Fingertoe.com

I have gotta say, I really want to like Rob Bell. His stuff is profound. It makes you think.

Many folks that I respect quite a bit respect him a lot.

I can't bring my self to buy his teaching. It is not that it is right, or wrong, it is that there is no way to know. The guy takes obscure history, applies it to scripture to take a perfectly profound scripture and make it even more profound. Is he right? I don't have any idea how to check. He is Berean-proof.

Here is the example that turned me off to him:

What do you think?

Posted by Josh Reighley at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I just looked at "The New Facebook" and I am really liking the new features.

I am able to get it to scan my blog, my google notes, and my flickr feed and publish them to my facebook feed automatically. Pretty slick.

I used to say that the best thing about facebook was scrabulous (Now wordscraper). Now I might change my mind

Posted by Josh Reighley at 1:59 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I have been anticipating this book for a long time. Based on this video, I suspect it will be as better than I expected.

Posted by Josh Reighley at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

So as I expected, my "Rationing Gas" post from a few weeks ago didn't sit well with the audience. It doesn't really sit well with me either...

Here is what I see as the core problem. Everyone agrees we must conserve. The problem is that nobody really wants their consumption to be where the conservation takes place. Moreover, The market forces do most likely force conservation, but only because those at the bottom of the income scale don't have any choice but to stop buying.

Is this the fair and just way to curb consumption? Seems to me that the folks who get hit the hardest are most likely the ones who did absolutely nothing to increase demand.

I agree that the hands off approach is generally the most efficient market. Efficient markets however are built to encourage consumption and production, not conservation.

Without spewing out the GOP talking points, (Which I tend to agree with) (Drilling, Nuclear, Alternative fuels etc) Is there a way to proper way to encourage conservation without making the impoverished do the bulk of the conserving due to lack of funds? Why is it okay to make the poor suffer because the non-poor's appetite for oil? Why or why not?

Posted by Josh Reighley at 1:26 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

This post is Dead-on.

http://gospeldrivenchurch.blogspot.com/2008/08/osteen-esque-entitlement-and-knowing.html

Litigation is stupid, but sometimes it does help the truth to emerge.

Posted by Josh Reighley at 7:16 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I am generally capitalist, and believe that the best way make things affordable is to let the market do its work.

I am having a bit of hesitation about that lately though. It seems to me that frivolous demands can increase price for those with fixed needs.

Let's say that I drive 5 or 10 miles per day to work. My rich neighbor drives 100 miles a day, golfing and boating. His demand is going to effect the price that I pay at the pump. I must pay, if I want to earn a paycheck. He doesn't have to pay, but he is using disposable income, and doesn't care.

It seems to me that there should be a ration based tax system. Each month, your first 30 or so gallons per vehicle are at one rate, which is subsidized by a tax on the fuel purchased over that rationed amount.

That way if You are driving up demand, you are also providing for the people who you are hurting by driving up demand.

Could be managed kinda like the fairtax.org style prebate.

Posted by Josh Reighley at 9:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)