Abortion (short)
Pro-Choice, Pro-Life? I couldn't care less. This is more important than politics or point on the spectrum.
How can this farce continue? How can we let an idea devoid of logic to be an issue? And how can anyone believe that abortion would not lead to results such as these? Whether or not
Drudge is right about the time, it's bound to head toward this anyway.
It's natural, right? It must be good
Here's a rock-solid truth that our culture tries to deny: we don't choose the people we love.
Therefore,
If we don't want to see women forced to walk two steps behind their husbands, if we don't want to see them lose the right to vote, to work, to have credit and to own property, if we don't want to live in an anti-democratic and insanely fundamentalist country, then we must all fight for the right of homosexuals to marry.
So, if I'm right, the idea is that the relgious right is attempting to say that marriage is about more than feelings, whereas this writer says that love is the basis of marriage.
This is a good question (but one that this writer seems to assume away easily)...what is the basis of marriage? When I asked a homosexual friend what the virtue of homosexuality is (I know, I'm a weirdo, just get over the language and try to see the lesson), he said that love is. Is this what most people would describe as the virtue of heterosexuality as well? I think most people in today's culture would state that it is. If this is the case, then homosexuality must be allowed as it would simply be a matter of who you love. The conservative extension of this argument (simply based on the commonality of love) would say that it must be extended afterwards to all loving consensual parties (bisexuals wishing to marry more than one partner - natural is good, right? - as well as those interested in incest and so on. The obvious question is if those advocating love as the sole basis of marriage are willing to let the laws slide a bit further.
This is assuming, as this article does, that all feelings are natural. But, are all "good" feelings necessarily right? After all, just as we don't necessarily choose who to love, we don't necessarily choose who to hate, or who to react to in any emotional way. And also, since the idea of acting on those emotions seems to follow as an ethical good (atleast from this article), then how can we rightfully declare anyone to be wrong (except for those who don't really believe in what they're doing...and how are we going to determine this?)? Ultimately, this does not lead toward any idea of the governmentally supported institution of marriage whatsoever.
And this would make sense, wouldn't it? After all, if marriage is simply a personal matter, then why would the government be involved? The conservative position would say that it is necessary for some sociological good beyond personal feeling. The liberal position would say (I think) that it would encourage positive relationships and thusly foster personal good for each member of the family. Now, I realize that the line between these two is ambiguous, but try to see the language. The conservative position is saying that there is an absolute positive to be achieved, whereas the liberal position is saying that marriage can help individuals feel better about themselves. I'm not sure about this, but it seems to fit the argument fairly well. For more information on this, look at the sociological information regarding homosexual vs heterosexual lifestyles (if I find some good articles on this, I'll post them...but I should note that most of the studies are done and quoted by conservatives).
Ultimately, though, we seem to be hitting up against the same pop-biological arguments as always...that our sexuality is programmed and ouside of our control and is therefore good for us to practice. I tend to agree with Dean Hamer:
...biology is amoral; if offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people, guided by their values and beliefs, can decide what is moral and what is not.
I have no problem with people exploring the ethics and morality of homosexuality, but to simply equate natural with good is silliness and is an argument that will fall to pieces if we start thinking about the consequences of our ideas.
If you believe, on the other hand, that people are naturally good, I'd be interested in understanding the reasons why. I tend to agree with Clives Staples Lewis, who said that the fall of man, as understood by the Christianity, is an empirically verifiable claim. When's the last time you've read the news?
In Memoriam
From
Doonesbury...
PS Please pray for my cousin. He left a few weeks ago for Iraq.
War-Time Coverage
Thoughts from the NYT public editor on his paper's coverage on the Iraqi war.
Amen
Update to 'Intern's Diary'. I don't want to say anything else...except to ask all of you out there to pray for our soldiers as often as possible. Thanks.
What do we want?
Democracy and freedom,
are they really the same thing? To be blunt, no. Although they can coexist at times, the true importance that stems from democracy is the assumption of freedom. This assumption reminds us that the genius (and downfall at times) of freedom is that it relies on the people who enact it. This can mean democracy, but it is rather foolish to think that people are necessarily going to move towards this type of a system. Although full relativism is often rather silly, we must remember the sanctity and God-given right for people to choose when it is right to do so. We need to instill freedom, not necessarily democracy (you'd think that the US would understand that by now after leaving the problems in S. America).
Also a
quick rant about the degradation of Western Culture.
Hymns vs Songs
Post concerning a letter sent to a pastor regarding church music.
This poor pastor got roasted...
...by one of his members. Read the following letter -
"Pastor, I am not a music scholar, but I feel I know appropriate church music when I hear it. Last Sunday's new hymn, if you call it that, sounded like a sentimental love ballad one might expect to hear crooned in a saloon. If you persist in exposing us to rubbish like this in God's house, don't be surprised if many of the faithful look for a new place to worship. The hymns we grew up with are all we need."
You might imagine this person was talking about the latest Hillsong or Vineyard offering. In fact, the letter was written in 1865 and they were objecting to the classic hymn "Just As I Am"!
Some things never change...
- posted by Craig @ 3:29 PM
The question it brings up is certainly a valid one and I'm not ready to take over this blogger's position just yet, but I did find the letter interesting.
Productivity
So, productivity is really good? Wow, I can't believe that capitalism may have been right all this time. It's just silly to imagine that productivity lead to lower employment. After all, if it did, then capitalism would just not work over time (if wages and employment were not affected by productivity, then the virtuous circle understood by the free market simply could not happen). Here's
a report defending this obvious necessity...in other words, Adam Smith may have had a point after all; surprise, surprise.
Economic Fortune-Telling
Speculation may go far out of reality sometimes, but this is when economists, like Ray Fair, pull it back into the variables of equations. For anyone interested in polling or economics (or even politics), this guy's stuff is pretty interesting.
His model explains elections since 1960 with an average forecast error of only 2.4 percent — far better than any conventional predictions derived from polling.
The only election he really blew was in 1992, when Bill Clinton beat George H. W. Bush. If you take that one out, his record shows only a 1.6 percent average error. He even correctly called the squeaker in 2000 with Gore marginally winning the popular vote, when all the traditional polls were calling for George W. Bush to win the popular vote handily.
This
article about him is pretty good (though I certainly don't condone or support the other stuff on his site). For more fun with numbers, check out
his prediction site.
Food Math
For anyone interested,
THE BEST PACKING OF M&Ms, filling more than 77% of available volume,
has been achieved in a computer simulation performed at Princeton. Actually the new results apply to any ellipsoid object, such as M&M candy, fish eggs, or watermelons. The modern understanding of dense packing might be said to start in 1611, when Johannes Kepler suggested that the most efficient packing of spheres in a container occurred when the spheres were placed in a face-centered cubic arrangement---the way a grocer stacks oranges. "Kepler's conjecture" was proved in 1998 and the filling factor was worked out to be about 74%. Unlike spheres, which still look the same after you rotate them, ellipsoids' oblateness (they are squashed or stretched in at least one direction) give them orientational degrees of freedom that spheres don't have. Consequentially, ellipsoids can be packed more efficiently than spheres. Depending on the aspect ratio of the ellipsoid, the packing density can be anywhere between 74% and 77%. The Princeton research (contact Salvatore Torquato, 609-258-3341, torquato@electron.princeton.edu) has a number of practical implications: it shows that glassy states of matter, in which molecules lie in a disordered arrangement, can have densities almost as high as for crystals; it suggests that because of a high contact number (in the high-density packings ellipsoids can touch 14 of their neighbors) stronger ceramics can be designed); and it encourages researchers to investigate the effect of ellipsoidal shape on evolutionary optimization in fish eggs. (Donev et al., Physical Review Letters, upcoming article)
Also, for anyone interested, they just developed tungsten inverse opal. Good stuff.
Garfield-ian Philosophy
My philosophy challenge to us all for today comes from
Garfield (comics contain tidbits of wisdom for us all). This one begs the question, do you like the future the way it is? If you do, then does this not necessitate you to do what you feel is right? If you don't, then why don't you do what you feel is necessary to create the future you want? Are you getting self-actualized, why or why not? Now push through these ideas with a bit of Nietzschean passion. Be honest, be forthright, remember the ideal of eternal recurrence and the actuality of will to power, be human (and humane), realize everyone else is in the same boat. Now...do!
What are We Doing?
I have to agree with the numerous other bloggers commenting. The standard is weak, the rhetoric weaker, and any similar argument for American morality is...well, you see where I'm going with
this.
The White House condemned the killing, which it said reinforced its insistence that US abuses of prisoners paled in comparison with the crimes of its enemies.
Israeli Foreign Policy
Scary, true, and remarkably in line with current US foreign policy.
In a recent post we documented Iran's all-but-official first nuclear strike policy as against Israel. Jerusalem Post is reporting (rather matter of factly one might add) US rumors of an upcoming possible Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear installations.
Given Iran's first strike policy, if it takes place this strike can only be called pre-emption.
World-wide Capital Punishment
Econopundit wonders
Wonder what these [capital punishmen figures] would look like per capita, no wordplay intended.
when referring to American vs Saudi capital punishment numbers. Although it is rather obvious, let's state the numbers just so everyone can see.
United States 65 (64 injection, 1 electrocution)--> 2.24e-7 per capita
Saudi Arabia (53 beheadings)----------------------> 2.18e-6 per capita
This uses 2003 estimates from the
CIA World Factbook. For those who like big numbers rather than small ones, just take the inverse of the per capita numbers. Essentially though, what Econopundit is pointing out is that there's an order of magnitude between the two. However, it is good to remember that we're comparing ourselves to Saudi Arabia...yeah, not quite the civil rights giant that should make us feel that much better. But this does put the numbers into a little more context.
Prediction by Number
John Zogby has gone out on a limb:
"Though he is hardly cramming for his finals yet and is confounding his supporters, possible leaners, and even opponents with a dismal start on the hustings, the numbers today are on his side (or at least, not on the President's side).
We are unlikely to see any big bumps for either candidate because opinion is so polarized and, I believe, frozen in place. There are still six months to go and anything can still happen. But as of today, this race is John Kerry's to lose."
Unproductivity of Middle East
Alright, not that I'm suggesting all of
this article by Friedman, but these parts are pretty good, if a bit overly pointed.
"The Arab world, alas, has been cursed with oil. For decades, too many Arab countries have opted to drill a sand dune for economic growth rather than drilling their own people — men and women — in order to tap their energy, creativity, intellect and entrepreneurship. Arab countries barely trade with one another, and unlike Korea and Japan, rarely invent or patent anything. But rather than looking inward, assessing their development deficits, absorbing the best in modern knowledge that their money can buy and then trying to beat the West at its own game, the Arab world in too many cases has cut itself off, blamed the enduring Palestine conflict or colonialism for delaying reform, or found dignity in Pyrrhic victories like Falluja.
To be sure, there are exceptions. Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Morocco and Tunisia are all engaged in real experiments with modernization, but the bigger states are really lost. A week ago we were treated again to absurd Saudi allegations that "Zionists" were behind the latest bombing in Saudi Arabia, because, said Saudi officials, "Zionists" clearly benefit from these acts. Someone ought to tell the Saudis this: Don't flatter yourselves. The only interest Israelis have in Saudi Arabia is flying over it to get to India and China — countries that actually trade and manufacture things other than hatred of "infidels." "
and
"Yes, we Americans need to look in a mirror and ask why we've become so radioactive. But the Arabs need to look in a mirror too. "They are using our mistakes to avoid their own necessity to change, reform and modernize," says the Mideast expert Stephen P. Cohen."
Something or Nothing?
A
little exploration of the always on argument of if there is something or nothing. Ahh....fun times...
Apologies
So,
apologies are possible. And out of the countries in that region, Jordan (and especially King Abdullah) totally deserves it.
Conservativism
A
nice article on Russell Kirk and the conservative identity.
The confusions of Economics
Looks like the tax cuts are finally doing something...but they'd better do more quick, otherwise, we'll be in
deep doo-doo.
And what about:
"The fundamental datum for most people is wages. That's how most people live. Wage growth has been lousy,
profits are doing great. We expect that laggard job growth puts downward pressure on wages. If employers aren't chasing you, they have little incentive to offer higher pay."
-Maxspeak
I have to admit, I don't know that much about economics, but isn't profit growth supposed to translate into wage growth? Or is it showing up in the new job numbers?
But what about this from
Bartlett:
"Corporate tax revenues are running 45 percent above last year owing to strong profit growth. Payroll taxes are also running above last year's level because of strong employment growth."
Well, the profit boost we saw and it seems that the incomes are down as well. Still though, I just have to wonder why incomes are down and payroll taxes are up. That still seems odd...
Here is the CBO monthly budget report
Conservative Poser?
Just how conservative is President Bush?
" 'The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself'...Time was, this question would have separated conservatives from liberals. Nowadays it separates conservatives from neoconservatives. "
You said it,
Tom.
"I know that tough interrogations are vital in a war against a merciless enemy, but outright torture, or this sexual-humiliation-for-entertainment, is abhorrent. I also know the sort of abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib prison goes on in prisons all over the Arab world every day, as it did under Saddam — without the Arab League or Al Jazeera ever saying a word about it. I know they are shameful hypocrites, but I want my country to behave better — not only because it is America, but also because the war on terrorism is a war of ideas, and to have any chance of winning we must maintain the credibility of our ideas."
Yes, we do have to fess up to not doing as good as we'd like. I understand that these are politicians we are talking about, but do we really automatically hold them to a standard lower than those of most 10 year olds? Responsibility. Perhaps there's some sort of inherent political problem with admitting one's faults, but when they go to an extreme, honesty is necessary. Is this not the very reason why people examine the character of a candidate more than his qualifications?
One of the worst secularist arguments against the religiosity of Europe (almost laughable in itself) that comes across more as whining from a kid who thinks that everyone should agree with him alone. It totally skips the idea that the tradition of religion is a strong part of the European identity (whether she likes it or not) and can't seem to grasp the breadth of the word 'secular'. I don't have time to refute her point by point...but it's probably not really all that necessary. Once again we see it...equality without the responsibility. Secularism is obviously on the same plane of religion (at least it seems like it in terms of irrefutability), right? But it is also the basis of governmental policy...still looking for the conflict of interests? Give it time, it makes sense when you read stuff like this.
Quick NYT column on the state of our suprisingly friendly relationship with the Iranians (the people, not the government so much).
Here's a
quick NYT piece on the powerless feel of the modern day Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its leader, our beloved Sen Richard G. Lugar, in a world where hearings happen on talk shows. It specifically contrasts Sen Lugar with Sen J. William Fulbright and the publicized hearings in 1966. The question it tries to ask (and answer) is: why can't the foreign relations committee pull off now what they did then?
Interesting obit on Pat Tillman.
May we all remember the honor in which these
warriors die.
I was just thinking back to a conversation I had with a good buddy concerning abortion. I put forward an argument based solely on fact, and he said that I should not be thinking so logically about this. He said that emotion is an integral part of the argument. I disagreed then (though I took it in more of a rhetorical way, stupid me) and I still disagree now.
Essentially my argument was this (I thought I had an original idea until I heard almost the exact same ideas with some extra stuff coming from
Peter Kreeft*, a Catholic philosopher -- very smart dude). My basic point was that the argument does not hinge on women's rights (however much some feminists may think so), but around the basic question of when does life begin. For it is universally believed and understood (I think) that the taking of an innocent life is wrong. If life begins the moment a sperm hits the egg, then abortion is wrong. If life begins when the child's head pops out, then it is right. This is the problem point. But we never really hear about this, do we (I need to write something about that later)? The Pro-Choice crowd is right (though they're a bit confused I think). It is about the right to choice; the question is whether the child has that right or not (ie when is a child alive...to think in slightly less ambiguous terms, when is it conscious). During the time of this argument, I felt that, morally speaking, logically one must ask one's self if that child was alive. But what are the options? If it is, and I don't abort it, so be it. If it is and I do abort it, it's wrong. If it's not and I don't abort it, so be it. If it's not and I do abort it, I am justified.
But the problem is that we don't know. So, if we don't know, are we willing to take the chance that we just murdered an innocent being. Now, there are some cases when this chance must be taken (eg when the mother's immediate mortal health is at stake) I am not arguing against this (I'm not arguing against women's right to live, I'm arguing that fetus might have that right also). Morally, I'd have to say that I'm on the "be safe" side. Legally, however, it's a different story. I do think that there needs to be leeway since it is not totally based on logic. So for that reason alone, I am still Pro-Choice (but barely).
------------
side note: Since we define legal death (I think) as the moment of brain death(cessation of brain function), should we not also define life as the beginning of brain function?
------------
The reasoning for why we should not put religious law into place seems to be that it is not solely based on logic. For example, we have no problem putting in place laws regarding murder even though it is enumerated in most every religion on the planet, because we (and most philosophers) can logically justify it. However, the 10 Commandments are not federal law, because they require something else. Christians and Jewish people would probably call this extra thing faith, but a secular society would describe this as merely emotion.
Now, there is another possibility. It's also possible that we do not allow religious law (speaking theoretically now, not in terms of practicability or constitutionality) because everyone does not necessarily agree with us, ie when it's popular, it's ok. However, how will we know if everyone agrees? The most likely option here is to eliminate all but the most barebones of understanding: thus logic. It is a necessary and viable basis for law as it is universal (I know Godel, but I'm assuming that everyone understands that when I say universal, I mean within the ability know such).
Thusly, I will agree with my friend's logic (or lack thereof) that emotion should be a basis of law when we start to suspend the ban lain upon religious law.
I have to admit, though, I still haven't heard a cogent argument against this view or even for abortion (the non-life-saving kind again). A Ball State Professor of statistics was talking at our campus about why our votes don't matter (yeah, yeah, I know) and mentioned, after doing an informal poll in our class, that, as seen in the room, conservatives seem to be more open-minded to this idea (and he was a liberal). I wonder to what extent modern liberalism (atleast in its opposition to the religious right) has become sort of a cultish following, rejecting views according to tradition. I'm not sure, but all I can say is that I've heard more intellectual argument and discussion coming out of conservativism than just about anywhere else on the spectrum (which is definitely a good thing). Sorry if that causes offense, but it's just what I've seen so far.
*For a much more comprehensive, interesting, well-written, or accurate description on arguments concerning abortion, definitely
read him instead of listening to or reading my drivel.
For an
interesting discussion on copyright infringment. I tend to be on the side of a market adjustment argument (as Arnold King briefly mentions), but on the whole I just don't know. After all, a market adjustment would probably mean, at least temporarily, many fewer artists and some sort of musical shift. It's hard to determine what's better (though with much of the music being produced today, any different should be a pretty good step towards better), but ultimately, I don't think that it's a government problem. The whole idea of a copyright law is probably necessary for this type of music industry to exist...but I'm not sure that the problem hasn't gone outside of the government's practical ability to enforce. Practically, I'm on the side of the market (which is certainly not rigid government regulation, no matter what RIAA tries to argue), but idealistically, I'm just confused.
The problem is that there is simply a disconnect between the traditional music market people want and the unfettered access to music, which they also want. Ultimately, it's not the government's job to enforce (I think), but the people's choice (as is enumerated through the free market). If they want more of one than the other, then the other will have to change. Even if the result is sucky, it'll have to change. What the RIAA needs to do is simply educate people (good luck) on what type of change will happen. Outside of the discussions these lawsuits create, legal recourse just seems rather silly.
To what extent do video game makers have to curb the desire for realism with entertainment? After all, real life is not always that exciting. For some games, getting away to a "real" reality as an escape seems to be part of the fun (eg Warcraft). Whereas some seem to be trying harder and harder to model after real life (eg Splinter Cell). For this last category, they definitely focus on the more exciting parts of reality; however, how long can this keep up? Do we continue until the enviornment is as realistic as possible? Is this the ending point? Or are we moving towards a type of game that is as real as real, except for our control over it? I don't know...just a thought.
