A musing Beam

This is the first in a 3 part series on the child murders in Newtown, CT.  This first installment is about the biggest issue raised, in my opinion: Our country's mental health policies.  The second will be about another hot-button issue: Gun control.  The final one will be on the need for us to better handle the cultural shifts we are experiencing. I am going to try a new tactic and keep the blogs shorter. I can discuss sources and nuances in the comments, and shortness will hopefully widen the potential audience. Mental Illness Most of us seem to think that only "crazy" people would go to a public place and murder as many strangers as possible.  True enough, but while "craziness" may be necessary, it is not sufficient -- it does not cause the incidents, but instead it permits them by removing one of the barriers (individual sanity) to such mass, "senseless" violence happening. To state what should be overly obvious, most people suffering from

Introduction For a (hopefully refreshing) change of pace, this post has absolutely nothing to do with politics.  Instead, it is about how to allocate chores and rent between roommates. Let's say you live with 3 other people.  All of you move in to a 4-bedroom apartment at the same time, and all of you are on the lease.  You pay the same amount, use utilities the same, and eat the same.  You can add in whatever considerations you want to make all of you absolutely equal with respect to each other, how much space you have, and how much you monetarily contribute.  (For present purposes, let's also say that you all agree on how many chores should be done, how well they should be done, and on what schedule.) The basics Default rules Now, how do you allocate chores?  I think one important distinction is who causes the need for a chore to spring into being, and one way to think about that is "passive" chores versus "caused" chores (my terms).  Passive chore

Here is another small entry.  This is solely to debunk the silly notion that President Obama is a socialist.  It is made again and again by those on the radical right.  Unfortunately, others keep buying in, I fear because they do not pay attention to any outlet that doesn't spew conservative dogma. So, here are the basics.  Socialism means to advocate government or employee ownership of industries. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism )  If the steel worker gets his paycheck from the state, and not from a private owner, that is socialism for steel production.  If all hospitals are run by the government (see England), that is social medicine.  If, on the other hand, doctors work for private hospitals who are paid for their services by various customers, including the state, this is not socialism.  If everyone received health insurance through the state, we would have socialized health insurance (but not socialized medicine).  Of course, we don't even do that. What it

This is a quick note specifically discussing whether the contraceptive requirements in the Affordable Care Act implemention are unconstitutional. For those that don't know (and where have you been?), "Obamacare" requires that companies that provide healthcare have to offer contraceptive services without co-pay.  There are some exceptions (small businesses; organizations with religious missions, employees, and clients; grandfathered plans), but let's ignore them.  Some private companies are suing because they say this mandate forces them to pay for services that they find morally repugnant. The first court to hear the case on its merits (as opposed to dodging the question for various procedural reasons) gave a pretty resounding "No":  This does not substantially restrict religious freedom.  In, O'Brien v. HHS ( http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/moedce/4:2012cv00476/119215/50/0.pdf?ts=1348931108 ), the district court said &q

Introduction This is my third in a three-part series on a secular approach to how to come to a voting decision. My first was on related the  societal constructions of earning and value.  (See http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-1-foundational.html ).  The second was on the purpose of government. (See http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-2-foundational.html ).  This entry is on adding social values to the mix, then bringing it all together to form a coherent approach to voting. Societal values Previously I discussed the notion of the importance of the social contracts we have all implicitly entered by being citizens in cities, counties, states, and countries. What values drive those continually changing agreements? Documentary evidence There are some obvious (though problematic) places to start. The Declaration of Independence states that they held "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they ar

This is my second in a three-part series on a secular approach to how to come to a voting decision. My first was on related  concepts of earning, value, and property, and how these are societal constructions. (See  http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-1-foundational.html  ).  This entry will first touch on the concept of liberty, which will be my last "pure philosophy" concept, then I will switch to the role of government.  In particular, I will discuss the philosophy of legitimate government, then with what I think should be the focus of a "good" government.  Finally, I will discuss how our governments have worked historically. (Those enamored with our Founders and their concepts of liberty might take particular interest in that section.) Liberty Some ideas of liberty focus on being free from coercion, and these are sometimes classified as negative liberty.  I should not be compelled to believe a certain religion, or work in a job I don&

Introduction A friend recently suggested that I do a series on how to vote that didn't assume that the reader was Christian.  This is a short series on the subject. Now, remember, folks, that this is a blog--it's not a scholarly tract, so there will be quite a bit of painting with very wide brush strokes. This is not going to be anything like an exhaustive trip through history, political philosophy, or legal interpretations.  These are just a few thoughts on one way to approach how to make voting decisions. This will be a three-part series, with the first two covering some foundational principles, and the last listing values and applications.  You'll note that I will not give a party affiliation or an ultimate conclusion. Instead, I list values and suggestions for how some of them might apply. These first two entries will be a bit dry.  Sorry, but ... hey, foundational stuff is important.  And I will not be devoting a lot of time to Christian principles here -- I'v

Shortly after the events of 9/11/2001, there was an excellent episode of The West Wing ("Isaac and Ishmael") talking about the events and how to think about them.  It was written hastily, and discussing the events directly was pretty gutsy, that short after the event. Josh Lyman, talking to high school juniors and seniors, makes an SAT-style question: "'Islamic extremist' is to 'Islamic' as [blank] is to 'Christianity.'"  There are a few guesses -- religious fundamentalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.  Josh dismisses them (quite rightly), saying that, while the kids might disagree with what they do, those groups don't blow stuff up.  (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VatPKqTgzh4 .) The correct answer is the Ku Klux Klan.  The Klan is a Christian terrorist group that has been operating since the middle of the 19th century (with a few decade hiatus at the turn of the 20th century).  It is widely known for killing people that disa

I often find disconcerting the amount of time and energy certain Christians spend decrying specific, rarely (if ever) scripturally mentioned failings/sins, yet spending little if any time focusing on what seemed to Jesus (by weight of vehemence and sheer times mentioned in Scripture) the most important matters.  The discussion here takes as an assumption that the "normal" Bible is true and an accurate depiction of what Jesus says. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! When you read the Bible, many have noted the change in tone from the Old Testament to the New Testament.  While the Father is prone to bouts of anger (think the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.), Jesus is much more often overtly nice, or, when not nice, he is often aimed at changing the minds of his audience instead of punishing them. One group, though, gets his full-throated ire:  The Pharisees. Why?  Because they were hypocrites.  It was not that they didn't know the law -- it was that they

This is the second part of a two part series where I discuss the problems I see with two prevalent forms of fundamentalism (the first discussed Constitution and fundamentalism: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-1.html ).  In this part, I will be discussing biblical fundamentalism.  I will be referring to sources more frequently here, as I cannot claim the expertise I could for the last installment. Let me start by saying that I understand this is an extremely controversial topic, especially the stance I am taking.  My goal is not to offend, but it is instead to discuss why I think a fundamentalist approach to the Bible (and, in some respects, any text) has insurmountable problems.  I think that most Fundamentalists I know are quite willing to discuss why they believe their hermeneutic approach is the correct one, so my hope is that they are equally sanguine when someone explains why that pathway seems problematic. Here is the short version: