Well, here it is, my final post. I would say that some of you would be happy but, truth be told, I'm not sure anyone is reading anymore, and those that are probably wold be sad to see me go. Thank you my kindhearted friends for supporting me with your comments and ideas.
I tried to fulfil my promise to be as close to unbiased as I could while still retaining my sanity and no one seemed to object too much. I also fulfilled my promise that if you ever came up with a flaw in my arguments that I would address it. I'm proud of this blog, as little difference as it made. And so, along with my blog, I bid one final toast...
Farewell my dear friend, Voice.
We are in an interesting age, one where we can find any number of opinions, facts, counter-facts, and stories. We are surrounded by information, the cheapest to create and yet the most valuable commodity we can have.
And yet...
With so much information ringing for our attention its a wonder more people don't go crazy. It's all so much to keep track of, not to mention how much of it is suspect. The Internet has opened up a new age for human kind but I think that we are still living, largely, in the old age. We don't know who to trust and leap to conclusions all at the same time. Our lives grow more and more busy and stressful with each passing day while our economy spirals into oblivion. Lies surround us and the truth hides because we don't really want to know, it might be too much.
With the ringing of a thousand voices we can hardly tell the good from the bad anymore, but there is still hope. when it all comes down to it, in the end, we can still make a difference.
With that in mind i leave you with this parting advice...
Be courageous in the pursuit of peace
Be loving in the pursuit of victory
Be understanding in the pursuit of justice
Be accepting in the pursuit of truth
Be prepared to take the consequences of your actions
Be unafraid to act none the less
But most of all
Keep thinking, cause no one will ever have the answers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Keep Thinking
-Arno
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
... about government.
Forgive me if I seem a bit off, I've been very sick lately and working very hard.
I've been studying the US government for quite a while now while at the same time researching and writing stories about ancient civilizations. Worldbuilding has become somewhat of a hobby of mine of late and it's led be to an interesting conclusion.
There are some pretty good things about dictatorships.
(I know you're shocked but here me out, this will end differently than you might think.)
Don't get me wrong, democracy is cool too. Rights and freedoms being protected by a thick wall of laws that even the government cannot (supposedly) surpass are awesome, but a wise man once told me that the thing that democracies to the best is get nothing accomplished. We become so tied up in red tape that we can't get ANYTHING done to try to advance ourselves as a people. Having a democracy also means that the laws are subject to the votes of the stupid, the ignorant, the prejudiced and the evil people among us, meaning that we will only really ever be slightly better than our lowest common denominator.
Dictatorships, on the other hand, don't have to mess with all of that. No fussing about with opinion polls, no being forced to listen to the inane prattle of racist hillbillies. Things can get DONE.
We do, however, trade freedom for efficiency. They say that despots keep the trains running on time.
perhaps I'm just getting fed up with how hands-off my hands-on government is seeming lately. Nice, normal, decent folk are too busy trying to put food on the table so our laws rest largely in the hands of the absurdly wealthy and the zealous fanatics, the two people I trust the least.
I've come to the conclusion that the only way to have a perfect government is to have a truly benevolent dictatorship. The dictator would have to understand everything, know everything, care about everyone and know how to get things done with an absolute mindfulness towards helping everyone.
In short, we'd need a god. No one mortal cold embody these things, and since no god is coming down to do it (and theocracies are led by men who speak for god but not the god itself), we can never have a perfect government.
So what? So we cant be perfect, what else is new?
The only thing to do is the only thing we can, try our best. Try to be reasonable. Try to be loving. Understand that we may be wrong and work to make it right. Look out for one anothers rights and choices, even if we don't necessarily agree with them. Exercise some moral and political courage.
That's all anyone can ask.
I've been studying the US government for quite a while now while at the same time researching and writing stories about ancient civilizations. Worldbuilding has become somewhat of a hobby of mine of late and it's led be to an interesting conclusion.
There are some pretty good things about dictatorships.
(I know you're shocked but here me out, this will end differently than you might think.)
Don't get me wrong, democracy is cool too. Rights and freedoms being protected by a thick wall of laws that even the government cannot (supposedly) surpass are awesome, but a wise man once told me that the thing that democracies to the best is get nothing accomplished. We become so tied up in red tape that we can't get ANYTHING done to try to advance ourselves as a people. Having a democracy also means that the laws are subject to the votes of the stupid, the ignorant, the prejudiced and the evil people among us, meaning that we will only really ever be slightly better than our lowest common denominator.
Dictatorships, on the other hand, don't have to mess with all of that. No fussing about with opinion polls, no being forced to listen to the inane prattle of racist hillbillies. Things can get DONE.
We do, however, trade freedom for efficiency. They say that despots keep the trains running on time.
perhaps I'm just getting fed up with how hands-off my hands-on government is seeming lately. Nice, normal, decent folk are too busy trying to put food on the table so our laws rest largely in the hands of the absurdly wealthy and the zealous fanatics, the two people I trust the least.
I've come to the conclusion that the only way to have a perfect government is to have a truly benevolent dictatorship. The dictator would have to understand everything, know everything, care about everyone and know how to get things done with an absolute mindfulness towards helping everyone.
In short, we'd need a god. No one mortal cold embody these things, and since no god is coming down to do it (and theocracies are led by men who speak for god but not the god itself), we can never have a perfect government.
So what? So we cant be perfect, what else is new?
The only thing to do is the only thing we can, try our best. Try to be reasonable. Try to be loving. Understand that we may be wrong and work to make it right. Look out for one anothers rights and choices, even if we don't necessarily agree with them. Exercise some moral and political courage.
That's all anyone can ask.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
... about the power of belief.
This one is guaranteed to offend SOMEONE, so apologies in advance. We all have our opinion, this one just contains mine.
Today is the National Day of Prayer, the first Thursday of May. This is an interesting custom to say the least, especially in a nation like this one. Looking at newscasts and other media covering this day devoted to deism it made me wonder...
Were we founded as (and thus are we) a Christian nation?
This is a topic covered largely at the front end of the class for which I write this blog, but I feel today that it is especially to bring up. After much deliberation in the class we all walked back to our corners with bloodied scars, all clinging to our own beliefs. Indeed, if men have died over the debate of how God should be involved in the rights of man, IF God should be involved can spark even more ire. from that discussion, and from the book Founding Faith, i came to this conclusion.
No.
We are a nation FOUNDED by Christians. There's a difference.
My logic goes as follows. Contrary to the romanticized version, our forefathers were not of one mind about God or His place in government. Each member of the founders was of a one belief or another and the only way that they could agree to all work together was to make sure that no one of themwould have an advantage. THAT, I feel, is the real core behind equal rights and the First Amendment's clause prohibiting the government from favoring one church over another.
Since then, we have come to the understanding that this was a core belief, equality, and I agree. Whatever created the idea it has spawned something we hold dear, and that ideal is something to be protected.
This is an example of a theeory I'm working on, that "what actually happened is less important than what we think happened, or how we remember it, and how that memory effects us."
What do you think?
Today is the National Day of Prayer, the first Thursday of May. This is an interesting custom to say the least, especially in a nation like this one. Looking at newscasts and other media covering this day devoted to deism it made me wonder...
Were we founded as (and thus are we) a Christian nation?
This is a topic covered largely at the front end of the class for which I write this blog, but I feel today that it is especially to bring up. After much deliberation in the class we all walked back to our corners with bloodied scars, all clinging to our own beliefs. Indeed, if men have died over the debate of how God should be involved in the rights of man, IF God should be involved can spark even more ire. from that discussion, and from the book Founding Faith, i came to this conclusion.
No.
We are a nation FOUNDED by Christians. There's a difference.
My logic goes as follows. Contrary to the romanticized version, our forefathers were not of one mind about God or His place in government. Each member of the founders was of a one belief or another and the only way that they could agree to all work together was to make sure that no one of themwould have an advantage. THAT, I feel, is the real core behind equal rights and the First Amendment's clause prohibiting the government from favoring one church over another.
Since then, we have come to the understanding that this was a core belief, equality, and I agree. Whatever created the idea it has spawned something we hold dear, and that ideal is something to be protected.
This is an example of a theeory I'm working on, that "what actually happened is less important than what we think happened, or how we remember it, and how that memory effects us."
What do you think?
Sunday, May 3, 2009
... about school.
Another less serious post. Can't all be zingers.
Well, the year is winding down and my time here is drawing ever closer to a close. This suits me just fine, not because I wont miss this, but because I wont be forced to worry about it. That's really the major problem for me, forcing me to worry about things. It shows up in just about every class I'm in, even my English classes. I love reading, I eat books up regularly, but if you assign me one to read I don't even want to crack the cover.It's sad, but true and a lot of my friends agree with me.
What's my answer, you ask? Well, for once, I don't have one. Having students assign their own reading seems like an easily legitimized excuse for laziness. While it is legitimate strategy and can be productive at making children read when they normally would not I could read the same book in every English class and never get any better.
This isn't to say that the alternative is that great... the popularity of websites like sparknotes and the like make reading all but unnecessary for most books, not to mention wikipedia (though to be fair I use it often for outlines). Lastly there's the simple fact that any clever student worth their salt can pull information off the students who are actually doing the work in groups without doing any work themselves. This bothers me, since, throughout high school I was the one being coppied off of.
School is a tough one, one we all worry about. Are children learning what we want them to? do we want them to be learning what they really should be learning? Are teachers doing enough?Are they forced to do to much? Are administrators acting too much like parents? Are parents not acting enough like teachers?
So many questions... I cant answer them all, esspecially with the stress of finals coming up.
So I open the flore to discussion on the topic. Rip away, I'll answer if I can in later posts.
Well, the year is winding down and my time here is drawing ever closer to a close. This suits me just fine, not because I wont miss this, but because I wont be forced to worry about it. That's really the major problem for me, forcing me to worry about things. It shows up in just about every class I'm in, even my English classes. I love reading, I eat books up regularly, but if you assign me one to read I don't even want to crack the cover.It's sad, but true and a lot of my friends agree with me.
What's my answer, you ask? Well, for once, I don't have one. Having students assign their own reading seems like an easily legitimized excuse for laziness. While it is legitimate strategy and can be productive at making children read when they normally would not I could read the same book in every English class and never get any better.
This isn't to say that the alternative is that great... the popularity of websites like sparknotes and the like make reading all but unnecessary for most books, not to mention wikipedia (though to be fair I use it often for outlines). Lastly there's the simple fact that any clever student worth their salt can pull information off the students who are actually doing the work in groups without doing any work themselves. This bothers me, since, throughout high school I was the one being coppied off of.
School is a tough one, one we all worry about. Are children learning what we want them to? do we want them to be learning what they really should be learning? Are teachers doing enough?Are they forced to do to much? Are administrators acting too much like parents? Are parents not acting enough like teachers?
So many questions... I cant answer them all, esspecially with the stress of finals coming up.
So I open the flore to discussion on the topic. Rip away, I'll answer if I can in later posts.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
... about regulations.
I've always wondered if our government actually looked at some of the things it has done, and now that I sit here with a $1 check as a tax return, I'm fairly certain that it doesn't. Surely it must have cost more than a dollar to send this out to me. Is that money and time well spent?
It got me thinking though...
Is it the actual money that's important or the principle of paying me back no matter the amount?
On the one hand, we have the idea that a one dollar check is somewhat ridiculous, probably not cost effective, and likely more of a hassle to deal with than it's worth. I mean, the thing can hardly buy a single candy bar. While I appreciate being in the positive while others are paying quite a bit of money, I'm more interested in how printing up, sending out, delivering, and cashing a $1 check is cost effective for anyone involved (besides me).
That being said, there's something to be said for following regulations even in seemingly stupid situations. Looking at my description of 'stupid' alone tells us that the line that I've drawn here is quite arbitrary and solely of my own invention, leaving me to ask, am I qualified to answer where to draw this line for others?
In short, no. No I'm not.
Really, when you think about it, one dollar may be nothing to me, but everything to someone else. On an even more basic reading, if we were to draw a line, where would it be? $1? $10? $100? wherever we drew the line would be arbitrary in any case.
Finally, following procedures like this shows us an equality of nature, stating boldly that, no matter how large or small your taxes or return, you will receive it just like everyone else, and in a free and equal society, should we expect any different?
It got me thinking though...
Is it the actual money that's important or the principle of paying me back no matter the amount?
On the one hand, we have the idea that a one dollar check is somewhat ridiculous, probably not cost effective, and likely more of a hassle to deal with than it's worth. I mean, the thing can hardly buy a single candy bar. While I appreciate being in the positive while others are paying quite a bit of money, I'm more interested in how printing up, sending out, delivering, and cashing a $1 check is cost effective for anyone involved (besides me).
That being said, there's something to be said for following regulations even in seemingly stupid situations. Looking at my description of 'stupid' alone tells us that the line that I've drawn here is quite arbitrary and solely of my own invention, leaving me to ask, am I qualified to answer where to draw this line for others?
In short, no. No I'm not.
Really, when you think about it, one dollar may be nothing to me, but everything to someone else. On an even more basic reading, if we were to draw a line, where would it be? $1? $10? $100? wherever we drew the line would be arbitrary in any case.
Finally, following procedures like this shows us an equality of nature, stating boldly that, no matter how large or small your taxes or return, you will receive it just like everyone else, and in a free and equal society, should we expect any different?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
... about stress.
Lately I've noticed that I've been tired all te time. I know I'm not in the best shape of my life, but I'm still in my early twenties, how is this being tired all the time a good thing? Even when I sleep in for hours I still feel exhausted. It got me thinking though...
Are we stressing out too much?
I read in the paper the other day about this new thing called the Pig Flu or something, and when I turned on the news I was greeted by pictures of people wearing those thin paper masks that could have been recycled footage of the SARS scare.
Maybe it's lack of sleep or rushing over finals but I've got to say that freaking out about another classification of the flu is the least of our worries at this point. I saw an epidemic map covering a large land mass covered in bright red that said "6 people." Six people...
Are we making this into a mountain when it should be an ambitious molehill at best? Thousands of people die every year from the flu just here in America. Think about all the people who die in car accidents, do we call that an epidemic? If I said a 10,000 people died in car wrecks in 2007, would you say "ooh that's terrible" or "sounds about right"? Honestly?
Interesting, cause here's the real answer.
Surprised? You'd think we would hear more about these things, wouldn't you?
If we're stressed about things like Pig Flu to the point of hysteria and ignoring the things that are actually and regularly killing us then we need to straighten out out priorities. I know that the new and dangerous things sell news copy but come on! let's try and keep things focused shall we?
Maybe if I could stop worrying about anthrax/SARS/Avian plague/Pig Pox or whatever new thing we're supposed to be scared of is I might be able to get some sleep.
Are we stressing out too much?
I read in the paper the other day about this new thing called the Pig Flu or something, and when I turned on the news I was greeted by pictures of people wearing those thin paper masks that could have been recycled footage of the SARS scare.
Maybe it's lack of sleep or rushing over finals but I've got to say that freaking out about another classification of the flu is the least of our worries at this point. I saw an epidemic map covering a large land mass covered in bright red that said "6 people." Six people...
Are we making this into a mountain when it should be an ambitious molehill at best? Thousands of people die every year from the flu just here in America. Think about all the people who die in car accidents, do we call that an epidemic? If I said a 10,000 people died in car wrecks in 2007, would you say "ooh that's terrible" or "sounds about right"? Honestly?
Interesting, cause here's the real answer.
Surprised? You'd think we would hear more about these things, wouldn't you?
If we're stressed about things like Pig Flu to the point of hysteria and ignoring the things that are actually and regularly killing us then we need to straighten out out priorities. I know that the new and dangerous things sell news copy but come on! let's try and keep things focused shall we?
Maybe if I could stop worrying about anthrax/SARS/Avian plague/Pig Pox or whatever new thing we're supposed to be scared of is I might be able to get some sleep.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
... about Lawyers.
Let me pose a hypothetical for all you law majors out there.
Let's say that you are representing the defense of a man accused of murdering his wife. The evidence is up in the air as to whether or not he did it and you've taken the case. Everything is going fine until evidence comes to you, and only you, that proves beyond all doubt your client guilty. You are the only one who knows the evidence exists, and the only on that will know if you don't tell anyone.
Here's the question:
Which oath do you follow? upholding justice? or your oath to your client that you would defend them to the best of your ability?
I realize that this question is one that could be fairly easy to some of us, but it brings up an interesting point observation. If we side with one, we abandon the other. While we do have an obligation to the truth, does that render our oath of service superfluous?
Where does our place lie?
Just a thought.
Here's another: The placement of juries.
This isn't about simple geography, but rather many of the risks that having a human jury entail. The question of having robotic juries came up in my philosophy class and I felt it would be interesting to bring up here. What would be the consequences of having a robot jury? Many of our laws are written in black and white and any lawyer worth their salt will tell you that witness testimony is the most compelling and the least reliable because of it's fallibility vs. it's emotional persuasiveness.
Would it be better to have a robot who wouldn't be swayed by emotions?
I'd like to hear your opinions here too.
Let's say that you are representing the defense of a man accused of murdering his wife. The evidence is up in the air as to whether or not he did it and you've taken the case. Everything is going fine until evidence comes to you, and only you, that proves beyond all doubt your client guilty. You are the only one who knows the evidence exists, and the only on that will know if you don't tell anyone.
Here's the question:
Which oath do you follow? upholding justice? or your oath to your client that you would defend them to the best of your ability?
I realize that this question is one that could be fairly easy to some of us, but it brings up an interesting point observation. If we side with one, we abandon the other. While we do have an obligation to the truth, does that render our oath of service superfluous?
Where does our place lie?
Just a thought.
Here's another: The placement of juries.
This isn't about simple geography, but rather many of the risks that having a human jury entail. The question of having robotic juries came up in my philosophy class and I felt it would be interesting to bring up here. What would be the consequences of having a robot jury? Many of our laws are written in black and white and any lawyer worth their salt will tell you that witness testimony is the most compelling and the least reliable because of it's fallibility vs. it's emotional persuasiveness.
Would it be better to have a robot who wouldn't be swayed by emotions?
I'd like to hear your opinions here too.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
... about Yellow Cake?
Okay, so maybe this one isn't quite as serious as most of my other posts, but this issue came up a while ago and just blew my mind.
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGvObreAqtc
Wait... WHAT!?!
WHY DO THEY HAVE YELLOWCAKE?!?
*takes a breath, collects himself*
Okay. So there were three things that caught my attention in that little snippet:
1: That the back had the stuff at all.
2: That it got the license for it a month before going under.
3: Why they hadn't sold it.
So, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure that people in banking, especially securities, need to back up their investments and cash flow with all kinds of collateral. Investing in any material which you could then sell to get yourself out of a pinch financially. I get that...
... but Uranium?
Sure the stuff can be handy (it's used in nuclear reactors as well as weapons) and it's all over the place, making it an easily accessible resource to buy and something that could be used world wide as collateral for anyone with nuclear reactors...
... or an in the works nuclear weapons program.
I just wonder what these guy were thinking.
"Well it looks like we're going under, but I know what will save us!" says one banker to another, "Let's invest in Uranium!'
Didn't someone at the table look at this guy like he was stoned?
Also, is it just me who thinks that, of the banks we let slip through the financial cracks, we let slip the one capable of selling nuclear materials. The only reason they haven't sold the stuff is because they're waiting for the market to make doing so more profitable.
This blows my mind. I mean what if they got desperate enough to sell them the stuff? how many enemies do we have that would love to get their hands on it? What would happen if it fell into the wrong hands?
Am I the only person who thinks this whole thing is like some kind of sad, twisted joke?
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGvObreAqtc
Wait... WHAT!?!
WHY DO THEY HAVE YELLOWCAKE?!?
*takes a breath, collects himself*
Okay. So there were three things that caught my attention in that little snippet:
1: That the back had the stuff at all.
2: That it got the license for it a month before going under.
3: Why they hadn't sold it.
So, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure that people in banking, especially securities, need to back up their investments and cash flow with all kinds of collateral. Investing in any material which you could then sell to get yourself out of a pinch financially. I get that...
... but Uranium?
Sure the stuff can be handy (it's used in nuclear reactors as well as weapons) and it's all over the place, making it an easily accessible resource to buy and something that could be used world wide as collateral for anyone with nuclear reactors...
... or an in the works nuclear weapons program.
I just wonder what these guy were thinking.
"Well it looks like we're going under, but I know what will save us!" says one banker to another, "Let's invest in Uranium!'
Didn't someone at the table look at this guy like he was stoned?
Also, is it just me who thinks that, of the banks we let slip through the financial cracks, we let slip the one capable of selling nuclear materials. The only reason they haven't sold the stuff is because they're waiting for the market to make doing so more profitable.
This blows my mind. I mean what if they got desperate enough to sell them the stuff? how many enemies do we have that would love to get their hands on it? What would happen if it fell into the wrong hands?
Am I the only person who thinks this whole thing is like some kind of sad, twisted joke?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
... about my last entry (pt 2)
A while back I had a discussion with a professor of mine concerning the arguments I made concerning legislating morality. She managed to point out a few things that I feel I, as a sensible person, should address.
Part 2: Legislating Morality
I realize that it may be somewhat counter-intuitive to refute the central point of an entire argument as a form of revision, especially when the one revising is the one who wrote the argument in the first place. When I wrote my first entry on legislating morality I made the mistake of getting overly emotional and I believe it hurt my case and after some thinking I believe that I expressed myself incorrectly. I said "don't legislate my morality" without stopping to think what legislation actually is. Having spent some time wrestling with the subject I would like to make this argument:
All Laws are legislated morality to one degree or another.
While this comment may seem to derail my previous one entirely, and in some ways it does, allow me to continue.
What is an act of legislation? It is the signing of a bill into law and the execution of that law. This process is, ideally, a representation of the will of the people. Another option we have in California is the Ballot Proposition where people directly vote during on amendments to the State Constitution (for a look at the California State Constitution, see here). In both cases, the laws being put into effect (or being changed) are being done so by the will of the people. This is the very nature of the democratic process.
So how can my request stand in the face of this? With a few caveats I can say it in two words:
Moral Relativism.
Let me explain...
Firstly there is one interpretation of "don't legislate my morality" is one I can stand behind, which is the idea that people shouldn't tell me what I am supposed to think is right. We are a free society, one where everyone is entitled to their opinion and no opinion is favored over another, be it religious, political or your favorite sports team. So when laws are passed which restrict the freedoms of some based solely on the idea that a different group says the first group is being wrong/sinful/whatever, we have to be wary. If I could get away with taking away your rights just because I didn't like what you had to say/what you do/what you believe, such actions would be a travesty of freedom, and yet, with things such as bans on Gay marriage, we allow it to happen.
Secondly, (though this is really just an expansion on the first), in a free society, it is not the place of the government to tell me which religious ideals I should follow. If one religion says that I shouldn't eat red meat, and another says that I can it is not the place of the government to make that decision for me. The same goes with what is sinful behavior.
When determining what laws should be passed we must take into account what freedom we are limiting and why we are limiting them. All to often we take for granted that what we think is right is only what we each, individually, think is right. As a free society we are gifted in the fact that we are all able to believe, act, and follow whatever ideals or religions we want. We must also, however, be accepting of the beliefs of others and realize that they have as much of a right to believe what they do as we do ourselves. If you truly think that Gay marriage is a sin than I say again, don't marry someone of the same sex. Know, however, that whatever you may believe, it is not your place to make that decision for someone else, or judge them for it.
Let's not forget Luke 6:37
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"
If there are any other perspectives you would like addressed, don't hesitate to ask. I'll do the best I can.
Part 2: Legislating Morality
I realize that it may be somewhat counter-intuitive to refute the central point of an entire argument as a form of revision, especially when the one revising is the one who wrote the argument in the first place. When I wrote my first entry on legislating morality I made the mistake of getting overly emotional and I believe it hurt my case and after some thinking I believe that I expressed myself incorrectly. I said "don't legislate my morality" without stopping to think what legislation actually is. Having spent some time wrestling with the subject I would like to make this argument:
All Laws are legislated morality to one degree or another.
While this comment may seem to derail my previous one entirely, and in some ways it does, allow me to continue.
What is an act of legislation? It is the signing of a bill into law and the execution of that law. This process is, ideally, a representation of the will of the people. Another option we have in California is the Ballot Proposition where people directly vote during on amendments to the State Constitution (for a look at the California State Constitution, see here). In both cases, the laws being put into effect (or being changed) are being done so by the will of the people. This is the very nature of the democratic process.
So how can my request stand in the face of this? With a few caveats I can say it in two words:
Moral Relativism.
Let me explain...
Firstly there is one interpretation of "don't legislate my morality" is one I can stand behind, which is the idea that people shouldn't tell me what I am supposed to think is right. We are a free society, one where everyone is entitled to their opinion and no opinion is favored over another, be it religious, political or your favorite sports team. So when laws are passed which restrict the freedoms of some based solely on the idea that a different group says the first group is being wrong/sinful/whatever, we have to be wary. If I could get away with taking away your rights just because I didn't like what you had to say/what you do/what you believe, such actions would be a travesty of freedom, and yet, with things such as bans on Gay marriage, we allow it to happen.
Secondly, (though this is really just an expansion on the first), in a free society, it is not the place of the government to tell me which religious ideals I should follow. If one religion says that I shouldn't eat red meat, and another says that I can it is not the place of the government to make that decision for me. The same goes with what is sinful behavior.
When determining what laws should be passed we must take into account what freedom we are limiting and why we are limiting them. All to often we take for granted that what we think is right is only what we each, individually, think is right. As a free society we are gifted in the fact that we are all able to believe, act, and follow whatever ideals or religions we want. We must also, however, be accepting of the beliefs of others and realize that they have as much of a right to believe what they do as we do ourselves. If you truly think that Gay marriage is a sin than I say again, don't marry someone of the same sex. Know, however, that whatever you may believe, it is not your place to make that decision for someone else, or judge them for it.
Let's not forget Luke 6:37
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"
If there are any other perspectives you would like addressed, don't hesitate to ask. I'll do the best I can.
Monday, April 6, 2009
A Personal Update.
Mid-February this year my computer fried itself while looking at a landscape on Deviant Art. Already an old computer, I opted to replace it rather than refurbish it. This choice, however, led to a series of unfortunately timed mishaps leaving me largely without access to the Internet until just today. Having lost quite a bit of ground on my necessary assignments, as well as my personal commitment to the site, I will endeavor to make up for lost time. I look forward to sparking arguments again. See you there.
...about my last entry.
I had a discussion with a philosophy teacher not too long about about my last entry in this blog who pointed out a few things that I feel I should address.
Today's topic: The issue of Abortion.
Perhaps with my somewhat carefree lifestyle I had never fully contemplated the perspectives of those who stand against abortion on principle. To them, largely, abortion is nothing short of murder for the sake of convenience, akin to running over a pedestrian just because he was in your way.
I'll fully admit that, for a time, I was swayed by the argument on a philosophic level and was unable to come up with a suitable counter argument that wasn't just "no it's not." If one considered that life was being extinguished here than the case would be pre-meditated taking of a life.
A more structured argument came to me after following this train of thought, however. Having an abortion would only be considered murder if life was terminated. The termination is a given, but, as the spark of this argument knows, there is no hard and fast evidence pointing to when exactly (an important word in legal and biological circles) the line between non-life and life is drawn. That line, like so many others, is quite arbitrary. An argument could be made that life only begins at the birth of the child in question and another argument (though most might find it a bit silly) could be made that life is present even before the fertilization process (I call this thee Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" defense, silly, but arguable).
Because there is no hard and fast line between non-life and full-life that we can all agree on, it comes to us as individuals to draw that conclusion ourselves; basically, opinions.
My opinion is this, if we cannot reach a common consensus that we should leave it, legally, in the hands of the women who are making the choices themselves. If they are guided by their conscience to refrain from having an abortion then no power should force them to, but if they feel it is necessary to do so than those that are anti-abortion in such situations should keep their noses out of other people's business.
As a nation of freedoms, we are also a nation of choices, and, while I do not advocate murder, I understand that the conditions that we have for labeling murder as it is are ones that we can all (for the most part) agree on. This debate, on the other hand, is still in the works, with so many different perspectives and differing arguments stemming from such varied places, it's a bit early in the game to call the winner. I feel that until we can reach some compromise, some consensus that makes all parties involved happy (to some degree) then, in order to remain a nation of freedom, we must write laws which err on the side of choice rather than prescribed doctrine. I know that there are many out there who disagree with me but the fact that there are so many opinions is the very reason that I feel we should keep choice as the law on the books, regardless of what we each individually believe.
Individual beliefs... this strikes of Moral Relativism. More on that next time.
Today's topic: The issue of Abortion.
Perhaps with my somewhat carefree lifestyle I had never fully contemplated the perspectives of those who stand against abortion on principle. To them, largely, abortion is nothing short of murder for the sake of convenience, akin to running over a pedestrian just because he was in your way.
I'll fully admit that, for a time, I was swayed by the argument on a philosophic level and was unable to come up with a suitable counter argument that wasn't just "no it's not." If one considered that life was being extinguished here than the case would be pre-meditated taking of a life.
A more structured argument came to me after following this train of thought, however. Having an abortion would only be considered murder if life was terminated. The termination is a given, but, as the spark of this argument knows, there is no hard and fast evidence pointing to when exactly (an important word in legal and biological circles) the line between non-life and life is drawn. That line, like so many others, is quite arbitrary. An argument could be made that life only begins at the birth of the child in question and another argument (though most might find it a bit silly) could be made that life is present even before the fertilization process (I call this thee Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" defense, silly, but arguable).
Because there is no hard and fast line between non-life and full-life that we can all agree on, it comes to us as individuals to draw that conclusion ourselves; basically, opinions.
My opinion is this, if we cannot reach a common consensus that we should leave it, legally, in the hands of the women who are making the choices themselves. If they are guided by their conscience to refrain from having an abortion then no power should force them to, but if they feel it is necessary to do so than those that are anti-abortion in such situations should keep their noses out of other people's business.
As a nation of freedoms, we are also a nation of choices, and, while I do not advocate murder, I understand that the conditions that we have for labeling murder as it is are ones that we can all (for the most part) agree on. This debate, on the other hand, is still in the works, with so many different perspectives and differing arguments stemming from such varied places, it's a bit early in the game to call the winner. I feel that until we can reach some compromise, some consensus that makes all parties involved happy (to some degree) then, in order to remain a nation of freedom, we must write laws which err on the side of choice rather than prescribed doctrine. I know that there are many out there who disagree with me but the fact that there are so many opinions is the very reason that I feel we should keep choice as the law on the books, regardless of what we each individually believe.
Individual beliefs... this strikes of Moral Relativism. More on that next time.
Monday, February 23, 2009
...about legislating moral behavior.
Politically I consider myself a left swinging fence sitter. Despite the fact that the "center" of the political spectrum has been slowly moving right, making me seem more and more like a frothing zealot, I still actually consider myself a bit more centrist than many of my friends.
In many ways I am a liberal (I'm for gay marriage, for taxation for my representation, etc.), but I'm, sadly, not the all accepting, respecting of every life choice kind of person that some of my friends think I should be. No, I don't want people smoking, doing drugs or drinking; they're all terrible things. I don't think that abortion is a good thing either. I don't feel that every opinion is equal (ex. racist groups, religious fanatics, hate speech in general). I feel very strongly about these things as a moral human being, but I have an important thing to say on the subject:
DON'T LEGISLATE MY MORALITY!
We are, all of us, free to have, hold dear, and express our opinions, but while I believe that smoking (pot or nicotine) is a terrible wrong I don't think that the acts should be outlawed because I recognize that it is MY opinion and I might be wrong.
Abortion is another, more volatile, aspect of this idea of mine. I know people who have had abortions. I personally think they are horrendous practices but whether or not someone should or shouldn't have one is NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE. Even if I had the power to put my feelings into law I wouldn't make the action illegal because the "right" to make decisions for others is so blatantly un-American, so terrifyingly close to despotism, that I could never do it and deplore those who would.
On the other side of the coin, I personally believe that any couple more than replacing themselves in the world populous (i.e. having more than one child per parent) is fundimentally wrong and is an outdated practice held over from when the survivability of children had a much larger chance of death. That being said, I don't think it's my right to FORCE others to believe as I do with laws that would enforce this morality. My opinions would be infringing on the safties, freedoms and lives of others.
(warning: incoming rant... well, harsher rant)
Gay marriage is the ultimate subject that angers me on this topic. I don't care who says what about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, if you think that gay marriage is wrong then don't marry someone of the same sex. It is absolutely not your place to make that decision for someone else, regardless of your beliefs. What if my religion (one I'm making up but, for the sake of argument, I believe in just a firmly) said that streigt marriage was against God's will? Who's beliefs should we go with?
*huff puff*
Sorry, I know that I promised to try and keep my emotons down, but I'm human and can make mistakes.
So can you.
So next time you think that a law should be put in place to legislate morality, remember that we all have a right to believe what we want and to impose our beliefs on others by law is tyranny. Your opinion might be wrong, and even if there's a passage in a holy book that backs your argument, not everyone believes in that book, and they have a right not to.
In many ways I am a liberal (I'm for gay marriage, for taxation for my representation, etc.), but I'm, sadly, not the all accepting, respecting of every life choice kind of person that some of my friends think I should be. No, I don't want people smoking, doing drugs or drinking; they're all terrible things. I don't think that abortion is a good thing either. I don't feel that every opinion is equal (ex. racist groups, religious fanatics, hate speech in general). I feel very strongly about these things as a moral human being, but I have an important thing to say on the subject:
DON'T LEGISLATE MY MORALITY!
We are, all of us, free to have, hold dear, and express our opinions, but while I believe that smoking (pot or nicotine) is a terrible wrong I don't think that the acts should be outlawed because I recognize that it is MY opinion and I might be wrong.
Abortion is another, more volatile, aspect of this idea of mine. I know people who have had abortions. I personally think they are horrendous practices but whether or not someone should or shouldn't have one is NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE. Even if I had the power to put my feelings into law I wouldn't make the action illegal because the "right" to make decisions for others is so blatantly un-American, so terrifyingly close to despotism, that I could never do it and deplore those who would.
On the other side of the coin, I personally believe that any couple more than replacing themselves in the world populous (i.e. having more than one child per parent) is fundimentally wrong and is an outdated practice held over from when the survivability of children had a much larger chance of death. That being said, I don't think it's my right to FORCE others to believe as I do with laws that would enforce this morality. My opinions would be infringing on the safties, freedoms and lives of others.
(warning: incoming rant... well, harsher rant)
Gay marriage is the ultimate subject that angers me on this topic. I don't care who says what about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, if you think that gay marriage is wrong then don't marry someone of the same sex. It is absolutely not your place to make that decision for someone else, regardless of your beliefs. What if my religion (one I'm making up but, for the sake of argument, I believe in just a firmly) said that streigt marriage was against God's will? Who's beliefs should we go with?
*huff puff*
Sorry, I know that I promised to try and keep my emotons down, but I'm human and can make mistakes.
So can you.
So next time you think that a law should be put in place to legislate morality, remember that we all have a right to believe what we want and to impose our beliefs on others by law is tyranny. Your opinion might be wrong, and even if there's a passage in a holy book that backs your argument, not everyone believes in that book, and they have a right not to.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
... about what a nation is.
Here's a lotty subject that's likely to turn heads so I'll try and refrain from character bashing as much as I can.
What is a nation?
Is it a place? A definable boarder separating my land from theirs? Is it the palaces of government? The halls of the Senate? Does it lie in the heart of our national monuments? Is it the people who live there? Is it the businesses that keep it running?
Let me pose a theory.
No.
Every nation has landmarks, territories, monuments, and while these may endeavor to represent the heart and soul of a nation (or the memory of it's heroes.) While these could not be done without some nation to represent, saying that a nation is in it's monuments is akin to seeing the forest for the trees.
I would also argue that the government, while close, isn't the nation either. if the government isn't the nation, then, by extension, neither are the people. People are fickle, fragile beings, locked in their own mind. No one (besides Stephen Colbert, or perhaps 'papa bear' Bill O'Reilly) could claim to be their nation personified, not the nations founders. Though this may have been the case back when we believed in "God-Kings" or "Divine Emperors" in our modern world, those ideas seem out of place.
So, where is it? I would argue a very simple idea, one most of us have proboly thought before:
A nation IS the ideals it holds most dear.
We are not united by monuments or fanfares, but rather we, in tribute to our nation, construct/perform them. We are not brought together solely based on where we were born (re: imagration). Our laws serve to protect our ideals and beliefs, but they are the guardiens, not the beliefs themselves.
Good, bad, right, wrong, these words can be bandied about to judge what a nation is but that judgement is a perspective, not the thing itself. Whether we are good or bad depends solely on what ideals we hold to.
The true test of what we are comes in times of crisis. Ideals we are willing to give up in times of crisis arent ideals, they're hobbies (another Boston Legal-ism, a favorite of mine), and are, therefore, not what we actually are or hold most dear. I'm not going to say that sacrificing freedoms and rights for the sake of safety and security to object is right or wrong, but it does say that safety means more to us than freedom. You're call as to which we should be defigned by.
What is a nation?
Is it a place? A definable boarder separating my land from theirs? Is it the palaces of government? The halls of the Senate? Does it lie in the heart of our national monuments? Is it the people who live there? Is it the businesses that keep it running?
Let me pose a theory.
No.
Every nation has landmarks, territories, monuments, and while these may endeavor to represent the heart and soul of a nation (or the memory of it's heroes.) While these could not be done without some nation to represent, saying that a nation is in it's monuments is akin to seeing the forest for the trees.
I would also argue that the government, while close, isn't the nation either. if the government isn't the nation, then, by extension, neither are the people. People are fickle, fragile beings, locked in their own mind. No one (besides Stephen Colbert, or perhaps 'papa bear' Bill O'Reilly) could claim to be their nation personified, not the nations founders. Though this may have been the case back when we believed in "God-Kings" or "Divine Emperors" in our modern world, those ideas seem out of place.
So, where is it? I would argue a very simple idea, one most of us have proboly thought before:
A nation IS the ideals it holds most dear.
We are not united by monuments or fanfares, but rather we, in tribute to our nation, construct/perform them. We are not brought together solely based on where we were born (re: imagration). Our laws serve to protect our ideals and beliefs, but they are the guardiens, not the beliefs themselves.
Good, bad, right, wrong, these words can be bandied about to judge what a nation is but that judgement is a perspective, not the thing itself. Whether we are good or bad depends solely on what ideals we hold to.
The true test of what we are comes in times of crisis. Ideals we are willing to give up in times of crisis arent ideals, they're hobbies (another Boston Legal-ism, a favorite of mine), and are, therefore, not what we actually are or hold most dear. I'm not going to say that sacrificing freedoms and rights for the sake of safety and security to object is right or wrong, but it does say that safety means more to us than freedom. You're call as to which we should be defigned by.
... about getting fired.
Ever heard the term "at-will employee?"
It's a frightening aspect of our modern working culture that's been nagging away at the back of my mind since I signed a contract stating that I was one some years ago. I've since left the job but the idea sits ill at ease with me.
The basic tenets of the law state that:
"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
(Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, Cases and Materials on Employment Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.)
While I fully respect the idea of striking, quitting, and all that jazz, am I the only one who finds the words "good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all" just a little tyrannical?
Well, let's try and see it from both sides. Legal and financial reasoning springs to mind in defense of the employer. If every employee discharge could be argued in court (likely costing quite a lot of money in legal fees), employers would be afraid to fire disruptive or belligerent employees for fear of being taken to the cleaners in court. Not to mention that a clever but malicious employee could disrupt or bring harm to their place of employment by finding loopholes in their contract and would then be legally unfireable.
However, on the side of employees (which I tend to lean) this means that your boss can fire you for WHATEVER reason that they seem fit. You talk too lout? You're fired. You look at them funny? You're fired. You smoke on your breaks? You're fired. You smoke at home? You're fired (Authors note: those last two were in reference to a show called Boston Legal, one of my favorites, I may bring it up again.) The repercussions of this precedent are terrifying in a very real sense for anyone who's had a part time ob with a boss they didn't like.
Fortunately there are some limits to the basic elements of the law. Firing someone in a manner that breaks a law is illegal almost across the board (exceptions mostly being on the east coast). Various states have various exceptions, limiting the resons for termination. There are also federal exceptions blocking employers from fireing based on sex, race, religion, etc (for a better list follow this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employee#Statutory_exceptions).
Perhaps my fears are unfounded or exagerated by my Orwellian scepticism of government. I do, however see how this can be abused. on the other hand, what can't?
According to Thomas Jefferson (supposedly) "The cost of freedom is eternal vigialence." If that is the case then my scepticism is healthy regardless of how well founded it is. I think we must keep a watchful eye on every right in the troubled times, lest they slip away.
It's a frightening aspect of our modern working culture that's been nagging away at the back of my mind since I signed a contract stating that I was one some years ago. I've since left the job but the idea sits ill at ease with me.
The basic tenets of the law state that:
"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
(Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, Cases and Materials on Employment Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.)
While I fully respect the idea of striking, quitting, and all that jazz, am I the only one who finds the words "good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all" just a little tyrannical?
Well, let's try and see it from both sides. Legal and financial reasoning springs to mind in defense of the employer. If every employee discharge could be argued in court (likely costing quite a lot of money in legal fees), employers would be afraid to fire disruptive or belligerent employees for fear of being taken to the cleaners in court. Not to mention that a clever but malicious employee could disrupt or bring harm to their place of employment by finding loopholes in their contract and would then be legally unfireable.
However, on the side of employees (which I tend to lean) this means that your boss can fire you for WHATEVER reason that they seem fit. You talk too lout? You're fired. You look at them funny? You're fired. You smoke on your breaks? You're fired. You smoke at home? You're fired (Authors note: those last two were in reference to a show called Boston Legal, one of my favorites, I may bring it up again.) The repercussions of this precedent are terrifying in a very real sense for anyone who's had a part time ob with a boss they didn't like.
Fortunately there are some limits to the basic elements of the law. Firing someone in a manner that breaks a law is illegal almost across the board (exceptions mostly being on the east coast). Various states have various exceptions, limiting the resons for termination. There are also federal exceptions blocking employers from fireing based on sex, race, religion, etc (for a better list follow this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employee#Statutory_exceptions).
Perhaps my fears are unfounded or exagerated by my Orwellian scepticism of government. I do, however see how this can be abused. on the other hand, what can't?
According to Thomas Jefferson (supposedly) "The cost of freedom is eternal vigialence." If that is the case then my scepticism is healthy regardless of how well founded it is. I think we must keep a watchful eye on every right in the troubled times, lest they slip away.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
...about the First Amendment.
Have you ever heard the saying that "your freedom ends where my nose begins?"
No? Well it's out there, and, like many things involving the dynamics of personal freedom, raises a plethora of interesting questions, but let’s discuss one:
Public Speech.
Let’s say that a big religious monument was placed in your town. For the purposes of this discussion the type of religion does not matter, except that it is not representative of a faith you hold. This monument is placed in a public park and was done so as a donation from whatever religious organization it represents.
Question 1: Is this disruptive to your personal freedom?
If this question is asked, then so is the question running opposite, “would stopping the placement of this monument be infringing on the rights of expression of those who donated the structure?” Both are legitimate claims and the reason why cases like this are all about Balance. Where does one person’s freedom end and another’s begin?
Something we must remember about the idea of the First Amendment is that it ensures the Freedom of Speech, not the protection of the listeners. Freedom is freedom, but nowhere does it say that freedom is particularly nice. It is the right of our nation to say what we want without fear of censorship, but while speaking aloud is a brief thing…
Question 2: …is erecting a permanent monument invading the free space of others?
Legally speaking, no. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are both intrinsic rights given to American citizens, and if public displays of religion were outlawed then there would be no churches, temples, mosques or any other buildings of religious practice. This nation was largely colonized by those seeking freedom of religion, so limiting its expression seems somewhat out of character. It is simply the right of the people to display their faith if they wish.
However, the permanent structure in a public place is breaking the golden “ends at my nose” rule mentioned earlier. For people like you (in this instance), it is a constant barrage of expression you don’t believe in. Still, the expression is protected and you technically don’t have to look at it. There is one question that involves the ethics of this situation, though, and that is…
Question 3: …are the people in the local government who placed this showing preference for one religion over another?
Here’s a lotty one which speaks to the intentions of the parties involved. It is true that expressing every opinion would litter the whole park with one form or another, and then the issue would be whose was bigger, but, by that same token, all those not represented are having their freedoms infringed upon by a show of preference. This one would be one for the judges, as most ethical issues are in cases like this. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)