There are a number of definitions offered at Merriam-Webster Dictionary online.
In recent news, a pastor was criticized for calling Mormonism a cult.
Cult in typical American English usage is definition number 5 in MW:
great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement or work (as a film or book)
For example, the film Blade Runner is considered a cult classic. In this case, there are fans of the film who really like the film a lot and will buy the "director's cut" of the film and have collector's items associated with the movie and know many details about the film and the making of the film.
Certain musical bands garner a cult following.
Some libertarians would be described as very devoted to the writings of Ayn Rand and that devotion seems cultic to non-devotees.
In these contexts, the term cult is somewhat descriptive and depending on tone of voice may or may not be a disparaging.
Cult in a religious context tends to be disparaging as it usually describes a religious group where usually one leader (or small number) has a charismatic hold over his/her followers and the peer pressure of the group makes it hard for anyone to leave the group.
However, there is a descriptive definition of cult as described by definition number 3 in MW:
a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
There are groups within the major world religions.
For example, in Judaism, there are orthodox, conservative and reform congregations. The three groups are not identical but they share much in common.
In Christianity, there are Catholic, Orthodox and various Protestant denominations. Thus, on many (most) doctrinal matters there would be agreement. Yet, there would be some areas of distinctive.
And so within a given religion, there can be and are groups that hold beliefs that would be considered unorthodox or spurious to the vast majority of the adherents of the orthodox/historical form of that given religion.
This would be the case with Mormonism which is also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Mormons use much the same language of traditional Christianity. However, they call themselves the Latter-Day Saints because they believe that the historic forms of Christianity lost the true message which the LDS believes they have recovered.
Objectively speaking there are three possibilities: the Mormon claims are correct, the Mormon claims are incorrect or both the Mormon and traditional Christian claims are incorrect.
However, as a matter of intellectually honesty, regardless of the correctness of the claims of either group, is there significant divergence in beliefs between the LDS church and the historic Christian church?
A Catholic priest, Protestant minister and Mormon elder go to have breakfast at a local diner and write down the beliefs of their churches on paper. What would happen?
The lists would not be identical.
The Catholic list would have more similarities to the Protestant list than to the Mormon list.
Thus, under MW definition #3, Mormonism is a cult.
However, given that much of the American public has in their minds that cult is definition #5, it is not useful to call Mormonism a cult.
A more precise way to describe the LDS church would be, a religious group that holds some aspects of Christian doctrine yet differs with historic Christan beliefs in a number of key areas.
I heard one Protestant pastor describe his relationship with Mormon friends this way, we have significant theological differences but we work together on issues that matter to our communities and our country.
Politics: Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan?
Am not an economist. Have not read in any detail the 9-9-9 plan promoted by candidate Herman Cain. Just have my gut reaction to the idea.
My 59 second understanding of the plan is that the Federal Government tax system would be overhauled and replaced with 9% corporate income tax, 9% personal income tax and 9% sales tax.
The virtue of the plan is simplicity. As it is now, the tax code is loaded with deductions and credits and other adjustments that distort economic behavior.
In an ideal world, a tax system should accomplish two things:
(1) raise sufficient revenue to fund government services
(2) be simple so that there is reduced incentive to outright cheat (illegal) on taxes, engage in activity (legal) to shelter money from taxation and keeps compliance costs down.
"Fairness" of a tax system is a highly subjective criteria in comparison to the other two criteria.
Examples of "fairness" questions would be:
At what income level should someone begin to pay personal income taxes?
If someone makes more income, how much more should they pay?
Ironically, the desire to make the rich pay their "fair share," can cause problems which even LA Times lefty commentator George Skelton noted. Excerpt: If President Obama really wants to see the "Buffett Rule" in action, he should look at California's tax system. The state has been plagued by it for years. The revenue stream is unstable and the state budget has been a deficit disaster. Soaking the rich - relying heavily on them for income taxes - has resulted in a precarious revenue roller coaster ride. It's either boom or bust in Sacramento, depending on how the wealthy are faring in the stock market and their other investments.
In any case 9-9-9 has the virtue of simplicity, criteria #2.
But how about criteria #1?
Does it raise enough money to fund the government?
The rate numbers could be raised up/down to bring the budget into balance.
In many ways, the greater question is how much do we want the government to spend and are we willing to have a tax system of whatever variety to bring in revenue to pay for it?
Matching revenue with spending is really the first question.
With that question answered, we can then move onto the second one of devising a system that raises revenue effectively without the distortions in economic behavior that the current system has.
In that regard, I think most simple systems with minimal credits and deductions would suffice: 9-9-9 mix of corporate, income and sales tax, national sales tax only with a rebate for low income, flat income tax with exception for low income, 3 income tax bracket, etc.
The challenge is that the current system has provisions put in by political winners to benefit their group and punishes political losers!
Sweeping away all those tax credits, deductions, loopholes and provisions would result in huge political battles.
If we can decide how much government we want and sweep out all the various competing interests baked into the tax code... that would really be something!
UPDATE: Conservative icon National Review is against 9-9-9. I didn't realize that the 9-9-9 plan is just a transition to a national sales tax only plan. In regards to the fairness issue, looks like 9-9-9 might be hard on the lower income folks. Also, there is the difficult political reality of going from our existing system to any proposed system that is radically different. As it is, if any change is to occur, the feasible practical thing to do would be paring back the various tax credits, deductions and loopholes of the existing system in exchange for lower rates rather than shoot-the-moon with a brand new system.
Cato's Dan Mitchell has mixed feelings about 9-9-9. Excerpt: After all, Europe’s welfare states began their march to fiscal collapse and economic stagnation after they added a version of a national sales tax on top of their pre-existing income taxes.
My 59 second understanding of the plan is that the Federal Government tax system would be overhauled and replaced with 9% corporate income tax, 9% personal income tax and 9% sales tax.
The virtue of the plan is simplicity. As it is now, the tax code is loaded with deductions and credits and other adjustments that distort economic behavior.
In an ideal world, a tax system should accomplish two things:
(1) raise sufficient revenue to fund government services
(2) be simple so that there is reduced incentive to outright cheat (illegal) on taxes, engage in activity (legal) to shelter money from taxation and keeps compliance costs down.
"Fairness" of a tax system is a highly subjective criteria in comparison to the other two criteria.
Examples of "fairness" questions would be:
At what income level should someone begin to pay personal income taxes?
If someone makes more income, how much more should they pay?
Ironically, the desire to make the rich pay their "fair share," can cause problems which even LA Times lefty commentator George Skelton noted. Excerpt: If President Obama really wants to see the "Buffett Rule" in action, he should look at California's tax system. The state has been plagued by it for years. The revenue stream is unstable and the state budget has been a deficit disaster. Soaking the rich - relying heavily on them for income taxes - has resulted in a precarious revenue roller coaster ride. It's either boom or bust in Sacramento, depending on how the wealthy are faring in the stock market and their other investments.
In any case 9-9-9 has the virtue of simplicity, criteria #2.
But how about criteria #1?
Does it raise enough money to fund the government?
The rate numbers could be raised up/down to bring the budget into balance.
In many ways, the greater question is how much do we want the government to spend and are we willing to have a tax system of whatever variety to bring in revenue to pay for it?
Matching revenue with spending is really the first question.
With that question answered, we can then move onto the second one of devising a system that raises revenue effectively without the distortions in economic behavior that the current system has.
In that regard, I think most simple systems with minimal credits and deductions would suffice: 9-9-9 mix of corporate, income and sales tax, national sales tax only with a rebate for low income, flat income tax with exception for low income, 3 income tax bracket, etc.
The challenge is that the current system has provisions put in by political winners to benefit their group and punishes political losers!
Sweeping away all those tax credits, deductions, loopholes and provisions would result in huge political battles.
If we can decide how much government we want and sweep out all the various competing interests baked into the tax code... that would really be something!
UPDATE: Conservative icon National Review is against 9-9-9. I didn't realize that the 9-9-9 plan is just a transition to a national sales tax only plan. In regards to the fairness issue, looks like 9-9-9 might be hard on the lower income folks. Also, there is the difficult political reality of going from our existing system to any proposed system that is radically different. As it is, if any change is to occur, the feasible practical thing to do would be paring back the various tax credits, deductions and loopholes of the existing system in exchange for lower rates rather than shoot-the-moon with a brand new system.
Cato's Dan Mitchell has mixed feelings about 9-9-9. Excerpt: After all, Europe’s welfare states began their march to fiscal collapse and economic stagnation after they added a version of a national sales tax on top of their pre-existing income taxes.
Non-profit of the month: September 2011 - California State Parks Foundation
There are many natural wonders and places of historic interest in California that are worth preserving.
And so there is a public aspect of it through the state government of California. Put there is also the part that citizens play in banding together to advocate for and do projects for the benefit of parks.
Thus, I'm supporting California State Parks Foundation.
Here is their "about us" paragraph:
The California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) was founded in 1969 by William Penn Mott, Jr., former director of both California's Department of Parks and Recreation and the National Park Service. With our 120,000 members, CSPF is the only statewide independent nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting, enhancing and advocating for California's magnificent state parks. Since 1969, CSPF has raised more than $170 million to benefit state parks. CSPF is committed to improving the quality of life for all Californians by expanding access to the natural beauty, rich culture and history, and recreational and educational opportunities offered by California's 278 state parks—the largest state park system in the United States.
Thus, I'm supporting California State Parks Foundation.
Here is their "about us" paragraph:
The California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) was founded in 1969 by William Penn Mott, Jr., former director of both California's Department of Parks and Recreation and the National Park Service. With our 120,000 members, CSPF is the only statewide independent nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting, enhancing and advocating for California's magnificent state parks. Since 1969, CSPF has raised more than $170 million to benefit state parks. CSPF is committed to improving the quality of life for all Californians by expanding access to the natural beauty, rich culture and history, and recreational and educational opportunities offered by California's 278 state parks—the largest state park system in the United States.
Politics: Picking Presidents
I think people select presidents for some combination of the following three reasons: inspirational leadership, agreement on policy and demonstrated experience.
With the advent of 24/7 media, the inspirational leadership element is probably the most crucial. You might agree with someone on policy and they might have a terrific resume but if they come across as dull they will have a very hard time getting nominated or elected.
The agreement on policy part reflects itself on two levels of the process. In the general election, probably 33% of the people will vote for a Democrat because they are life-long Democrats and 33% of the people will vote for a Republican because they are life-long Republicans. That is a simple reflection of policy preferences.
The other level where policy preferences show up is among the activists in the nomination process. In the GOP, there are probably three major groups: the economic libertarians, the social conservatives and the national defense hawks. The Democrats would have the same three types: New Deal/Great Society (FDR and LBJ ushered in many new government programs), the social activists (pro-abortion, anti-gun, environmentalists, etc) and the anti-war doves.
Finally, people look at experience. But in truth, the other two factors often trump considerations of experience. Let's look at the presidents in my lifetime.
On the thin side of experience:
Obama - elected while first term senator
Bush 43 - elected while second term governor
Carter - elected after one term as governor
Some experience:
Clinton - served multiple terms as a governor of a small state
Reagan - two terms as governor of a large state
Kennedy - second term senator and three term house member
Much experience:
Bush 41 - VP and many other roles in government
Ford - VP and 24 years in House
Nixon - VP, one term senator, three term house member
LBJ - VP and 12 years in Senate and 12 years in House
With the advent of 24/7 media, the inspirational leadership element is probably the most crucial. You might agree with someone on policy and they might have a terrific resume but if they come across as dull they will have a very hard time getting nominated or elected.
The agreement on policy part reflects itself on two levels of the process. In the general election, probably 33% of the people will vote for a Democrat because they are life-long Democrats and 33% of the people will vote for a Republican because they are life-long Republicans. That is a simple reflection of policy preferences.
The other level where policy preferences show up is among the activists in the nomination process. In the GOP, there are probably three major groups: the economic libertarians, the social conservatives and the national defense hawks. The Democrats would have the same three types: New Deal/Great Society (FDR and LBJ ushered in many new government programs), the social activists (pro-abortion, anti-gun, environmentalists, etc) and the anti-war doves.
Finally, people look at experience. But in truth, the other two factors often trump considerations of experience. Let's look at the presidents in my lifetime.
On the thin side of experience:
Obama - elected while first term senator
Bush 43 - elected while second term governor
Carter - elected after one term as governor
Some experience:
Clinton - served multiple terms as a governor of a small state
Reagan - two terms as governor of a large state
Kennedy - second term senator and three term house member
Much experience:
Bush 41 - VP and many other roles in government
Ford - VP and 24 years in House
Nixon - VP, one term senator, three term house member
LBJ - VP and 12 years in Senate and 12 years in House
Non-Profit of the Month: August 2011 - Union Station Homeless Services
There is a story told by Jesus about Lazarus and the Rich Man. In the pointed story, the Rich Man did nothing to help Lazarus, the poor man who begged for help at the Rich Man's gate.
In Jesus time and in today, the question remains: how can one help the poor? Doing nothing is not an option. If we take the words of Jesus seriously, doing nothing is one road to hell fire of judgement.
I've been told, if one gives money directly to someone on the street, it is likely they will use that money for drugs or alcohol. Thus, in the desire to help them, we may be enabling them to hurt themselves further.
As such, I have decided to give to reputable organizations that helps the poor in practical ways like Union Station in Pasadena.
In the final analysis, the issues of poverty and homelessness often involve many factors and it takes compassionate professionals and highly committed volunteers to effectively offer help. Organizations like Union Station do that and so I hope you will consider supporting them or other groups like them who have a track record of making a difference.
In Jesus time and in today, the question remains: how can one help the poor? Doing nothing is not an option. If we take the words of Jesus seriously, doing nothing is one road to hell fire of judgement.
I've been told, if one gives money directly to someone on the street, it is likely they will use that money for drugs or alcohol. Thus, in the desire to help them, we may be enabling them to hurt themselves further.
As such, I have decided to give to reputable organizations that helps the poor in practical ways like Union Station in Pasadena.
In the final analysis, the issues of poverty and homelessness often involve many factors and it takes compassionate professionals and highly committed volunteers to effectively offer help. Organizations like Union Station do that and so I hope you will consider supporting them or other groups like them who have a track record of making a difference.
Politics: Debt deal near?
They say it should be soon later today.
Politics is "the art of the possible" and this was probably about all that could be done.
The White House wanted the problem pushed past the November 2012 elections.
The Democrats wanted to minimize the chances of spending cuts.
The Republicans wanted to minimize the chances of raising taxes.
And so you get "the deal."
In the House, some Tea Party Republicans will vote no because it doesn't do enough and some Left Democrats will vote no because it does too much. Look for a strange mix of Democrats and Republicans voting yes and no.
How about this for a guess?
Yes
170 Republican
100 Democrat
No
70 Republican
93 Democrat
UPDATE:
UPDATE: In a heart warming moment, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords cast her vote for the deal in her return to the House as she continues her recovery since being shot in January.
In the Senate, I would anticipate passage with some dissent also. My guess:
Yes
40 Democrat
39 Republican
No
13 Democrat
8 Republican
UPDATE: The final vote was 74-26. Democrat support was a bit stronger than I expected with 46 votes and GOP support was weaker with 28. In the end, it passed with apparently little drama.
On substance, the deal just doesn't do all that much. It gets the government past the immediate debt limit problem but doesn't solve the debt problem itself.
$2.5 trillion is a dent in the problem.
The current debt is about $14.5 trillion but the really big number is the future unfunded liabilities in the bottom right of the debt clock. They estimate it to be $115 trillion!
I've seen other estimates but if the $115 trillion is overstated by a factor of two, the problem is still $57.5 trillion.
Politics is "the art of the possible" and this was probably about all that could be done.
The White House wanted the problem pushed past the November 2012 elections.
The Democrats wanted to minimize the chances of spending cuts.
The Republicans wanted to minimize the chances of raising taxes.
And so you get "the deal."
In the House, some Tea Party Republicans will vote no because it doesn't do enough and some Left Democrats will vote no because it does too much. Look for a strange mix of Democrats and Republicans voting yes and no.
How about this for a guess?
Yes
170 Republican
100 Democrat
No
70 Republican
93 Democrat
UPDATE:
In the Senate, I would anticipate passage with some dissent also. My guess:
Yes
40 Democrat
39 Republican
No
13 Democrat
8 Republican
UPDATE: The final vote was 74-26. Democrat support was a bit stronger than I expected with 46 votes and GOP support was weaker with 28. In the end, it passed with apparently little drama.
On substance, the deal just doesn't do all that much. It gets the government past the immediate debt limit problem but doesn't solve the debt problem itself.
$2.5 trillion is a dent in the problem.
The current debt is about $14.5 trillion but the really big number is the future unfunded liabilities in the bottom right of the debt clock. They estimate it to be $115 trillion!
I've seen other estimates but if the $115 trillion is overstated by a factor of two, the problem is still $57.5 trillion.
Science: BPA Concerns May Have Been Overstated
One of the things about belonging to a professional society is that one can receive occasional news round-ups of items that might be of interest.
As someone who likes hiking, I heard about BPA in the context of Nalgene deciding to shift the making of their water bottles to plastics that do not contain BPA.
In their BPA FAQ Nalgene said this:
We are confident that the bottles which contain BPA are safe for their intended use. However, because of consumer requests for alternative materials, we have decided to transition our polycarbonate product line to Eastman Tritan™ copolyester. This product joins our family of bottles and containers made of various non-BPA materials such as HDPE, PP, LDPE and PET.
...
Based on the findings of the Food and Drug Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, The European Food Safety Authority, The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, The Japan Ministry of Health, Labor & Welfare, The American Plastics Council and other reliable sources from around the world, we continue to firmly believe in the safety of our products containing BPA. However, we intend to carefully monitor the results of the National Toxicology Report and the Canadian government’s inquiry into this issue and any other relevant scientific information.
In a recent email news update from one of the scientific professional societies, there was a link to this item about BPA.
Excerpt:
“In a nutshell, says Teeguarden, “we can now say for the adult human population exposed to even very high dietary levels, blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA.”
The study was entirely funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while the analytical work was duplicated by two other government laboratories to ensure extra rigor. The researchers used the latest and most sensitive techniques to find BPA as determined by the CDC (LC/MS/MS using on-line 2-dimensional liquid chromatography if you are curious). Moreover, the new study corroborates earlier independent studies which showed that BPA was rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans.
I don't know how widely reported this study will be. But I pass it along via this blog to those who might have concerns about BPA. From a business perspective, does this mean BPA will once again be used?
As it is now, my current hiking water bottles are of the newer Nalgene BPA-free variety. Hopefully, there isn't some other chemical in those plastics that might be the subject of investigation in the future?!
As someone who likes hiking, I heard about BPA in the context of Nalgene deciding to shift the making of their water bottles to plastics that do not contain BPA.
In their BPA FAQ Nalgene said this:
We are confident that the bottles which contain BPA are safe for their intended use. However, because of consumer requests for alternative materials, we have decided to transition our polycarbonate product line to Eastman Tritan™ copolyester. This product joins our family of bottles and containers made of various non-BPA materials such as HDPE, PP, LDPE and PET.
...
Based on the findings of the Food and Drug Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, The European Food Safety Authority, The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, The Japan Ministry of Health, Labor & Welfare, The American Plastics Council and other reliable sources from around the world, we continue to firmly believe in the safety of our products containing BPA. However, we intend to carefully monitor the results of the National Toxicology Report and the Canadian government’s inquiry into this issue and any other relevant scientific information.
In a recent email news update from one of the scientific professional societies, there was a link to this item about BPA.
Excerpt:
“In a nutshell, says Teeguarden, “we can now say for the adult human population exposed to even very high dietary levels, blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA.”
The study was entirely funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while the analytical work was duplicated by two other government laboratories to ensure extra rigor. The researchers used the latest and most sensitive techniques to find BPA as determined by the CDC (LC/MS/MS using on-line 2-dimensional liquid chromatography if you are curious). Moreover, the new study corroborates earlier independent studies which showed that BPA was rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans.
I don't know how widely reported this study will be. But I pass it along via this blog to those who might have concerns about BPA. From a business perspective, does this mean BPA will once again be used?
As it is now, my current hiking water bottles are of the newer Nalgene BPA-free variety. Hopefully, there isn't some other chemical in those plastics that might be the subject of investigation in the future?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)