Killing in the name of

One of the things I love most about America is our ability to protest.  If someone says or does something I disagree with, then I have the right to call them down.  The closer that they are associated with me, the more my right becomes a responsibility.

The Catholic church can excommunicate people who stray from the faith.  The protestant church has no such tools.

I'm a believer.  The people of Westboro Baptist Church claim to be believers.  They are associated with me.  I would excommunicate them, if there were a way to do that.  But there isn't.  So I just have to protest as I can.

Westboro Baptist Church does not believe in the same Jesus I believe in.  They do not worship the same God I do.  They are not members of the family of faith that I am a member of.  They are heretics.  They embarrass God by spewing hate.

I denounce Westboro Baptist Church in the strongest possible terms.

I do not advocate violence.  I am not planning on doing any violence, and I do not want anyone else to do any violence.  Committing violence against Westboro Baptist Church would be worse than ignoring them.  If you are considering acts of violence, please do not do it.

However, I do hope and pray that the church would get destroyed by a tornado.  I don't want anyone to get hurt, but I would like to see that false community of believers face some of the so-called divine retribution the scream at everyone else who suffers.

As for the people themselves, I wish that there was some way that they could see the Truth.  I hope for a path to repentance for them.  I want to see them repent and apologize, rather than perish and suffer.  I wish there was a way that I could participate in God's work towards that end.

I'm convinced that God is working in that direction.  There is no one who is beyond His forgiveness.  No one, not even Westboro Baptist Church, has failed so badly that He cannot redeem.  But I wonder who God can call to reach them.  Who would they listen to?  I wish I were such a person.  But I am not.

I am happy that the world is finding ways to cope with the vile hatred that Westboro Baptist Church spews.  The good citizens of Brandon Mississippi have it right.  If I had been at that gas station ans seen that fight, I certainly would not have turned in the person/people who did it.  And I would gladly park my car behind theirs to keep them from being able to protest.

But the real trick here was what the cops did.  I believe that this will be the pattern that the authorities use from here on out.  The WBC members could learn to cope with having their cars blocked in the hotel parking lot.  They could work around that.  But they cannot work around being hauled down to the police station on investigation in regards to a crime.

Now, at every town where Westboro Baptist Church goes to protest, someone will call the police and report a robbery somewhere near the church members/protesters are staying.  The police will bring all of the WBC members in for questioning.  They will be questioned for a few hours, and then released.

This is not injustice.  This is not suppressing the freedom of speech.  This is a free people finding a way to work within the system to temporarily silence a voice that no one wants to hear.

Bankers talking about moral hazard

Bankers talking about moral hazard is something like rapists talking about chastity.

The New York Times is reporting that Bank of America is refusing to write down mortgages, as they have been paid and ordered to do by the government.  Their main argument is moral hazard.  They believe it would be bad business to reward home owners who took out larger loans than they could actually afford.  Seriously.

Tar and feather is too good for these people.  I have a strict non-violence policy, but the gall of these people is pushing my limits.

They are busy paying billions in bonuses to themselves, the crooks who wrecked the economy, and they claim to worry about the moral hazard of rewarding someone else?

Their secondary argument holds a little water.  They claim to be unable to figure out who to give how much write-down to.  This boils down to claiming that they are incompetent.  "Oh, the figures are just too hard to compute."  I've worked with the mortgage modification program people at Wells Fargo, and I would accept the argument that they are incompetent to do the math.

Well, I'll help them out.  We'll make it simple for them.  Any mortgagee who wants it gets a free re-fi, on these specific terms--regardless of their credit rating, payment history, LTV, etc.  If they currently do not pay PMI then they do not have to pay PMI on the new mortgage, either.
* Take the current principle balance and refinance that amount for 30-years at a low fixed rate.
* The rate they get depends upon the amount of their current principle balance, according to this sliding scale:
- Less than or equal to $100k -> 3%.
- Between $100k and $150k -> 3.125%
- Between $150k and $200k -> 3.25%
- Between $200k and $250k -> 3.375%
- Between $250k and $300k -> 3.5%
- Between $300k and $350k -> 3.625%
- Between $350k and $400k -> 3.75%
- Between $400k and $450k -> 3.875%
- Between $450k and $500k -> 4%
- Between $500k and $600k -> 4.25%
- Between $600k and $700k -> 4.5%
- Between $700k and $800k -> 4.75%
- Between $800k and $900k -> 5%
- Between $900k and $1M -> 5.25%
- Between $1M and $1.5M -> 5.5%
- Between $1.5M and $2M -> 5.75%
- Between $2M and $5M -> 6%

Obviously the sliding scale will be endlessly debated and negotiated, but I think that the government could cram this down the mortgage companies' throats.  And I think it would do a tremendous amount of good for the economy.

I'll take myself as an example.  We're not in the moral hazard set.  We paid down 10% and took out an 80% and a 10%.  We owe less than the market value of the property.  We have never been late on a payment.  And our credit ratings are still excellent.  We've been in our house a few years.  We would take this deal.  Based upon that sliding scale we would save about $350 per month.

Religion in the workplace

A friend of a friend, Dr. Martin Gaskell, was discriminated against in the hiring process, and a lawsuit has ensued.  I've only heard one side of the story, but that side is very clear and seems air-tight.

Here is the trial notebook of the American Center for Law and Justice, containing their notes and views on the trial.  The judge's findings in the preliminary hearing were very enlightening:

• The record contains “substantial evidence that Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position until the issue of his religion” became part of the search committee’s deliberations.
• The head of the search committee wrote in an email to the Chair of the Physics & Astronomy Department that “no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin [Gaskell] on any basis other than religious . . .”
• The Department Chair admitted “that the debate generated by Gaskell’s website and his religious beliefs was an ‘element’ in the decision not to hire Gaskell.”
• One member of the search committee admitted that Gaskell’s “views of religious things” were “a factor” in his decision not to support Gaskell’s candidacy.
• Another member of the committee, having discovered Gaskell’s website, warned fellow committee members that Gaskell was “potentially evangelical.”
• The search committee head, anticipating a decision against Gaskell by his fellow committee members, wrote that “Other reasons will be given for the choice . . . but the real reason we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the other duties specified for this position.”

Here is the article that got Dr. Gaskell into trouble.  I've read the article, and he is clearly not a kook of any variety.  Some rumors have started, which say that Dr. Gaskell is a "young Earth creationist."  Anyone who repeats that has clearly not read the article.

Based upon our common friend and that article I assume that Dr. Gaskell is evangelical--meaning that he will share and defend his faith, rather than avoiding those types of conversations.  But that is not a crime, and cannot be considered in the hiring decision.

I know some Christians who are obnoxious in the way that they constantly talk about God and turn every conversation into a religious discourse.  Three altar calls a day, in the office, is just annoying.  That's not religion, it's inability to focus on work.  If a person had that sort of reputation, or if they tried to lead me in the sinner's prayer during the interview, then I wouldn't hire them either.

I'm not sure exactly what Dr. Gaskell is hoping to get from this suit.  I can't imagine he wants the job, and they probably already hired someone else anyway.  He will probably get some money.  But he will also get the reputation of a person who sues people who don't hire him.  That's going to make it harder for him to get a job elsewhere.

The university will certainly learn a lesson.  If nothing else they will learn to not leave a paper trail when they discriminate against a candidate.  I doubt that they will actually learn tolerance and good judgement--those sorts of things are not learned by losing lawsuits.

I love Jon Stewart

Funny guy.  Good perspective.  I think he actually tries harder to be fair and balanced than any "real" news program out there.  This interview made me love him more.

Come on, Jon.  Get out on the field.  Let's set up that 24-hours new channel dedicated to fighting corruption.  You, me, and Bill Moyers.  And maybe Jon Stossel.

File it under funny

The Center for Tactical Magic has revived the ages-old tradition of placing curses on repressive and harmful organizations.  Their implementation is both hysterical and poignant.

Read it all the way through, especially if you have no background in witchcraft.

I do not believe in curses.  But I recognize the history and applaud the modern interpretation.  I'm almost tempted to stick a few of these, but I can't afford the gas to drive where the stickers really belong.

The church needs something like this.  I'll bet the Catholics have something that I'm just not aware of.

A common sense drug policy

Yes, the title is virtually an oxymoron.  I had heard that the government's drug policy czar in Britain was fired for suggesting that they decriminalize marijuana.  Here's the story.

I'm amazed by the fact that he was able to do this research.  It's little better than anecdotal--a collection of anecdotes and professional opinions.  But it is something substantive in a field full of guesses and approximations, and worse.

More research is needed to firm-up the list.  But after we get that done we need to formulate drug laws that are more in line with the actual harm caused by each substance.  And we should form a rational procedure for evaluating new substances and rating them on the chart to determine how new drugs should be handled.

In my opinion, we should:

• Legalize and tax all of the substances below tobacco on the list (the final list, not necessarily the current one).
• Legalize, tax, and control (no sale to minors, etc.) all of the items between tobacco and alcohol, including those two.
• Focus our drug control forces (border patrol, policing, prevention programs, education programs) on the items above alcohol on the list.

Will that ever happen?  No.  And that's too bad.  The broken system we have now is a horrible injustice.

Steve needs a job

I attend a couple of job clubs.  Monday night I met a guy named Steve.  Steve needs a job.  Lots of people need jobs, but Steve's need is a little more urgent than most.  Please look over his background and ping me if you have any leads for him.  I can send you his resume and put you in contact with him.

Steve has a BS in Aviation Management from Tarleton State.  He worked in aviation for a number of years before that industry started shrinking.  He's done several things since then.  He has a strong background in media relations and production.  He managed a planetarium.  He's done substitute teaching.  And he's been a customer service rep--managing relationships with long-term customers.

Steve is smart and very well spoken.  He is very personable.  I think he would do a great job in meeting and talking with people, and maintaining long-term client relationships.  I also think he would excel in managing small and medium teams of workers--in pretty much any environment.

Steve loves the outdoors.  He is a hands-on guy.  He's a nice guy.  It would be very hard to not like him.

He just moved to town from Colorado.  He was only there for a few weeks.  Before that he was in North Carolina.  The unemployment rate is much worse in NC, and he has had some significant periods of unemployment.  That's depleted his savings pretty badly.  He needs to get to work soon.

He is in Austin right now, but he would move again if necessary.

Do you know of any position that could use a friendly and attentive manager, or manager-in-training?  Customer service manager?  Customer relationship manager?

Please let me know.

Unemployment idea

The people who are supposed to know such things are forecasting many years of high unemployment.  High unemployment is a huge drag on the economy.  Unemployed people don't buy stuff.  Stuff being bought is the driver of our economy.  Unemployed people can't make their mortgage payments.  Missed mortgage payments hurt the banks.  This is a troubling vicious cycle.

The top 1% of the US population now gets about 60% of the income in the country.  That is a massive concentration of wealth.  This is a social problem.  But it may also be a great opportunity.

We need to get people back to work.  And we have a small group of people with the resources to hire them, if only they will.  So how do we enable the rich to employ the unemployed?

Traditionally employment involves having an idea for a product or service, forming a company, managing a company, etc., etc., etc....  I've done some of that, and I don't really blame people for not wanting to do it.  So what if we shortcut that?

Let's form a single non-profit company.  Let's hire unemployed people to build and manage the company.  Let's offer basic benefits, like health insurance, and low-but-livable salaries.  Let's put up a website where anyone can suggest projects for the company to work on.  We'll do make-work, if we have to.  But it would be better if we could do work that would actually benefit society.

It will be a non-profit company.  Any services provided would be either no-cost or low-cost to the recipient of the services.  Any products created would be given free, or virtually free.

We would have to employ a management staff to hire people and administer the business.  We would need project managers to oversee the (probably) large number of small projects being done.  All of the work would be fully documented, so anyone and everyone could see that the workers were doing what they were asked to do.

Clean up that vacant lot and build a park.
Repair those old people's houses.
Tutor children after school.
Help poor people apply for assistance programs.
Provide free after-school care for single parents.
Whatever, wherever, whenever.

Obviously the company would be donation-driven.  Donors would get priority in voting for projects, and would get whatever amount of progress reporting that they wanted to see.

As the economy rights itself, sometime in the future, the workers will start finding better-paying jobs.  The company will definitely shrink, but depending upon the level of need it might not ever go away.

It would be something like a Goodwill for people who are fully employable, but who just can't find jobs right now.

What do you think?