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.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Acknowledging the monster behind you.
Have you ever heard the old nursery rhyme about the old lady that swallowed the frog to catch the fly and then a mouse to catch the frog and then a cat to catch the mouse and on and on? The old lady died... of course. I think there is more wisdom in that little nursery rhyme than meets the eye. I think the moral is that sometimes it's better to live with a problem if the only solutions are going to cause other problems that are more severe.
Try to apply that logic to Arizona's immigration problem for a minute. The AZ Legislature recently elected Russell Pearce to be the AZ Senate President and along with that comes a slew of anti-immigration legislation. Russell Pearce is so focused on solving the problem of undocumented immigration in front of him that he fails to see all the problems that his solutions are creating behind him in the wake of unintended consequences. We've already seen instances of violence between communities and the police department. We've seen local economies suffer because residents left in mass numbers to move to other states. And it looks as if the situation is only going to get worse. Recently, there was a bill introduced that would force hospitals to check the legal status of persons who receive emergency care and turn them over to federal authorities after their visit. I don't really feel like going into detail about the negative affects of this legislation because they are so obvious but if you'd like to read another blog that I think is an accurate prediction of what will ensue you can read it here - http://thepragmaticprogressive.org/wp/2011/02/10/a-whole-new-kind-of-death-panel/.
The point I'd like to make is that I think it's very important to think critically about the motives of people who have a victim complex. Russell Pearce has a victim complex when it comes to undocumented immigrants. And rightfully so, I'm pretty sure he was shot once and had another run in that had something to do with drunk driving. (I might be wrong on the details but the point is that he has had bad experiences involving undocumented immigrants). People who view themselves as victims never feel like they need to be critical of their positions because they think they have a right to vengeance. In a way I can understand why Russell Pearce feels the way he does but I also think that we as a society need to think about the monsters behind his philosophy as he focuses all of his energy trying to rid the state of undocumented immigrants instead of critically examining the effects of his actions. Reason being that if we let him keep swallowing cats to catch mice, Arizona is going to end up like the old lady.
Egypt
Today I read that the protests in Egypt were successful in their attempt to force the resignation of their authoritarian president of 30 years. I feel like this is very good news to me even though I am not personally connected to the situation and do not even know anyone who is. It is inspiring to me because it is an example of real change. Not just a politician who says the word change and then either chooses not to change anything or doesn't have the ability to change anything but actual real change from the grassroots level. It really demonstrated the power of the people. I was having a conversation with my brother-in-law a few days ago and he mentioned how the social contract between the people and the government is what allows a government to stay in power. As soon as that social contract is broken the government has no control whether they remain "in charge" or not. On the peoples end, breaking that contract takes a lot of courage because if it fails to break completely they leave themselves open to continuing abuses from those in power. I am inspired by the courage it took for the people of Egypt to stand up to an authoritarian rule and collectively say, "We will not follow you any more. Our social contract is broken. You are not our leader whether the law says you are or not or whether you stay or not. We are free!"
That is inspiring!
That is inspiring!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Book Report - The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne
I just finished this book yesterday and had mixed thoughts about it. I like Shane Claiborne but I don't always agree with his opinions. I felt like he was really good at diagnosing problems but his solutions seemed to lack substance. He would hit the nail on the head when he would talk about how the church is apathetic and numb but then his solution would be an idealistic form of communism. If Christians just woke up and decided to share everything the world would be a better place. Sure, but if everyone on welfare decided to stop collecting government checks and actually organize and start businesses the world would be a better place too. I'm not actually proposing the latter as a plan, I'm just saying that talking about unrealistic goals is just that, unrealistic.
In the book he went on and on about Gods heart for the poor, the early church and how Jesus lived his life. I agree with all of that but I don't see how the book is emulating Jesus. Jesus said to do your good deeds in secret, not write a book about every good deed you ever did. Also, I don't understand how you can grasp the concept of the Gospel being good news for the poor and then go and write a book to an audience of rich people. The book isn't good news for the poor. You can look at the cover which is made to look like cardboard and duck tape and see that it's not something the poor are going to be excited about. The already have cardboard and duck tape. The book is good news for the rich because it frees them from money and a boring life of comfort. But good news for the poor? I'm not so sure.
I like Claiborne for his passion and recognition of a broken world that needs something new. But I wouldn't be surprised if this book was nothing more than an attempt by a man struggling with pride to make a name for himself. It's supposed to be an irresistible revolution but it was written 5 or so years ago and I hadn't heard about it till now. Must be pretty resistible. It doesn't seem to have gained a huge following. At the end of the book there is a three page list of "communities" that he says are part of the irresistible "revolution." It's almost like he's taking credit for them but when you look closer you can see that they aren't anything new. The CCDA is listed and my church is a member of that and has been since before the book was ever published. Willow Creek Community Church is listed and in the book Shane describes this as being a mega-church that took all the crosses out and had American flags all over the place to be "seeker-sensitive." That can hardly be considered part of his "revolution" but he lists all these organizations and makes it look like he's started something unstoppable when I really don't think he's had much impact.
Anyway, although I had disagreements, I think I still enjoyed this book and benefited from it. I came away from it with a better understanding of some of the problems we face in the world and also more of a will to take up the cause of the poor and the needy even though it probably wont be in line with what Shane suggests.
In the book he went on and on about Gods heart for the poor, the early church and how Jesus lived his life. I agree with all of that but I don't see how the book is emulating Jesus. Jesus said to do your good deeds in secret, not write a book about every good deed you ever did. Also, I don't understand how you can grasp the concept of the Gospel being good news for the poor and then go and write a book to an audience of rich people. The book isn't good news for the poor. You can look at the cover which is made to look like cardboard and duck tape and see that it's not something the poor are going to be excited about. The already have cardboard and duck tape. The book is good news for the rich because it frees them from money and a boring life of comfort. But good news for the poor? I'm not so sure.
I like Claiborne for his passion and recognition of a broken world that needs something new. But I wouldn't be surprised if this book was nothing more than an attempt by a man struggling with pride to make a name for himself. It's supposed to be an irresistible revolution but it was written 5 or so years ago and I hadn't heard about it till now. Must be pretty resistible. It doesn't seem to have gained a huge following. At the end of the book there is a three page list of "communities" that he says are part of the irresistible "revolution." It's almost like he's taking credit for them but when you look closer you can see that they aren't anything new. The CCDA is listed and my church is a member of that and has been since before the book was ever published. Willow Creek Community Church is listed and in the book Shane describes this as being a mega-church that took all the crosses out and had American flags all over the place to be "seeker-sensitive." That can hardly be considered part of his "revolution" but he lists all these organizations and makes it look like he's started something unstoppable when I really don't think he's had much impact.
Anyway, although I had disagreements, I think I still enjoyed this book and benefited from it. I came away from it with a better understanding of some of the problems we face in the world and also more of a will to take up the cause of the poor and the needy even though it probably wont be in line with what Shane suggests.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Book Report - From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman
I finished this book a few weeks ago and thought it was very insightful. This was the first book I've ever read that I underlined and marked pages for content that I wanted to revisit at a later date. I thought I'd write a blog highlighting some of the things I learned while reading this book.
Page 6- "First, when it comes to discussing the middle east people go temporarily insane, so if you are planning on talking to an audience of more than two, you'd better have mastered the subject." I thought this was particularly enlightening since everyone has an opinion about the middle east but it's rare to find someone who actually knows a thing or two about what really goes on.
Page 38 - Talked about people that continued to live in Beirut during war time and how they coped. A psychologist that studied peoples coping mechanisms there found that those who were able to block out everything that was going on around them that was not under their control were in the best physical and mental health. I thought this was interesting and I think it applies to other people as well as those living in Beirut. If you can't do anything about it, don't worry about it.
Page 354 - The Israelites used a mask of law to persecute the Palestinians. It is easy to confuse "rule by law" with "rule of law." It struck me as insightful because I think the same thing is going on in the United States to deal with undocumented immigrants. We justify all kinds of injustices by pointing to the law and saying, "What part of illegal don't you understand?" Just because something has been made into law does not mean that it is right or just. It was interesting for me to see this tactic being used in a different part of the world.
Page 364 - "One aspect of the arrogance of power is that it presumes knowledge." I liked this quote...
Page 381 - "In many ways, it was Israel, through its repressive and humiliating treatment, which managed to give the Palestinians a common experience of bitterness to reinforce their historical and cultural ties and cement them together." I thought this quote was also very insightful because I think it happens all over the world and in peoples personal lives as well. In an attempt to make their country more secure, the Israelites oppressed and contained the Palestinians. Instead of making them more secure, what it did was make their enemy hate them with more zeal. I think this happens to people in their personal lives when they try to get even with people instead of just let things go.
Page 430 - "The very existence of Israel as a modern state is slightly mind-blowing." That's for sure.
Page 431 - Friedman talks about what he notices while reading newspapers and about how there seems to be a spotlight on the Jews. I thought it was really interesting to read about what a journalist sees between the lines that a layman like myself might never notice. In this example he talks about how an Israeli solder made the front page because he grabbed a Palestinian youth while a story about Iran and Iraq attacking each other with long range missiles got buried in the back. The content of reporting on the middle east seems to be a bit unbalanced. What can you really believe?
Page 6- "First, when it comes to discussing the middle east people go temporarily insane, so if you are planning on talking to an audience of more than two, you'd better have mastered the subject." I thought this was particularly enlightening since everyone has an opinion about the middle east but it's rare to find someone who actually knows a thing or two about what really goes on.
Page 38 - Talked about people that continued to live in Beirut during war time and how they coped. A psychologist that studied peoples coping mechanisms there found that those who were able to block out everything that was going on around them that was not under their control were in the best physical and mental health. I thought this was interesting and I think it applies to other people as well as those living in Beirut. If you can't do anything about it, don't worry about it.
Page 354 - The Israelites used a mask of law to persecute the Palestinians. It is easy to confuse "rule by law" with "rule of law." It struck me as insightful because I think the same thing is going on in the United States to deal with undocumented immigrants. We justify all kinds of injustices by pointing to the law and saying, "What part of illegal don't you understand?" Just because something has been made into law does not mean that it is right or just. It was interesting for me to see this tactic being used in a different part of the world.
Page 364 - "One aspect of the arrogance of power is that it presumes knowledge." I liked this quote...
Page 381 - "In many ways, it was Israel, through its repressive and humiliating treatment, which managed to give the Palestinians a common experience of bitterness to reinforce their historical and cultural ties and cement them together." I thought this quote was also very insightful because I think it happens all over the world and in peoples personal lives as well. In an attempt to make their country more secure, the Israelites oppressed and contained the Palestinians. Instead of making them more secure, what it did was make their enemy hate them with more zeal. I think this happens to people in their personal lives when they try to get even with people instead of just let things go.
Page 430 - "The very existence of Israel as a modern state is slightly mind-blowing." That's for sure.
Page 431 - Friedman talks about what he notices while reading newspapers and about how there seems to be a spotlight on the Jews. I thought it was really interesting to read about what a journalist sees between the lines that a layman like myself might never notice. In this example he talks about how an Israeli solder made the front page because he grabbed a Palestinian youth while a story about Iran and Iraq attacking each other with long range missiles got buried in the back. The content of reporting on the middle east seems to be a bit unbalanced. What can you really believe?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
A thought about my childhood
I'm reading a book right now by Thomas Friedman titled "From Beirut to Jerusalem." The craziness of the middle east is interesting to read about but it's even more interesting to think critically about. As I flip through the pages I can barely wrap my head around how unreasonable people over there can be. Everyone is scared of everyone else and they use that fear to justify the most egregious acts the human mind can fathom. Whether it be the Syrian government leveling an entire city full of non-combatants to crush a burgeoning rebellion or a small terrorist faction creating a chair with a scalding hot phallus shaped mechanism to do what you'd imagine a terrorist faction would do with such a chair. The atrocities that occur in the middle east are almost beyond imagination for a person raised in Arizona who has never seen or been scared of war. Almost beyond imagination until I remembered something from my childhood that made me see everyone over there as an unlucky version of myself.
I'm pretty sure I am capable of committing every crime committed in the middle east and maybe even worse. Maybe not now that I'm an adult but I remember a time during my childhood when my mind and convictions were still malleable. I can remember sitting in church hearing stories about how the Jews used to stone people for committing certain sins. I never told anyone and felt really guilty but I remember thinking about how much fun it would be to take part in stoning criminals. I imagined a line of people with a "bad guy" a little ways away and getting to pelt him with rocks until he died. Now that I'm older I can't even look at the screen during a movie when someone is getting hanged but there was a time when I could have gone the other way. I guarantee if the adults in my life during that time hadn't taught me the morals that I've come to accept and had instead chose to teach me in a way that a lot of children are brought up in the middle east, I'd fit in just fine over there which is a sad thought. It's sad because I know I'm no different than anyone else, I'm just lucky to have been born into a culture that is less violent than other places.
It's interesting how reading a book can lead me to realizations that were completely unintended by the author. I find that to be very common while reading books. Anyway, I don't really know what the point of this realization is. I guess it's just that if luck is the only thing that kept me from being a middle eastern terrorist than I really don't have the option of hating them. I can only feel sorry for them and try to promote peace through peaceful means.
I'm pretty sure I am capable of committing every crime committed in the middle east and maybe even worse. Maybe not now that I'm an adult but I remember a time during my childhood when my mind and convictions were still malleable. I can remember sitting in church hearing stories about how the Jews used to stone people for committing certain sins. I never told anyone and felt really guilty but I remember thinking about how much fun it would be to take part in stoning criminals. I imagined a line of people with a "bad guy" a little ways away and getting to pelt him with rocks until he died. Now that I'm older I can't even look at the screen during a movie when someone is getting hanged but there was a time when I could have gone the other way. I guarantee if the adults in my life during that time hadn't taught me the morals that I've come to accept and had instead chose to teach me in a way that a lot of children are brought up in the middle east, I'd fit in just fine over there which is a sad thought. It's sad because I know I'm no different than anyone else, I'm just lucky to have been born into a culture that is less violent than other places.
It's interesting how reading a book can lead me to realizations that were completely unintended by the author. I find that to be very common while reading books. Anyway, I don't really know what the point of this realization is. I guess it's just that if luck is the only thing that kept me from being a middle eastern terrorist than I really don't have the option of hating them. I can only feel sorry for them and try to promote peace through peaceful means.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
What he got right and what I'm not sure about
I just finished a book called The Prophetic Imagination, by Walter Brueggemann. One thing I liked about reading the book was that I didn't agree with a lot of what was written in it. I've found that when I read books I tend to agree with the author more often than not. Sometimes the thought crosses my mind that I'm not giving conflicting views enough of a chance because reading a book gives an author a monopoly on your time and thoughts and certain biases might go unrecognized. However, every now and then I read something that I really don't like and at the very least it reminds me that I still know how to think for myself. Since I just finished the book I wanted to write a few things about what I thought Brueggemann got right and what I'm not so sure about.
One reason I didn't enjoy this book is because I think his writing style could have used a little help. The book might have been a little easier if he communicated in a way that was a little more down to earth. It was a book about prophecy and I imagined reading it, not knowing much about religion, and being thoroughly freaked out. It was a little over the top for me.
One thing that I did take away from it is that change in a society will not occur if people don't take the time to imagine how it could be different and think about the steps needed to get there. This, to me, is a simple idea though and doesn't need high and mighty language about prophecy, royal consciousnesses and alternative consciousnesses. "Do not be overrighteous, neither be over wise, why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked and do not be a fool, why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other, the man who fears God will avoid all extremes." Ecc 7:16-18. I think Brueggemann could benefit from taking this advice.
Another thing I disagreed with was a general undertone that prophecy was a goal to reach. I don't think it is wise for a person to concern themselves with this. Even when John the Baptists disciples asked Jesus who he was he only replied to tell John that the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured... and the good news is preached to the poor. To me this says, "Who cares what you call it, the proof's in the pudding." It seems to me that people who get too caught up in semantics and labels forget what is really important. The goal should be to defend the cause of the poor and the needy and to visit orphans and widows in their distress, whatever you want to call the people who do this is irrelevant. Claiming to be a prophet and using all that other religious jargon is only going to freak people out and make a person prideful. And that is what I think is so dangerous about this book.
One reason I didn't enjoy this book is because I think his writing style could have used a little help. The book might have been a little easier if he communicated in a way that was a little more down to earth. It was a book about prophecy and I imagined reading it, not knowing much about religion, and being thoroughly freaked out. It was a little over the top for me.
One thing that I did take away from it is that change in a society will not occur if people don't take the time to imagine how it could be different and think about the steps needed to get there. This, to me, is a simple idea though and doesn't need high and mighty language about prophecy, royal consciousnesses and alternative consciousnesses. "Do not be overrighteous, neither be over wise, why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked and do not be a fool, why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other, the man who fears God will avoid all extremes." Ecc 7:16-18. I think Brueggemann could benefit from taking this advice.
Another thing I disagreed with was a general undertone that prophecy was a goal to reach. I don't think it is wise for a person to concern themselves with this. Even when John the Baptists disciples asked Jesus who he was he only replied to tell John that the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured... and the good news is preached to the poor. To me this says, "Who cares what you call it, the proof's in the pudding." It seems to me that people who get too caught up in semantics and labels forget what is really important. The goal should be to defend the cause of the poor and the needy and to visit orphans and widows in their distress, whatever you want to call the people who do this is irrelevant. Claiming to be a prophet and using all that other religious jargon is only going to freak people out and make a person prideful. And that is what I think is so dangerous about this book.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy
This youtube video is hilarious. If you've got a few minutes watch it and then read the rest of my post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
This makes me laugh but it also makes me ask a lot of serious questions.
If everything is so amazing why isn't anyone happy?
Our culture spends an enormous amount of time pursuing money and material items which this video describes as so amazing. The more successful we have become, the more unhappy we seem to be. If our unhappiness is a result of our pursuit of the wrong goals, what are the right goals?
Have we inadvertently traded community for self-sufficiency through financial avenues? Is our unhappiness the result of a lack of community?
Is there any way to retain community while still pursuing self-sufficiency? Would that even be a solution?
For some reason, I think there is a very strong correlation between the unhappiness that our culture is experiencing and the breakdown and loss of healthy relationships. We have become so financially self-sufficient that needs no longer bring us together. The need for one person to cook for many and have a communal meal because not everyone has the time to prepare their own food was replaced by restaurants, frozen food, microwaves and higher paying jobs. The need to call your family and friends to help you move was replaced by the company Two Men and a Truck and the ability to pay them. The need to get together with your friends for coffee or beer is being replaced by tv shows like Friends and sites like Facebook. And the list goes on. We are getting more of everything with less authenticity (especially when you think of food and Facebook) and I think what has been lost in the process is contributing to our unhappiness.
I'm not sure I know what the solution is to these problems but I do know that a culture full of unhappy people is a danger to itself. Unhappiness breeds unhappiness. Discontentment breeds envy and jealousy. Crime goes up when people want what others have. Whatever the answer is, I think it's in all of our best interest to start thinking about it and looking for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
This makes me laugh but it also makes me ask a lot of serious questions.
If everything is so amazing why isn't anyone happy?
Our culture spends an enormous amount of time pursuing money and material items which this video describes as so amazing. The more successful we have become, the more unhappy we seem to be. If our unhappiness is a result of our pursuit of the wrong goals, what are the right goals?
Have we inadvertently traded community for self-sufficiency through financial avenues? Is our unhappiness the result of a lack of community?
Is there any way to retain community while still pursuing self-sufficiency? Would that even be a solution?
For some reason, I think there is a very strong correlation between the unhappiness that our culture is experiencing and the breakdown and loss of healthy relationships. We have become so financially self-sufficient that needs no longer bring us together. The need for one person to cook for many and have a communal meal because not everyone has the time to prepare their own food was replaced by restaurants, frozen food, microwaves and higher paying jobs. The need to call your family and friends to help you move was replaced by the company Two Men and a Truck and the ability to pay them. The need to get together with your friends for coffee or beer is being replaced by tv shows like Friends and sites like Facebook. And the list goes on. We are getting more of everything with less authenticity (especially when you think of food and Facebook) and I think what has been lost in the process is contributing to our unhappiness.
I'm not sure I know what the solution is to these problems but I do know that a culture full of unhappy people is a danger to itself. Unhappiness breeds unhappiness. Discontentment breeds envy and jealousy. Crime goes up when people want what others have. Whatever the answer is, I think it's in all of our best interest to start thinking about it and looking for it.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Facebook status update
I'm in a bit of a good mood right now because of something a little selfish. There have been a couple quotes I wanted to put up on Facebook for a while but never did. Anyway, yesterday I posted them and it ended up being my most "liked" status update ever. A bunch of my friends copied and posted it on their pages and it was even copied by a large group named People Against Jan Brewer. This was the status update:
"We cannot continue to sustain all of this stuff because you don't run a state, you don't run a country with your heart," - Jan Brewer
"A hard heart is no infallable remedy to a soft head." - C.S. Lewis
The C.S. Lewis quote is a line from a book he wrote titled, "The Abolition of Man." Ever since I read it I've been looking for clever way to use it in response to a right winger who blows off a good argument by calling it emotional. I tend to get that argument a lot from a certain individual but I wouldn't tell him this quote because I like him and wouldn't want to be a dick. Jan Brewer, however, does not have the luxury of being liked by me. So this morning, as selfish as it may be, I'm a little proud of how well my cleverness was received. I read through the comments on the pages of other people who copied my post and there were a few people who had some nice things to say. A couple of the more flattering comments were as follows:
Tanicia Hood Haha, who ever posted this, of the People against jan Brewer crew was ingenious to follow with that quote. Take a bow if you would.
Joy Wilcox brilliant.
So anyway, I'm in a bit of a good mood after being called brilliant and ingenious by strangers.
"We cannot continue to sustain all of this stuff because you don't run a state, you don't run a country with your heart," - Jan Brewer
"A hard heart is no infallable remedy to a soft head." - C.S. Lewis
The C.S. Lewis quote is a line from a book he wrote titled, "The Abolition of Man." Ever since I read it I've been looking for clever way to use it in response to a right winger who blows off a good argument by calling it emotional. I tend to get that argument a lot from a certain individual but I wouldn't tell him this quote because I like him and wouldn't want to be a dick. Jan Brewer, however, does not have the luxury of being liked by me. So this morning, as selfish as it may be, I'm a little proud of how well my cleverness was received. I read through the comments on the pages of other people who copied my post and there were a few people who had some nice things to say. A couple of the more flattering comments were as follows:
Tanicia Hood Haha, who ever posted this, of the People against jan Brewer crew was ingenious to follow with that quote. Take a bow if you would.
Joy Wilcox brilliant.
So anyway, I'm in a bit of a good mood after being called brilliant and ingenious by strangers.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The DREAM ACT
The DREAM ACT passed a vote in the house today and will be voted on again tomorrow in the senate. I was really happy to hear that it did well but I still have my doubts about the senate vote. I really hope it passes but I was thinking about it and I'm pretty sure everything will be okay if it doesn't.
I have a lot of undocumented friends and acquaintances and most of them are actually really happy people. A thought crossed my mind that they are a lot better off than the people who oppose them. While I was reading today I came across an article about why Jan Brewer opposes the DA. She was going off on her usual "You can't run a state or a country with your heart" nonsense. I was reminded of a quote by C.S. Lewis that I read a while back in The Abolition of Man. He says, "A hard heart is no infallible remedy for a soft head." Jan Brewer definitely has one of those. So do a lot of people who oppress the powerless. She has no idea that it's in her best interest and the best interest of our country to provide people, who we've already given a public education, the opportunity to work legally and pay taxes instead of working under the table or turning to the black market for income. Who, of my undocumented friends, would trade lives with some of the most prominent anti-immigration figures? Who would want to go to bed at night and be Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, or Kris Kobach? I'm absolutely 100% positive that every single one of them are better off being an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. than to be one of those pitiful souls. That makes me feel very good inside.
I can't think of one undocumented friend of mine who is hungry. I can't think of any who do not have clothes. They are forced to live a life that is very resourceful. They are hard working. Most of them have a closer community and better friendships than mainstream Americans. There are many aspects of living an undocumented life that should be envied by the rest of us but we never look at it that way. Maybe if the DA doesn't pass the senate tomorrow they will be better off for it. I still hope for a passing vote but at the end of the day, many of them are good happy people and I hope they don't lose that if they get there papers and enter the ugly world of American affluency.
I have a lot of undocumented friends and acquaintances and most of them are actually really happy people. A thought crossed my mind that they are a lot better off than the people who oppose them. While I was reading today I came across an article about why Jan Brewer opposes the DA. She was going off on her usual "You can't run a state or a country with your heart" nonsense. I was reminded of a quote by C.S. Lewis that I read a while back in The Abolition of Man. He says, "A hard heart is no infallible remedy for a soft head." Jan Brewer definitely has one of those. So do a lot of people who oppress the powerless. She has no idea that it's in her best interest and the best interest of our country to provide people, who we've already given a public education, the opportunity to work legally and pay taxes instead of working under the table or turning to the black market for income. Who, of my undocumented friends, would trade lives with some of the most prominent anti-immigration figures? Who would want to go to bed at night and be Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, or Kris Kobach? I'm absolutely 100% positive that every single one of them are better off being an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. than to be one of those pitiful souls. That makes me feel very good inside.
I can't think of one undocumented friend of mine who is hungry. I can't think of any who do not have clothes. They are forced to live a life that is very resourceful. They are hard working. Most of them have a closer community and better friendships than mainstream Americans. There are many aspects of living an undocumented life that should be envied by the rest of us but we never look at it that way. Maybe if the DA doesn't pass the senate tomorrow they will be better off for it. I still hope for a passing vote but at the end of the day, many of them are good happy people and I hope they don't lose that if they get there papers and enter the ugly world of American affluency.
Friday, December 3, 2010
The Gifts of the Jews - Book Report
I just finished reading the "The Gifts of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill. That was a great book. I think it really changed the way I view the Bible, God and faith in general. It was a historical analysis of the origins of the Jewish faith and how the Jews revolutionized modern thought and brought about western civilization. This might be somewhat controversial but it convinced me that a lot of the old testament was inaccurate, having been passed down orally for about a thousand years before being put into written form. This is actually very liberating and refreshing to me as I've always found it very difficult to believe that God would do some of the things the old testament says he did (I just filed these things away as something I didn't have an answer for). It's nice to know that some of those accounts were probably embellished but that the general events are very historical and although it might not be perfect, there is no reason that belief in God should be scrapped just because the Bible may not be without error.
What is religion?
I was talking to a couple friends last night and one of them brought up some religious topics. He made an argument that religion was relative and anyone could be the answer or have the answer. It was all just whatever people decided to follow. I didn't really argue with him but I did say that if you make that argument you'd have some pretty tough questions to answer but that no matter what argument you make there are tough questions to answer. It was my nice way of saying I didn't agree with him but that I don't have some kind of "knowledge" that is better than everyone else. What did get me thinking, however, was how he reached his conclusion.
He said that he saw a magnet on a refrigerator that said something about how life isn't about who you are but it's about who you choose to be. He also read a fictional book about a mechanic in North Carolina who was the messiah but decided he didn't want to be and went up on a mountain and told God that he quit. He then chose to become a pilot and lived a happy life - like the refrigerator magnet, choosing who you want to be instead of just being the person he was born. This was apparently enough to convince him that anyone can be the "messiah" and he is confident enough about it to tell people that there is no messiah because anyone could be it.
I had a thought though that what he just did was create a mini religion. He read a book, believed the message that there is no true religion and was telling people that the absence of religion is what is true. I'm pretty sure that's what the majority of religions do. Most have a book, a message and try to recruit followers. I don't think that's a bad thing because I don't think truth is relative. If there is truth out there why would it be bad to search for it? I just think that if you are going to tell people, in a definitive way like my friend did, that things are a certain way you should probably have more than a refrigerator magnet and a fictional book. My friend happens to be a really nice guy and I think people would listen to him but I think the only reason anyone would listen to him is because he's a nice guy and it's easy to say "truth doesn't exist" and go on and live however you choose. But if what he's doing is spreading a mini religion, why aren't people offended? It's a little offensive to tell a group of people the Jesus is the only way to heaven or that not breaking Islamic law will get you there. So why is it in American culture that someone can get inspiration from a refrigerator magnet, tell people religions aren't true and it not be offensive but if you get inspiration from the Bible or the Quran all of a sudden you're religious and shouldn't be forcing it on anyone. Isn't that what everyone does who claims to have knowledge? So what is religion, if that's not?
He said that he saw a magnet on a refrigerator that said something about how life isn't about who you are but it's about who you choose to be. He also read a fictional book about a mechanic in North Carolina who was the messiah but decided he didn't want to be and went up on a mountain and told God that he quit. He then chose to become a pilot and lived a happy life - like the refrigerator magnet, choosing who you want to be instead of just being the person he was born. This was apparently enough to convince him that anyone can be the "messiah" and he is confident enough about it to tell people that there is no messiah because anyone could be it.
I had a thought though that what he just did was create a mini religion. He read a book, believed the message that there is no true religion and was telling people that the absence of religion is what is true. I'm pretty sure that's what the majority of religions do. Most have a book, a message and try to recruit followers. I don't think that's a bad thing because I don't think truth is relative. If there is truth out there why would it be bad to search for it? I just think that if you are going to tell people, in a definitive way like my friend did, that things are a certain way you should probably have more than a refrigerator magnet and a fictional book. My friend happens to be a really nice guy and I think people would listen to him but I think the only reason anyone would listen to him is because he's a nice guy and it's easy to say "truth doesn't exist" and go on and live however you choose. But if what he's doing is spreading a mini religion, why aren't people offended? It's a little offensive to tell a group of people the Jesus is the only way to heaven or that not breaking Islamic law will get you there. So why is it in American culture that someone can get inspiration from a refrigerator magnet, tell people religions aren't true and it not be offensive but if you get inspiration from the Bible or the Quran all of a sudden you're religious and shouldn't be forcing it on anyone. Isn't that what everyone does who claims to have knowledge? So what is religion, if that's not?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Two ideas - Anchoring and Loves for the Sub-Human
I started reading another book by C.S. Lewis this morning called the "Four Loves." The first type of "love" that he discusses is the love/like that we all experience for things that are not human such as a pleasant smell or a glass of water when we are thirsty. He describes how a person loves the smell of sweet peas when he passes a garden on his morning walk or how a wine aficionado loves wine so much that even on his death bed when he knows he will never drink wine again he would be mortified if a bottle of fine claret were wasted on a person who did not appreciate it.
When I read the section about the person who loves the smell of sweet peas on his morning walk it made me ask myself why I don't take the time to appreciate little things like that. I don't even go for walks and I live right next to a park that is, in all honesty, probably one of the nicest parks in the Phoenix area. I can't say that I wasn't a little ashamed of myself. I really should go for walks and appreciate nature a little more than I do. However, I have a little theory about why I have forgotten to appreciate things like that and I read about it in a different book a month or so ago.
When I read "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz there was a section on something that he called Anchoring. In the book he theorized that the amount of pleasure we derive from any given source is affected by the amount of pleasure we would expect to receive from a given alternative. For example, if you were going to buy a pair of shoes you would be ecstatic if you bought them and knew that because you bought them you would no longer have to walk around barefoot. The anchor is going around barefoot. When compared to that a pair of shoes is a wonderful thing. However, if you don't anchor your purchase against being barefoot and instead just anchor your purchase against the other possible options, your purchase will probably only be a little bit better or the same as any other choice that you may have chosen. When you look at it this way, the pleasure that you derive from the shoes decreases drastically.
I think my lack of appreciation for things like the smell of sweet peas might be a result of what I anchor pleasurable things against. The smell of sweet peas is, at best, a small source of pleasure. It's not something, about which, you're going to sit down at the end of the day and say "I smelled sweet peas today, today is a good day." There are a lot of things in my life that I find pleasure in but the reality is that most of them are bigger than the smell of sweet peas. My girlfriend, good books, a business, friends, food, playing sports - all of these things I'd say cause me more pleasure than sweet peas ever could and as a result, when I experience things similar to the smell of sweet peas, I don't derive much pleasure from them because there are plenty of other things that are a source of greater pleasure for me. However, I recognize this as a shortfall for me. When I experience simple things I need to stop and recognize them as a gift in and of themselves. I shouldn't compare them to anything else other than not having been able to experience them at all. I think I will be a happier and more appreciative person if I can start looking at good things this way and maybe it will inspire me to go out and look for simple pleasures on a regular basis.
When I read the section about the person who loves the smell of sweet peas on his morning walk it made me ask myself why I don't take the time to appreciate little things like that. I don't even go for walks and I live right next to a park that is, in all honesty, probably one of the nicest parks in the Phoenix area. I can't say that I wasn't a little ashamed of myself. I really should go for walks and appreciate nature a little more than I do. However, I have a little theory about why I have forgotten to appreciate things like that and I read about it in a different book a month or so ago.
When I read "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz there was a section on something that he called Anchoring. In the book he theorized that the amount of pleasure we derive from any given source is affected by the amount of pleasure we would expect to receive from a given alternative. For example, if you were going to buy a pair of shoes you would be ecstatic if you bought them and knew that because you bought them you would no longer have to walk around barefoot. The anchor is going around barefoot. When compared to that a pair of shoes is a wonderful thing. However, if you don't anchor your purchase against being barefoot and instead just anchor your purchase against the other possible options, your purchase will probably only be a little bit better or the same as any other choice that you may have chosen. When you look at it this way, the pleasure that you derive from the shoes decreases drastically.
I think my lack of appreciation for things like the smell of sweet peas might be a result of what I anchor pleasurable things against. The smell of sweet peas is, at best, a small source of pleasure. It's not something, about which, you're going to sit down at the end of the day and say "I smelled sweet peas today, today is a good day." There are a lot of things in my life that I find pleasure in but the reality is that most of them are bigger than the smell of sweet peas. My girlfriend, good books, a business, friends, food, playing sports - all of these things I'd say cause me more pleasure than sweet peas ever could and as a result, when I experience things similar to the smell of sweet peas, I don't derive much pleasure from them because there are plenty of other things that are a source of greater pleasure for me. However, I recognize this as a shortfall for me. When I experience simple things I need to stop and recognize them as a gift in and of themselves. I shouldn't compare them to anything else other than not having been able to experience them at all. I think I will be a happier and more appreciative person if I can start looking at good things this way and maybe it will inspire me to go out and look for simple pleasures on a regular basis.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Poetry
"Here I sit all broken hearted, tried to shit but only farted. Then one day I took a chance, tried to fart but shit my pants."
I read that on the wall in a bathroom stall in a truck stop one time. I can't lie, it made me laugh. Anyway, I can't remember ever writing poetry but It's my girlfriends birthday and I just got off the phone with her and she was telling me I should write a blog in a different genre than I usually do. I think I'll try my best at a poem but I wanted to warn anybody reading this that I have no idea what I'm doing and when I finish I'm going to publish the post but it's probably going to be pretty embarrassing. Here it goes...
It's been five minutes since I finished the paragraph above and I don't know where to start,
I think I remember something about how poetry is supposed to come from the heart?
I can tell that if this poem is going to have any length at all it's going to take some time,
I think I remember something about how poems are supposed to rhyme?
Aren't they supposed to have a certain number of syllables too?
Or maybe that's just the Japanese Haiku?
I don't know, I've never done this, maybe it'll be best if I just use my wrist,
To position my hands over the keys, while sitting outside under the trees.
Haha, I'm lying, I'm just in my room, thinking of another word that'll rhyme with room, Broom!
That's it, broom rhymes with room and another word that rhymes with those two is tomb ;)
You know Dr. Sues used to be one of my favorite authors as a young lad,
I liked "Hop on Pop" because the drawings in it were rad.
That verse a couple lines back with broom, room and tomb reminded me of Dr. Sues.
You know what else reminds me of Dr. Sues? A big yellow caboose.
Okay, time to make a point, poetry might not be for me.
But it was fun to try and I'm glad other people do it with glee, lol.
Happy Birthday Renee! I hope you liked my incredibly cheesy/awful poem ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)