it help lead the way to more clues in search of the treasure. With the help of a worker at the national archives in Washington D.C., the treasure was found, by the good guys, who then split the treasure with the world, symbolizing the balance of power the founding fathers wanted for the country. Just as one man does not get all the treasure, so not one man gets all the power in a government.
The movie was not political, but it did indirectly bring up a few questions, questions answered best with the philosophy of a conservative or libertarian. The movie put emphasis on the founding fathers, and their desires. At the end, there was even a comment made by Nicholas Cage, the biggest star in the film, about balance of power, which the founding fathers did to help minimize government. The movie also portrayed the Declaration of Independence, and included a moving line about how different the founding fathers spoke compared to people of today. If we spoke and talked the same way our founding fathers did, we would be much smarter and wiser about our government, those that represent us and are supposed to protect us.
So with this in mind, I encourage you to pick up and look at the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or some other important national document (not the original of course), and read it, and read it thoroughly. Try to understand more about what our founding fathers had in mind for this country.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Ignorence of a Minimum Wage Argument
Today there is so much argument for raising minimum wage and any time now, it could happen. However, I think that there is invalidity in the arguments used to raise minimum wage. I look out for the poor. But I do not feel as if the poor are helped much by raising minimum wage. Of course, I don't think that there will be a huge fall in the economy if it is raised to just over $7 an hour because most people are making at least $7 an hour anyway. The largest amount of those who are not making that much is high school students, retired men looking for a little extra money, widows, and wives looking for a second income (particularly the first). Sometimes they even make more.
In general, I don't feel it is the government's responsibility to set up a minimum wage. If they set up a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage to "protect" the employer? A wage is an agreement, and either side has the "legal" right to walk out of the deal for any reason justified or unjustified. This is not at all the government's responsibility. What makes the worker a better person than the one who hires the worker?
Beyond this, I don't think it is good for the economy to have a minimum wage. The only good benefit I see is that it balances work for well-to-do Americans and those who are not well to do, or maybe immigrants- not neccessarily legal or illegal. But this goes to help the rich and middle class- not the poor, right, because the poor are willing to work for less because they are more desperate. They may be helped to, to a degree, but it also gives more jobs to the well-to-do, richer Americans.
It sounds like I am trying to build a case for minimum wage, but I am not. It is not the government's job to control wages like this. I certainly don't think that minimum wage creates jobs, since that means more money for businesess to pay. It probably looses jobs, if anything. Therefore, if the richer people are getting more jobs due to minimum wage, it must really take away jobs from the poor. Of course, Mexicans are part of this side that are hurt, and Americans may like that, but the government's job is to protect the border from illegals, not making it illegal to become legal, and then work for money. The very argument used to support minimum wage can be used against it as well.
So if minimum wage wants to help the poor- it will probably fail. Think of it like this: Three uneducated, inexperienced, poor people want a job. They are uneducated, inexprienced, and poor, so they are not as efficient as an educated, experienced, rich person at the job. The rich person can do as much work for a given amount of time as the three poor people can altogether. Thus, the worker can pay three people "x" amount a piece, or the one rich person "3x" for him (x being a given payment). He may, to be nice, decide to help the poor people out and give them a low-paying job, and let them gain experience, and then get better benifits. He may, then again, choose to get one rich person to work with. The chances of him hiring the poor people is theoretically 50/50, but to give them a job, from the kindness of his heart, he may hire them.
Now let's say that a minimum wage of $7 per hour is put into place. It seems good that the poor get the job, and now $7 a piece (we'll assume that that was more than the given "x"). But the employer will probably rather give $7 to one rich person instead of three amounts of $7 (one to each poor person). They both work an hour, and in a way, both as hard theoretically (the poor may actually work harder working on skill improvements for the job), so the person wants to hire the rich person to save money for the job. Beyond this, he must now pay the rich person mroe money because the rich person's wage was three times as high as the poor people's wage was. Now, $21 exceeds the "3x" he was getting paid. He raises himself to $18 to get more money, and to still get the job. They employer, following his own motivations, hires the rich person. The poor people are out of a job; the rich people have more jobs and more money; and businesess now are hurting by paying extra money. What happened to a free market? You can call it greed that the employer would not give the poor a chance after the minimum wage was in place, but it is not necesarily greed- it is following one's own desires- I do it and I imagine you do it when it comes to money. What's next, is the government going to outlaw this so-called "greed?" It may sound good- "greed is bad, stopping it is good" but all it will be is another way for the government to get their hands in the economy and our own personal lives.
Minimum wage helps some people, but hurts more than it helps. Beyond that, it is not the governments job to give a minimum (or a maximum) of payment. Of course, the government will claim "friend of the little guy" to get our votes and gullible Americans fall for it. It makes me wonder how much minimum wage talk done by the Democrats mostly is just ignorence, and how much is hypocracy. For American middle-class citizens, it's ignorence. We do what sounds good on the surface. But for politicians, those who are supposed to be educated about the government and the economy, I think that a lot of it is hypocracy; but, then again, I'll let God be the judge of that.
What do you think?
-Ryan
In general, I don't feel it is the government's responsibility to set up a minimum wage. If they set up a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage to "protect" the employer? A wage is an agreement, and either side has the "legal" right to walk out of the deal for any reason justified or unjustified. This is not at all the government's responsibility. What makes the worker a better person than the one who hires the worker?
Beyond this, I don't think it is good for the economy to have a minimum wage. The only good benefit I see is that it balances work for well-to-do Americans and those who are not well to do, or maybe immigrants- not neccessarily legal or illegal. But this goes to help the rich and middle class- not the poor, right, because the poor are willing to work for less because they are more desperate. They may be helped to, to a degree, but it also gives more jobs to the well-to-do, richer Americans.
It sounds like I am trying to build a case for minimum wage, but I am not. It is not the government's job to control wages like this. I certainly don't think that minimum wage creates jobs, since that means more money for businesess to pay. It probably looses jobs, if anything. Therefore, if the richer people are getting more jobs due to minimum wage, it must really take away jobs from the poor. Of course, Mexicans are part of this side that are hurt, and Americans may like that, but the government's job is to protect the border from illegals, not making it illegal to become legal, and then work for money. The very argument used to support minimum wage can be used against it as well.
So if minimum wage wants to help the poor- it will probably fail. Think of it like this: Three uneducated, inexperienced, poor people want a job. They are uneducated, inexprienced, and poor, so they are not as efficient as an educated, experienced, rich person at the job. The rich person can do as much work for a given amount of time as the three poor people can altogether. Thus, the worker can pay three people "x" amount a piece, or the one rich person "3x" for him (x being a given payment). He may, to be nice, decide to help the poor people out and give them a low-paying job, and let them gain experience, and then get better benifits. He may, then again, choose to get one rich person to work with. The chances of him hiring the poor people is theoretically 50/50, but to give them a job, from the kindness of his heart, he may hire them.
Now let's say that a minimum wage of $7 per hour is put into place. It seems good that the poor get the job, and now $7 a piece (we'll assume that that was more than the given "x"). But the employer will probably rather give $7 to one rich person instead of three amounts of $7 (one to each poor person). They both work an hour, and in a way, both as hard theoretically (the poor may actually work harder working on skill improvements for the job), so the person wants to hire the rich person to save money for the job. Beyond this, he must now pay the rich person mroe money because the rich person's wage was three times as high as the poor people's wage was. Now, $21 exceeds the "3x" he was getting paid. He raises himself to $18 to get more money, and to still get the job. They employer, following his own motivations, hires the rich person. The poor people are out of a job; the rich people have more jobs and more money; and businesess now are hurting by paying extra money. What happened to a free market? You can call it greed that the employer would not give the poor a chance after the minimum wage was in place, but it is not necesarily greed- it is following one's own desires- I do it and I imagine you do it when it comes to money. What's next, is the government going to outlaw this so-called "greed?" It may sound good- "greed is bad, stopping it is good" but all it will be is another way for the government to get their hands in the economy and our own personal lives.
Minimum wage helps some people, but hurts more than it helps. Beyond that, it is not the governments job to give a minimum (or a maximum) of payment. Of course, the government will claim "friend of the little guy" to get our votes and gullible Americans fall for it. It makes me wonder how much minimum wage talk done by the Democrats mostly is just ignorence, and how much is hypocracy. For American middle-class citizens, it's ignorence. We do what sounds good on the surface. But for politicians, those who are supposed to be educated about the government and the economy, I think that a lot of it is hypocracy; but, then again, I'll let God be the judge of that.
What do you think?
-Ryan
Friday, January 12, 2007
My Thoughts on School Vouchers
I have put in another post that we are not so open-minded today. We believe what our political party teaches (or what the party members say it teaches), we believe whatever our religous leaders tell us, we believe whatever makes us feel good, or sometimes worried even. That is all true. There are some issues that is not so much related to conservative, liberal, libertarian, independant, etc. The issue of school vouchers is interesting because a libertarian for example could make a valid point for school vouchers based upon libertarian philosophy, and a libertarian could also make a point against school vouchers using libertarian philosophy. Compared to most political parties or political names, libertarianism is good at it's members being consistent within their philosophy of the government (thought they may live totally different lives). It is probably the libertarians, but perhaps the conservatives, that support school vouchers the most.
The issue is still small, and nor real change from the current system to school vouchers seems to be happening any time soon, but the idea is growing. In 1985, homeschooling would be either unheard of, or considered stupid by most people. Now, a growing amount of people including myself are homeschooling or being homeschooled. This is not saying we should treat any education change as good change, but the system is not where it should be.
So what is school vouchers, if you don't know. Basically, the way I see it, would be a system in which the government takes education tax money, and sends it to the school of your choice. The schools then get the money, and use it the way they desire, and basically compete for your child. The argument for school vouchers is that it provides school choice, and eliminates a government/teacher union monompoly on education. Schools would hire and pay teachers based upon how good they are, not what the teachers unions claim. Furthermore, supporters argue, Protestants could go to Protestant schools, Roman Catholics could go to Roman Catholic schools, Jews could go to Jewish schools, and atheists could even go to atheist schools, and so on.
Still, some people are worried about the big "C" word- competition. Competition, they say is bad for schools. Schools are not supposed to compete for students. They say that education goes beyond competition. They also have other points against it- such as that school vouchers is wrong because the government uses tax money to go to religious schools. Another argument against school vouchers is that the government gets their hands into the what-is-now private school sector. They say that the situation becomes worsened because both what is now public schools and what is now private schools even out, and they all become bad. Some would say that any choice of getting a good school is thrown out the window because there is no good private school that is not government-controlled. The supporters claim that the government merely funds the schools, and doesn't run them.
So what is my take? I want to make the point, first, that the school system is corrupt- not just because people go to public schools and learn more about drugs and sex than about math and English (though that can be part of it), but because the government sends much more money to public education per child, than the average private school costs (I think they spend approx $10,000 per year per child); yet the average private school outpreforms the average public school by a lot. And it is the private school that help the "problem" children out more than public schools do. And about the "real world," I think that those who are homeschooled and in actual private schools do better in the "real world" than those who are in government education. The government school supporters tell us that they prepare them by letting them see different religions, for example, and decide for themselves (yet they still teach evolution and are minimum on God, prayer, and Christianity).
If that does not convince you, consider this. It would be bad if the government established a church, took your tax dollars, and used them without your permission to teach the governments theology, and you were forced to go to church. Furthermore, you would either go to a government-appointed church in you "church zone" or pay extra to another church, that the government still made sure was okay. That would be wrong. The public education system, or government education system, is a mirror duplicate of an established church. You go to church one to two days a week for an hour or two; you go to school five days a week for about seven hours a day. Religion can still be tied into education as well. That is why we have debates over what can and can not be taught in public schools. They are either offensive, or politically correct when it gets right down to it.
So if the system needs changing, then do I think that school vouchers is the way to go? One libertarian might tell me it provides competition which they say is good, while another libertarian may say it creates a bigger government. I understand both sides, but my gut feeling is that it does not hurt. If school vouchers made government bigger, then how come politicians don't convince us or try to convince us of school vouchers. Today, so many people would fall for it. If the government does take control of the schools, then we could start back with private schools like they are now. We wouldn't gain anything, but we wouldn't loose anything either. Beyond that, it saves those in private schools money by only paying for one education, not two for only one result. Yet, I do know that private schools may not want them getting money from the government. There is a chance you take. Furthermore, not every person wants an education. I do, but not everybody. Why should you be forced to an education. I want an education to glorify God, and to support a family, and make money. You are not forced to have a house, which is two of the three things I mentioned above. You are not forced to believe in God- that's the other. Why should you be forced to have an education.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not against minimum government spending on education. There are poor people who desire an education, and if charity's fail, then the government may can step in. They problem is once they step in, they want to step in more and more. I am not against public school students, or public school teachers. I don't like the system. The government does not provide houses for everyone, churches for everyone, shoes for everyone; so why should they invent a system for education for everyone. At least school vouchers provide choice, but even that is somewhat of a compromise I think.
The issue is still small, and nor real change from the current system to school vouchers seems to be happening any time soon, but the idea is growing. In 1985, homeschooling would be either unheard of, or considered stupid by most people. Now, a growing amount of people including myself are homeschooling or being homeschooled. This is not saying we should treat any education change as good change, but the system is not where it should be.
So what is school vouchers, if you don't know. Basically, the way I see it, would be a system in which the government takes education tax money, and sends it to the school of your choice. The schools then get the money, and use it the way they desire, and basically compete for your child. The argument for school vouchers is that it provides school choice, and eliminates a government/teacher union monompoly on education. Schools would hire and pay teachers based upon how good they are, not what the teachers unions claim. Furthermore, supporters argue, Protestants could go to Protestant schools, Roman Catholics could go to Roman Catholic schools, Jews could go to Jewish schools, and atheists could even go to atheist schools, and so on.
Still, some people are worried about the big "C" word- competition. Competition, they say is bad for schools. Schools are not supposed to compete for students. They say that education goes beyond competition. They also have other points against it- such as that school vouchers is wrong because the government uses tax money to go to religious schools. Another argument against school vouchers is that the government gets their hands into the what-is-now private school sector. They say that the situation becomes worsened because both what is now public schools and what is now private schools even out, and they all become bad. Some would say that any choice of getting a good school is thrown out the window because there is no good private school that is not government-controlled. The supporters claim that the government merely funds the schools, and doesn't run them.
So what is my take? I want to make the point, first, that the school system is corrupt- not just because people go to public schools and learn more about drugs and sex than about math and English (though that can be part of it), but because the government sends much more money to public education per child, than the average private school costs (I think they spend approx $10,000 per year per child); yet the average private school outpreforms the average public school by a lot. And it is the private school that help the "problem" children out more than public schools do. And about the "real world," I think that those who are homeschooled and in actual private schools do better in the "real world" than those who are in government education. The government school supporters tell us that they prepare them by letting them see different religions, for example, and decide for themselves (yet they still teach evolution and are minimum on God, prayer, and Christianity).
If that does not convince you, consider this. It would be bad if the government established a church, took your tax dollars, and used them without your permission to teach the governments theology, and you were forced to go to church. Furthermore, you would either go to a government-appointed church in you "church zone" or pay extra to another church, that the government still made sure was okay. That would be wrong. The public education system, or government education system, is a mirror duplicate of an established church. You go to church one to two days a week for an hour or two; you go to school five days a week for about seven hours a day. Religion can still be tied into education as well. That is why we have debates over what can and can not be taught in public schools. They are either offensive, or politically correct when it gets right down to it.
So if the system needs changing, then do I think that school vouchers is the way to go? One libertarian might tell me it provides competition which they say is good, while another libertarian may say it creates a bigger government. I understand both sides, but my gut feeling is that it does not hurt. If school vouchers made government bigger, then how come politicians don't convince us or try to convince us of school vouchers. Today, so many people would fall for it. If the government does take control of the schools, then we could start back with private schools like they are now. We wouldn't gain anything, but we wouldn't loose anything either. Beyond that, it saves those in private schools money by only paying for one education, not two for only one result. Yet, I do know that private schools may not want them getting money from the government. There is a chance you take. Furthermore, not every person wants an education. I do, but not everybody. Why should you be forced to an education. I want an education to glorify God, and to support a family, and make money. You are not forced to have a house, which is two of the three things I mentioned above. You are not forced to believe in God- that's the other. Why should you be forced to have an education.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not against minimum government spending on education. There are poor people who desire an education, and if charity's fail, then the government may can step in. They problem is once they step in, they want to step in more and more. I am not against public school students, or public school teachers. I don't like the system. The government does not provide houses for everyone, churches for everyone, shoes for everyone; so why should they invent a system for education for everyone. At least school vouchers provide choice, but even that is somewhat of a compromise I think.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Thoughts of the 2006-2007 College Football Year
Most people were surprised by Monday's game, but some people figured it was coming. Florida, as they saw it, was not respect eneough, and they were hungry to win. Ohio St., perhaps under-estimated Florida's speed. Ohio St. has won by more points, but they have also had a much easier scedule. Ohio St. also had about a month and a half off, while Florida had a little less than a month off. Florida was a little more in the groove of things if you will. Florida, just simply played a better, and more prepared game than Ohio St.
Notre Dame once again showed that they can sometimes get extra respect. They have had three losses, all to good teams, but they don't have many if any really big wins. When they play a real good team, it seemed as if they were not really in the game much. They lost to Michigan, USC, and LSU, all pretty big losses. At least Auburn beat the would-be number one and number three (one and two in my pole) teams at the end of the year. They, of course, did loose to a good Arkansas team and a good Georgia team at home, and barely won games such as South Carolina, Ole Miss, Nebraska, and Alabama. LSU showed to be the best two-loss team in the nation (you could make the argument for USC) going into the bowl game, better than Auburn (even though they lost to Auburn), Oklahoma, and of course as they really proved, better than Notre Dame (now with three losses). Notre Dame was projected to be in the BCS Championship game if they beat USC (which of course they did not).
Of course the best game seemed to be the Oklahoma vs. Boise St. game. Boise St. proved that they were not undefeated primarily because of their "easy" scedule. However, they were even in my book with Oklahoma, which let's me think that they could be put together, Boise St., and then Oklahoma. I think voters would vote Boise St. well ahead of the now three-loss Oklahoma team. A win is a win and a loss is a loss, granted, but that was pretty much an even game between the two. It does, however, make a point for a playoff- to allow Boise St. to have a chance against Ohio St., USC, LSU, and of course Florida. So with that in mind, I will give you my rankings from one to wherever I go:
1. Florida
2. LSU
3. Ohio St.
4. USC
5. Louiville
6. Michigan
7. Wisconsin
8. Auburn
9. Boise St.
10. Oklahoma
11. Arkansas
12. Texas
13. West Va.
14. California
15. Rutgers
16. Notre Dame
17. Wake Forest
18. Bringham Young
19. Tennessee
20. Georgia
21. Nebraska
22. Virginia Teck
23. Penn St.
24. South Carolina
25. Georgia Teck
26. Boston College
27. TCU
28. Oregon St.
29. Kentucky
30. Hawaii
31. Clemson
32. Maryland
33. Texas A&M
34. South Florida
35. Houston
There you go. I actually put Notre Dame one ranking ahead of what the AP poll had, and three ahead of what the USA Today poll had, but I think that is because they put the smaller, lesser-heard-of schools ahead, such as Bringham Young, West Va., Rutgers, etc. I have nothing against these schools and want to see them do good, but looking at their scedule, it doesn't seem as if they impress me much. I also took into account margain of victory, or defeat. Even though Georgia Teck lost their last three games, they lost in close games to teams ranked ahead of them. I didn't count it as a win, but took into account who they had played, and the final scores.
Notre Dame once again showed that they can sometimes get extra respect. They have had three losses, all to good teams, but they don't have many if any really big wins. When they play a real good team, it seemed as if they were not really in the game much. They lost to Michigan, USC, and LSU, all pretty big losses. At least Auburn beat the would-be number one and number three (one and two in my pole) teams at the end of the year. They, of course, did loose to a good Arkansas team and a good Georgia team at home, and barely won games such as South Carolina, Ole Miss, Nebraska, and Alabama. LSU showed to be the best two-loss team in the nation (you could make the argument for USC) going into the bowl game, better than Auburn (even though they lost to Auburn), Oklahoma, and of course as they really proved, better than Notre Dame (now with three losses). Notre Dame was projected to be in the BCS Championship game if they beat USC (which of course they did not).
Of course the best game seemed to be the Oklahoma vs. Boise St. game. Boise St. proved that they were not undefeated primarily because of their "easy" scedule. However, they were even in my book with Oklahoma, which let's me think that they could be put together, Boise St., and then Oklahoma. I think voters would vote Boise St. well ahead of the now three-loss Oklahoma team. A win is a win and a loss is a loss, granted, but that was pretty much an even game between the two. It does, however, make a point for a playoff- to allow Boise St. to have a chance against Ohio St., USC, LSU, and of course Florida. So with that in mind, I will give you my rankings from one to wherever I go:
1. Florida
2. LSU
3. Ohio St.
4. USC
5. Louiville
6. Michigan
7. Wisconsin
8. Auburn
9. Boise St.
10. Oklahoma
11. Arkansas
12. Texas
13. West Va.
14. California
15. Rutgers
16. Notre Dame
17. Wake Forest
18. Bringham Young
19. Tennessee
20. Georgia
21. Nebraska
22. Virginia Teck
23. Penn St.
24. South Carolina
25. Georgia Teck
26. Boston College
27. TCU
28. Oregon St.
29. Kentucky
30. Hawaii
31. Clemson
32. Maryland
33. Texas A&M
34. South Florida
35. Houston
There you go. I actually put Notre Dame one ranking ahead of what the AP poll had, and three ahead of what the USA Today poll had, but I think that is because they put the smaller, lesser-heard-of schools ahead, such as Bringham Young, West Va., Rutgers, etc. I have nothing against these schools and want to see them do good, but looking at their scedule, it doesn't seem as if they impress me much. I also took into account margain of victory, or defeat. Even though Georgia Teck lost their last three games, they lost in close games to teams ranked ahead of them. I didn't count it as a win, but took into account who they had played, and the final scores.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Is America Being polerized?
A while back George Stephonopolis or whatever his name is aired a special on 20/20 about the polerization of America. At the time, I didn't think much of it, but now, some of it comes to me. His point was that American's have grown less and less moderate and more extreme on issues because we become obsessed with names "conservative" and "liberal" that when a moderate conservative and an extreme conservative join in discussion, the extreme conservative makes the moderate conservative more exreme, and the same way with the liberals.
As silly as it sounds, in a way, I both couldn't agree more and I couldn't disagree more at the same time. In name, American's are polerized. In idea, we are moderates. Someone may be pro-abortion, but also for a limited government. There is not a strictly conservative side with all extreme members, and then a liberal side, with all extreme members. We are obsessed with conservative-liberal, or Democrat-Republican, that we don't realize the issues are so complicated and there are so many, and we all really fall into what we see as "moderate."
With this, we become close-minded- both liberals and conservatives. Granted, I acknowledge often that my viewpoints are different than the typical liberal's viewpoints, but I at least try to be open-minded (though it is hard with liberal extremists).
When conservatives talk, they assume the other person is smart, and then assume that anybody with differeing opinions are liberal extremists. They don't realize that they may disagree more than they realize. The conservative "party" (unofficially a party we'll say), is so hard to define. Same with liberalism. It seems as if conservatism is about small government and traditional values, and liberalism is about big government and government aids with personal freedom riding over traditional freedom. However, neither one fully goes by this general rule. "Traditional Vaulue" also becomes hard to define, and some people hold to traditional values, but hold that the government should not take away personal liberties as well. Conservatives and liberals also vary with what the people who claim it believe, which has changed a lot over the last generation.
It seems only the libertarians offer a good defintion of what they believe. The defintion is basically to minimize the government and maximize both personal responsibility and personal freedom. They, also, intrestingly eneough, seem to be the most open-minded. However, people don't look to the libertarian point of view. I think that over time, people became so obsessed witht the conservative-liberal point of view, that they take a conservative takes a libertarian as a liberal, and a liberal takes a libertarian as a conservative.
Of course, sometimes the libertarians don't say what they need to to really get to the American people as much as they could. You would think that the people want personal liberties across the board (which is basically the libertarian point of view), but they don't seem to look to the libertarians. I think that about 75% of that is because of their closed-mindedness, but probably about 25% of that is due to the libertarians themselves. They focus too much on legalizing drugs sometimes, that they don't get to the heart of what both conservatives and liberals want. They also seem to talk about minimizing government so much that they don't bring in an emotion and pride to be an American (they won't say that they're not proud to be an American, but they sometimes don't stress it enough to get to the hearts of American's).
In short, we are being polerized in name by our obsession with name-calling. As a libertarian-conservative mix, it's easy for me to look at the liberals as the "bad guys," and sometimes they probably are the worst. I am not saying go challenge every belief you have, and treat everyone as a friend. But maybe we all should be a little more open-minded towards things, and we will all have reasonable conclusions, and we can come together as American's and know what is best for this country.
As silly as it sounds, in a way, I both couldn't agree more and I couldn't disagree more at the same time. In name, American's are polerized. In idea, we are moderates. Someone may be pro-abortion, but also for a limited government. There is not a strictly conservative side with all extreme members, and then a liberal side, with all extreme members. We are obsessed with conservative-liberal, or Democrat-Republican, that we don't realize the issues are so complicated and there are so many, and we all really fall into what we see as "moderate."
With this, we become close-minded- both liberals and conservatives. Granted, I acknowledge often that my viewpoints are different than the typical liberal's viewpoints, but I at least try to be open-minded (though it is hard with liberal extremists).
When conservatives talk, they assume the other person is smart, and then assume that anybody with differeing opinions are liberal extremists. They don't realize that they may disagree more than they realize. The conservative "party" (unofficially a party we'll say), is so hard to define. Same with liberalism. It seems as if conservatism is about small government and traditional values, and liberalism is about big government and government aids with personal freedom riding over traditional freedom. However, neither one fully goes by this general rule. "Traditional Vaulue" also becomes hard to define, and some people hold to traditional values, but hold that the government should not take away personal liberties as well. Conservatives and liberals also vary with what the people who claim it believe, which has changed a lot over the last generation.
It seems only the libertarians offer a good defintion of what they believe. The defintion is basically to minimize the government and maximize both personal responsibility and personal freedom. They, also, intrestingly eneough, seem to be the most open-minded. However, people don't look to the libertarian point of view. I think that over time, people became so obsessed witht the conservative-liberal point of view, that they take a conservative takes a libertarian as a liberal, and a liberal takes a libertarian as a conservative.
Of course, sometimes the libertarians don't say what they need to to really get to the American people as much as they could. You would think that the people want personal liberties across the board (which is basically the libertarian point of view), but they don't seem to look to the libertarians. I think that about 75% of that is because of their closed-mindedness, but probably about 25% of that is due to the libertarians themselves. They focus too much on legalizing drugs sometimes, that they don't get to the heart of what both conservatives and liberals want. They also seem to talk about minimizing government so much that they don't bring in an emotion and pride to be an American (they won't say that they're not proud to be an American, but they sometimes don't stress it enough to get to the hearts of American's).
In short, we are being polerized in name by our obsession with name-calling. As a libertarian-conservative mix, it's easy for me to look at the liberals as the "bad guys," and sometimes they probably are the worst. I am not saying go challenge every belief you have, and treat everyone as a friend. But maybe we all should be a little more open-minded towards things, and we will all have reasonable conclusions, and we can come together as American's and know what is best for this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
