Is money evil?

Money isn't evil, and neither are rich people

Let's say I buy some canvas-paper and paints. Cheap items, that I can get in a department store, or even a fancy craft shop. Now, lets imagine even farther from reality and pretend that I am a talented artist. As an artist of great skill, I use the materials that I have bought so inexpensively, and create a great masterpiece, something of great value. Something fantastic has just been done... wealth has just been created.

As a struggling artist, unemployed (not imagination), I put my painting up for sale. A patron loves the work, and pays a large sum to own it. Hear me out, this isn't just money being moved from the patron's account to mine, no, wealth has been created.

Let's look at another example. Let's say I'm a microchip manufacturer. I buy truckloads of sand (which is worthless) and by using the ingenuity of modern science, I turn that sand into a microchip. This sand has not simply been changed from one state to another, it has been turned from something relatively cheap, to something relatively more valuable.

In one final analogy, let's say that I'm unemployed (which would be accurate to say). Let's say that you ask me to mow your lawn, and I agree to do it for 40 bucks an acre. I work hard in the sun, and when the job is done you are happy and pay me my money. You value the cut lawn more than whatever amount you wound up paying me.

You see the painted masterpiece, the microchip, and the cut lawn are worth more than the craft supplies, the sand, and the unkempt lawn. In these scenarios, I have used creativity, intelligence, and hard work to improve them and make them more valuable. By extension, I have also made the world a better place by creating value, and therefore creating wealth. Let that sink in.

Wealth has been created. Money is simply a unit of exchange which represents wealth. I have provided a product or service, which you valued, and have benefited society.

Today we talk about those "evil one-percent", but if you consider what I have presented just now, those evil people may not be so evil. Maybe they are scumbags in their personal life, but their personal wealth represents only a fraction of the wealth they've created and given away to others.  

An Open Letter to Dave Rubin

Dear Dave Rubin,

First, I wanted to let you know that I enjoy your show. I think the thing I love the most is how you promote civil discourse, even among those you disagree with: which is one of the most important virtues in life. I disagree with you on many things as a Christian, evangelical, conservative. However, I am always glad to see those I disagree with being open to conversation.

I am writing this open letter as a response to one of your videos with Larry Elder, particularly the part where you talk about the definition of "conservative". I dissent to the definition that you gave, as well as the one that I heard Larry give. In your video you define conservatism "... to resist sudden change... and adherence to traditional values". I couldn't disagree more with this definition. Remember, dictionaries don't tell us how we ought to use certain words, but rather how society already uses them.

Even when I was 19, I was already registered as a Republican, but I was averse to identifying as a "conservative" because of this definition. It wasn't until a mentor of mine provided me with a new definition that I started to identify as a conservative. I think many people my age may be averse to identifying as a "conservative" because they equate the word to a traditionalist. I am not a traditionalist, nor do I "resist sudden change". There are plenty of changes I (and my conservative friends) would love to see happen overnight. Simultaneously, conservatives and liberals each have changes that they would not like to see.

For anyone reading this, I'd like to give my personal definition of conservatism. I would like to present a definition that could appeal not just to evangelicals, but also to the young, atheists, and libertarians. Also, conservatives are not libertarians, as Larry Elder stated. (And we are not all old stuffy white men in the one-percent, either.) There may be some overlap between conservative and libertarian philosophies and goals, but they are different.

This definition of conservatism is my own, and it comes in three parts. These are not three isolated parts, but they build each on top of the other. From the top down they are: conservative (strict) interpretation of the Constitution, pragmatism, and Natural law.

1. Conservative Constitutionalist- I cannot, in a blog post, go into all the intricacies of what this means and why it's important. America has changed a great deal over the years, but we believe that one of the things that makes America great is its Constitution. A government formed by "We the people", as the preamble says, and a nation ruled primarily by written laws rather than by the whim of leaders. Under the US Constitution, and other state and local laws, leaders are supposed to be limited by the law, just like regular people. In fact, maybe even more so than regular people.

That's just one reason why we believe in interpreting it strictly (conservatively), rather than letting leaders bend the laws to fit their agenda. We believe that everyone should follow the laws, or there is no purpose in having the laws anyway. Also, myself and many other conservatives and libertarians would agree, it is better to have just a few basic laws. Fewer laws, and more effective laws, is always better than having thousands of more laws than anyone will ever know or follow. Again, what is the point in a law if no one follows it, or even knows about it?

As a side note, interpreting the Constitution Conservatively means we take into account what the founding fathers meant by what is written therein. We can look at things like other writings of the founders, including the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, works of individual founders, and what certain words meant back then; and these things give us a better understanding of what the founders were saying. Now you can argue that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine the complexities of today's world, but I would say the principles of human nature and political science don't change.

2. Pragmatism- this is is the definition that my mentor gave me for conservatism. "Conservatives are for what WORKS!" he quipped. And we are arguing that progressivism, communism, fascism, and all other collectivist systems do not work to create happy and prosperous societies. Neither do far-right philosophies like anarchy. We are not against change, instead we want to implement changes that have been tested and proven to work. Try it on a small scale, before enforcing it on the whole country.

We try to resist the human urge to be idealists, and fight for some utopia, because we understand that nothing is perfect. Instead, we simply labor to just make society better. Dennis Prager outlines it this way: liberals ask "does it feel good", conservatives ask "does it do good".

So we are very pragmatic, at least to a certain degree. However, anyone who has ever taken philosophy 101 can show you the problem with pragmatic philosophy. You can always argue that something works, because it meets a given set of goals, but the question remains is that thing right? Is it true? So we must delve deeper into ethics.

3. Natural law- Natural law comes from JudeoChristian theology, but you don't have to be religious to believe it. It is a code of ethics that transcends religion and culture. It says that morality and ethics can be clearly seen, and known intuitively, through the conscience. This is not some mystical mumbo-jumbo, but refers to the fact (studies in moral psychology have shown this) that the emotional, subconscious part of our brain is responsible for making moral judgments.

I also believe that our understanding of natural law is progressive, as individuals and as a society. For instance, through most of human history slavery was an acceptable practice. Then individuals began to become convicted that it was wrong, and they banded together to get written laws passed to reflect the Natural Law.

America is founded on Natural Law, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Let's note a few things: first off these truths are self-evident (just like Natural Law). Second, these rights are not granted by the government. They are innate, and our government only agrees not to infringe upon them. This is what's so revolutionary about America. All other countries before that taught that God gave power to kings to grant rights (commodities) to citizens. In American philosophy, God grants rights to the people, and then tells government to protect those rights. Now since you are an atheist, you could say that nature granted these, but you cannot deny that these rights are inherent.

Finally, Natural Law is not determined by popularity. Slavery was always wrong, even when it was accepted by the majority. Racism and prejudice have always been wrong, even when they were socially acceptable and popular.

So conservatives are basically the defenders of natural law. Therefore, we believe in a transcendent ethical system. We tend to be more pragmatic and less idealistic (in a Utopian way). Because of these things, we fight for smaller government and for Constitutional limitations.

I am not sure of all of my positions on all of the issues, but this would be my definition for conservatism. I would love to come on your show and talk about this definition more in depth, and talk more about Natural Law. I hope your show continues to gain traction, and this idea of civil discourse continues to spread.

Sincerely,

Frank Perseo

(@frank_perseo)

My Story

 I wanted to write a blog post to talk a little bit about myself. Particularly I want to give a brief life story, in a way that relates to the forming of my ideologies. Everyone has their beliefs and biases, so we should stop acting like we don't. Our beliefs are shaped by our life events: either things we learned from parents, teachers, friends, research we did (and how well/poorly we conducted our research). We should be up front about our views and biases, and how we came to these conclusions.

One of the most important things in my blogs is wisdom: knowledge gained from experience. I want to obtain wisdom, and use my writing to spread wisdom, in all areas of life, but especially in religion and politics. I want to use this blog to infuse the wisdom of past generations, into the youthful vigor of my own generation. It is the young people who shape the world, the future, but too often we do so without learning from the experiences of generations past, and we plunge headlong into disaster.

I was raised Catholic, until I was 12 years old. My political influences? I was the son of two Democrats, living in a blue state. Even as a kid, I always wanted to be wise. I didn't want to make mistakes, I would much rather learn from the mistakes of others. I was a cautious kid, analytical (still am), always seeking to avoid mistakes. Kids, naturally, make mistakes and do stupid things. I did too, sometimes, but I deeply desired to be right, to do right, and to find the truth.

Children are believers, they believe wholeheartedly whatever we tell them, so it is important to tell them the truth. I was raised Catholic, so I never questioned the existence of God. That is until I was about ten years old, after I found the truth about Santa Claus. That event introduced doubt in me that followed me for the next 10 years. I still believed in God, mind you, but I always had a nagging doubt. I became a skeptical theist. I say this to prebuttal the genetic fallacy argument that I only arrived at my current ideology because I was raised into it. I have done a significant amount of reflection and research on what I believe. Not to say that I know everything, but I am not simply parroting what I was spoon-fed.

There is always an emotional element in what we believe. Many kids leave their faith because they feel hurt by their parents or simply want to rebel. Many take up political ideologies because they feel good. I don't want to say that I am immune to this, but I want to reflect deeply on what I believe and be open to critical analysis from myself and others.

When I was about 11 or 12 my dad, a very devout Catholic, began asking questions. When the priest didn't havd the answers he was looking for, my dad brought my whole family to an evangelical non-denominational church. It was here that our family became Christians (born-again), when I was twelve years old. This is probably one of the most significant and foundational paradigm shifts in my life. (The shift being in my soteriology: my view of redemption).

My faith waivered a lot over the next six years. In the back of my mind (not on any conscious level) I constantly dealt with this nagging doubt: what if it turns out that God is just like Santa Claus? Ok, well it wouldn't be exactly the same, obviously. My parents genuinely believed in God. How did I know that God wasn't also some elaborate hoax? I simply resolved that you could never know for certain.

In politics, my social views can be traced all the way back to my upbringing in the Catholic Church. They are not very different from what I was taught at my current church. Today, my socio-political views are slightly more complex then my childhood view. I openly admit that the philosophical foundation for my social and political view is in my religious views. However, I don't believe that you need to share my religious beliefs to share my political beliefs. You can come to the same conclusions by looking at the natural world that we share.

My economic views come from many small business owners that I have had the pleasure of knowing. I myself aspired (still do) to be self-employed, so I was attracted to the economic ideas which I felt would create a better climate for business. I think it was during this time that I became attracted to some form of libertarian ideology. In that time I had quite a few friends who were Ron Paul fans, so I thought I was too.

When I was 19, one of these small business owners (whom I was working for at the time) took me to town hall and registered me to vote. I really didn't know anything about politics at this point, only what I had been spoonfed (by both liberal and conservative sources). I wanted to pick one of the two major parties to register for, simply so that I could vote in their primaries. I knew that Democrats were liberal, and Republicans were conservatives. I didn't even know what 'liberal' and 'conservative' actually meant back then. So, I identified myself as a moderate, but registered as a Republican.

All through my life, one of my many mantras has been "balance between extremes". I used to always try to take the middle road. Hence, why I identified as a moderate. I still believe in this virtue of balance, however, I have found that often what seems like the "middle-road" position is simply a compromise of the truth.

In January of the next year, I was in a critical thinking course hosted at our church. The course became a launching pad for a Christian apologetics course. This course planted seeds in my mind that still continue to effect the way I think. Learning about critical thinking, epistomology, and getting back into apologetics, restored my rational confidence in God. I was very impressed particularly with the Cosmological Argument for God. Also learning more about epistemology taught me how we can know things with reasonable confidence, and not lapse into solipsism or agnosticism.

That summer, the teacher of the critical thinking class began to mentor me. We talked talked a lot that summer about Christianity, apologetics, philosophy, and simply life in general. It was also through these meetings that I came to identify myself as a conservative, rather than a moderate or libertarian. Before, I thought that conservative meant traditionalist. I didn't want to be a traditionalist, so I didn't identify as a conservative. Now I would frame the word a bit differently. To put it simply: conservatives support a strict interpretation of the Constitution, to limit the powers of government. No one is above the Law, not even the government.

I then spent two years at a Bible college in Upstate New York. I spent two semesters at community college, and now I'm finishing my degree at an online Christian college. For the past year and a half, I have spent my time checking out other views and testing them against my own views. I want to use this blog to share my own views, and maybe even hear some of your own.

Once again, I'm not without my biases, but hopefully I've exposes my biases and influences here, and laid them all bare.  

Why don't you stop mixing religion and politics?

No.

I will not separate religion and politics in my blog.

I struggled with this for a while, but I have come to my decision. I am going to bypass the argument that this is my blog, and if you are reading this, you are presumably wanting to hear my POV. Instead I want to focus on why these subjects are inseparable.

I thought that maybe in my blog I should focus on one and leave the other out. If I wrote a political blog, I wouldn't want to alienate conservative/libertarian atheists. If I continued with religious themes, I wouldn't want to offend my non-political or liberal fellow-Christians. However, as I write this blog about living a holistic life, I find these two subjects (which happen to be two of my favorite) to be inseparable. Why can't I keep them separate? Because what you believe about one, effects what you believe about the other.

My political views are deeply founded in my religious beliefs. Conversely, many have had their religious beliefs shaped by a political ideologies.

For instance my political views on pro-life (I believe it's not just a personal conviction, but a human rights issue) are shaped by the JudeoChristian idea that life begins at conception. I am not an anarchist, because I believe that government has a legitimate role mentioned in Scripture (Genesis 9, Romans 13). From those same passages I get my stance on the death penalty, explaining why I am both pro-life and pro-capital punishment (the death penalty needs to at least be an option). Could I justify these positions without appealing to "some old book"? Sure, but if you dig deep enough, the underlying reasons will always biblical for me.

As I said, on the flip side, many have had their religious views warped by political ideas. There is a great fictitious example of this in the Fiddler on the Roof. In one scene the Marxist, Perchik, is teaching two of the sisters from the Bible, the account of Jacob and Laban. At the end, he concludes the moral of the story is that businessmen are evil and will always screw you over. Whether or not you belief the leftist maxim that businessmen and the wealthy are evil, this is not the point of the biblical story. As in this fictitious example, many people warp the Bible to fit their political ideology.

Still not convinced? There are other examples still, like slavery. Today, skeptics will try to tell you that the Bible endorses slavery. It does not. Historians agree that slavery in ancient times was different from modern slavery. The Bible mostly treats this type of slavery as an undesirable social reality. The institution of the Sabbath Law gave dignity to slaves: God commanded that they get a day off. God makes a point to remind the Israelites that He delivered them out of slavery. In Psalms 103:6 we see that God is on the side of those who are oppressed. Jesus said that his mission was to set the captives free, and Paul wrote an entire book of the Bible to persuade Philemon to free one of his slaves.

Despite all of this many Christians, even devout and revered Christians, defended the institution of slavery. They made false arguments from the Bible to support their views. Slavery remained pervasive in America, and the supporters became increasingly adamant. Meanwhile, the Abolitionist Movement grew, fueled by the religious revival of the Great Awakening. As this movement grew, the (current) Republican Party was formed to end the institution of slavery. The Democrats unanimously (and passionately) took the position of defending slavery. Don't believe me? I am begging you to go look it up.

What always shocked me when I was in high school American history class, was the number of upstanding Christian men who supported slavery. Now I can't judge their hearts, but I would argue that some of these guys were not down right evil. Instead, they were upstanding men with a major flaw: they were socialized into a political ideology which warped their religious views.

(There are plenty of other examples I could go into on how politics warping theology. The other examples are a little more involved. I would need to first support my theological position biblically. Then, I would need to show how political ideology warped that doctrine. I might also need to show why that particular idea political is wrong. With slavery I can at least assume that most of my readers believe that slavery is wrong.)

So there you have it. The two are inseparable. I can make a non-religious argument for why I hold a certain social or political view, but my morals are guided by my religion. Furthermore, my religion causes me to take action on certain political issues. This is why I write, to bring awareness of these issues.

God Talks- Wisdom

What is the most important trait for any person to have? You might argue that it would be love, and you could provide good reasoning for that view. However, I'd like to propose that the most important trait for anyone to have is wisdom. Proverbs 4:7 says "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." This verse is saying that wisdom is one of the most important things to go after. Even for the non-believer, who, by seeking true wisdom can come to the saving knowledge of Jesus. Once born-again, the person will acquire traits like love, and other fruits of the spirit.

I am reminded of a book I read in Bible college which asked "What is the best question ever?" Before you do anything, you ought to ask "is this the wisest thing to do?"

So, wisdom is the most important trait for a person to have. In Proverbs 2:4 were are encouraged to seek wisdom,which is personified in the feminine form. "If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures..." Could you imagine if people sought wisdom like some single people seek out a significant other? Also, if you knew that there was buried treasure in your backyard, what would you do? Would you dig one hole and call it a day? Or would you tear up your entire backyard until you found that treasure?

Seek knowledge

So how do we obtain wisdom? First, we must do something more basic. First we must seek knowledge. "An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge" (Proverbs 18:15). The wise man seeks knowledge. The same idea is echoed in Proverbs 15:14. The type of knowledge spoken of here is open ended; it includes not just knowledge of God, but knowledge about every subject. We have a serious problem in our culture with people not caring to learn. Our society has amassed so much information, but this upcoming generation has no desire to sift through it and find the Truth. They are more than comfortable to live off the benefits of this knowledge, and curse the very foundations that it comes from.

As this video and Proverbs 2:4 suggest we cannot be lazy in this pursuit of knowlege. The word "seek" implies that knowledge is active. We are to actively seek new truths, just like you would search for treasures hidden throughout your backyard. We should seek knowledge in all disciplines (including theology, philosophy, history, science, language, arts). Stretch your mind by learning about subjects that are not your forté. The word knowledge in these verses could also be translated "understanding", so we aren't to just memorize new facts, but also seek to understand these concepts in a deeper way. Finally, the wise man doesn't seek knowledge, just to have a big head about it, but to use what he has learned to better himself, others, and to bring glory to God.

A while back I did a bit of research on ways to improve you IQ. There are two tips that I'd like to highlight: (1) read, (2) don't stop learning. That's why I read articles and non-fiction books all the time. Even fiction can be good, when it's used as an allegory for reality.

Another way that we learn is through the opinions of others.

Be Reasonable – Listen to others

That's the key to being reasonable: being willing to listen to others. If you can listen to what others have to say (not just letting them talk while you think of other things) you might actually learn something.

Proverbs 18:13 says "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame." Do you speak before you give others a chance to? Even as adults, we all need to learn to "listen before you speak". This goes beyond principles of democracy, to an emotional level. Don't you want people to hear what you have to say? People are all crying out for someone to hear them, so let us extend a listening ear to a friend who may be going through a hard time. Even in debate, hear your opponent out. Taking the time to listen to someone will show that you care. You may even gain respect from an opponent.

The other benefit of listening to others, is that you might learn something. You may get a better understanding of what someone else believes (and hopefully greater empathy for them), or you may (gasp) realize that you are wrong about something. Proverbs 18:17 puts this concept in a courtroom setting "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." This verse also hints at a psychological phenonemon called anchoring bias, our tendency to be biased towards whatever side of an issue that we have heard first.

In court we go through a lengthy process called cross-examining, where we listen to both sides until all the facts are presented and all the arguments are heard, and then the judge and jury come to a conclusion. Likewise we ought to do the same thing for ourselves with controversial topics. Listen to all the facts on both sides and then come to a conclusion. This is something that my mentor drilled into my head: "Always check out the other side!" Now I understand that it's not always feasible to do this for every issue. It takes time and motivation. (We ought to make time, though.) At the very least we ought to be willing to listen to the other side.

Some cross-examining tips: We should actively seek out new arguments on the opposing side. (Part of that "seeking knowledge" thing.) Also seek for the best arguments, because anyone can tear apart a terrible argument. If you become convinced of the other side, seek out the best arguments on your original side.

So many times we as Christians don't do this, especially when it comes to different theological camps, different religions, and even atheism. These principles of cross-examining apply to Christianity itself. If Christianity is not true, then we shouldn't believe it. This isn't just my idea, it's biblical. 1 Corinthians 15:17 says that if the resurrection never happened, then our faith is meaningless. However, my religious background taught that you shouldn't question God or the Bible, only believe. Many genuine Christians are still stuck in that mindset. "So, you want me to question God and the Bible?" Yes! Respectfully.

You don't need to have every answer to every question, but you should be looking for the answers. I am still working through the question: why do we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? I don't have all the answers to that question, but enough to make me confident in what I believe.

When cross-examining my mentor always said that we should be open minded, but not empty-headed. Meaning don't forsake what you you have learned with a reasonable degree of certainty. Don't forsake your God-given ability to reason. Don't be foolish or gullible.

Don't Be Gullible

Proverbs 14:15 says "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps." The word simple here is someone who is naïve. Have you ever met someone who believed everything you told them? Have you ever been that person? I have. Having faith is NOT being gullible. Gullibility is not a virtue. We ought to believe the Truth whole-heartedly, but we shouldn't believe everything we are told.

The Fool

Going back to Proverbs 15:14 it say that fools feed on foolishness. They eat it up. This is a bit different from being gullible, I think. This seems more like someone who doesn't care either way if it's true or not, as opposed to someone who is simply too trusting.

Proverbs 18:2 tells us that "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." Have you ever met someone like that?

There are two things to remember about the word fool when it's in the Bible. First off, the word comes from 5 different Hebrew words, which are often translated "fool". These 5 words signify 5 different levels of foolishness. Second, a fool is not the same as our western concept of a "stupid person". This is profound! In our western concept of stupidity, such a person is one who CANNOT figure something out. A fool (in ancient middle-Eastern thought) is one who has all of the facts, but WILL NOT to figure it out. So take heart, depending on what level you are at, it is better to be a fool than an idiot. At least a fool can change his heart and wise up.

In Conclusion

Just like foolishness is a moral refusal, wisdom is the moral know-how to live righteously. In this post, I talked about living a righteous life (particularly in regards to being well-rounded). Righteousness is doing what is right, wisdom is knowing how to do what is right.

Wisdom is especially important for Christians, as we are commanded to walk in wisdom (Matt 10:16, Eph 5:15, Col 4:5). If we don't have wisdom in our lives, we are called to ask God for it (James 1:5). God is the the source of all wisdom. So take heart if you feel foolish and inadequate, I'm sure we all have, whether we admit it or not. However, if you humble yourself and ask Him right now to give you wisdom, He'll do just that. That's exactly what I had to do a number of years back. I was reading through the book of Proverbs, and felt so convicted because I wanted to be a wise man, but I kept seeing myself as a fool. I remember crying out, and nothing changed... immediately, but over time things did. I have not arrived, but I continue to grow in wisdom.

So, in my personal opion, wisdom is the most important trait for a person to have. You could argue that love, and the fruits of the spirit are more important. Paul tells us that without love, even with all wisdom, he is nothing (1 Cor 13:2). Even so, wisdom teaches us how to apply God's unchanging Word, in a world that is constantly changing.

In order to obtain wisdom we must:

• Seek knowledge – Always be learning
• Be reasonable – Listen to others
• Not be gullible

So before you do something, ask yourself: is this the wise thing to do?

Politics- Fiorina v Trump

Background: So I am an amateur when it comes to politics, but over the past 3 years it has increasingly become all that I think about in my spare time. Over the past 2 months I have been following political leaders (particularly GOP presidential candidates) very closely. I spent a good two weeks in September researching each candidate on their policies. I want to be someone who votes on the issues, but I understand that there is more to picking the President than what a candidate says and believes.
There has been a lot of hoopla surrounding the candidacy of Donald J Trump. He tends to get people excited (either for him or against him). I see some of the things that his supporters like about him, but I'm not quite a fan. To be fair, Donald Trump comes in a solid 7^th on my personal list, at the bottom of the first half. I have no plans to vote for him in the primary, but I am not opposed to voting for him in the general election. I just think that there are plenty of candidates who offer great alternatives to Trump. There are several candidates who are far better than him in multiple ways. I am writing this post to draw attention to one of my favorites.

My Premise: Many candidates offer good alternatives to Trump. Fiorina is all the things that make Trump great, plus some.

First let's look at some similarities.

Both:

• Are outsiders- this seems to be the buzzword this election season. People really want someone who is not in the "political class". So much so that even political insiders like Sanders and Clinton must pretend that they are actually outsiders. Some say it's important to inject fresh blood into the political system, or rather have a total blood transfusion. Others would say that "outsider" is Latin for "inexperienced".
  I certainly believe that we should inject fresh blood into the system, but maybe they should be more tried before they run for politics. However, if we are going to pick an outsider, these two look like the best to me.
• Business leaders (with debatable success)- during the second debate Fiorina and Trump had a little contest over who was the best business leader. The jury is still out for me on who is better. Let's debate that in the comments! Their experience in business leadership are what make them the most viable outsider candidates.
• Excellent communicators- as someone who wants to make a career in public discourse, I have studied both of them, and admired their skill in communication. They have differences, which I will highlight later. Trump has his background in reality TV, and Fiorina in technology (the most important industry in our age). However, both have exhibited excellent skill in communicating their thoughts, and inspiring others.
• Think on their feet- I admire both of them and their ability to think on their feet. Trump is famous for boasting of not using a teleprompter, but Fiorina does the same thing: candid, "any question goes" interviews. My first exposure to Fiorina was on one such interview.
• Policies- When I look at my notes on their positions, I often find it difficult to find a distinction between them. Especially on the two issues that mean the most to me: abortion and the economy. Both seem to think we should compromise to push forward our pro-life agenda, and both have economic ideas that I agree and disagree with.

Trump does have a few strengths, which are what have put him ahead in the polls.

• He's a household name- Trump was a household name long before this election. If you are not following the election, there is still a chance you might not know about Fiorina, but there is little chance that you don't know Trump.
• Charismatic- Trump is simply a charismatic fellow. He obviously read Dale Carnegie's book. I think that Fiorina is a very charismatic figure, but apparently 30% of GOP voters think that Trump is more so.
• Simple rhetoric- the other thing that makes Trump appealing is his ability to speak the every man's language. Trump has been shown to talk at a third grade level. This does not mean that he has the intellect of a third grader, and isn't a necessarily a bad thing. It means that he can bring things down to the lowest common denominator. This is not a good or bad thing. However, none of these strengths I've listed for Trump are reasons to vote for him. Allow me to propose an alternative candidate.

Fiorina may not have Trump's three strengths, but she has other higher qualities. Here are the things that Fiorina has on Trump:

• Tact- A righteous person knows how to control what they say (James 3:2). This is more than me not liking Trump's personality quirk. He exhibits a lack of control in his speech. Not only can Fiorina think on her feet, talking without cue cards, but she exhibits an excellent amount of tact in doing so.
• Delegator- Both candidates, in fact all candidates, talk about all the things they promise to do. Fiorina, in contrast to Trump, is one of the few candidates that I have heard talk about inspiring others to do great things for our country. Rather than letting politicians do everything, we ought to talk about everyone getting involved. Leaders are supposed to inspire others to get involved in the work they are doing. Encourage everyone to contribute their ideas. Delegate work to others, and not micromanage. This is the exact opposite of what is happening in our political system today.
  This is Fiorina's greatest strength. For instance, she famously proposed using a text-polling system to see which issues were a priority to citizens. She talks more about wanting to inspire others than things she will do. I only hear Trump talk about what he will do.
• Policies- When I looked up their positions on the issues, there didn't seem to be much distinction between these candidates. On paper they both looked like moderate Republicans that were more liberal in the past. However, when you look at their campaign sites, Trump is focused on a few issues, but Fiorina is more well-rounded, tackling several issues. Which do you think is better, being well-rounded or focusing on a few issues. In the CNN debate she emphasized her pro-life stance, which I believe is the most important issue; and in this last debate she emphasized reducing government, which I believe is the second biggest issue. She also has a much better handle on foreign policy, due to her background as an advisor to the CIA (which I recently learned of).
• Finally, She's a Woman- No, really? OK, the gloves are off. Should we vote for Fiorina simply because she is a woman? NO! Just like we shouldn't vote for Hilary because she is a woman. In spite of this, Hilary is set to win, simply on the platform that she is a woman. The most strategic move for us would be to nominate a woman. Believe me, I would not be supporting this strategy if not for the things I said in the above three points.
  Hillary will run on the platform that she wants to be the first woman president. If we run Fiorina, that kind of steals Hillary's thunder. They might actually need to talk about policy. Hillary does not seem to be afraid of Carly, but she should be. Once you bypass the superficial points, Carly beats Hilary. Fiorina isn't the warmest Republican candidate, but she is far warmer than Clinton. She does an excellent job at representing conservatism, and if she can learn to bring it down to a third grade level like Trump, maybe she can do even better. Pitting Fiorina against Hillary is a long shot, a blood-bath even, but at least Hillary will not become President by calling for America to vote for a woman, and crying about how Donald Trump is simply bullying her.

So to recap: Fiorina is like Donald Trump, but with tact. She is more conservative on the issues, and she wants to inspire others to get involved.

What do you think? Who has the better business record? Is Trump better off for focusing on a few issues, or Fiorina for her being well-rounded? Who is your favorite candidate (of the two, or overall)? Comment below or tweet me @frank_perseo with your thoughts.

Movies- Woodlawn

My preliminary thoughts after watching Woodlawn

Now I don't watch a lot of sports movies. I was reluctant to see this one. Many Christians have been accustomed to so-called "Christian films" having terrible quality. I went and saw this movie because the producers are my fellow alumni. I never even watched the trailer (which is rare for me, because I watch trailers for everything).

I am so used to cringing frequently in "Christian film", but ten minutes into the movie I realized that I hadn't cringed once. In fact, it was an interesting movie, which I had become engaged in. I didn't understand everything that was happening at first, but I think that was a personal problem because I can't always hear movies well.

I don't watch football too often, but I enjoy the full-contact action when I do. Football movies are great for that, because they cut out all the boring stuff from the games. However, this movie captivated my interest before the first game, with a compelling story of a city torn by racism and social revolution. This aspect interested me more, as the civil rights movement has been of interest to me lately. The movie also touches a bit on the Jesus Revolution, but only in passing.

If you are not religious, this movie could still be for you, as it is not overtly religious (in my opinion). Certainly not down your throat. It presents the Christian message in a way that is respectful to believers and non-believers alike, and then the rest simply shows how that message applies to the issue of racial healing.

I loved the portrayal of the time and location: certainly not perfect by any means, as Birmingham in 1973 was torn by racial divide. On the other hand, I love southern culture. So many things about it, including their hospitality. Growing up, all of our vacations were in the South, and it was nice to visit again for just two hours. And darn-it, I loved the choice of Seventies music. I still have "Spirit in the Sky" stuck in my head. 

Some critics have stated that the film was a bit formulaic, and too close to Remember the Titans. This could possibly be true, but I wouldn't know, as I don't watch many underdog sports films. I still found it to be a compelling story on it's own. There are many inspiring stories to tell about overcoming racism in the South, and we ought to tell as many as we can. We must remember our country's history, or we will be doomed to repeat it.

Also, after reading this review I would like to respond to a few things. No, I don't believe that Christianity is a "persecuted minority". Yes, a majority of the world identify as Christians. However, there are many flavors of Christianity, and even false Christians. It is not my purpose in this post to talk about what makes someone a genuine Christian, but I will say that the more evangelical, conservative, or fundamental a Christian is the more likely they are to be ridiculed.

The above article ends with "if you only respect the beliefs of other people who believe in the divinity of Jesus, what kind of respect is that?" The movie never disrespects another religion (to my memory). Respect does not mean that I must agree with you and accept what you believe.


But enough of my talking. I encourage you to go see it and form your own opinion. For those of you who have seen it, please tell me what you thought in the comments below.