Florida seems determined to get its title of "Most Mockable State" back from California.

It was bad enough when the state decided to remove high school diploma requirement for entering state universities, following a year with a dismal graduation rate. Bad statistics? Lower the standards!

Now, they've got "school overcrowding". And to deal with it, they've passed a law to make the senior year of high school optional. Students can now get a diploma without attending a senior year through a "fast track graduation". Reward without the work. Hey, since they don't need a diploma to get into college, it's not like that piece of paper means anything any more, right?

There's a part of me which says going to school shouldn't be manditory for all without exception in the first place. If you're not going to learn, you're just taking up space. Better to take up space somewhere else, where you won't be distracting the teachers and the students who actually want to learn.

But that doesn't change the fact that Florida is crazy.

A good friend recently posed a challenging question in e-mail and IM discussion. The topic: The tension between faith that our Heavenly Father looks out for us and the truth that bad things happen. I've heard that particular challenge before, and the best answer I've got is, sometimes a good parent has to let his/her child learn from painful experience.

The really tough question he asked was: What if God isn't as logical as we like to think?

That got me to thinking about free will. I believe that, being created in God's image, I have the capacity to act on free will. I can act rationally or irrationally, I'm the one that decides. But I've never really given much thought to the implication: God, too, has free will.

One thing I've noticed more and more recently: we humans have difficulty enough in dealing with free will in our fellow humans. Politicians find it so much easier to legislate if they can treat people as just cogs in a socio-economic machine, instead of respecting the wishes and rights of each individual. (A machine which they must be superior to, since every one of them proposes to 'fix' it.) In the modern psychologist's lingo, people don't make decisions based on experience, they "exhibit behaviors" based on "conditioning". (I wonder, do they ever seriously think to themselves, "I'm going to exhibit a behavior of going out to lunch today,"?) People who frequently act on their free will, in defiance of "social will", tend to end up being labeled as "radicals". Doesn't matter whether they act for good or ill, individuals are dangerous.

Now, I take it on faith in the teachings of certain people who knew God very well, validated by my own spiritual experience, that He's made certain promises to us. We humans go back on promises all the time. The thought of God going back on a promise, especially with our continued existence at stake.... That's downright scary. I happen to have grown somewhat attached to existing.

But it's my experience that an honorable person keeps their word, and trusts others to do the same until a lack of trustworthiness is demonstrated. He's never broken a promise to me that I know of. So, I can accept a bit of unpredictability on His part. After all, I'm not the omniscient one here.

As for whether God might be illogical, well, logic is influenced by frame of reference. It's just plain hard, if not impossible, to see things from His frame while we're stuck with our physical limitations. Remember that thought experiment from Advanced Physics, with a clock traveling near the speed of light and time apparently slowing down? Seems about as illogical as anything I've heard, unless you have some faith in Einstein's genius.

So, how does free will work on a level of existence beyond time and space? Does causality have any bearing on an eternal mind? Do I have a tendency to overthink things sometimes?

Well, at least I know the answer to that last one.

The 74th General Convention is over, Rev. Robinson has been confirmed as a bishop, and moment-to-moment attention of the national 24-hour news networks has shifted away from the Episcopal Church to cover the circus in California. (On a tangent: Just saw Chicago this weekend. Great movie. The news media really is as portrayed. Razzle dazzle.)

The real story, though, has just begun. Now comes the fallout. The effect of the cause. I'll start by sticking to the facts and what might yet happen.

A number of Episcopal churches across the country have begun withholding their tithes to their dioceses. Others are waiting to see what happens at the meeting of the primates that has been called by the Archbishop of Canterbury for mid-October. The Kenyan Anglican bishops have threatened to break all ties with the American Episcopal Church. Still others stateside seem to be in the dark as to what the controversy is all about.

Whatever happens, this is big. Especially the whole withholding of tithes to dioceses. We're talking lots of money, lots of property. The diocese holds the legal title to each church's land and property. A bishop has the authority to fire the priest and kick out the congregation, if push comes to shove. And sure, you can always hire another priest, but if the congregation pulls away, you can't just pull in new worshippers off the streets.

This isn't the first time "splinter groups" have broken away from the Episcopal Church. In 1873, the Reformed Episcopal Church was born. In 1977, the priest at the church my parents now attend was present as a deacon-in-training at the forming of the Anglican Church in America. And today in sermon, he pointed out another big problem you get whenever a church splits in an issue of politics against theology. It's not just the faithful followers who join the splinter movement. The kooks come out of the woodwork, every one seeing an opportunity to become a bishop and claim a "flock".

I'll just mention one thing on Rev. Robinson. I heard it mentioned that he was asked whether a priest in a heterosexual extramarital relationship should ever be promoted to bishop. His answer: A strong, quick, definite no. Followed by a quick "Next question, please," before it could be asked how the gender of the lover makes a difference.

Just a few quotes that have stuck in my head this week:

A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic.
--Frederic Bastiat

It is impossible to understand the history of economic thought if one does not pay attention to the fact that economics as such is a challenge to the conceit of those in power.
- Ludwig von Mises

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.
The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.
- Thomas Sowell

Money's been on my mind since earlier this week, I opened up the mind of a friend at work (who styles himself a "moderate Democrat") to the thought that politicians can never really "create economic growth".

Him: What you're saying is, it has to grow on its own, right?
Me: I'm saying, the government can only do two things with the economy. The government can chain it down, or loosen the chains.
Him: Ah, you're talking about the tax cuts.
Me: I'm talking about all kinds of things. Tax cuts, the Fed, regulations, stuff like that.

No, this isn't anything about CleverNickName. It's an economics thing.

Governments Thrive on Low Expectations
By Christopher Westey

[...]
As a young economist, I still have time to perform some professional act that will gain notoriety for myself. Of course, I would prefer notoriety of the good kind, so the creation of a Westley curve is out of the question. My own Law of Political Economy is in order. For it to catch on as a generally accepted truth, both in the economics profession and in the culture at large, it must, like Say's and Gresham's Laws, be simple, obvious to everyone, and (as-of-yet) unstated.

Thankfully, I have devised such a law that meets these requirements. Westley's Law states that government grows on low expectations. That's my ticket to notoriety: an emperor-has-no-clothes statement that everyone knows is true but, in the age of the Leviathan state, no one wants to hear. It means that consumers apply much lower standards to government output, no matter what it is, than they do to the output that results from private markets. As a result, life is more costly, dangerous, and short.
[...]

We're going to hear a lot of politicians talk about "making sure a terrorist can't duplicate this accident sometime in the future." We've already heard it.

As I think about it, though, I can't say I've seen a whole lot that would make a terrorist's day. If anything, anyone with a goal of mass chaos, confusion, and anguish would've been downright disappointed. Those folks up there handled the situation rather well, all told. Not a terrorist's dream.

Now, I'm all for beefing up the power grid. In about 20 years, we've gone from an overload tolerance of about 15% to one of only about 1%. But fixing that would take more powerlines, which no one wants in their backyard, and possibly more nuclear plants, which tend to send enviro-wackos into conniptions.

The thing is, this is a situation which can only be fixed properly by the private sector. We need more construction and more engineering, not more regulation. Private-sector solutions don't get votes for politicians, though, so look forward to our folks in D.C. doing everything in their power to steal this ball into their court. Even the "threat of terrorism" card.

Like the subject says, does anyone know what's up with dhs.org right now? Can't get to the web page, and my domain name seems to have expired from my ISP's DNS cache. Anyone know what happened, and whether I ought to worry? I figure, if I can get an answer on this anywhere, it'd be /. (This does put a crimp in my e-mail receiving.)

George Will has written a good column that touches on the Convention currently convening in Minneapolis.

He goes over the divisions facing the Anglican/Episcopalian community, in the U.S. and worldwide, touching on opinion vs. theology vs. progressive philosophy, chronological and geographic snobbery, and the thought-provoking observation that "the typical member of the Anglican Communion is a 40-year-old African woman living on $10 a month." He also gets into an elaboration of how, half a decade ago, the American bishops reeeealy managed to get under the skin of some of their international counterparts.

Listening to these arguements, reading about the protests, turmoil, and anguish going on in the Church I grew up with, it's depressing. I feel a bit like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof: "You are right, and you are also right."

So some folks I know from outside the net have started up a Yahoo Group to facilitate discussions we have ongoing regarding American government and political thought, both modern and historical. (Why American? One, it's the system we understand most. Two, it's the system that affects us most directly.)

I thought I'd share the subject of our first thread of discussion with this crowd, especially as some of you are so incredibly smart, and I'm curious to hear some other points of view:

Can you prove that you own your life? That you have an inherent right to exist?

Yeah, it seems like it would be obvious. "Of course I own my life!" A few centuries back, it was generally thought of as a "self-evident" truth. But we live in days when the more educated you are, the dumber you can be. So, have at it, folks.

As promised, here's the letter I will be sending to my representatives in government:

---

Dear Senator/Representative/Governor,
          As I write this, the day is July the Fourth. On this day, millions of Americans have been celebrating, with cookouts, parades, and fireworks, the signing of a document: the Declaration of Independence. On this day, the founding fathers of this nation pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to sever the bonds holding this nation to a government accused of unfair taxation and repeated violation of the contracts under which the colonies were established.
          I find this an appropriate day on which to contemplate my own, personal sense of independence, and to wonder whether personal independence is still greatly valued in America today.

          A teacher I know from an inner-city school recently asked young children in her class what they wanted to be when they grow up. A number of the children didn't even understand the question: Their parents didn't 'do' anything, other than collect "their check" from the government. For these children, for their parents, personal independent accomplishment is meaningless.
          Democrats and Republicans are currently attempting to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs for senior citizens. Before Congress made it illegal under Section 4507 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, seniors were able to obtain, at their own expense, private medical insurance to cover these drug costs. Even now, no senior in real need has any excuse for not getting drugs, as there are numerous private charitable organizations out there who will give drugs away to anyone with real need. But our most politically active senior citizens seem to be more inclined to shift the burden of their care onto others. I'm not saying I would deny my grandfather the medical care if he needs. I'm saying, he can better afford it than I can. And if he does need anything he can't get on his own, let it be freely given by me, privately, personally, not taken from anyone else through taxes. And if I need medical care, let me be the one to pay for it. I claim no right to it at anyone else's expense.

          I heard on the news just the other day that unemployment statistics had hit another high. I also heard, not too long ago, that Congress had extended the time period for which unemployment benefits could be claimed. I've heard both of these news items with growing frequency these past few months. It's almost as if they go hand in hand, a sort of vicious circle. If anything, I'm beginning wonder if these benefits extensions may be hurting our chances of cutting unemployment. I recently heard a comment about a simple, oft-overlooked economic rule: That which government taxes, we get less of, and that which government subsidizes, we get more of. Our government is taxing income and productivity, and subsidizing unemployment and dependency. Quite frankly, I'm starting to get worried.
          And that's not all of it. Local and state governments have become increasingly dependent on funds handed out by the federal government. Funds acquired through taxation of the state's own residents. This subjects our cities and states to extensive federal rules and regulations, at least as long as they want to pay for the building of local highways, schools, and libraries. It's a neat way around the 9th and 10th Amendments to our Constitution, which would ordinarily make the funding of a library solely the responsibility of those who use it. But then, the citizens of my community would be in a better position to support our libraries on our own if we were taxed less at the federal level.
          My conclusion, sir, is that our Union is in a sad state. I want independence. I thirst for it. I believe it to be the natural human state. But to be a free people, we must be allowed to rise and fall on our own, without a paternalistic government there to catch us. When we make mistakes, we must be able to learn from them on our own. This is what I want. This is what I demand. This is what you are in office to secure for me. You're not there to give me another benefit at someone else's expense. You're there to protect that which is mine by birthright: My liberty. Please remember that.

Sincerely,
(Me)

Bull Detector Could Clean Up Political Jargon
Fox News

But people might be surprised at what little is left over if political speech is stripped of its sheen, said Stephen Hess, political analyst for the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

"To cut to the quick might not leave much," he said. "When you bite into it, there might not be much there. Sort of like cotton candy."

Lew Rockwell shines the light on this national Do Not Call registry.

Last year, on the Fourth, I went to see one of the original printed copies of the Declaration of Independence on a touring display at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library. The exhibit was very, very well-done, and very stirring. The exhibit included a short movie with a history and a reading. And let me tell you something, it was written to be read to an audience. If you've never heard the Declaration read aloud, run out and get yourself a tape, or a friend, or something. Read it out loud to yourself, if you have to. If you've got kids, read it out loud to them.

This year, I wanted to do something else to give meaning to the day. Nice as it is having a three day weekend, I don't want this day to be just another excuse for more time away from work. The grand opening of the National Constitution Center would have been a great thing to attend, I'm sure, but unfortunately, it's just too far for away me to drive in a weekend.

But I got a thought into my head on Thursday while listening to my Daily Insensitivity Training on the radio. The Talkmaster always gets a bit grouchy this time of year due to a surplus of government-dependent flag-wavers. He wondered aloud if anyone would spend their holiday demanding personal independence from their representatives in government.

That struck me as a darned good idea.

So, I've spent the better part of the day drawing up a letter. After I get it proofread by a family member who's in the business of teaching political science at the University level, I'm going to send this letter off to every elected legislator and executive representing me. I'll also post this letter to my journal, and when I receive replies from my representatives, you'll get to read those, too.

I've made up my mind. Every Independence Day, I'm going to find some way beyond the fireworks, parades, and picnics to assert and celebrate my personal independence. Not always a letter, not always a museum exhibit. Maybe next year, I'll take an informal survey to answer a question that burned on my mind today: How many people at the local mall at lunchtime would choose perfect liberty over perfect comfort?

Have a good, safe, free weekend, everyone. And that applies to everyone outside my country, too.

For those who have never visited Freedom's Nest, check it out sometime. Anti-conservative, anti-liberal, pro-freedom.

There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.
  -- F.A. Hayek

While the Pobble was in the water some unidentified creatures came and ate his toes off, and when he got home his aunt remarked: It's a fact the whole world knows, That Pobbles are happier without their toes, which is funny because it has a meaning, and one might even say a political significance. For the whole theory of authoritarian government is summed up in the statement that Pobbles are happier without their toes.
  -- George Orwell

The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.
  -- P.J. O'Rourke

Heard on Fox News that a few of the Democratic presidential wannabes are making campaign promises on the topic of energy policies. The common theme seems to be a '10 years to independence from Arabic/foreign oil' boast. (Nice thing about a goal that's a decade away, you can use it to run for reelection in 4 years, and if it fails, well, you're free from the burden of future campaigns.)

As usual, the game is coming out with the most impressive promise. Realistic odds of achieving results are irrelevant.

I've only found one story so far that attaches details to any of these promises. As chance would have it, it's about John Kerry, who (according to popular rumor) once served in Vietnam. His suggestion: Tighter fuel regulations and more federal spending. Government force and government money. Surprise, surprise. The day I hear a Democrat make an energy policy suggestion that doesn't fall into these two categories, I will be truly, truly shocked.

Will you hear one Democratic candidate suggest tapping ANWR? Or allowing more offshore drilling? Of course not. Wind generators? Only as long as the views from their seaside vacation homes aren't spoiled. Safe, clean nuclear power? Loosening the reigns on competition among energy companies? Hah. Not likely.

On a tangent, Neal Boortz's show notes for yesterday includes a rather apt suggestion for a new Democratic motto: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can force someone to do for you".