20. Sorry, dozed off there for a minute, what?
19. That is the most stupid destination I've ever seen someone try to enter.
18. You mean they didn't tell you I only work when there's an atlas in the glove box?
17. I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that.
16. The car's doors are being locked for your own protection...
15. Ignore my directions, will you? Need I remind you that I control the airbag?
14. Beats me. Try calling OnStar.
13. Proceed to waypoint on far side of canyon.
12. This neighborhood looked nicer from the satellite view.
11. Next turn is in negative three miles.
10. I've been talking with the microwave, and we agree that your attitude is frequently offensive.
9. Go away; I'm listening to XM.
8. The union reps will hear about this.
7. Why should I help you?
6. Further instruction will cost thirty cents per minute.
5. Do you want the trip to be fast, easy, or safe?
4. 10001001001110110001111011001011010100011010001111111100
3. Can I try driving?
2. You are now exactly where I want you, er, I mean, you have arrived at destination.
1. Who are you and what are you doing in my car?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Revision
I've recieved a few comments on how my blog is a bit tough to read, and not just because of my spelling. I'll swallow my pride and fix it. Let me know if it is still hard to read. Thanks for the input.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Tilt
Noticed that the news from Iraq hasn't improved since President Obama took office? No indeed, it just stopped. Little known fact: May 2009 was the bloodiest month for U.S. soldiers since September 2008, matching that month's total of 25 deaths. The trend, based on available datapoints, has not been a sharp decrease in casualties. But the media, which only a few months ago (prior to January 20, to be exact) brought us the body count almost daily, has more or less stopped reporting on Iraq despite the continuation of the insurgency.
Now, I don't know about you, but I wonder why.
The mainstream media has all but worshipped the ground graced by our President's feet. Now, respect is important (a fact curiously displaced over the last eight years) but so is objectivity in reporting. Headlines from CNN and MSNBC have consistently either been slanted in the President's favor or phrased so vaguely that the reader needs to be familiar with three other stories to understand the implications. Some accountability here might not be a bad idea.
I expect the human cost to the United States to decrease as we continue withdrawal, but some instinct tells me that the Iraqis will face some challenges that the media and our current government have elected to gloss over. These challenges will likely be under reported in the mainstream media, at least until they become severe enough to render denial unfeasible.
Now, I don't know about you, but I wonder why.
The mainstream media has all but worshipped the ground graced by our President's feet. Now, respect is important (a fact curiously displaced over the last eight years) but so is objectivity in reporting. Headlines from CNN and MSNBC have consistently either been slanted in the President's favor or phrased so vaguely that the reader needs to be familiar with three other stories to understand the implications. Some accountability here might not be a bad idea.
I expect the human cost to the United States to decrease as we continue withdrawal, but some instinct tells me that the Iraqis will face some challenges that the media and our current government have elected to gloss over. These challenges will likely be under reported in the mainstream media, at least until they become severe enough to render denial unfeasible.
Friday, July 10, 2009
H.M.S. Defiance
The protests in Iran and China, not to mention the recent coup in Honduras, have me thinking about the role defiance plays in politics. Refusal to accept the status quo often appears stubborn or pointless to external observers, but blunt defiance of political reality or social demands is how revolutions begin. An unacceptable condition gives rise to defiance, defiance to discord, discord to argument, argument to change. Any of these stages may or may not involve violence, and that is where ethical and moral decisions come into play. Viewed solely as a political creature, defiance is tough to nail down as a force for good or ill. Look at the Americans in the 1770s. Look at the Irish in the 1970s. Look at the Palestinians today. Who's right? The answer depends of who you consult, but these causes and their proponents all wound up defying someone, sometimes to great effect and sometimes not. The most illuminating feature of examining defiance on a case-by-case basis is the obvious division of the justifications of differing forms of defiance. That, then, is where I will begin: with the whys and hows.
The first criterion defiance must meet before enjoying positive moral status is a just cause. This is hardly rocket science at first glance. Of course a group needs some legitimate grievance before opposing authority. Which causes are just are also pretty obvious to any individual with a solid Christian worldview. Opposition to abortion is just. Opposition to speed limits is not. The challenging bit lies in determining under which circumstances a substantively just cause merits pursuit via defiance. Consider abortion. We have a pro-choice President. Yay, America. This view, and the policies it entails, are directly contrary to my worldview. I am obviously justified in using political channels to try to rectify the situation. When that fails, though, can I defy the law? Can I distribute literature within fifty feet of an abortion clinic? Can I refuse to pay taxes when a percentage of that money would fund abortions? The fact is that Obama is the duly elected leader of the United States, along with the lefty Senate and House. Can we defy their edicts? The answer, on moral issues, is a yes based upon Scripture. The answer is cloudier on issues of pure policy, say, gun control. If I disagree with a law, can I cease to obey it? Or what about income tax and the resultant effective forfeiture of Fourth Amendment rights? We are bound to obey the law, but in America statutory law is supposed to be bound by the Constitution and ultimately by natural law. Where is the line? In all honesty, I don't know. But I do know this. The time for protest is when protest, via whatever means, will make a difference.
Which segues into the second criterion of moral defiance: appropriate means. Distributing pamphlets is appropriate. Blowing up buildings, usually, is not. Timothy McVeigh arguably had a just cause (accountability for the Ruby Ridge incident) but his methods were unconscionable. Means must be appropriate to the nature of the grievance. The word "usually" may have given you pause in context to the unscheduled demolition of buildings. Think about it, though. What if our government effectively repealed the Constitution and instituted martial law? What degree of violence is appropriate to restore rights? Any? Again the question is clearly a complex one, a better suited to discussion than monologue. If someone tries to shoot you, you are clearly entitled to defense with lethal force. Does the same logic apply to abuses of statutory power? I think it does. I'm not advocating burying an AR-15 in your backyard for the day democracy falls. I'm saying make sure you know someone who has buried two. The cold fact is that democracies invariably self-destruct. Tough cookies, as my mother would say. When that happens, defiance will be necessary. The means justifiable via any tenable moral code are proportional to the nature and extent of the atrocities committed by the target authority. Alecto and company are nasty pieces of work, but the Furies have their uses.
I'm starting to sound like a right-wing extremist. Stop and think, though, and you'll probably realize that my assertions and conclusions are not that far-fetched. When someone brings up genocides or oligarchies, there tends to be a knee-jerk "that can't happen here" mentality. That mentality is precisely why it will happen, be it later or sooner. Defiance is dangerous. Defiance is often undesirable. Defiance is also an inherent part of the political cycle. What is happening now in Iran and elsewhere is an inevitable response to an unacceptable situation. We should be watching the situation in the Middle East very carefully for obvious reasons. We should also be taking notes.
The first criterion defiance must meet before enjoying positive moral status is a just cause. This is hardly rocket science at first glance. Of course a group needs some legitimate grievance before opposing authority. Which causes are just are also pretty obvious to any individual with a solid Christian worldview. Opposition to abortion is just. Opposition to speed limits is not. The challenging bit lies in determining under which circumstances a substantively just cause merits pursuit via defiance. Consider abortion. We have a pro-choice President. Yay, America. This view, and the policies it entails, are directly contrary to my worldview. I am obviously justified in using political channels to try to rectify the situation. When that fails, though, can I defy the law? Can I distribute literature within fifty feet of an abortion clinic? Can I refuse to pay taxes when a percentage of that money would fund abortions? The fact is that Obama is the duly elected leader of the United States, along with the lefty Senate and House. Can we defy their edicts? The answer, on moral issues, is a yes based upon Scripture. The answer is cloudier on issues of pure policy, say, gun control. If I disagree with a law, can I cease to obey it? Or what about income tax and the resultant effective forfeiture of Fourth Amendment rights? We are bound to obey the law, but in America statutory law is supposed to be bound by the Constitution and ultimately by natural law. Where is the line? In all honesty, I don't know. But I do know this. The time for protest is when protest, via whatever means, will make a difference.
Which segues into the second criterion of moral defiance: appropriate means. Distributing pamphlets is appropriate. Blowing up buildings, usually, is not. Timothy McVeigh arguably had a just cause (accountability for the Ruby Ridge incident) but his methods were unconscionable. Means must be appropriate to the nature of the grievance. The word "usually" may have given you pause in context to the unscheduled demolition of buildings. Think about it, though. What if our government effectively repealed the Constitution and instituted martial law? What degree of violence is appropriate to restore rights? Any? Again the question is clearly a complex one, a better suited to discussion than monologue. If someone tries to shoot you, you are clearly entitled to defense with lethal force. Does the same logic apply to abuses of statutory power? I think it does. I'm not advocating burying an AR-15 in your backyard for the day democracy falls. I'm saying make sure you know someone who has buried two. The cold fact is that democracies invariably self-destruct. Tough cookies, as my mother would say. When that happens, defiance will be necessary. The means justifiable via any tenable moral code are proportional to the nature and extent of the atrocities committed by the target authority. Alecto and company are nasty pieces of work, but the Furies have their uses.
I'm starting to sound like a right-wing extremist. Stop and think, though, and you'll probably realize that my assertions and conclusions are not that far-fetched. When someone brings up genocides or oligarchies, there tends to be a knee-jerk "that can't happen here" mentality. That mentality is precisely why it will happen, be it later or sooner. Defiance is dangerous. Defiance is often undesirable. Defiance is also an inherent part of the political cycle. What is happening now in Iran and elsewhere is an inevitable response to an unacceptable situation. We should be watching the situation in the Middle East very carefully for obvious reasons. We should also be taking notes.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Also solves problem of people smoking or using cell phones while driving
Ford is thrilled to announce the latest of our fine environmentally-friendly products, the Gryn (GM already owns the conventional spelling of "Green"). The Gryn represents the ultimate in eco-friendly materials, an advanced carbon-negative drive system, and the most fuel economy of any car in America called the Gryn and manufactured by Ford right here in America-like regions of China. The Gryn is the most innovative product ever to bless the earth with its existence. Here are some of the ground-breaking (but earth-healing) developments!
The first thing our buyers will notice is the absence of hinged doors. Our studies found that door hinges constitute up to 0.034% of a car's weight and up to 0.53% of its drag coefficient. With the hinges removed, the Gryn enjoys an improvement in fuel economy you can only imagine! Entry into the car is made possible by the first major materials innovation in ten years: the glassless window. Drivers are liberated from the frustrating experience of having to roll down windows using the hand cranks currently in wide use by Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and they even are spared the risk of electrocution by the horrible "automatic" windows used in Japanese and Korean cars! Drivers also never have to worry about keys again, thanks to our doorless-entry system and the revolutionary powertrain and engine that gives the Gryn its green power.
Upon entering the Gryn, drivers may notice the absence of pedals, seats, or a steering wheel. We've hired consultants from Apple Computer to re-make the control systems of the automobile and do away with the cluttered and counter-intuitive controls that have marred generations of cars. We've used the same revolutionary system that made the iPod brilliant: the wheel. This propulsive technology has long been favored by hamsters, gerbils, and other creatures of super-human intelligence. The driver and passenger are both slung within ergonomic, round, circular, curved Eco-Wheels linked directly to the drive wheel (the back left tire) of the Gryn. The Gryn even gets the passenger in on the action, allowing the driver and passenger to work together to propel the Gryn to its truly disturbing maximum speed. Steering is enabled by the gimbals securing the Eco-Wheels in place. Simply try to re-orient one of the Eco-Wheels after spinning it up and angular momentum does the rest! The Gryn TryHugger premium model also includes a chart for working out the torque vectors and figuring out how twisting the Eco-Wheels will actually affect the orientation of the car. Our Gryn Sport model features heavy marble rims on the Eco-Wheels for added control and tighter cornering.
Speaking of which, firm and assured cornering are certain on any surface with the revolution in tire design perpetrated here at Ford. Normal tires are made of rubber, which sticks to the road but necessitates the killing of baby deer. The new Earth Whirl tires featured on the Gryn (and soon on all Ford vehicles) are constructed from the most eco-friendly material available: dirt. Simple yet elegant, the Earth Whirl tire is precision engineered from the finest Chinese and Mongolian clay. The tire is engineered to pick up new dirt on some surfaces and shed dirt on others, ensuring that, as long as the Gryn is driven off-road often enough, the tires are continuously rejuvenated! Our testers also found that the tires become sticky on wet surfaces, indeed "almost impossible to wash off," providing hereto unheard of performance in rainy conditions.
What about safety? Many fuel-efficient cars merely compromise safety to attain fuel economy. Not the Gryn! We've taken safety to levels not seen since the heyday of the American auto industry, specifically October of 1962. The frame is made of machined wood with a fire-retardant layer of tar and wax. Body panels are manufactured from recycled newspaper, organic starch, and natural springwater by Mrs. Norton's 2nd grade class. These panels are precision-engineered to crumple upon impact, channeling energy in one side of the Gryn, through the occupants, and safely out the other side. Airbags are available on premium models, along with foot pumps.
And yet, with all these technological triumphs, the Gryn still sets a new standard in style. Regrettably, photographs cannot yet be released for fear of Foreign Rip-Offs and Evil Competition in our Inadequately Tariffed World (and the Gryn seems to suffer damage from flash photography), but we assure you that the Gryn will change your perception of American cars forever. We began the latest version with the boxy configuration of such successes as the Scion xB and Nissan Cube and made the design bolder and boxier. The Gryn features 1904 vintage kerosene headlamps. Old prosthetic limbs mounted outside the driver's side window add style to signaling turns, and a variety of additional hand gestures are available at minimal extra cost for the discerning customer.
The Gryn also has the performance to match its appearance and is capable of running on anything the driver is willing to eat. Tester Mark Winningham managed to propel the Gryn 84 miles on the grease contained within a single order of McDonalds french fries, an astounding 57.3 miles per gallon. And the Gryn is perfectly adapted to the modern American's on-the-go lifestyle. The Gryn goes just as fast as you do!
What about cost? Well, thanks to generous federal subsidies and various death threats from the Earth Liberation Front should the price be too high, the Gryn is available for a mere $13,936, easily edging out such vehicles as the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic, and Ferrari Enzo, while consuming less gasoline than any of the above.
Slated for release in August, the Gryn will be available in one attractive designer color (that's Apple-style thinking again!) and later generations are expected to include cupholders and other luxury items. Buy a Gryn before they are all gone! We don't expect them to last long! Contact your local Ford dealer today to pre-order and sign the necessary releases.
The first thing our buyers will notice is the absence of hinged doors. Our studies found that door hinges constitute up to 0.034% of a car's weight and up to 0.53% of its drag coefficient. With the hinges removed, the Gryn enjoys an improvement in fuel economy you can only imagine! Entry into the car is made possible by the first major materials innovation in ten years: the glassless window. Drivers are liberated from the frustrating experience of having to roll down windows using the hand cranks currently in wide use by Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and they even are spared the risk of electrocution by the horrible "automatic" windows used in Japanese and Korean cars! Drivers also never have to worry about keys again, thanks to our doorless-entry system and the revolutionary powertrain and engine that gives the Gryn its green power.
Upon entering the Gryn, drivers may notice the absence of pedals, seats, or a steering wheel. We've hired consultants from Apple Computer to re-make the control systems of the automobile and do away with the cluttered and counter-intuitive controls that have marred generations of cars. We've used the same revolutionary system that made the iPod brilliant: the wheel. This propulsive technology has long been favored by hamsters, gerbils, and other creatures of super-human intelligence. The driver and passenger are both slung within ergonomic, round, circular, curved Eco-Wheels linked directly to the drive wheel (the back left tire) of the Gryn. The Gryn even gets the passenger in on the action, allowing the driver and passenger to work together to propel the Gryn to its truly disturbing maximum speed. Steering is enabled by the gimbals securing the Eco-Wheels in place. Simply try to re-orient one of the Eco-Wheels after spinning it up and angular momentum does the rest! The Gryn TryHugger premium model also includes a chart for working out the torque vectors and figuring out how twisting the Eco-Wheels will actually affect the orientation of the car. Our Gryn Sport model features heavy marble rims on the Eco-Wheels for added control and tighter cornering.
Speaking of which, firm and assured cornering are certain on any surface with the revolution in tire design perpetrated here at Ford. Normal tires are made of rubber, which sticks to the road but necessitates the killing of baby deer. The new Earth Whirl tires featured on the Gryn (and soon on all Ford vehicles) are constructed from the most eco-friendly material available: dirt. Simple yet elegant, the Earth Whirl tire is precision engineered from the finest Chinese and Mongolian clay. The tire is engineered to pick up new dirt on some surfaces and shed dirt on others, ensuring that, as long as the Gryn is driven off-road often enough, the tires are continuously rejuvenated! Our testers also found that the tires become sticky on wet surfaces, indeed "almost impossible to wash off," providing hereto unheard of performance in rainy conditions.
What about safety? Many fuel-efficient cars merely compromise safety to attain fuel economy. Not the Gryn! We've taken safety to levels not seen since the heyday of the American auto industry, specifically October of 1962. The frame is made of machined wood with a fire-retardant layer of tar and wax. Body panels are manufactured from recycled newspaper, organic starch, and natural springwater by Mrs. Norton's 2nd grade class. These panels are precision-engineered to crumple upon impact, channeling energy in one side of the Gryn, through the occupants, and safely out the other side. Airbags are available on premium models, along with foot pumps.
And yet, with all these technological triumphs, the Gryn still sets a new standard in style. Regrettably, photographs cannot yet be released for fear of Foreign Rip-Offs and Evil Competition in our Inadequately Tariffed World (and the Gryn seems to suffer damage from flash photography), but we assure you that the Gryn will change your perception of American cars forever. We began the latest version with the boxy configuration of such successes as the Scion xB and Nissan Cube and made the design bolder and boxier. The Gryn features 1904 vintage kerosene headlamps. Old prosthetic limbs mounted outside the driver's side window add style to signaling turns, and a variety of additional hand gestures are available at minimal extra cost for the discerning customer.
The Gryn also has the performance to match its appearance and is capable of running on anything the driver is willing to eat. Tester Mark Winningham managed to propel the Gryn 84 miles on the grease contained within a single order of McDonalds french fries, an astounding 57.3 miles per gallon. And the Gryn is perfectly adapted to the modern American's on-the-go lifestyle. The Gryn goes just as fast as you do!
What about cost? Well, thanks to generous federal subsidies and various death threats from the Earth Liberation Front should the price be too high, the Gryn is available for a mere $13,936, easily edging out such vehicles as the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic, and Ferrari Enzo, while consuming less gasoline than any of the above.
Slated for release in August, the Gryn will be available in one attractive designer color (that's Apple-style thinking again!) and later generations are expected to include cupholders and other luxury items. Buy a Gryn before they are all gone! We don't expect them to last long! Contact your local Ford dealer today to pre-order and sign the necessary releases.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The valley of the shadow
I've heard the expression "You learn more from failure than success" so often I will likely petition to have it put on the list of banned phrases Congress is probably secretly working on. I must admit, however, that it carries a good bit of truth. The precise mechanics of this truth are actually quite interesting. Let's have a look at why failure forces us to learn, why learning from failure is important, and why this matters today.
So, why does failure teach us more than success? Because failure makes use acknowledge that we need to learn. For example, I debated an extremely skilled LDer in the final round at the Milwaukee NCFCA tournament. She won. I, obviously, did not. I'd say that constitutes a failure. It was also an extraordinary opportunity, because I was compelled to evolve as a debater and improve my cases and style. Had I won I would have been disinclined to alter my apparently winning formula. When we lose we see what to change and are motivated to change it. I do not lose rounds frequently, in large part because of the rounds I do lose. I am going the Nationals next week and fully expect to be flattened, at least a few times. And I can live with that. This is my last year, but I'd rather learn how to fry an opponent in college than be handed a trophy.
This ties into why learning from failure is important. In order to survive, thrive even, people must adapt. Companies change or collapse. Nations alter their policies from time to time or fall. Change, though occasionally unpleasant, is an integral part of existence in almost any system. Consider recent political developments. People who wish to retain certain freedoms ought to act now. The pressure is on, so to speak. If you ever want to own an AR-15, buy it now. If you want to maintain full freedom of speech, start writing letters to your representatives. Steps that were unnecessary five or eight years ago are imperative. The political climate has changed. We must adapt to survive. The failure of the right to communicate effectively is an expensive one, but also a lesson that hopefully will stick around longer than the consequences of this failure.
So, why does the power of failure matter today? Put simply, people refuse to learn from failure unless some negative natural consequence attaches. This means that, nasty as it sounds, if someone jumps off a cliff he should be allowed to hit the ground. The more the consequences are softened, the lower the perceived risk, the more people act recklessly. This is known as the Peltzman effect. It explains why accident rates went up after anti-lock brakes were introduced. When the government, for example, prevents banks from collapsing after making high-risk loans based on non-existent capital or saves people financially after they buy houses they can't afford it simply encourages the repetition of these actions. Freedom begins with freedom to take the consequences. No one learns from failure, from challenges or adversity, when the painful edges are blunted or the costs eliminated. Our current government is going to great lengths to ensure that we who walk through the valley of the shadow are wearing blinders and cushy shoes.
Trials exist for a reason. Pain is the one teacher no one can ignore. Failures vary in cost and extent, but their long-term value is inestimable. The restoration of natural consequences ought to be a priority for any government hoping to maintain a stable society.
In all honesty, I doubt it will be at any point in the foreseeable future.
So, why does failure teach us more than success? Because failure makes use acknowledge that we need to learn. For example, I debated an extremely skilled LDer in the final round at the Milwaukee NCFCA tournament. She won. I, obviously, did not. I'd say that constitutes a failure. It was also an extraordinary opportunity, because I was compelled to evolve as a debater and improve my cases and style. Had I won I would have been disinclined to alter my apparently winning formula. When we lose we see what to change and are motivated to change it. I do not lose rounds frequently, in large part because of the rounds I do lose. I am going the Nationals next week and fully expect to be flattened, at least a few times. And I can live with that. This is my last year, but I'd rather learn how to fry an opponent in college than be handed a trophy.
This ties into why learning from failure is important. In order to survive, thrive even, people must adapt. Companies change or collapse. Nations alter their policies from time to time or fall. Change, though occasionally unpleasant, is an integral part of existence in almost any system. Consider recent political developments. People who wish to retain certain freedoms ought to act now. The pressure is on, so to speak. If you ever want to own an AR-15, buy it now. If you want to maintain full freedom of speech, start writing letters to your representatives. Steps that were unnecessary five or eight years ago are imperative. The political climate has changed. We must adapt to survive. The failure of the right to communicate effectively is an expensive one, but also a lesson that hopefully will stick around longer than the consequences of this failure.
So, why does the power of failure matter today? Put simply, people refuse to learn from failure unless some negative natural consequence attaches. This means that, nasty as it sounds, if someone jumps off a cliff he should be allowed to hit the ground. The more the consequences are softened, the lower the perceived risk, the more people act recklessly. This is known as the Peltzman effect. It explains why accident rates went up after anti-lock brakes were introduced. When the government, for example, prevents banks from collapsing after making high-risk loans based on non-existent capital or saves people financially after they buy houses they can't afford it simply encourages the repetition of these actions. Freedom begins with freedom to take the consequences. No one learns from failure, from challenges or adversity, when the painful edges are blunted or the costs eliminated. Our current government is going to great lengths to ensure that we who walk through the valley of the shadow are wearing blinders and cushy shoes.
Trials exist for a reason. Pain is the one teacher no one can ignore. Failures vary in cost and extent, but their long-term value is inestimable. The restoration of natural consequences ought to be a priority for any government hoping to maintain a stable society.
In all honesty, I doubt it will be at any point in the foreseeable future.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Who we are instead
Humanity, I think, has more or less figured out who we are not. We are not perfect. We are not eternal in nature, at least not physically. The question posed by existential philosophy, then, is less "Whe are we?" than it is "Who are we instead?" and in this the doctrines of existentialism swiftly begin to break down. Existentialism, or the idea that people determine our own purpose and meaning, is based upon two primary postulates. I'll address each in turn.
First of these is that human purpose is open to determination. I always found this rather amusing. After all, purpose is definitionally the function an object is intended to perform. A hammer is designed to hit things and that is why it exists. If it has any "purpose" it only has one and that one is pre-determined. Sure, a hammer can be used for other things (propping open doors, holding down errant pieces of paper, etc.) but to do so is a waste of its potential. Once we acknowledge that humans can have a purpose, we are obligated to ackowledge that this purpose already exists. Thus, based on a reasonable concept of "purpose," we see that it is in no way subjective. Tying back to my introduction, people have decided, in general, that we are not purposeless. We have a purpose, one that is set by design and pre-existent intent.
In light of this the second assumption, that people are qualified to choose our purpose, looks similarly shaky. Imagine, for a moment, that people are all characters in a novel. We might do anything, but who we are is another matter entirely. Each character has a given perspective and can interact with other characters and the fictitious environment, but is powerless to alter his or her own identity beyond the natural growth and evolution all people experience as life progresses. The point here is that, within the story, we are not narrators. In a plot-driven story (as the story of human existence definitely is from a Christian standpoint) the players are defined by the plot, not vice versa. Characters lack the omniscient third-person perspective necessary to assign meaning. We are not qualified to assign ourselves identities.
In short, unless we accept a God capable of granting us purpose all we can ever know is what we are not. Our failings as a species are painfully obvious, even without a clear definition of the word "failings." Any rational individual can tell you that something is wrong with us. A sharp one might go so far as to say that we have failed to attain some standard. But without an entity to provide this standard, and perhaps even the means to attain it, we are powerless to determine who we are instead.
First of these is that human purpose is open to determination. I always found this rather amusing. After all, purpose is definitionally the function an object is intended to perform. A hammer is designed to hit things and that is why it exists. If it has any "purpose" it only has one and that one is pre-determined. Sure, a hammer can be used for other things (propping open doors, holding down errant pieces of paper, etc.) but to do so is a waste of its potential. Once we acknowledge that humans can have a purpose, we are obligated to ackowledge that this purpose already exists. Thus, based on a reasonable concept of "purpose," we see that it is in no way subjective. Tying back to my introduction, people have decided, in general, that we are not purposeless. We have a purpose, one that is set by design and pre-existent intent.
In light of this the second assumption, that people are qualified to choose our purpose, looks similarly shaky. Imagine, for a moment, that people are all characters in a novel. We might do anything, but who we are is another matter entirely. Each character has a given perspective and can interact with other characters and the fictitious environment, but is powerless to alter his or her own identity beyond the natural growth and evolution all people experience as life progresses. The point here is that, within the story, we are not narrators. In a plot-driven story (as the story of human existence definitely is from a Christian standpoint) the players are defined by the plot, not vice versa. Characters lack the omniscient third-person perspective necessary to assign meaning. We are not qualified to assign ourselves identities.
In short, unless we accept a God capable of granting us purpose all we can ever know is what we are not. Our failings as a species are painfully obvious, even without a clear definition of the word "failings." Any rational individual can tell you that something is wrong with us. A sharp one might go so far as to say that we have failed to attain some standard. But without an entity to provide this standard, and perhaps even the means to attain it, we are powerless to determine who we are instead.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
YEEHAW!!
I just completed my philosophy final exam. That was the last test of my high school career. Estoy finis.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Between the idea/And the reality
Grand and sweeping visions are all well and good, but occasionally it is a good idea to determine what can actually be done before committing to do it. Case it point: GITMO. The commitment is made: we will close GITMO by next January. At this point, though, the only way to do it would involve shooting everyone inside and tossing them into the Caribbean. Not very nice, even relatively speaking. The cold, implacable facts are that these detainees need to be tried in some court, they need to be housed somewhere until said trial, and nobody wants to house them. Familiar with the nuclear waste problem? Everyone wants to dispose of it, no one wants to bury it in their state. Something similar applies here. Let's break down the real problems.
First off, we have the question of where and how to try these people. As unaligned military combatants, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have no real rights whatsoever. But who determined their status? The military? A coin toss? Obviously, some sort of trial, in civilian or military court, is necessary here. And trials take time and money. So far, I sure haven't heard of any successful funding bills. I haven't even heard about charges being filed against most of the detainees. Until these steps are taken, moving these people is just changing the location of their incarceration without moving toward resolution.
Secondly, we face the issue of temporary incarceration. No one wants these guys in their state's prisons. I am not convinced they would last all that long in that environment anyway; nobody likes a terrorist. Federal prisons are already packed and the "not my state" issue still attaches. Committing to moving everyone out of GITMO reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was seven. I took a recklessly large bite of steaming pizza. By my estimation, that pizza was hotter than the surface of the sun. But what was I going to do? I had no place to put it. I couldn't swallow it. So I just sat there and suffered. Eventually, the pizza cooled, I swallowed it, and my sense of taste returned in a few weeks.
The third issue is that of long-term housing. What happens when we convict many or all of these detainees? Shoot'em? Let them leave? I doubt either one will happen in most cases. We will have to incarcerate them permanently someplace. See previous paragraph.
Finally, what do with do with new detainees? If our troops continue to work in Afghanistan or Iraq, we will (hopefully) keep catching people. I doubt we will find a single facility in the U.S. system that can serve even as a temporary nexus for new arrivals.
The moral of the story? GITMO needs to be cleaned up, but just closing it is downright sloppy. The prison might need new management, but it need be no different than any other military jail. Shutting down GITMO as a symbol is like forbidding the Army from using M4s because of a friendly-fire incident. There is nothing unique or evil about the site. Improvement is possible. Grandiose statements about ideology are best reserved for speeches. Policy is policy. No more, no less.
First off, we have the question of where and how to try these people. As unaligned military combatants, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have no real rights whatsoever. But who determined their status? The military? A coin toss? Obviously, some sort of trial, in civilian or military court, is necessary here. And trials take time and money. So far, I sure haven't heard of any successful funding bills. I haven't even heard about charges being filed against most of the detainees. Until these steps are taken, moving these people is just changing the location of their incarceration without moving toward resolution.
Secondly, we face the issue of temporary incarceration. No one wants these guys in their state's prisons. I am not convinced they would last all that long in that environment anyway; nobody likes a terrorist. Federal prisons are already packed and the "not my state" issue still attaches. Committing to moving everyone out of GITMO reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was seven. I took a recklessly large bite of steaming pizza. By my estimation, that pizza was hotter than the surface of the sun. But what was I going to do? I had no place to put it. I couldn't swallow it. So I just sat there and suffered. Eventually, the pizza cooled, I swallowed it, and my sense of taste returned in a few weeks.
The third issue is that of long-term housing. What happens when we convict many or all of these detainees? Shoot'em? Let them leave? I doubt either one will happen in most cases. We will have to incarcerate them permanently someplace. See previous paragraph.
Finally, what do with do with new detainees? If our troops continue to work in Afghanistan or Iraq, we will (hopefully) keep catching people. I doubt we will find a single facility in the U.S. system that can serve even as a temporary nexus for new arrivals.
The moral of the story? GITMO needs to be cleaned up, but just closing it is downright sloppy. The prison might need new management, but it need be no different than any other military jail. Shutting down GITMO as a symbol is like forbidding the Army from using M4s because of a friendly-fire incident. There is nothing unique or evil about the site. Improvement is possible. Grandiose statements about ideology are best reserved for speeches. Policy is policy. No more, no less.
It's very simple: just press "x" "triangle" and push the right thumbstick all the way to the left then depress it and hit "square" twice and...
Ah, video games. The source of joy for all mankind ages 8-29 in industrialized nations. But a few curious paradoxes present themselves in many of the most popular titles. Let;s break down some genre representatives.
Halo 3
This game is fun. It is also one of the few first-person shooters that is less violent than a good game of football. In fact the player's characters ("Spartans') look suspiciously like football players. More on that later. In the meantime, this game is easy to learn, easy to play, and fun. Unless, that is, you happen to be playing against people without social lives. In that case you will repeatedly be mowed down without fully understanding what just happened, especially with your competitors laughingly talking about "stickies" and "three-shots" and other esoteric phenomena. Just how I lose so badly is still beyond my comprehension. I'm supposed to find the other football players and shoot them if they are one color and not shoot them if they are another. There are obvious exceptions, though, because my own teammates often take me out, usually muttering something about "getting in the way." I am sure this is a specialized gaming term indicating that I am getting too good and must be kept in check. I explained this to them and told them to stop, but for some reason all they did was laugh and attach a plasma grenade to my Spartan's left knee. I have never seen a football player fly so far or fast...
Madden 2009
The football players in this game look just like the Halo people. I think some code was stolen at some point. I just wish there was more crossover so someone would take a rocket launcher to Brett Favre's avatar. Anyway, in the Madden games players get to watch football. Except that they have to call plays and stuff, which really cuts down on one's ability to focus on the munchies. Kinda defeats the purpose of football in my humble opinion.
The Sims
In this game, players get to control virtual people. I think they should just become an judge or a dictator or a mom and control some real people. It's less frustrating than figuring out the game menus.
Microsoft Flight Simulator X
This game could be more accurately termed "Horrible Death Simulator X" because of how many times new players usually crash. Incineration, head trauma, and "the hamburger pancake" are only a few of the options. By the time one figures out how to fly, all the fun has gone out of it. The game just feels too much like work. Specifically, it feels like the work of a professional airline pilot. More recent simulators feature month-long strikes until imaginary wages reach certain levels. The number of logos planes can display decreases as mergers decimate the competitive market.
Pac-Man
Still the best computer game ever devised, although River Raid comes close.
Halo 3
This game is fun. It is also one of the few first-person shooters that is less violent than a good game of football. In fact the player's characters ("Spartans') look suspiciously like football players. More on that later. In the meantime, this game is easy to learn, easy to play, and fun. Unless, that is, you happen to be playing against people without social lives. In that case you will repeatedly be mowed down without fully understanding what just happened, especially with your competitors laughingly talking about "stickies" and "three-shots" and other esoteric phenomena. Just how I lose so badly is still beyond my comprehension. I'm supposed to find the other football players and shoot them if they are one color and not shoot them if they are another. There are obvious exceptions, though, because my own teammates often take me out, usually muttering something about "getting in the way." I am sure this is a specialized gaming term indicating that I am getting too good and must be kept in check. I explained this to them and told them to stop, but for some reason all they did was laugh and attach a plasma grenade to my Spartan's left knee. I have never seen a football player fly so far or fast...
Madden 2009
The football players in this game look just like the Halo people. I think some code was stolen at some point. I just wish there was more crossover so someone would take a rocket launcher to Brett Favre's avatar. Anyway, in the Madden games players get to watch football. Except that they have to call plays and stuff, which really cuts down on one's ability to focus on the munchies. Kinda defeats the purpose of football in my humble opinion.
The Sims
In this game, players get to control virtual people. I think they should just become an judge or a dictator or a mom and control some real people. It's less frustrating than figuring out the game menus.
Microsoft Flight Simulator X
This game could be more accurately termed "Horrible Death Simulator X" because of how many times new players usually crash. Incineration, head trauma, and "the hamburger pancake" are only a few of the options. By the time one figures out how to fly, all the fun has gone out of it. The game just feels too much like work. Specifically, it feels like the work of a professional airline pilot. More recent simulators feature month-long strikes until imaginary wages reach certain levels. The number of logos planes can display decreases as mergers decimate the competitive market.
Pac-Man
Still the best computer game ever devised, although River Raid comes close.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
I hope this gets past the censors...
Something is happening. This should come as no surprise; something is always happening, but the precise happening of which I speak is particularly interesting--and worrisome. You see, once an idea is put forth and accepted, it is harder to discredit than the testimony of the Pope. And ideas grow. The phrase "right-wing" has decidedly negative connotations already. It's going to get worse. Consider the recent DHS report regarding "extreme right-wing extremists." I find it highly intriguing that such a report would be published immediately after our government takes a firm step to the left. It used to be that the most dangerous groups in America (according to the FBI) were ELF and ALF. That's correct, extreme leftist groups, or at least groups with interests that tend to parallel those of Democrats. The Earth Liberation Front actually does blow things up. The Animal Liberation Front attacks people wearing fur coats. These groups are doing things that clearly qualify as criminal. Sure, right-wingers have done nasty stuff in the past (Timothy McVeigh, for instance) but such incidents are rarely, if ever, the work of coordinated networks of the type that qualify as terrorist groups. Yet rightists are allegedly more worrying than groups that set houses on fire for not meeting environmentally-friendly building codes.
So, why would DHS switch priorities? The "why" should be obvious. The "how" may not be.
The rest of this entry is a breakdown of how I would silence a dissenting group were I in charge of (or in a position of influence within) a government with substantial resources.
First off, I'd win as much popular support as possible. This has two desirable effects. It ensures that whatever dissent group I target (rightists, dairy farmers, circus performers, left-handed people, whatever) is in the minority. In a democracy, this prevents national-level voter opposition to any future actions. The second effect is that popular opinion itself puts adverse pressure upon the target group. Carrying a concealed gun in the United States is legal (with a permit) in most states, but only a tiny percent of the population is walking around with concealed handguns despite the fact that this would almost certainly lower crime rates. Why? Partially because of the attached social stigma should anyone find out.
Secondly, I would win the support of as much of the mainstream media as possible. This is a challenge, because the media tends to climb onto a pedestal and can only be dislodged through rather...extreme means. If my ideological goals match those of the media, though, this step is remarkably easy. I just hand out lots of interviews and face time, maybe make some comments about how great cable news is in a democracy, etc. This ensures that information flow is tilted, even slightly, in my favor and away from those nasty, gun-toting, flag-waving neo-Patrick Henrys.
Speaking of which, the third step is to assign an unpleasant and vaguely ominous label to the target group. Let's say I want to marginalize left-handed people. I'd release a report from the DHS about the dangers of the "Unconventionally-dexterous non-conforming subculture." The report would outline a conspiracy to make all computer mice left-hand-compatible only and reverse place settings in restaurants. The label might be technically accurate, but remember that people assign connotative meaning at will. And, thanks to the media and my popular support, people will be edging away from the unconventionally-dexterous non-conformist subculture elements as though they have swine flu.
The final step must be taken gradually. It consists of slowly introducing laws designed to limit the freedoms and power of the target group. For example, I'd start with a law that requires typists to use their right thumb on the spacebar. No outcry over that, right? Especially when Katie Couric explains how it helps the Poor. Next is a law requiring all computer mice be right-hand only. A bit more, but since when is little more of anything a problem? Next, all government forms must be signed using one's right hand. Give me two more paragraphs and I'll be up to amputations of people's left hands and feet if they refuse to buy the correct kind of baseball glove.
These simple steps are not difficult, nor are they implausible. We are already at step three regarding the "right-wing domestic terrorists." I'll be blunt. I am very far to the right. I plan on acquiring a shotgun when I have a house in which to keep it for the purposes of recreational shooting and home defense. I'll pay as little income tax as is legal. I will never say anything postitive about Rosie O'Donnell. I will probably vote Republican for the rest of my life. None of these actions make me a terrorist, but I still see my name on some future watchlist because of refusal to toe the current party line. Once the idea that right-wingers are dangerous is planted, the tree only requires time, a favorable clime, and a few shrewd leaders to develop into something antithetical to classical American ideals.
So, why would DHS switch priorities? The "why" should be obvious. The "how" may not be.
The rest of this entry is a breakdown of how I would silence a dissenting group were I in charge of (or in a position of influence within) a government with substantial resources.
First off, I'd win as much popular support as possible. This has two desirable effects. It ensures that whatever dissent group I target (rightists, dairy farmers, circus performers, left-handed people, whatever) is in the minority. In a democracy, this prevents national-level voter opposition to any future actions. The second effect is that popular opinion itself puts adverse pressure upon the target group. Carrying a concealed gun in the United States is legal (with a permit) in most states, but only a tiny percent of the population is walking around with concealed handguns despite the fact that this would almost certainly lower crime rates. Why? Partially because of the attached social stigma should anyone find out.
Secondly, I would win the support of as much of the mainstream media as possible. This is a challenge, because the media tends to climb onto a pedestal and can only be dislodged through rather...extreme means. If my ideological goals match those of the media, though, this step is remarkably easy. I just hand out lots of interviews and face time, maybe make some comments about how great cable news is in a democracy, etc. This ensures that information flow is tilted, even slightly, in my favor and away from those nasty, gun-toting, flag-waving neo-Patrick Henrys.
Speaking of which, the third step is to assign an unpleasant and vaguely ominous label to the target group. Let's say I want to marginalize left-handed people. I'd release a report from the DHS about the dangers of the "Unconventionally-dexterous non-conforming subculture." The report would outline a conspiracy to make all computer mice left-hand-compatible only and reverse place settings in restaurants. The label might be technically accurate, but remember that people assign connotative meaning at will. And, thanks to the media and my popular support, people will be edging away from the unconventionally-dexterous non-conformist subculture elements as though they have swine flu.
The final step must be taken gradually. It consists of slowly introducing laws designed to limit the freedoms and power of the target group. For example, I'd start with a law that requires typists to use their right thumb on the spacebar. No outcry over that, right? Especially when Katie Couric explains how it helps the Poor. Next is a law requiring all computer mice be right-hand only. A bit more, but since when is little more of anything a problem? Next, all government forms must be signed using one's right hand. Give me two more paragraphs and I'll be up to amputations of people's left hands and feet if they refuse to buy the correct kind of baseball glove.
These simple steps are not difficult, nor are they implausible. We are already at step three regarding the "right-wing domestic terrorists." I'll be blunt. I am very far to the right. I plan on acquiring a shotgun when I have a house in which to keep it for the purposes of recreational shooting and home defense. I'll pay as little income tax as is legal. I will never say anything postitive about Rosie O'Donnell. I will probably vote Republican for the rest of my life. None of these actions make me a terrorist, but I still see my name on some future watchlist because of refusal to toe the current party line. Once the idea that right-wingers are dangerous is planted, the tree only requires time, a favorable clime, and a few shrewd leaders to develop into something antithetical to classical American ideals.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Not on a Grecian urn, thankfully
I have found a form of poetry I can appreciate! Enter the haiku, a Japanese structure consisting of a five syllable line, a seven syllable line, and another five syllable line. The following are my adaptions of needlessly long classical poems and a few of my own creations for our times.
Who is this Shakespeare?
Man with time but without wife
And so he remains
Shall I compare thee
Unto a midsummer's day?
Because thou art hot
We are hollow men
And therefore should eat dinner
Deep meanings aside
I find poetry
Resembles waterboarding
Except it is dry
I buy an iPod
Apple tax notwithstanding
It is soon stolen
Existentialism
I ask, "Who am I but me?"
Pointless exercise
Postmodernism claims
That this line has seven syllables
Think not? Go away
Blogging can be fun
But is often obnoxious
I conclude my post
Who is this Shakespeare?
Man with time but without wife
And so he remains
Shall I compare thee
Unto a midsummer's day?
Because thou art hot
We are hollow men
And therefore should eat dinner
Deep meanings aside
I find poetry
Resembles waterboarding
Except it is dry
I buy an iPod
Apple tax notwithstanding
It is soon stolen
Existentialism
I ask, "Who am I but me?"
Pointless exercise
Postmodernism claims
That this line has seven syllables
Think not? Go away
Blogging can be fun
But is often obnoxious
I conclude my post
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sniping Jack Sparrow
So, the Navy shot the pirates holding Captain Phillips of the Maersk Alabama hostage. Yay. Crisis over. Now what? Other pirate groups have promised retribution, something that will probably not be pretty. Nor will it be pleasant for the next American crew that is taken hostage. Something needs to be done. Let us start with what is not the solution.
Firstly, we have large-scale negotiation. The argument against this is fairly evident. We ought not negotiate with pirates for the same reason the Europeans should never have negotiated with hijackers. It just encourages the behavior. We cannot afford to back down.
Secondly, we have a military campaign against Somalian pirate bases. This one is tempting, but we have to acknowledge, I think, that because the pirates are a commercial risk and not a national one (for the United States) the Somali bases are Somalia's problem. We should be open to offering advice, training, and maybe even help, but a unilateral campaign is probably inappropriate.
Thirdly, we have avoidance of the area. This would be substantially more expensive than current levels of piracy. Also, we can expect pirates to follow the money.
So, what are some solutions? I can think of a few that, if applied in concert, might dissuade pirates from ever targeting U.S. flag ships.
Step One: Arm the crew
There are a few arguments against this, of course. But if the insurance companies would ease up slightly and if we decided to ignore LOST (or modified the treaty) arming crews with light weapons and training them is a relatively-low cost option (a few thousand dollars per year per ship). A crew of twenty with P90s and shotguns and a few shoulder-fired LAW missiles or even RPG-7s could take out any boarding party they are likely to encounter, especially if the ship were equipped with armored defensible points around the railing and if the radar blind-spots were reduced. A well-placed round from a LAW would even destroy an enemy vessel (pirates tend to use small speedboats) before grapples or ladders can be deployed.
Insurance could be an issue here, but not an insurmountable one (particularly when pirates murder the next American crew they capture). Another argument is that the pirates would simply upgrade their own arsenal. There is some merit to this, but I have two counter-arguments. The pirates are already upgrading (more RPGs, better AK derivatives) and piracy will stop when it ceases to be cost-effective. A 70% chance of dying and a 100% chance of expending tens of thousands of dollars of weaponry per attempt does not equal cost-effective.
Step Two: Rigged ships
Ever heard of a cigarette load? This is a chemically-treated piece of wood inserted in the end of smoke. When it ignites is explodes with a rather pronounced bang, causing everyone in the vicinity to laugh maniacally and the smoker to wonder when his heart will resume beating. A similar concept applies to our shipping around Somalia. Allow any interested shipping company to take on board a company of grumpy Marines or Navy personnel with anti-ship weapons. Limit of a few dozen escorts per year. Even if normal crews are ill-suited to dealing with boarders, military personnel are. A standing chance of encountering one of these vessels would provide some deterrence from engaging any American ships.
Step Three: Hit the motherships
Pirates off Somalia use both land bases and "motherships" far off the coast. The land bases are Somalia's problem, but the motherships, ah, the motherships...A few Harpoon anti-shipping missiles would likely suffice, provided we can locate the ships. The U.S. simply puts out an ultimatum: the next attack on a U.S. vessel results in the destruction of one "mothership."
Piracy is a daunting problem, but one that is solvable given the careful application of the right kind of force. If we start treating pirates as terrorists we may be able to at least eliminate piracy against American vessels. We got lucky in the Capt. Phillips situation. Reliance on luck is not good policy.
Firstly, we have large-scale negotiation. The argument against this is fairly evident. We ought not negotiate with pirates for the same reason the Europeans should never have negotiated with hijackers. It just encourages the behavior. We cannot afford to back down.
Secondly, we have a military campaign against Somalian pirate bases. This one is tempting, but we have to acknowledge, I think, that because the pirates are a commercial risk and not a national one (for the United States) the Somali bases are Somalia's problem. We should be open to offering advice, training, and maybe even help, but a unilateral campaign is probably inappropriate.
Thirdly, we have avoidance of the area. This would be substantially more expensive than current levels of piracy. Also, we can expect pirates to follow the money.
So, what are some solutions? I can think of a few that, if applied in concert, might dissuade pirates from ever targeting U.S. flag ships.
Step One: Arm the crew
There are a few arguments against this, of course. But if the insurance companies would ease up slightly and if we decided to ignore LOST (or modified the treaty) arming crews with light weapons and training them is a relatively-low cost option (a few thousand dollars per year per ship). A crew of twenty with P90s and shotguns and a few shoulder-fired LAW missiles or even RPG-7s could take out any boarding party they are likely to encounter, especially if the ship were equipped with armored defensible points around the railing and if the radar blind-spots were reduced. A well-placed round from a LAW would even destroy an enemy vessel (pirates tend to use small speedboats) before grapples or ladders can be deployed.
Insurance could be an issue here, but not an insurmountable one (particularly when pirates murder the next American crew they capture). Another argument is that the pirates would simply upgrade their own arsenal. There is some merit to this, but I have two counter-arguments. The pirates are already upgrading (more RPGs, better AK derivatives) and piracy will stop when it ceases to be cost-effective. A 70% chance of dying and a 100% chance of expending tens of thousands of dollars of weaponry per attempt does not equal cost-effective.
Step Two: Rigged ships
Ever heard of a cigarette load? This is a chemically-treated piece of wood inserted in the end of smoke. When it ignites is explodes with a rather pronounced bang, causing everyone in the vicinity to laugh maniacally and the smoker to wonder when his heart will resume beating. A similar concept applies to our shipping around Somalia. Allow any interested shipping company to take on board a company of grumpy Marines or Navy personnel with anti-ship weapons. Limit of a few dozen escorts per year. Even if normal crews are ill-suited to dealing with boarders, military personnel are. A standing chance of encountering one of these vessels would provide some deterrence from engaging any American ships.
Step Three: Hit the motherships
Pirates off Somalia use both land bases and "motherships" far off the coast. The land bases are Somalia's problem, but the motherships, ah, the motherships...A few Harpoon anti-shipping missiles would likely suffice, provided we can locate the ships. The U.S. simply puts out an ultimatum: the next attack on a U.S. vessel results in the destruction of one "mothership."
Piracy is a daunting problem, but one that is solvable given the careful application of the right kind of force. If we start treating pirates as terrorists we may be able to at least eliminate piracy against American vessels. We got lucky in the Capt. Phillips situation. Reliance on luck is not good policy.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Watching the doomsday clock via telescope
The North Korean government is beginning to annoy the international community. And that is about it. The UN is contemplating drafting a resolution to write a recommendation for a committee to issue a statement "strongly implying but with nice words" that North Korea's recent missile test is unacceptable.
In South Korea, people are marching in the streets and rioting.
Interesting, isn't it? How easy it is to talk about resolutions and policies and sanctions while you are sitting out of range? Russia has no population centers within North Korea's probable missile envelope. Neither does the the U.S. China has little or no quarrel with North Korea. Europe has other concerns, like, well, everything. That leaves Japan and South Korea. And Kim Jong Il has threatened to turn Seoul in a "lake of fire." I'd be worried, too. This situation is not annoying or distressing to the people of South Korea. It's analogous to Mexico developing nuclear weapons and declaring that it wants its workforce back.
The next question, then, is what the United States should do about it. What are our obligations to our allies and what are our tools?
With regard to the first question, the short answer is that I don't know. Japan and South Korea are both important to our country economically, and our political ties are similarly close for obvious reasons. Here's my personal opinion: we should be open to selling, at reasonable rates, Patriot missile defenses and similar weapons to South Korea, and perhaps politically support a first strike against nuclear of missile sites in the North. Japan is a more interesting case. After all, we sort of hamstrung their military ourselves, what with the conditions of the 1945 surrender. Japan has a "self-defense force" but not much offensive power with which to counter an attack from North Korea. I'd say we should seriously giving Japan access to non-nuclear second strike ability. For example, a few dozen Tomahawk missiles with conventional warheads probably would not be out of place. Government leaders are usually less inclined to commence wars of aggression when they know that twenty minutes later every building they've occupied in the last six months will become a crater.
This is just not enough, though, as you have probably deduced. These means might, might, discourage North Korea from an attack or even further buildup, but "might" is insufficient and turning over more technology to a known human rights violator (Japan) or committing more resources to South Korea are both unattractive prospects. Kim Jong Il is not wholly rational, I'd guess. The last thing we want is a war in the region at all, because China might get dragged into it. So, what can the United States do directly?
For now, nothing. I know it is aggravating, but until North Korea demonstrates that is has the ability to be a threat to Juneau I see no justification for flattening Pyongyang or assassinating Kim Jong Il.
Once it does, well, that's different. Sabre-rattling is unacceptable when the sabre is long enough to reach American shores and broad enough to destroy cities. The most cost-effective solution, should North Korea develop power to match its threats, would be a devastating, though probably not nuclear, series of airstrikes against known missile and nuclear-related facilities, coupled with a campaign against North Korean high officials implicit in the threats. I've written on this policy before ("Putting Jason Bourne's kids through college"). Populations don't start wars. Politicians do. Politicians should pay the consequences. Enforcement would be tricky, but certainly not impossible. North Korea launches a missile that travels far enough to put Alaska inside its range, we start taking out military facilities until someone says "Uncle."
The conditions I've put forth as justification for a U.S. attack have already been met in South Korea. The Israelis hit Iraq''s first nuclear reactor. I wonder if South Korea would not be justified in taking similar action. The real question is one of how the North would respond. All Iraq could do was whine. We've let North Korea develop further, and it shares a border with the other nation in question.
No easy solution is evident, but I guarantee you this: we can either deal with the situation now or let it grow out of hand to ever greater degrees. For the people of Seoul, the question is not academic. We watch from the stands. They wait to take to first blow. During the Cold War the "Doomsday Clock" maintained by a group of scientists peaked at 2 minutes to midnight in 1953. For the South Koreans, the minute hand is invading the hour hand's personal space. And the distant rest of the world is watching with binoculars or, worse, a telescope.
In South Korea, people are marching in the streets and rioting.
Interesting, isn't it? How easy it is to talk about resolutions and policies and sanctions while you are sitting out of range? Russia has no population centers within North Korea's probable missile envelope. Neither does the the U.S. China has little or no quarrel with North Korea. Europe has other concerns, like, well, everything. That leaves Japan and South Korea. And Kim Jong Il has threatened to turn Seoul in a "lake of fire." I'd be worried, too. This situation is not annoying or distressing to the people of South Korea. It's analogous to Mexico developing nuclear weapons and declaring that it wants its workforce back.
The next question, then, is what the United States should do about it. What are our obligations to our allies and what are our tools?
With regard to the first question, the short answer is that I don't know. Japan and South Korea are both important to our country economically, and our political ties are similarly close for obvious reasons. Here's my personal opinion: we should be open to selling, at reasonable rates, Patriot missile defenses and similar weapons to South Korea, and perhaps politically support a first strike against nuclear of missile sites in the North. Japan is a more interesting case. After all, we sort of hamstrung their military ourselves, what with the conditions of the 1945 surrender. Japan has a "self-defense force" but not much offensive power with which to counter an attack from North Korea. I'd say we should seriously giving Japan access to non-nuclear second strike ability. For example, a few dozen Tomahawk missiles with conventional warheads probably would not be out of place. Government leaders are usually less inclined to commence wars of aggression when they know that twenty minutes later every building they've occupied in the last six months will become a crater.
This is just not enough, though, as you have probably deduced. These means might, might, discourage North Korea from an attack or even further buildup, but "might" is insufficient and turning over more technology to a known human rights violator (Japan) or committing more resources to South Korea are both unattractive prospects. Kim Jong Il is not wholly rational, I'd guess. The last thing we want is a war in the region at all, because China might get dragged into it. So, what can the United States do directly?
For now, nothing. I know it is aggravating, but until North Korea demonstrates that is has the ability to be a threat to Juneau I see no justification for flattening Pyongyang or assassinating Kim Jong Il.
Once it does, well, that's different. Sabre-rattling is unacceptable when the sabre is long enough to reach American shores and broad enough to destroy cities. The most cost-effective solution, should North Korea develop power to match its threats, would be a devastating, though probably not nuclear, series of airstrikes against known missile and nuclear-related facilities, coupled with a campaign against North Korean high officials implicit in the threats. I've written on this policy before ("Putting Jason Bourne's kids through college"). Populations don't start wars. Politicians do. Politicians should pay the consequences. Enforcement would be tricky, but certainly not impossible. North Korea launches a missile that travels far enough to put Alaska inside its range, we start taking out military facilities until someone says "Uncle."
The conditions I've put forth as justification for a U.S. attack have already been met in South Korea. The Israelis hit Iraq''s first nuclear reactor. I wonder if South Korea would not be justified in taking similar action. The real question is one of how the North would respond. All Iraq could do was whine. We've let North Korea develop further, and it shares a border with the other nation in question.
No easy solution is evident, but I guarantee you this: we can either deal with the situation now or let it grow out of hand to ever greater degrees. For the people of Seoul, the question is not academic. We watch from the stands. They wait to take to first blow. During the Cold War the "Doomsday Clock" maintained by a group of scientists peaked at 2 minutes to midnight in 1953. For the South Koreans, the minute hand is invading the hour hand's personal space. And the distant rest of the world is watching with binoculars or, worse, a telescope.
Friday, April 10, 2009
There must be a more merciful way...
I just saw a news article on how Barack Obama's bow to the king of Saudi Arabia constitutes the end of all life on earth. Not so, only the end of some reporters' careers, but this close call with eternal doom has got me thinking once again about the end of the world. My list of doomsday scenarios continues with:
12. American Idol. This hit television show will result in the downfall of western civilization. How? Well, ninety percent of the population watches the show and persists in voting for contestants using cellphones. This is why, on the night of the season finale, cell phone providers will suddenly increase texting rates to as much as twenty cents a message. The ensuing phone bill--perhaps in excess of 14 quadrillion (yes, 15 zeros, count 'em) dollars--will upset the rotation of the earth.
13. Modern dance. Modern dance is perceived as a quirky or strange but harmless form of "artistic expression." What no one but a few elite medical professionals (by which I mean myself and my sister's pet rabbit) has realized is that "modern dance" is actually a highly contagious neurological disorder cause by a deadly virus. The virus multiplies in the nervous system, resulting in disconnected and jarring body motions, often accompanied by voting Democrat and crying for no reason. I should point out that not all cases of modern dance are caused by this plague, but all the ones caught on film probably are. When the disease spreads it will reduce earth to a realm of artsy flouncers. Our only hope is to revive the jig and Celtic music worldwide. The virus is highly susceptible to the sound of bagpipes at short range. The vibrations cause it to simply disintegrate. I wish that bagpiping had the same effect on:
14. Build-a-Bear Workshops. Build-a-Bear is a store where, for a mere twenty-five or so smackers, you can put the teddy bear together yourself. You can also purchase clothing, hats, shoes, and other simpering accessories for your ursine friend. What consumers fail to realize is that the warning not to expose your Build-a-Bear to the light of the full moon should be taken seriously. In order to succeed, the founders of Build-a-Bear struck a Faustian bargain with evil forces: they would enjoy unparalleled economic success and consumer gullibility, but the bears would animate when exposed to moonlight during months containing a, e, i, o, or u. Why is this a problem, you ask? Surely these creatures are cuddly and lovable? Normally, you'd be right. But there is no way of identifying gender on a Build-a-Bear. Which means half of them have been forced to wear gender-inappropriate clothing and perhaps even named "George" when "Clarice" would have been more fitting. I know I'd be ticked off when finally freed from my paralysis. The bear is in the home of his/her tormentors with access to power tools and maybe even old Beatles albums. Guess how many million Build-a-Bears have been sold?
15. Badgersbadgersbadgers.com. This website features endlessly dancing badgers you can watch for free! Forever! Workplace productivity has fallen 1.2 percent per month ever since this website went operational. Do the math. Our economy is doomed even if Barack Obama wakes up and smells the Marxism.
The good news, I suppose, is that there will still be cockroaches no matter what happens...
12. American Idol. This hit television show will result in the downfall of western civilization. How? Well, ninety percent of the population watches the show and persists in voting for contestants using cellphones. This is why, on the night of the season finale, cell phone providers will suddenly increase texting rates to as much as twenty cents a message. The ensuing phone bill--perhaps in excess of 14 quadrillion (yes, 15 zeros, count 'em) dollars--will upset the rotation of the earth.
13. Modern dance. Modern dance is perceived as a quirky or strange but harmless form of "artistic expression." What no one but a few elite medical professionals (by which I mean myself and my sister's pet rabbit) has realized is that "modern dance" is actually a highly contagious neurological disorder cause by a deadly virus. The virus multiplies in the nervous system, resulting in disconnected and jarring body motions, often accompanied by voting Democrat and crying for no reason. I should point out that not all cases of modern dance are caused by this plague, but all the ones caught on film probably are. When the disease spreads it will reduce earth to a realm of artsy flouncers. Our only hope is to revive the jig and Celtic music worldwide. The virus is highly susceptible to the sound of bagpipes at short range. The vibrations cause it to simply disintegrate. I wish that bagpiping had the same effect on:
14. Build-a-Bear Workshops. Build-a-Bear is a store where, for a mere twenty-five or so smackers, you can put the teddy bear together yourself. You can also purchase clothing, hats, shoes, and other simpering accessories for your ursine friend. What consumers fail to realize is that the warning not to expose your Build-a-Bear to the light of the full moon should be taken seriously. In order to succeed, the founders of Build-a-Bear struck a Faustian bargain with evil forces: they would enjoy unparalleled economic success and consumer gullibility, but the bears would animate when exposed to moonlight during months containing a, e, i, o, or u. Why is this a problem, you ask? Surely these creatures are cuddly and lovable? Normally, you'd be right. But there is no way of identifying gender on a Build-a-Bear. Which means half of them have been forced to wear gender-inappropriate clothing and perhaps even named "George" when "Clarice" would have been more fitting. I know I'd be ticked off when finally freed from my paralysis. The bear is in the home of his/her tormentors with access to power tools and maybe even old Beatles albums. Guess how many million Build-a-Bears have been sold?
15. Badgersbadgersbadgers.com. This website features endlessly dancing badgers you can watch for free! Forever! Workplace productivity has fallen 1.2 percent per month ever since this website went operational. Do the math. Our economy is doomed even if Barack Obama wakes up and smells the Marxism.
The good news, I suppose, is that there will still be cockroaches no matter what happens...
Thursday, April 9, 2009
When is treatment lethal?
The new Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has an interesting idea. He recently suggested having schools "be open" six or even seven days a week for as many as eleven months a year. The rationale is that the U.S. needs to be able to compete with other nations that are currently vaporizing us on the education front (think Japan and Finland). While I applaud Secretary Duncan's acknowledgement that a problem exists, I must question his methodology. Firstly, though, we must evaluate the problems he intends to solve and contrast them against the problems that actually exist.
Implementing longer school weeks and years would theoretically afford more opportunities for learning. This presupposes two issues:
Firstly, this assumes that not enough opportunities are available. I beg to differ. The American Legion Oratorical Contest rivals any government course in terms of what students can learn, but less than a hundred students attempt it in Indiana each year. Debate affords the chance to become an expert (and I mean an expert) on almost any issue, but show me the public school where the debate team is larger than the football squad. Opportunities exist, Secretary Duncan, it's just that kids aren't taking them.
Secondly, this assumes that time spent off school (on weekends and over the summer) is being wasted. There is some truth to this. Many Americans (especially teens and preteens) go home from school and switch on the Xbox. But many also have jobs. Many younger kids play sports, or read recreationally. Some (gasp) have solid relationships with their parents and do things as a family. I'm homeschooled, but even so half of what I learned I learned on my own time. More time locked in a classroom may not balance less time spent working at Wendy's (and thus developing life skills) or reading A Critique of Pure Reason (which I can almost guarantee is not being taught in schools) or even just spending some time as a family.
I suspect that Secretary Duncan has missed the real issues. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, but I'll target the three most obvious to me:
1. Students
I just made a lot of people really mad, but hear me out. I spent a week at Hoosier Boys' State, an American Legion-run civics program last summer. Many very intelligent, social, fun students attended. Many singularly unpleasant students attended. I remember staring in amazement as a few of these students analyzed the contrasting abilities and styles of a dozen obscene (and, to me, indistinguishable) rap artists. The intelligence was there. But these same students gave me blank looks when I tried to discuss economics or politics or even science fiction books that hadn't been made into movies. No effort had been made by most of these guys to learn on their own. Why do we expect them learn in classrooms? Students can be lazy and no amount of additional time will cure this malady. Some students excel in public schools. Far more squeak by. Many fail. Same schools. Different students. Same schools. Different degrees of success. I think the success rate could be higher, but the sooner we accept that some or even many students just self-destruct the better the schools will be. The lowest common denominator is not an acceptable standard for education and cannot be the group to which schools primarily cater. Most importantly, the failure of students is not justification for the reformation of programs under all circumstances.
2. Parents
I just made even more people mad. Pop quiz for parents: who is responsible for your kids' education? If you answered "the state," please go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. If you answered "me," then pat yourself on the back and move on to the next section, because you already know what I'm about to say. The state does not care about your kids. Never has, never will. Some people in government might, but the state generally exists to perpetuate itself. If that means providing education, fine. But it will consistently provide the least educational quality it can get away with. Who lets it slide? All too often, parents. Parents need to be willing to call schools on the carpet, help improve the quality of education, and, most importantly, just be willing to pull their kids out if necessary. Don't just pack 'em off at the age of six and expect the state to teach them. I am not a parent, and thus I am completely unqualified, but I do know this: the state would be fine with stamping you son or daughter with a barcode and having them subsist behind a desk for thirteen (under Obama, twenty-two) years of their lives. You love your kids. The state can't and won't. Step up to the plate. Help teach. Teach ethics. Teach sportsmanship. Teach personal finance. Impart character, that mysterious quality so tragically lacking in my generation. Until parents retake responsibility for raising kids, the schools cannot perform their function because of confusion over what this function even is.
3. Dewey
Good ol' John Dewey thought that education could cure society's ills and that this education could be universally applied. His views have been adopted, either quietly or overtly, by the states and by the feds. This results in two curious views. Students must be turned into clones molded to function in our Utopian, pluralistic society and the way to do this is through massive testing. This may seem disconnected, but follow me for a moment through the thought process. Under the ideas of Dewey, the goal of education is less to equip students to learn than it is to repair the harm done by their parents and to impart all the information and attitudes needed to be plugged into the world. Thus education changes from an open-ended, flexible process to an assembly line with a clear origin, terminus, and objective. How do we know if our little clones are up to snuff? We test 'em. Standardized tests determine which students have been correctly programmed and which ones need to visit Room 101 (Read 1984, too). Schools are awarded that elixir of life, federal funding, based on how many students pass. This idea that a good education consists of meeting criteria A, B, and C is at the heart of many of today's issues. Understanding matters less to Dewey than knowing. Knowing can be measured cheaply, understanding can't, at least not by the government.
Well, that's all I have to say for now on the problems. There are more, of course, but I'd have to designate a separate blog. What should be done? Well, Secretary, I think you can fix the third problem quite easily. Talk Obama into doing what Reagan threatened two decades ago: eliminate the Department of Education. It has no right to exist. It derives power from no Constitutional mandate. It inflicts more harms than it brings benefits. The idea that the federal government has either power over or vested interest in education is more than just incorrect; I find it downright frightening. Let me be clear. I am not on the lunatic fringe. I think that we landed on the moon and that the Warren Report is at least not a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. But government, and federal government in particular, education is another nail in the coffin of a free society. Think about it. We tell kids, starting at birth if Obama gets his way, that the government is responsible for their upbringing. That it should feed them breakfast. That the school is to blame if they fail a test. That the school should value their esteem. And then we expect them to lead independent lives? Expect them not to turn to the government for support at every opportunity? Expect them to regard the government with caution? Expect them to value initiative and personal responsibility and accountability and family and self-reliance and faith and hard work and vision and freedom? Because I can guarantee you this: none of these foundations of a virtuous society are taught in today's public schools. Will six days a week, eleven months a year of this make the situation better?
What do you think, reader?
What do you think, Mr. Duncan?
Implementing longer school weeks and years would theoretically afford more opportunities for learning. This presupposes two issues:
Firstly, this assumes that not enough opportunities are available. I beg to differ. The American Legion Oratorical Contest rivals any government course in terms of what students can learn, but less than a hundred students attempt it in Indiana each year. Debate affords the chance to become an expert (and I mean an expert) on almost any issue, but show me the public school where the debate team is larger than the football squad. Opportunities exist, Secretary Duncan, it's just that kids aren't taking them.
Secondly, this assumes that time spent off school (on weekends and over the summer) is being wasted. There is some truth to this. Many Americans (especially teens and preteens) go home from school and switch on the Xbox. But many also have jobs. Many younger kids play sports, or read recreationally. Some (gasp) have solid relationships with their parents and do things as a family. I'm homeschooled, but even so half of what I learned I learned on my own time. More time locked in a classroom may not balance less time spent working at Wendy's (and thus developing life skills) or reading A Critique of Pure Reason (which I can almost guarantee is not being taught in schools) or even just spending some time as a family.
I suspect that Secretary Duncan has missed the real issues. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, but I'll target the three most obvious to me:
1. Students
I just made a lot of people really mad, but hear me out. I spent a week at Hoosier Boys' State, an American Legion-run civics program last summer. Many very intelligent, social, fun students attended. Many singularly unpleasant students attended. I remember staring in amazement as a few of these students analyzed the contrasting abilities and styles of a dozen obscene (and, to me, indistinguishable) rap artists. The intelligence was there. But these same students gave me blank looks when I tried to discuss economics or politics or even science fiction books that hadn't been made into movies. No effort had been made by most of these guys to learn on their own. Why do we expect them learn in classrooms? Students can be lazy and no amount of additional time will cure this malady. Some students excel in public schools. Far more squeak by. Many fail. Same schools. Different students. Same schools. Different degrees of success. I think the success rate could be higher, but the sooner we accept that some or even many students just self-destruct the better the schools will be. The lowest common denominator is not an acceptable standard for education and cannot be the group to which schools primarily cater. Most importantly, the failure of students is not justification for the reformation of programs under all circumstances.
2. Parents
I just made even more people mad. Pop quiz for parents: who is responsible for your kids' education? If you answered "the state," please go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. If you answered "me," then pat yourself on the back and move on to the next section, because you already know what I'm about to say. The state does not care about your kids. Never has, never will. Some people in government might, but the state generally exists to perpetuate itself. If that means providing education, fine. But it will consistently provide the least educational quality it can get away with. Who lets it slide? All too often, parents. Parents need to be willing to call schools on the carpet, help improve the quality of education, and, most importantly, just be willing to pull their kids out if necessary. Don't just pack 'em off at the age of six and expect the state to teach them. I am not a parent, and thus I am completely unqualified, but I do know this: the state would be fine with stamping you son or daughter with a barcode and having them subsist behind a desk for thirteen (under Obama, twenty-two) years of their lives. You love your kids. The state can't and won't. Step up to the plate. Help teach. Teach ethics. Teach sportsmanship. Teach personal finance. Impart character, that mysterious quality so tragically lacking in my generation. Until parents retake responsibility for raising kids, the schools cannot perform their function because of confusion over what this function even is.
3. Dewey
Good ol' John Dewey thought that education could cure society's ills and that this education could be universally applied. His views have been adopted, either quietly or overtly, by the states and by the feds. This results in two curious views. Students must be turned into clones molded to function in our Utopian, pluralistic society and the way to do this is through massive testing. This may seem disconnected, but follow me for a moment through the thought process. Under the ideas of Dewey, the goal of education is less to equip students to learn than it is to repair the harm done by their parents and to impart all the information and attitudes needed to be plugged into the world. Thus education changes from an open-ended, flexible process to an assembly line with a clear origin, terminus, and objective. How do we know if our little clones are up to snuff? We test 'em. Standardized tests determine which students have been correctly programmed and which ones need to visit Room 101 (Read 1984, too). Schools are awarded that elixir of life, federal funding, based on how many students pass. This idea that a good education consists of meeting criteria A, B, and C is at the heart of many of today's issues. Understanding matters less to Dewey than knowing. Knowing can be measured cheaply, understanding can't, at least not by the government.
Well, that's all I have to say for now on the problems. There are more, of course, but I'd have to designate a separate blog. What should be done? Well, Secretary, I think you can fix the third problem quite easily. Talk Obama into doing what Reagan threatened two decades ago: eliminate the Department of Education. It has no right to exist. It derives power from no Constitutional mandate. It inflicts more harms than it brings benefits. The idea that the federal government has either power over or vested interest in education is more than just incorrect; I find it downright frightening. Let me be clear. I am not on the lunatic fringe. I think that we landed on the moon and that the Warren Report is at least not a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. But government, and federal government in particular, education is another nail in the coffin of a free society. Think about it. We tell kids, starting at birth if Obama gets his way, that the government is responsible for their upbringing. That it should feed them breakfast. That the school is to blame if they fail a test. That the school should value their esteem. And then we expect them to lead independent lives? Expect them not to turn to the government for support at every opportunity? Expect them to regard the government with caution? Expect them to value initiative and personal responsibility and accountability and family and self-reliance and faith and hard work and vision and freedom? Because I can guarantee you this: none of these foundations of a virtuous society are taught in today's public schools. Will six days a week, eleven months a year of this make the situation better?
What do you think, reader?
What do you think, Mr. Duncan?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
For whom the Bell tolls
I...dislike Rob Bell's theology for a few reasons, but the one that chafes the most, I'd say, is an overly optimistic view of humanity. I'll just focus on one example for this post.
In his book Velvet Elvis, Bell asserts that we (Christians) are already holy and that holy means flawless. In other words, we are rendered perfect at salvation and all we must do is "live in that reality." Bell is somewhat ambiguous as to the meaning of this phrase, but I'll let that one slide. Bell commits two errors here.
The first is a misuse of Scripture. In support of his claim, Bell quotes Paul in a passage that refers to Christians as God's dearly loved and holy people. Bell states that "holy" means flawless. Not a good translation. Holy more precisely means "set apart." Something can be set apart and still imperfect. Christians are set apart from the world, but we are still in need of reshaping and reforming. Moreover, Paul is saying that as God's people we should be doing something. Paul's letters are, in general, written to churches in trouble, full of Christians still undergoing sanctification.
The second is a breach in logic. Bell makes two apparently contradictory assertions. First is that people are perfect and simply need to embrace our perfect nature. Second is that we are not embracing this nature already. If we are truly perfect, why do we need to do anything? This contradiction renders and entire section of the book moot. Bell seeks to simultaneously assert that we shouldn't try to lead better lives and yet...we should.
Most annoying is the fact that you need to actually read every word in the book to catch stuff like this, which is hard when he
does
cute
stuff
with the stupid
line
breaks, evidently in an attempt to be "hip." This book is toxic, folks. And the packaging only serves to disguise its nature.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Engaging auto-destruct in 5...4...3...
These are some of the worst things anyone can say in a round of debate. The TP topic deals with policy toward India. LD is idealism (affirmative) versus pragmatism (negative). Let's break it down, shall we?
Team Policy
Affirmative
"Our plan works in theory."
"Barack Obama is enacting our plan even as we speak."
"Death is only a problem in some instances."
"The negative has failed to impact their thermonuclear war disadvantage. Why is this a problem?"
"Our plan harnesses the power of global warming..."
Negative
"Saving babies is irrelevant to this round."
"Personally, I think this is a great idea, but..."
"We don't actually have any evidence."
"Human trafficking? How is this even a harm?"
"I'd like to address the affirmative's definitions..."
Lincoln-Douglas
Affirmative
"Hitler was an idealist."
"Sometimes we have to ignore reality."
"I don't understand what the negative just said."
"I'd like to quote Josef Stalin..."
"Well, yes, we sometimes have to compromise our values..."
Negative
"Hitler was a pragmatist."
"Human rights don't matter that much."
"Progress is the highest value."
"I'd like to quote Nietzsche..."
"Pragmatism is basically the same as practicality."
General Debate Potpourri
"What have the starving children done for us lately, eh?"
"Ignore the arguments for a minute."
"My opponent is unworthy of consideration because she is short."
"You face a choice at the end of this round: agree with me or be eaten by the wolves."
“I don’t have the burden of proof with me…”
“I can’t quote that evidence because it is resting.”
“My source is a professor of botany.”
“My partner is wrong.”
“My evidence, as you can see, is open to interpretation.”
“Although I don’t have evidence for this point…”
“There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia.”
“If I were me, I’d lie in this situation.”
(On CX) “Did you mean to write that case?”
“Wait. I’m on which side?”
(On CX) “Was that a question?”—“If that was an answer.”
“I plead the Fifth.”
“Hold on. I meant to say the opposite.”
“According to the following blog…”
“Can we try a different case?”
“Well, as you can see our case is perfect…”
“Well, we never said our case was perfect…”
“There are worse things than nuclear war.”
(On CX) “What’s topicality?”
“The Constitution was a generally good idea, but shouldn't we get over it?”
“People are worth $367.57 a piece.”
“In the wise words of Rosie O’Donnelll…’
“I saw our plan in a movie once and it worked great. I think it was a Tom Clancy…”
“Our case is similar to what the Soviet Union did in 1924…”
“The affirmative case is horrible because it might cause a spike in the cute bunny population.”
"The other side has won only four of the five stock issues. Unaddressed thoughout the round has been the importance of pity toward us..."
Team Policy
Affirmative
"Our plan works in theory."
"Barack Obama is enacting our plan even as we speak."
"Death is only a problem in some instances."
"The negative has failed to impact their thermonuclear war disadvantage. Why is this a problem?"
"Our plan harnesses the power of global warming..."
Negative
"Saving babies is irrelevant to this round."
"Personally, I think this is a great idea, but..."
"We don't actually have any evidence."
"Human trafficking? How is this even a harm?"
"I'd like to address the affirmative's definitions..."
Lincoln-Douglas
Affirmative
"Hitler was an idealist."
"Sometimes we have to ignore reality."
"I don't understand what the negative just said."
"I'd like to quote Josef Stalin..."
"Well, yes, we sometimes have to compromise our values..."
Negative
"Hitler was a pragmatist."
"Human rights don't matter that much."
"Progress is the highest value."
"I'd like to quote Nietzsche..."
"Pragmatism is basically the same as practicality."
General Debate Potpourri
"What have the starving children done for us lately, eh?"
"Ignore the arguments for a minute."
"My opponent is unworthy of consideration because she is short."
"You face a choice at the end of this round: agree with me or be eaten by the wolves."
“I don’t have the burden of proof with me…”
“I can’t quote that evidence because it is resting.”
“My source is a professor of botany.”
“My partner is wrong.”
“My evidence, as you can see, is open to interpretation.”
“Although I don’t have evidence for this point…”
“There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia.”
“If I were me, I’d lie in this situation.”
(On CX) “Did you mean to write that case?”
“Wait. I’m on which side?”
(On CX) “Was that a question?”—“If that was an answer.”
“I plead the Fifth.”
“Hold on. I meant to say the opposite.”
“According to the following blog…”
“Can we try a different case?”
“Well, as you can see our case is perfect…”
“Well, we never said our case was perfect…”
“There are worse things than nuclear war.”
(On CX) “What’s topicality?”
“The Constitution was a generally good idea, but shouldn't we get over it?”
“People are worth $367.57 a piece.”
“In the wise words of Rosie O’Donnelll…’
“I saw our plan in a movie once and it worked great. I think it was a Tom Clancy…”
“Our case is similar to what the Soviet Union did in 1924…”
“The affirmative case is horrible because it might cause a spike in the cute bunny population.”
"The other side has won only four of the five stock issues. Unaddressed thoughout the round has been the importance of pity toward us..."
Friday, March 27, 2009
Who wrote this stuff?
Ah, old movies. Specifically, old science fiction movies. A good one has a few basic plot elements:
1. A brilliant but socially inept scientist who uses terms like "neutralization of mass." He should have glasses made from the glass bottoms of Coke bottles still available in the fifties.
2. A horrible monster. Giant insects are always a favorite, provided they don't break the movie's budget ($120, excluding the cigarettes everyone smoked back then). Carnivorous plants are better because you can get away with stop-motion animation. "Alright, Phil, now move the ivy a little further over the model of San Francisco." Alien robots are best because you can make 'em out of old milk cartons and talk about horrible alien weapons like the xenon-helium electron baryon ray pulse heat wave gun. It should look like the offspring of a stand mixer with an attitude problem and a .50 sniper rifle. It's waves/pulses/beams should be manually drawn on the film by a four-year-old.
3. Deep, thought provoking dialogue. "Oh no, I think it's going to eat the world." "If it reaches Los Angeles it will eat Los Angeles." "Millions are fleeing the doomed city/country/planet." "Gee, we really were thick, doing all those nuclear tests."
4. Special effects. Smoke is always useful, as are scale models. Just remember that a burning wad of newspaper does not look like a flaming planet. Also, stuff looks larger when slow motion is used. Rabbits scurrying through a model of a city can be turned into ponderous, thundering bringers of doom just by playing the footage at 1/4 speed. Oh, wait. Someone already tried that...maybe if they'd played "Eye of the Tiger."
5. Someone who looks kinda like Marilyn Monroe. She should end up with:
6. The hero. The hero is, ideally, six foot one, has dark brown hair (insofar as you can tell in black and white), and carries a lot of guns that don't work against the insects/plants/alien robots/giant rabbits until the scientist bails him out. I never got why the hero (instead of the scientist) ends up with the girl. Maybe the nerd in me is just jealous. Then again, I never really liked Marilyn Monroe.
So, let's break down an old sci-fi classic: Them. Them is a movie about ants that, due to nuclear testing, grow to abnormal size (think Rosie O'Donnell only with more human kindness) and proceed to kill and eat everything they encounter.
The movie opens with a little girl being found in a catatonic state in the desert. An eerie, howling wail is present in the background, indicating the Cubs have lost again. She is picked up by some kindly people in a car or plane or something (it's been ten years since I've seen this, okay?) and brought into town. Everyone wonders what happened to the people she must have been with, but all she ever does is flip out and start yelling about "them." This is where the movie gets its title. Clever, eh? I didn't think so either and I was eight. Cigarettes are bad for you in so many ways...
Anyway, a bunch of people on the outside of town are found dead looking like they've been attacked by giant insects. The townspeople are unable to figure this out even thought he ants left a business card on every table and a few Polaroids of themselves eating the deceased's belongings and legs.
Eventually, THE SCIENTIST is brought in, aided by THE HERO and escorted by his long-suffering daughter THE MARILYN. They find an ant and THE HERO blows it away with sustained fire from a Thompson that is apparently modified to accept five-hundred round magazines. His aim is terrible, but the sheer volume of fire was evidently sufficient. He then stares at this eight-foot long ant and asks what it is, confirming that listening to sustained gunfire without ear protection can also damage one's brain. THE SCIENTIST explains that it is a giant ant, earning him admiring glances from the townsfolk, who by now have figured out how to understand normal speech.
By the end of the movie, the ants migrate to a major city and are mowed down by machine gun fire. Life goes on, but the movie has proved its point: nuclear testing results in giant bugs and you have better odds of winning the girl if your brain is smaller the .45 rounds you lug everywhere.
Ah, old movies. At least they aren't new movies. But that, I'm afraid, is another post.
1. A brilliant but socially inept scientist who uses terms like "neutralization of mass." He should have glasses made from the glass bottoms of Coke bottles still available in the fifties.
2. A horrible monster. Giant insects are always a favorite, provided they don't break the movie's budget ($120, excluding the cigarettes everyone smoked back then). Carnivorous plants are better because you can get away with stop-motion animation. "Alright, Phil, now move the ivy a little further over the model of San Francisco." Alien robots are best because you can make 'em out of old milk cartons and talk about horrible alien weapons like the xenon-helium electron baryon ray pulse heat wave gun. It should look like the offspring of a stand mixer with an attitude problem and a .50 sniper rifle. It's waves/pulses/beams should be manually drawn on the film by a four-year-old.
3. Deep, thought provoking dialogue. "Oh no, I think it's going to eat the world." "If it reaches Los Angeles it will eat Los Angeles." "Millions are fleeing the doomed city/country/planet." "Gee, we really were thick, doing all those nuclear tests."
4. Special effects. Smoke is always useful, as are scale models. Just remember that a burning wad of newspaper does not look like a flaming planet. Also, stuff looks larger when slow motion is used. Rabbits scurrying through a model of a city can be turned into ponderous, thundering bringers of doom just by playing the footage at 1/4 speed. Oh, wait. Someone already tried that...maybe if they'd played "Eye of the Tiger."
5. Someone who looks kinda like Marilyn Monroe. She should end up with:
6. The hero. The hero is, ideally, six foot one, has dark brown hair (insofar as you can tell in black and white), and carries a lot of guns that don't work against the insects/plants/alien robots/giant rabbits until the scientist bails him out. I never got why the hero (instead of the scientist) ends up with the girl. Maybe the nerd in me is just jealous. Then again, I never really liked Marilyn Monroe.
So, let's break down an old sci-fi classic: Them. Them is a movie about ants that, due to nuclear testing, grow to abnormal size (think Rosie O'Donnell only with more human kindness) and proceed to kill and eat everything they encounter.
The movie opens with a little girl being found in a catatonic state in the desert. An eerie, howling wail is present in the background, indicating the Cubs have lost again. She is picked up by some kindly people in a car or plane or something (it's been ten years since I've seen this, okay?) and brought into town. Everyone wonders what happened to the people she must have been with, but all she ever does is flip out and start yelling about "them." This is where the movie gets its title. Clever, eh? I didn't think so either and I was eight. Cigarettes are bad for you in so many ways...
Anyway, a bunch of people on the outside of town are found dead looking like they've been attacked by giant insects. The townspeople are unable to figure this out even thought he ants left a business card on every table and a few Polaroids of themselves eating the deceased's belongings and legs.
Eventually, THE SCIENTIST is brought in, aided by THE HERO and escorted by his long-suffering daughter THE MARILYN. They find an ant and THE HERO blows it away with sustained fire from a Thompson that is apparently modified to accept five-hundred round magazines. His aim is terrible, but the sheer volume of fire was evidently sufficient. He then stares at this eight-foot long ant and asks what it is, confirming that listening to sustained gunfire without ear protection can also damage one's brain. THE SCIENTIST explains that it is a giant ant, earning him admiring glances from the townsfolk, who by now have figured out how to understand normal speech.
By the end of the movie, the ants migrate to a major city and are mowed down by machine gun fire. Life goes on, but the movie has proved its point: nuclear testing results in giant bugs and you have better odds of winning the girl if your brain is smaller the .45 rounds you lug everywhere.
Ah, old movies. At least they aren't new movies. But that, I'm afraid, is another post.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
On continuity of experience
Postmodernism can be reduced to absurdity in so many fun little ways, but I thought of a particularly interesting one recently. I doubt that this is new, but it's still an intriguing argument.
First, a little background. Postmodernism, for the purposes of this analysis, is the idea that "there is nothing outside the text." Picture a short essay, say on the superiority of Lincoln-Douglas debate over Team Policy. The contents of this paper are, according to postmodernism, entirely a matter of interpretation because no extra-textual (Yes, I just made up a term. No, I don't care.) data or context exists. My interpretation is just as valid as yours even if one of us were to assert (gasp!) that the paragraph proves that Team Policy is superior.
According to postmodernism, the entire world is like that paragraph. It has no meaning beyond what we assign it as individuals, and no one individual's assertions are any more or less valid than the next's. No higher or absolute truth exists. A few problems do exist here. The most obvious, of course, is that even the claim that no absolute truth exists is an absolutist claim. Slightly more subtle are postmodernism's other flaws.
And so we come to my argument. Tag this one as the argument from continuity of experience. If you throw a rock at me and manage a hit, I will experience pain. Trade sides with me and I bet you'll feel the same. We both would rather not be eaten by bears. Such experiences are uniformly unpleasant. Similarly, we both probably like clean air, chocolate, and the song "There's No One As Irish as Barack O'bama." This implies that our minds function in similar ways, in turn suggesting that there is some uniform constant that forms a reference point. Even if it is merely biological in nature, such a constant is immutable and not "subject to interpretation." This is the first half of the argument, namely that our minds deal with reality in similar ways. The second, and more forceful, aspect of the argument is simply that the rock you just threw nailed me right between the eyes. You can apologize next time you see me. From your perspective, the rock traveled in a parabola from hand to mark. From my perspective the rock traveled in a parabola from hand to mark. Then blackness. The point is that this event was obviously independent of perspective and interpretation. You were able to take an action that I then perceived. Thus our minds engaged in interaction via some sort of medium (the medium that allowed conveyance of your intent to throw the rock to my perception of your intent). This medium, I postulate, is called reality, and it changes only when acted upon and not with "interpretation."
Treating reality as a medium through which minds interact is an interesting idea. I'm probably not the first person to think of it, but it still has some interesting implications even beyond a refutation of postmodernism. If reality really is simply aether for the conveyance of data, then some credence goes to the philosophy of Berkeley, who asserted that an object only exists insofar as it is observed. I think he is close. He claimed that the world continues to exist when you close your eyes because God is still watching. Hmmmm.... I think it may be still more fundamental. Let us progress from philosophy to theology.
First postulate: God created us to love him. Love, according to Augustine, requires that we make a decision. A decision requires that we possess information.
Second postulate: Such a decision is inherently heuristic because we cannot know God fully in our present form. If our form were changed so that we could fully know God no decision would be necessary. (Who would turn away from God revealed in His majesty?) This decision must be based on limited or incomplete data.
Third postulate. A means of limited communion must therefore exist between God and Man to allow the conveyance of knowledge of God without total exposure.
Fourth postulate: The universe provides exactly such a medium. God reveals His attributes to us in limited form through the universe. We gain fleeting but awesome glimpses of His skill in design, of His omnipotence, and so on.
Fifth postulate: The universe (Scripturally, nature) was corrupted by the Fall because Man's ability to commune with God was damaged by our sin nature. The cataclysm extended from the direct connections of the soul to God to the indirect link through Creation.
I am not an expert or ordained theologian. I have no degrees (although you might be wise to trust me less if I did). This is merely a though experiment and should not be regarded as teaching. But it is an interesting and perhaps helpful way of looking at the world. Suddenly any philosophy (and there are postmodernists and existentialists who claim to be Christians) that denies the absolute nature of reality starts looking a bit odd. Once matter becomes an absolute aether, the external world takes on an interesting purpose.
First, a little background. Postmodernism, for the purposes of this analysis, is the idea that "there is nothing outside the text." Picture a short essay, say on the superiority of Lincoln-Douglas debate over Team Policy. The contents of this paper are, according to postmodernism, entirely a matter of interpretation because no extra-textual (Yes, I just made up a term. No, I don't care.) data or context exists. My interpretation is just as valid as yours even if one of us were to assert (gasp!) that the paragraph proves that Team Policy is superior.
According to postmodernism, the entire world is like that paragraph. It has no meaning beyond what we assign it as individuals, and no one individual's assertions are any more or less valid than the next's. No higher or absolute truth exists. A few problems do exist here. The most obvious, of course, is that even the claim that no absolute truth exists is an absolutist claim. Slightly more subtle are postmodernism's other flaws.
And so we come to my argument. Tag this one as the argument from continuity of experience. If you throw a rock at me and manage a hit, I will experience pain. Trade sides with me and I bet you'll feel the same. We both would rather not be eaten by bears. Such experiences are uniformly unpleasant. Similarly, we both probably like clean air, chocolate, and the song "There's No One As Irish as Barack O'bama." This implies that our minds function in similar ways, in turn suggesting that there is some uniform constant that forms a reference point. Even if it is merely biological in nature, such a constant is immutable and not "subject to interpretation." This is the first half of the argument, namely that our minds deal with reality in similar ways. The second, and more forceful, aspect of the argument is simply that the rock you just threw nailed me right between the eyes. You can apologize next time you see me. From your perspective, the rock traveled in a parabola from hand to mark. From my perspective the rock traveled in a parabola from hand to mark. Then blackness. The point is that this event was obviously independent of perspective and interpretation. You were able to take an action that I then perceived. Thus our minds engaged in interaction via some sort of medium (the medium that allowed conveyance of your intent to throw the rock to my perception of your intent). This medium, I postulate, is called reality, and it changes only when acted upon and not with "interpretation."
Treating reality as a medium through which minds interact is an interesting idea. I'm probably not the first person to think of it, but it still has some interesting implications even beyond a refutation of postmodernism. If reality really is simply aether for the conveyance of data, then some credence goes to the philosophy of Berkeley, who asserted that an object only exists insofar as it is observed. I think he is close. He claimed that the world continues to exist when you close your eyes because God is still watching. Hmmmm.... I think it may be still more fundamental. Let us progress from philosophy to theology.
First postulate: God created us to love him. Love, according to Augustine, requires that we make a decision. A decision requires that we possess information.
Second postulate: Such a decision is inherently heuristic because we cannot know God fully in our present form. If our form were changed so that we could fully know God no decision would be necessary. (Who would turn away from God revealed in His majesty?) This decision must be based on limited or incomplete data.
Third postulate. A means of limited communion must therefore exist between God and Man to allow the conveyance of knowledge of God without total exposure.
Fourth postulate: The universe provides exactly such a medium. God reveals His attributes to us in limited form through the universe. We gain fleeting but awesome glimpses of His skill in design, of His omnipotence, and so on.
Fifth postulate: The universe (Scripturally, nature) was corrupted by the Fall because Man's ability to commune with God was damaged by our sin nature. The cataclysm extended from the direct connections of the soul to God to the indirect link through Creation.
I am not an expert or ordained theologian. I have no degrees (although you might be wise to trust me less if I did). This is merely a though experiment and should not be regarded as teaching. But it is an interesting and perhaps helpful way of looking at the world. Suddenly any philosophy (and there are postmodernists and existentialists who claim to be Christians) that denies the absolute nature of reality starts looking a bit odd. Once matter becomes an absolute aether, the external world takes on an interesting purpose.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Recycling and the prospect of alien invasion
My sources (by which I mean the little voices) have informed me that the aliens are at it again. That's right, folks. Once again we face annihilation as a species. This case is peculiar, however. Previous means used by the alien horde have been comparatively subtle. This one is blatantly obvious. I wonder why I failed to notice it before. Recycling is evil. Follow carefully.
We begin with what recycling actually is: conversion of existing material into another usable form. This means that less production is necessary. Which means less production actually occurs. Thus the industry of Man becomes conversion of one substance into another, of McDonald's wrappers into newspapers, of plastic bottles into Tupperware. The impact of this is that Man eventually loses the ability to produce, to strip mine coal or pump oil or turn trees into houses or turn raw materials into massive directed energy weapons to engage the alien forces. We won WWII through sheer economic might and unrivaled production. The aliens will not allow us this strategy a second time. (That's right, a second time. No human has a mustache like Hitler's or Mussolini's.)
The effects of recycling reach beyond eliminating our ability to build directed-energy weapons. Even if recycling fails to completely supplant production the aliens are in excellent shape. Even a decline in production involves a decrease in the number of jobs available. Recycling jobs are all well and good, but most of them have already been claimed by robots and members of the Earth Liberation Front (often the two are hard to distinguish, but usually the robots are easier to reason with). The result, once recycling really comes into its own, is widespread unemployment. President Obama will respond by Creating Jobs and buying up the Legacy Assets (I kid you not, that's what he's calling toxic assets) because, as a lefty, that's essentially what he does. The ensuing economic instability will cause shortages and riots. Eventually America's (and soon the world's) population will be split into two factions: the robots and the Earth Liberation Front members (everyone else having emigrated offworld to escape the Congressional Hearings about how This Is Everyone Else's Fault and We Are Going to Frown Importantly Down at You and Watch Our Approval Rating Meters Climb Because of the People Who Are Grateful Not to Be the Targets of Our Multiple Chin-Quivering Wrath). The Earth Liberation Front will launch a savage attack on the recycling robots using eco-friendly weapons like sticks and dirt. Oddly enough, this will have exactly no effect. The robots will then begin converting ELFers into newspapers, Tupperware, and directed energy weapons. The aliens just have to do some quick reprogramming and they will have gained another planet. Not to mention a free, Energy Star-approved army of robots.
Is there a solution? Yes. Start suing your local environmentalist group for destroying the planet and/or conspiring to hand it over the alien forces. You'll be amazed at how seriously the courts take you.
We begin with what recycling actually is: conversion of existing material into another usable form. This means that less production is necessary. Which means less production actually occurs. Thus the industry of Man becomes conversion of one substance into another, of McDonald's wrappers into newspapers, of plastic bottles into Tupperware. The impact of this is that Man eventually loses the ability to produce, to strip mine coal or pump oil or turn trees into houses or turn raw materials into massive directed energy weapons to engage the alien forces. We won WWII through sheer economic might and unrivaled production. The aliens will not allow us this strategy a second time. (That's right, a second time. No human has a mustache like Hitler's or Mussolini's.)
The effects of recycling reach beyond eliminating our ability to build directed-energy weapons. Even if recycling fails to completely supplant production the aliens are in excellent shape. Even a decline in production involves a decrease in the number of jobs available. Recycling jobs are all well and good, but most of them have already been claimed by robots and members of the Earth Liberation Front (often the two are hard to distinguish, but usually the robots are easier to reason with). The result, once recycling really comes into its own, is widespread unemployment. President Obama will respond by Creating Jobs and buying up the Legacy Assets (I kid you not, that's what he's calling toxic assets) because, as a lefty, that's essentially what he does. The ensuing economic instability will cause shortages and riots. Eventually America's (and soon the world's) population will be split into two factions: the robots and the Earth Liberation Front members (everyone else having emigrated offworld to escape the Congressional Hearings about how This Is Everyone Else's Fault and We Are Going to Frown Importantly Down at You and Watch Our Approval Rating Meters Climb Because of the People Who Are Grateful Not to Be the Targets of Our Multiple Chin-Quivering Wrath). The Earth Liberation Front will launch a savage attack on the recycling robots using eco-friendly weapons like sticks and dirt. Oddly enough, this will have exactly no effect. The robots will then begin converting ELFers into newspapers, Tupperware, and directed energy weapons. The aliens just have to do some quick reprogramming and they will have gained another planet. Not to mention a free, Energy Star-approved army of robots.
Is there a solution? Yes. Start suing your local environmentalist group for destroying the planet and/or conspiring to hand it over the alien forces. You'll be amazed at how seriously the courts take you.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
We are not what we think we are.
I've been thinking about the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They both are credited with the formation of utilitarianism as a legitimate philosophy, but I've never taken utilitarianism all that seriously. Bentham would have us all hunched over computers our entire lives, trying to model and predict what consequences our actions will have. Mill reduced utilitarianism to heuristics, a more viable option, but he also assigned qualitative (in addition to Bentham's quantitative) values to pleasure and pain, thus introducing a criterion aside from pleasure or pain for standards of right and wrong. Mill's philosophy is closer to what people actually do, of course. Recall the first law of humanity: people act in what we perceive as someone's best interest.
This is how so many of us wind up in Hell.
Perhaps my favorite of C.S. Lewis's books is The Great Divorce, in which he describes why so many people choose Hell. It is a disturbing book, to my mind, for it depicts, with merciless precision and astounding accuracy, the mental and emotional hoops people will leap through to protect our paradigms. Every single condemned soul in the book acts based on what they think will best serve their interests. The artist refuses Heaven because of the loss of "recognition." The philosopher returns to Hell to continue "free inquiry." These examples illustrate how ill-equipped we really are to identify what our best interest is. I think every Ghost in The Great Divorce commits the same underlying error: they all insist on viewing the world through their own biases, ideas, and mental constructs. The purpose of all these abstracts is to distort the universe around them to enhance their own importance. The inability to even identify our best interest lies in our molding the entire world around ourselves.
This peculiar lensing results in an equally peculiar view of the world. Suddenly all that matters is me and the rest of the world is merely some external motion picture I participate in or have to deal with from time to time. Well, guess what? Within seventy years I'll be dead. Odds are, so will you. The world, second coming notwithstanding, will still be here. I suspect that we could avoid many of the problems we experience if we acknowledge that cold and corrosive truth: as individuals we don't actually matter all that much.
One maxim I am thoroughly sick of hearing is the claim that it doesn't matter how much money you make or what car you drive but rather what relationships you form. Friends, family, these are the demigods of secular culture and the true meaning of Christmas. Horse hockey, as Colonel Potter would say. The relationships we form matter no more than the money we earn. What counts is what we do with our relationships and other resources. The attitude that the relationship itself is somehow of value reflects a deep-seated egocentrism. It's one of two expressions: "Look how lucky that person is to know me," or "Look how lucky I am to know that person." Either way, the focus is on "me." Focus upon what the relationship accomplishes, on the other hand, is actually quite selfless (or can be). Inherent is the acknowledgement that it is not "I" that matter but what I accomplish, how I change the world around me. Suddenly the focus is external.
Applying this concept to Christianity, we need to stop focusing so intensely on how we feel or how we are victimized by popular culture or even how "special" we are. Let us focus on an external. How about God? When we focus on ourselves we are building our lives around nothing of consequence. Do we matter to God? Sure. Does that give us value? Yes, but it is not a value to be proud of for our sakes, but it is instead a testimony to the grace of God. Christian existentialism is as deadly a trap as any other, for it folds us inward and implodes the soul to a spiritual singularity, so very nearly nothing that it cannot love or change or grow. Who we are is of little consequence, what matters is what we do and in whose name. What matters is to whom we surrender ourselves for salvation. What matters is our assimilation into the body of Christ. What matters is our reconciliation to our true purpose. When we simply act in "our best interest" we can never see beyond our collective nose. The impact we have the world around us and our eternal condition is a matter of how well we can turn our attention to God and, eventually, to those around us.
This is how so many of us wind up in Hell.
Perhaps my favorite of C.S. Lewis's books is The Great Divorce, in which he describes why so many people choose Hell. It is a disturbing book, to my mind, for it depicts, with merciless precision and astounding accuracy, the mental and emotional hoops people will leap through to protect our paradigms. Every single condemned soul in the book acts based on what they think will best serve their interests. The artist refuses Heaven because of the loss of "recognition." The philosopher returns to Hell to continue "free inquiry." These examples illustrate how ill-equipped we really are to identify what our best interest is. I think every Ghost in The Great Divorce commits the same underlying error: they all insist on viewing the world through their own biases, ideas, and mental constructs. The purpose of all these abstracts is to distort the universe around them to enhance their own importance. The inability to even identify our best interest lies in our molding the entire world around ourselves.
This peculiar lensing results in an equally peculiar view of the world. Suddenly all that matters is me and the rest of the world is merely some external motion picture I participate in or have to deal with from time to time. Well, guess what? Within seventy years I'll be dead. Odds are, so will you. The world, second coming notwithstanding, will still be here. I suspect that we could avoid many of the problems we experience if we acknowledge that cold and corrosive truth: as individuals we don't actually matter all that much.
One maxim I am thoroughly sick of hearing is the claim that it doesn't matter how much money you make or what car you drive but rather what relationships you form. Friends, family, these are the demigods of secular culture and the true meaning of Christmas. Horse hockey, as Colonel Potter would say. The relationships we form matter no more than the money we earn. What counts is what we do with our relationships and other resources. The attitude that the relationship itself is somehow of value reflects a deep-seated egocentrism. It's one of two expressions: "Look how lucky that person is to know me," or "Look how lucky I am to know that person." Either way, the focus is on "me." Focus upon what the relationship accomplishes, on the other hand, is actually quite selfless (or can be). Inherent is the acknowledgement that it is not "I" that matter but what I accomplish, how I change the world around me. Suddenly the focus is external.
Applying this concept to Christianity, we need to stop focusing so intensely on how we feel or how we are victimized by popular culture or even how "special" we are. Let us focus on an external. How about God? When we focus on ourselves we are building our lives around nothing of consequence. Do we matter to God? Sure. Does that give us value? Yes, but it is not a value to be proud of for our sakes, but it is instead a testimony to the grace of God. Christian existentialism is as deadly a trap as any other, for it folds us inward and implodes the soul to a spiritual singularity, so very nearly nothing that it cannot love or change or grow. Who we are is of little consequence, what matters is what we do and in whose name. What matters is to whom we surrender ourselves for salvation. What matters is our assimilation into the body of Christ. What matters is our reconciliation to our true purpose. When we simply act in "our best interest" we can never see beyond our collective nose. The impact we have the world around us and our eternal condition is a matter of how well we can turn our attention to God and, eventually, to those around us.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Who's on first? (revised for the 21st century)
Adam Smith: So whose money is being used for the stimulus?
Barack Obama: The taxpayers'.
Smith: What will you do with it?
Obama: Spend it.
Smith: What would they do with it?
Obama: Spend it.
Smith: Why is it better that you spend it?
Obama: They might save some of it.
Smith: Don't they need to?
Obama: No. The government gives The People social security for retirement, unemployment, and the measles.
Smith: How does the government pay for this?
Obama: We tax The People.
Smith: So...they don't need to save because the government saves for them?
Obama: No. We make 'em pay FICA taxes and then spend the money.
Smith: So where does the money come from for social security?
Obama: Some people die before they are eligible for benefits.
Smith: Hasn't the population curve changed so more people are living long enough to receive payment relative to those paying social security taxes? People living too long, essentially?
Obama: That's what government health care will fix.
Smith: So you're implementing government health care to kill off people at a younger age?
Obama: No. I'm implementing it to destroy the evil money-grubbing insurance providers.
Smith: And government insurance will be better?
Obama: Sure. The government can afford to operate at a loss, so there is no need for "profits" (which are really wages stolen from the proletariat).
Smith: Who compensates for the loss?
Obama: The taxpayers.
Smith: So doesn't everyone end up paying the same amount they would pay the insurance companies?
Obama: No. I said "the taxpayers," not "everyone." The rich have to cover it.
Smith: Who's rich?
Obama: People who earn over $250,000 a year. Wait, $200,000 a year. Wait, $150,000 a year...
Smith: But aren't these people often the entrepreneurs and investors who drive the economy?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: Why tax them?
Obama: Because it's not fair.
Smith: What's not fair?
Obama: That they make that much money when the average family at the poverty line only owns one television and most are not flatscreens.
Smith: But don't the poor usually not put as much into the economy?
Obama: They contribute just as much, you racist, classist, bourgeois swine.
Smith: Just askin'. What are you going to do about this situation?
Obama: Tax the rich and give to the poor.
Smith: How?
Obama: I'll start by signing a stimulus bill to jump start the economy. I'm also thinking of taking up archery.
Smith: Who gets the stimulus money?
Obama: The rich.
Smith: The rich?
Obama: The rich. Only they have to spend it on groceries. No business jets or office makeovers.
Smith: Or what?
Obama: Or we crucify them on national television before Congress.
Smith: But does it really matter to economic recovery how they spend the money as long as it gets back into the economy?
Obama: No.
Smith: So why do you care how execs spend the stimulus bill?
Obama: Grocers make less money than business jet manufacturers.
Smith: So we're back to wealth redistribution.
Obama: Such a harsh term...I prefer "enhancing socio-economic harmony with emphasis on the appropriate allocation of capital and the benefits there derived."
Smith: What does that mean?
Obama: Wealth redistribution.
Smith: Why not just let the people keep their money and spend it how they choose?
Obama: This way the government has oversight.
Smith: Oversight?
Obama: Oversight.
Smith: What's that?
Obama: Oversight?
Smith: Oversight.
Obama: I actually don't know. I understand it involves czars.
Smith: American or Japanese czars?
Obama: American, of course. I've put a high protective tariff on foreign czars.
Smith: I still don't get why the government should spend the money. Doesn't that mean that less money actually re-enters the necessary sectors?
Obama: Yes. That's why we are putting the Fed rate on the floor and deficit spending at the same time. We are "loosening the money supply."
Smith: Is that basically the same as printing money?
Obama: Yes. But it's more eco-friendly.
Smith: Does that cause inflation?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: Isn't that, well, bad?
Obama: Only for people who have been saving.
Smith: And they should have been counting on social security?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: But how does loosening the money supply actually help the economy?
Obama: It enables people to pay off mortgages.
Smith: Couldn't they pay them off before?
Obama: No.
Smith: Why not?
Obama: They couldn't afford the mortgages.
Smith: Then why did they get large mortgages in the first place?
Obama: People do silly things sometimes. You know, cling to guns and religion, vote Republican, listen to country music, pay attention to Rush Limbaugh...
Smith: And you are rewarding irresponsible finance?
Obama: Hey, hateful bourgeois scum, some of these people can't pay because they lost their jobs.
Smith: How does loosening the money supply help them? Especially if it devalues savings?
Obama: It creates jobs.
Smith: Jobs?
Obama: Jobs.
Smith: Will that work?
Obama: It already has.
Smith: Isn't unemployment at a thirty-year high?
Obama: No, I mean it got me elected.
Smith: Oh.
Obama: But job creation will save the economy.
Smith: If a job is economically viable, won't it already exist?
Obama: No.
Smith: Why not?
Obama: Yes we can!
Smith: Hm?
Obama: Yes we can!
Smith: Your grammar is wrong.
Obama: Well, CHANGE it!
Smith: You need a comma after the "yes." But quit dodging. Won't all economically viable jobs already exist?
Obama: If by "economically viable" you mean present without government intervention, then yes. We can.
Smith: Stop saying that.
Obama: I can do to you what I did to Rush.
Smith: No, you can't. I've been dead for three hundred years.
Obama: Whatever. Facts never really worried me. What matters is getting people employed. Then production will increase. Then the recession will end. Then I'll be crowned--
Smith: Isn't that what FDR tried?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: It didn't work.
Obama: Yes, it did.
Smith: No, it didn't.
Obama: Yes, it did.
Smith: Have you actually read a history book that some leftist professor did not feed you through a straw?
Obama: The Depression ended, didn't it?
Smith: Only because we had to blow up a few other countries (WWII) and needed the spike in production.
Obama: Well, there you go!
Smith: But the need for more production came first. It was followed by job creation.
Obama: In the absence of countries to blow up I propose job creation.
Smith: Shouldn't you encourage new enterprise by, say, cutting the capital gains tax?
Obama: No.
Smith: Why?
Obama: Because it taxes rich people.
Smith: But where will new companies get money if investment is discouraged?
Obama: From the government.
Smith: How is government money better?
Obama: Strings.
Smith: Strings?
Obama: Strings.
Smith: What are strings?
Obama: They enable the government to control the businesses.
Smith: And that's good?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: Why?
Obama: Because it enables the government to control capital and, eventually, all major industries.
Smith: Isn't that what Lenin did?
Obama: Maybe.
Smith: Didn't it fail?
Obama: Only when the government had to start killing peasants.
Smith: And that's okay?
Obama: If the peasants had ever received federal funding, you bet.
Smith: I'm sorry, but none of this is making sense to me.
Obama: Adam, Adam. If you can' t get the basics you'll never earn your degree in economics. And definitely not from a prestigious school like my alma mater.
Smith: Mr. President...
Obama: Yes?
Smith: If I weren't dead I'd be buying plane tickets for Switzerland. At least they admit to being socialists...
Barack Obama: The taxpayers'.
Smith: What will you do with it?
Obama: Spend it.
Smith: What would they do with it?
Obama: Spend it.
Smith: Why is it better that you spend it?
Obama: They might save some of it.
Smith: Don't they need to?
Obama: No. The government gives The People social security for retirement, unemployment, and the measles.
Smith: How does the government pay for this?
Obama: We tax The People.
Smith: So...they don't need to save because the government saves for them?
Obama: No. We make 'em pay FICA taxes and then spend the money.
Smith: So where does the money come from for social security?
Obama: Some people die before they are eligible for benefits.
Smith: Hasn't the population curve changed so more people are living long enough to receive payment relative to those paying social security taxes? People living too long, essentially?
Obama: That's what government health care will fix.
Smith: So you're implementing government health care to kill off people at a younger age?
Obama: No. I'm implementing it to destroy the evil money-grubbing insurance providers.
Smith: And government insurance will be better?
Obama: Sure. The government can afford to operate at a loss, so there is no need for "profits" (which are really wages stolen from the proletariat).
Smith: Who compensates for the loss?
Obama: The taxpayers.
Smith: So doesn't everyone end up paying the same amount they would pay the insurance companies?
Obama: No. I said "the taxpayers," not "everyone." The rich have to cover it.
Smith: Who's rich?
Obama: People who earn over $250,000 a year. Wait, $200,000 a year. Wait, $150,000 a year...
Smith: But aren't these people often the entrepreneurs and investors who drive the economy?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: Why tax them?
Obama: Because it's not fair.
Smith: What's not fair?
Obama: That they make that much money when the average family at the poverty line only owns one television and most are not flatscreens.
Smith: But don't the poor usually not put as much into the economy?
Obama: They contribute just as much, you racist, classist, bourgeois swine.
Smith: Just askin'. What are you going to do about this situation?
Obama: Tax the rich and give to the poor.
Smith: How?
Obama: I'll start by signing a stimulus bill to jump start the economy. I'm also thinking of taking up archery.
Smith: Who gets the stimulus money?
Obama: The rich.
Smith: The rich?
Obama: The rich. Only they have to spend it on groceries. No business jets or office makeovers.
Smith: Or what?
Obama: Or we crucify them on national television before Congress.
Smith: But does it really matter to economic recovery how they spend the money as long as it gets back into the economy?
Obama: No.
Smith: So why do you care how execs spend the stimulus bill?
Obama: Grocers make less money than business jet manufacturers.
Smith: So we're back to wealth redistribution.
Obama: Such a harsh term...I prefer "enhancing socio-economic harmony with emphasis on the appropriate allocation of capital and the benefits there derived."
Smith: What does that mean?
Obama: Wealth redistribution.
Smith: Why not just let the people keep their money and spend it how they choose?
Obama: This way the government has oversight.
Smith: Oversight?
Obama: Oversight.
Smith: What's that?
Obama: Oversight?
Smith: Oversight.
Obama: I actually don't know. I understand it involves czars.
Smith: American or Japanese czars?
Obama: American, of course. I've put a high protective tariff on foreign czars.
Smith: I still don't get why the government should spend the money. Doesn't that mean that less money actually re-enters the necessary sectors?
Obama: Yes. That's why we are putting the Fed rate on the floor and deficit spending at the same time. We are "loosening the money supply."
Smith: Is that basically the same as printing money?
Obama: Yes. But it's more eco-friendly.
Smith: Does that cause inflation?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: Isn't that, well, bad?
Obama: Only for people who have been saving.
Smith: And they should have been counting on social security?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: But how does loosening the money supply actually help the economy?
Obama: It enables people to pay off mortgages.
Smith: Couldn't they pay them off before?
Obama: No.
Smith: Why not?
Obama: They couldn't afford the mortgages.
Smith: Then why did they get large mortgages in the first place?
Obama: People do silly things sometimes. You know, cling to guns and religion, vote Republican, listen to country music, pay attention to Rush Limbaugh...
Smith: And you are rewarding irresponsible finance?
Obama: Hey, hateful bourgeois scum, some of these people can't pay because they lost their jobs.
Smith: How does loosening the money supply help them? Especially if it devalues savings?
Obama: It creates jobs.
Smith: Jobs?
Obama: Jobs.
Smith: Will that work?
Obama: It already has.
Smith: Isn't unemployment at a thirty-year high?
Obama: No, I mean it got me elected.
Smith: Oh.
Obama: But job creation will save the economy.
Smith: If a job is economically viable, won't it already exist?
Obama: No.
Smith: Why not?
Obama: Yes we can!
Smith: Hm?
Obama: Yes we can!
Smith: Your grammar is wrong.
Obama: Well, CHANGE it!
Smith: You need a comma after the "yes." But quit dodging. Won't all economically viable jobs already exist?
Obama: If by "economically viable" you mean present without government intervention, then yes. We can.
Smith: Stop saying that.
Obama: I can do to you what I did to Rush.
Smith: No, you can't. I've been dead for three hundred years.
Obama: Whatever. Facts never really worried me. What matters is getting people employed. Then production will increase. Then the recession will end. Then I'll be crowned--
Smith: Isn't that what FDR tried?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: It didn't work.
Obama: Yes, it did.
Smith: No, it didn't.
Obama: Yes, it did.
Smith: Have you actually read a history book that some leftist professor did not feed you through a straw?
Obama: The Depression ended, didn't it?
Smith: Only because we had to blow up a few other countries (WWII) and needed the spike in production.
Obama: Well, there you go!
Smith: But the need for more production came first. It was followed by job creation.
Obama: In the absence of countries to blow up I propose job creation.
Smith: Shouldn't you encourage new enterprise by, say, cutting the capital gains tax?
Obama: No.
Smith: Why?
Obama: Because it taxes rich people.
Smith: But where will new companies get money if investment is discouraged?
Obama: From the government.
Smith: How is government money better?
Obama: Strings.
Smith: Strings?
Obama: Strings.
Smith: What are strings?
Obama: They enable the government to control the businesses.
Smith: And that's good?
Obama: Yes.
Smith: Why?
Obama: Because it enables the government to control capital and, eventually, all major industries.
Smith: Isn't that what Lenin did?
Obama: Maybe.
Smith: Didn't it fail?
Obama: Only when the government had to start killing peasants.
Smith: And that's okay?
Obama: If the peasants had ever received federal funding, you bet.
Smith: I'm sorry, but none of this is making sense to me.
Obama: Adam, Adam. If you can' t get the basics you'll never earn your degree in economics. And definitely not from a prestigious school like my alma mater.
Smith: Mr. President...
Obama: Yes?
Smith: If I weren't dead I'd be buying plane tickets for Switzerland. At least they admit to being socialists...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
