I just got done watching the first presidential debate of 2012. It was pretty much a disaster but I think it was the format of the debate that was at fault, not the candidates. I tried to think of a different format that might meet the needs of the American people more adequately and this is what I came up with.
I think it would be more beneficial if the debate were to take place in writing rather than on television. Both candidates could be in the same room and have a moderator pose a question that the candidates could respond to in writing (given a predetermined word count) without consulting their campaign staff for proofreading or ideas. Writing is a better medium for communicating and explaining ideas and would showcase a candidates political philosophy rather than their stage presence. The reason writing is a better medium for sophisticated discourse is because it allows time for critical thinking about the topic and writing and editing a response until it communicates exactly what a candidate wants to express whereas, giving two minutes to respond to a question a candidate didn't know was going to be asked is prone to produce miscommunication and gaffes. After the initial responses have been turned in the candidates would have the opportunity to read their opponents submission and pick it apart with another session of writing. After this round each candidate could read the others criticism and produce a closing argument for their ideas.
This process could be repeated for each topic that the moderator has chosen for the debate. A written format is sure to be more time consuming (for the candidates) than a traditional debate but it would at least give us more useful information to work with. As it is we are left trying to decipher political philosophies through a barrage of comedic one liners (ZING), emotional attacks and frequent interruptions from a moderator who expects the candidates to explain their position on healthcare and why it's better than their opponents in the span of two minutes.
Once completed the debate could be delivered to the public in a variety of ways. E-reader, PDF or print are a few that come to mind. As someone who enjoys reading, I'd love to see the candidates deliver their messages this way. And a quick disclaimer: Although I don't know if he ever advocated a written debate format I got a lot of the ideas in this blog post from Neil Postman in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
Facebook IPO
I can't wrap my head around the value placed on Facebook. I read an article from the AP that made the following statements.
>By the afternoon, the stock was trading flat at around $38. That means Facebook is worth about $104 billion, more than Amazon.com, McDonalds and storied Silicon Valley icons Hewlett-Packard and Cisco.
>In all of 2011, it earned $1 billion.
>It had net income of $205 million in the first three months of 2012, on revenue of $1.06 billion
So last year the company made $1 billion and they are now valued at $104 billion. That's more than 100X what they made last year. That means that if a person bought the entire company and it continued earning the amount of money that it's earning now they would make less than a 1% return on their investment. My credit union pays me a higher interest rate than that on money in my savings account.
The only way to "justify" a price like that is if you are basing the value on a speculation of what the company is going to be worth in the future. In my opinion that is not a good way to make sound investments. A good investment makes a purchase at the current value for something that you think is going to increase in value in the future. If you buy it at its speculated future value then even if it performs to your expectations it will only be worth what you paid for it and you will have made nothing. At that point you can do one of two things; You can try to sell it to someone else and hope that they are willing to pay an even higher speculative price or you can hold onto it, hope it increases further still and make a profit from there on out. However, from the time of your purchase until the point where the asset increases in value to be worth what you paid for it you will have made nothing. Why would you do that? The answer is that you wouldn't unless you don't know much about investing. For that reason, I think Facebook is going to go down in value in the future. I think the value of the company is way overpriced at this point because of the popularity of the company and the willingness of unseasoned investors to purchase shares. I think once that novelty wears thin the trading price of the stock is going to nosedive.
Companies just aren't worth 100X what they make in a year, period.
>By the afternoon, the stock was trading flat at around $38. That means Facebook is worth about $104 billion, more than Amazon.com, McDonalds and storied Silicon Valley icons Hewlett-Packard and Cisco.
>In all of 2011, it earned $1 billion.
>It had net income of $205 million in the first three months of 2012, on revenue of $1.06 billion
So last year the company made $1 billion and they are now valued at $104 billion. That's more than 100X what they made last year. That means that if a person bought the entire company and it continued earning the amount of money that it's earning now they would make less than a 1% return on their investment. My credit union pays me a higher interest rate than that on money in my savings account.
The only way to "justify" a price like that is if you are basing the value on a speculation of what the company is going to be worth in the future. In my opinion that is not a good way to make sound investments. A good investment makes a purchase at the current value for something that you think is going to increase in value in the future. If you buy it at its speculated future value then even if it performs to your expectations it will only be worth what you paid for it and you will have made nothing. At that point you can do one of two things; You can try to sell it to someone else and hope that they are willing to pay an even higher speculative price or you can hold onto it, hope it increases further still and make a profit from there on out. However, from the time of your purchase until the point where the asset increases in value to be worth what you paid for it you will have made nothing. Why would you do that? The answer is that you wouldn't unless you don't know much about investing. For that reason, I think Facebook is going to go down in value in the future. I think the value of the company is way overpriced at this point because of the popularity of the company and the willingness of unseasoned investors to purchase shares. I think once that novelty wears thin the trading price of the stock is going to nosedive.
Companies just aren't worth 100X what they make in a year, period.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Sheep and wolves
If you saw a pack of wolves masquerading as sheep would you conclude that sheep are ferocious?
Three things have happened in the last few days to inspire this post. First, over the weekend I was in a conversation with someone who obviously didn't care much for religion and she was going on and on about how many wars and how much killing has been done in the name of religion. Second, I am in the middle of a book titled, "A Peoples History of the United States." The book does not seem to make an argument either for or against religion in general but without giving many specific details it does point out that religion is used to influence public opinion in support of wars, oppression of the poor and all kinds of evil. Third was last night while the T.V. was on and I heard Michelle Bachmann babbling about how she doesn't know what else God could do to get peoples attention in America because he's already sent hurricanes and earthquakes recently to punish us for immorality.
All three of the incidents above mainly focused on Christianity. It is a common argument challenging the truth of Christianity that people point out how much evil has been caused by different sects throughout the years. I wanted to write a blog about this because I can sympathize with that argument. I can understand why a person might see Michelle Bachman on T.V., read about the Salem witch trials or the Crusades and conclude that we might be better off without Christianity. However, I think the only way to come to this conclusion is to confuse the wolves with the sheep.
It is a testimony to the passiveness of a sheep that a wolf would want to disguise himself as one of them. Similarly, it is in evils best interest to be confused with that which is good. The fact that evil so often uses the name of Christ to disguise itself is more of a testimony to Christs goodness than to his supposed falseness. This is not meant to be a proof of Christianity, because it is not, but I want to make a point that if the words of Christ are true this is the way things would be. Here is an example:
Mathew 7:15-20, "Watch out for false prophets, they come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit will you recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
The next verse goes on to talk about how on judgement day many people who performed miracles, drove out demons and prophesied in Christs name will not get into heaven because they were never known by Christ. In other places in the gospels Jesus warns of false prophets and anti-christs that will deceive many people. Like I said, this is not a proof of Christianity, I'm just pointing out that from the beginning we have been warned of people doing evil under the cloak of the Christian religion. The fact that it happens should not be an intellectual roadblock to belief in God for anyone who takes the time to look into it.
The philosophy of Christ is refreshingly simple. It can be summed up with the words in Mathew 22:37-40, "Jesus replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."
If you can understand loving your neighbor as yourself but are confused about how to love God, Mathew 25:34-40 says, "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
If you want to love God, love the poor. That is why Jesus said the second commandment was like the first. The poor are our neighbors. Does Christs message sound like what Michelle Bachmann is always babbling about on T.V.? Does it sound like someone trying to gain support for a war?
We know that the philosophy of Christ was about loving your neighbor as yourself and loving the least among us. How then can we blame Christianity when people call themselves followers of Christ while they fight wars against their neighbors, oppress the poor and commit all kinds of evil? The only rational conclusion is that they are using Christs name, like he warned us people would do, but are not followers of Christ at all.
If you see wolves in sheep's clothing and then conclude that sheep are ferocious and we'd be better off without them, you will still be left with the wolves.
Three things have happened in the last few days to inspire this post. First, over the weekend I was in a conversation with someone who obviously didn't care much for religion and she was going on and on about how many wars and how much killing has been done in the name of religion. Second, I am in the middle of a book titled, "A Peoples History of the United States." The book does not seem to make an argument either for or against religion in general but without giving many specific details it does point out that religion is used to influence public opinion in support of wars, oppression of the poor and all kinds of evil. Third was last night while the T.V. was on and I heard Michelle Bachmann babbling about how she doesn't know what else God could do to get peoples attention in America because he's already sent hurricanes and earthquakes recently to punish us for immorality.
All three of the incidents above mainly focused on Christianity. It is a common argument challenging the truth of Christianity that people point out how much evil has been caused by different sects throughout the years. I wanted to write a blog about this because I can sympathize with that argument. I can understand why a person might see Michelle Bachman on T.V., read about the Salem witch trials or the Crusades and conclude that we might be better off without Christianity. However, I think the only way to come to this conclusion is to confuse the wolves with the sheep.
It is a testimony to the passiveness of a sheep that a wolf would want to disguise himself as one of them. Similarly, it is in evils best interest to be confused with that which is good. The fact that evil so often uses the name of Christ to disguise itself is more of a testimony to Christs goodness than to his supposed falseness. This is not meant to be a proof of Christianity, because it is not, but I want to make a point that if the words of Christ are true this is the way things would be. Here is an example:
Mathew 7:15-20, "Watch out for false prophets, they come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit will you recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
The next verse goes on to talk about how on judgement day many people who performed miracles, drove out demons and prophesied in Christs name will not get into heaven because they were never known by Christ. In other places in the gospels Jesus warns of false prophets and anti-christs that will deceive many people. Like I said, this is not a proof of Christianity, I'm just pointing out that from the beginning we have been warned of people doing evil under the cloak of the Christian religion. The fact that it happens should not be an intellectual roadblock to belief in God for anyone who takes the time to look into it.
The philosophy of Christ is refreshingly simple. It can be summed up with the words in Mathew 22:37-40, "Jesus replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."
If you can understand loving your neighbor as yourself but are confused about how to love God, Mathew 25:34-40 says, "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
If you want to love God, love the poor. That is why Jesus said the second commandment was like the first. The poor are our neighbors. Does Christs message sound like what Michelle Bachmann is always babbling about on T.V.? Does it sound like someone trying to gain support for a war?
We know that the philosophy of Christ was about loving your neighbor as yourself and loving the least among us. How then can we blame Christianity when people call themselves followers of Christ while they fight wars against their neighbors, oppress the poor and commit all kinds of evil? The only rational conclusion is that they are using Christs name, like he warned us people would do, but are not followers of Christ at all.
If you see wolves in sheep's clothing and then conclude that sheep are ferocious and we'd be better off without them, you will still be left with the wolves.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
What's good for efficiency is bad for the spirit
This is an idea I've been thinking about a little bit lately. It's meant to be more of a generalization than a hard fact. Of course is wouldn't be hard to think of exceptions to this idea but I think it makes a lot of sense in an abstract way.
Cooking dinner vs. eating out - I enjoy preparing good food and cooking. I'm not sure why but there is something special about getting a meal on the table that you had to first think about, prepare and cook. I think it has something to do with the fact that you own the meal whether it is good or bad. You decided what to prepare as a main dish and you decided what to serve as side dishes, it's yours of which you can be proud or ashamed. At a restaurant you look at a menu, place an order and receive your dinner. If it's good you credit the restaurant and if it's bad you blame the restaurant. You're detached from the food, it's quick, efficient and does not have a lasting effect on your spirit. Also, what makes a good home cooked meal so special is the chance for failure which may happen more often than at a restaurant. The bitterness of failure makes success taste sweeter.
Backpacking vs. car camping - When my girlfriend and I were hiking the other day she mentioned that one of her favorite parts about backpacking was the effort it took to reach your destination. We were on our way down a canyon to a place called Fossil Springs. She was right, there is something special about having everything you need strapped to your back and hiking four miles to get to the campground. Something spiritual is lost with the efficiency of roads when you drive right up to a beautiful area and unload your case of beer. The effort of backpacking allows for a more enriching camping experience.
Disposable packaging and litter - Disposable packaging is all about efficiency. Throw it in the microwave and throw it away, it's easy. No need to carry around things like coffee mugs or water bottles, just throw away the styrofoam and plastic everyday, it's easier. But when you're out in the the woods and you see an abandoned sleeping bag thrown in the bushes, random trash all over the place and a bush littered with toilet paper the pain in your heart makes you realize that efficiency is being paid for by the spirit.
Painting vs. photography - Have you ever been to an art museum and seen paintings from a couple hundred years ago that you can barely distinguish from reality? I can make an image of the same or higher quality and share it with my friends in less than a minute. Was something lost?
Reading a book vs. watching a movie - I don't think this needs an explanation. If you can't relate to it I'd recommend The Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Soto if you think you'd like non-fiction or The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien if you think fiction would be more enjoyable.
Volunteering vs. donating money - There is a huge spiritual difference between writing a check and getting personally involved in the lives of the people that you'd like to help.
"I number it among my blessings that my father had no car, while yet most of my friends had, and sometimes took me for a drive. This meant that all these distant objects could be visited just enough to clothe them with memories and not impossible desires, while yet they remained ordinarily as inaccessible as the moon. The deadly power of rushing about wherever I pleased had not been given me. I measured distances by the standard of man, walking on his two feet, not by the standard of the internal combustion engine. I had not been allowed to deflower the very idea of distance; In return I possessed "infinite riches" in what would have been to a motorist "a little room." The truest and most horrible claim made for modern transport is that it "annihilates space." It does. It annihilates one of the most glorious gifts we have been given. It is a vile inflation that lowers the value of distance, so that a modern boy travels a hundred miles with less sense of liberation and pilgrimage and adventure than his grandfather got from traveling ten. Of course if a man hates space and wants it annihilated that is another matter. Why not creep into his coffin at once? There is little enough space there." - C.S. Lewis
Cooking dinner vs. eating out - I enjoy preparing good food and cooking. I'm not sure why but there is something special about getting a meal on the table that you had to first think about, prepare and cook. I think it has something to do with the fact that you own the meal whether it is good or bad. You decided what to prepare as a main dish and you decided what to serve as side dishes, it's yours of which you can be proud or ashamed. At a restaurant you look at a menu, place an order and receive your dinner. If it's good you credit the restaurant and if it's bad you blame the restaurant. You're detached from the food, it's quick, efficient and does not have a lasting effect on your spirit. Also, what makes a good home cooked meal so special is the chance for failure which may happen more often than at a restaurant. The bitterness of failure makes success taste sweeter.
Backpacking vs. car camping - When my girlfriend and I were hiking the other day she mentioned that one of her favorite parts about backpacking was the effort it took to reach your destination. We were on our way down a canyon to a place called Fossil Springs. She was right, there is something special about having everything you need strapped to your back and hiking four miles to get to the campground. Something spiritual is lost with the efficiency of roads when you drive right up to a beautiful area and unload your case of beer. The effort of backpacking allows for a more enriching camping experience.
Disposable packaging and litter - Disposable packaging is all about efficiency. Throw it in the microwave and throw it away, it's easy. No need to carry around things like coffee mugs or water bottles, just throw away the styrofoam and plastic everyday, it's easier. But when you're out in the the woods and you see an abandoned sleeping bag thrown in the bushes, random trash all over the place and a bush littered with toilet paper the pain in your heart makes you realize that efficiency is being paid for by the spirit.
Painting vs. photography - Have you ever been to an art museum and seen paintings from a couple hundred years ago that you can barely distinguish from reality? I can make an image of the same or higher quality and share it with my friends in less than a minute. Was something lost?
Reading a book vs. watching a movie - I don't think this needs an explanation. If you can't relate to it I'd recommend The Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Soto if you think you'd like non-fiction or The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien if you think fiction would be more enjoyable.
Volunteering vs. donating money - There is a huge spiritual difference between writing a check and getting personally involved in the lives of the people that you'd like to help.
"I number it among my blessings that my father had no car, while yet most of my friends had, and sometimes took me for a drive. This meant that all these distant objects could be visited just enough to clothe them with memories and not impossible desires, while yet they remained ordinarily as inaccessible as the moon. The deadly power of rushing about wherever I pleased had not been given me. I measured distances by the standard of man, walking on his two feet, not by the standard of the internal combustion engine. I had not been allowed to deflower the very idea of distance; In return I possessed "infinite riches" in what would have been to a motorist "a little room." The truest and most horrible claim made for modern transport is that it "annihilates space." It does. It annihilates one of the most glorious gifts we have been given. It is a vile inflation that lowers the value of distance, so that a modern boy travels a hundred miles with less sense of liberation and pilgrimage and adventure than his grandfather got from traveling ten. Of course if a man hates space and wants it annihilated that is another matter. Why not creep into his coffin at once? There is little enough space there." - C.S. Lewis
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Ron Paul
A friend of mine posted a video of Ron Paul on Facebook yesterday. I've heard about Ron Paul before but with all the politicians and voices out there I've never actually had the time to pay attention to anything he said. I've got to say I was pleasantly surprised. The video she posted is located here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyTZIXDAMS0&feature=related. It's the 1st of a 6 part interview that was banned from ABC. I guess people are up in arms that the media is ignoring him. I don't find that particularly appalling as others do because a. I think it would be a waste of my time to concern myself with what the mainstream media is or is not telling us because I don't think there is any chance of my activism actually changing anything and b. I don't really watch too many mainstream media outlets. Anyway, what I really wanted to write about was the interview.
I really liked what I heard Ron Paul saying. He wants a much smaller government that has more limited roles. Although I think there may be problems if the government gets as small as Ron Paul wants it, I definitely think it's time for the pendulum to swing in that direction. He wants government out of almost all wars, including the drug war, which is something I agree with. He also makes a lot of good arguments for why the government should stop interfering and how they've done a bad job at the things they have interfered with such as education and healthcare.
One issue that I find particularly important is that of immigration. I've heard he was anti illegal immigration before and that is part of the reason I've never given him the time of day. I think immigrants are very mistreated in this country and I wont vote for a candidate that runs on an anti illegal immigration platform. However, this is the issue I was most surprised to find myself agreeing with him on. He is anti illegal immigration but at the same time he is pro legal immigration. This is why I found his view acceptable. This is an emotional topic so I want to explain it using an analogy so that the argument might be more clear.
Let's look at traffic laws and pretend that people are pro and anti speeding on the freeway. I think the reasonable side would depend on the speed limit. If the speed limit were a reasonable 65mph I would be anti speeding because the law allows for a reasonable speed which eliminates any reason for breaking the law. Now, if the law was 10mph, I would say that the limit is unreasonable and I wouldn't think less of anyone for breaking it. Lets pretend that this issue is important in the 2012 primaries and that the current law is 10mph. I would be sympathetic to the speeders and more likely to vote for a candidate that shared my frustrations. Ron Paul's position could be summed up like this, 'Of course we don't want people speeding, so let's raise the speed limit to 65mph so that people don't have a reason to speed anymore. Then the problem will be much smaller and we wont have as much trouble enforcing our laws upon those who insist on speeding.' I can agree with that because at the moment I am sympathetic to speeders but I wouldn't be if the limit was 65. He changes the issue from pro/anti speeding to what is/is not a reasonable speed. That's refreshing.
Now to compare that analogy to the immigration debate. I am currently sympathetic to people who immigrate illegally because it's nearly impossible to immigrate legally. Compared to the speed analogy it would be as if the United States were 10,000 miles away and immigrants were only allowed to drive 1mph to get there. Ron Paul said in the interview that he would like to be much more generous with our legal immigration laws so that the incentive to immigrate illegally lessens or goes away. That's anti illegal immigration I can agree with. That's refreshing.
I really liked what I heard Ron Paul saying. He wants a much smaller government that has more limited roles. Although I think there may be problems if the government gets as small as Ron Paul wants it, I definitely think it's time for the pendulum to swing in that direction. He wants government out of almost all wars, including the drug war, which is something I agree with. He also makes a lot of good arguments for why the government should stop interfering and how they've done a bad job at the things they have interfered with such as education and healthcare.
One issue that I find particularly important is that of immigration. I've heard he was anti illegal immigration before and that is part of the reason I've never given him the time of day. I think immigrants are very mistreated in this country and I wont vote for a candidate that runs on an anti illegal immigration platform. However, this is the issue I was most surprised to find myself agreeing with him on. He is anti illegal immigration but at the same time he is pro legal immigration. This is why I found his view acceptable. This is an emotional topic so I want to explain it using an analogy so that the argument might be more clear.
Let's look at traffic laws and pretend that people are pro and anti speeding on the freeway. I think the reasonable side would depend on the speed limit. If the speed limit were a reasonable 65mph I would be anti speeding because the law allows for a reasonable speed which eliminates any reason for breaking the law. Now, if the law was 10mph, I would say that the limit is unreasonable and I wouldn't think less of anyone for breaking it. Lets pretend that this issue is important in the 2012 primaries and that the current law is 10mph. I would be sympathetic to the speeders and more likely to vote for a candidate that shared my frustrations. Ron Paul's position could be summed up like this, 'Of course we don't want people speeding, so let's raise the speed limit to 65mph so that people don't have a reason to speed anymore. Then the problem will be much smaller and we wont have as much trouble enforcing our laws upon those who insist on speeding.' I can agree with that because at the moment I am sympathetic to speeders but I wouldn't be if the limit was 65. He changes the issue from pro/anti speeding to what is/is not a reasonable speed. That's refreshing.
Now to compare that analogy to the immigration debate. I am currently sympathetic to people who immigrate illegally because it's nearly impossible to immigrate legally. Compared to the speed analogy it would be as if the United States were 10,000 miles away and immigrants were only allowed to drive 1mph to get there. Ron Paul said in the interview that he would like to be much more generous with our legal immigration laws so that the incentive to immigrate illegally lessens or goes away. That's anti illegal immigration I can agree with. That's refreshing.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
May 21st
People are saying that May 21st is going to be judgement day. This prediction doesn't happen all the time but it's not necessarily uncommon either. It's been unsuccessfully predicted many times in the past. Just for fun I listened to a Family Life Radio Broadcast today that was hosted by Harold Camping, the man who made the May 21st prediction. In a way I feel bad for him more than anything else. He's got this slow rambling voice that makes me think of a kind grandfather. He never raises his voice, gets angry or tries to be controversial. He just seems like a senile 89 year old man. I'm sure there are plenty of 89 year old men out there who would sound ridiculous if people listened to them and spread their ideas.
He didn't really come across as a bad guy, just a guy who's spent his whole life thinking about the wrong stuff, or at least what I consider to be the wrong stuff. He's spent the last 50 years or so with the delusion that knowing when the end of the world was going to happen was important for people to know. From a Christian perspective though, why is knowing that important? If the end of the world was tomorrow or the end of the world was 1000 years from now or if there is never supposed to be an end to the world, would that change how we are supposed to act now? If we are supposed to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, would the world ending Saturday as opposed to 1000 years from now change that? I don't think so. So why would it be of utmost importance to spend your time trying to know something that is irrelevant to how you should live your life? The answer is that it's probably not important. After Saturday he's likely to be the most recent laughing stock of the world. That sucks because I think he's a senile 89 year old guy who spent his time unwisely but I don't necessarily think he's any worse than anybody else who misspent their time. Is the guy who did drugs till the day he died better? The billionaire who never gave two shits about the poverty stricken planet we're in? They alcoholic who thinks the whole world is meaningless? The self-absorbed woman who eats junk food all day and watches TV while her kids get raised by the school they attend? The list goes on and on. It's rare to find someone who lives well and I feel bad for all of us but especially Mr. Camping because he's no crazier than anyone else, he's just unfortunate enough to be listened too.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Hannity
I don't watch much T.V. but a couple nights ago I saw that a show called Hannity was on so I decided to give it a shot. I have to say it was just about the most appalling thing I've ever seen on T.V. The logic and thought process were atrocious. I know I wrote a similar blog a couple days back about Russell Pearce but this is a thought that's been developing in my little brain over the last few days so I wanted to give it another go.
Let's say that there is a complicated situation with one hundred people offering ideas and only one of them has a workable solution. Now lets say that these one hundred people start having debates with each other to try and create a following for their ideas. I think this is what was happening between Hannity and the guest that he had on his show the other night. It seems reasonable to me to think that while watching a political debate there is a good chance that neither person will have a workable solution to the issue that they are discussing. However, any time two people debate a topic there is a good chance one is going to appear more reasonable than the other. I think it is very important not to confuse 'He looks more reasonable than his opponent' with 'He has a workable solution to an issue.'
While watching Hannity it was very obvious that the political opponent that was invited to speak on his show had weak arguments. He was easily made to look foolish and, I suppose rightfully so, soundly defeated in the short "debate" (If you want to call it that. It was more like a one sided attack). Hannity then proceeds to push his own agenda without a smidgen of critical analysis. The logic seemed to be that since he defeated the leftist guest in a "debate", he must be correct. That is what I found so atrocious about the show. Without any reflection on his own ideas he carefully tries to lead the viewer into confusing, 'He looks more reasonable than his opponent' with 'He has a workable solution.' That's dangerous.
I'm admittedly a layman when it comes to this kind of thing. In the words of C.S. Lewis, I'm not trying to understand, I'm trying to misunderstand a little less completely. I don't know what the answers are but I know that we aren't going to find them if we focus all of our energy into tearing down the ideas of others instead of developing good ideas of our own. Be careful what you come to believe when you watch T.V. There is a lot of bad philosophy out there and it can't be made into something good by proving that it's better than something worse.
Let's say that there is a complicated situation with one hundred people offering ideas and only one of them has a workable solution. Now lets say that these one hundred people start having debates with each other to try and create a following for their ideas. I think this is what was happening between Hannity and the guest that he had on his show the other night. It seems reasonable to me to think that while watching a political debate there is a good chance that neither person will have a workable solution to the issue that they are discussing. However, any time two people debate a topic there is a good chance one is going to appear more reasonable than the other. I think it is very important not to confuse 'He looks more reasonable than his opponent' with 'He has a workable solution to an issue.'
While watching Hannity it was very obvious that the political opponent that was invited to speak on his show had weak arguments. He was easily made to look foolish and, I suppose rightfully so, soundly defeated in the short "debate" (If you want to call it that. It was more like a one sided attack). Hannity then proceeds to push his own agenda without a smidgen of critical analysis. The logic seemed to be that since he defeated the leftist guest in a "debate", he must be correct. That is what I found so atrocious about the show. Without any reflection on his own ideas he carefully tries to lead the viewer into confusing, 'He looks more reasonable than his opponent' with 'He has a workable solution.' That's dangerous.
I'm admittedly a layman when it comes to this kind of thing. In the words of C.S. Lewis, I'm not trying to understand, I'm trying to misunderstand a little less completely. I don't know what the answers are but I know that we aren't going to find them if we focus all of our energy into tearing down the ideas of others instead of developing good ideas of our own. Be careful what you come to believe when you watch T.V. There is a lot of bad philosophy out there and it can't be made into something good by proving that it's better than something worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)