The Iranian president called out to the American people to reject US foreign policy today. You can read about it here (BBC) if you want.
My favorite lines?
Mr Ahmadinejad's letter, which makes no mention of Iran's nuclear programme, comes during a period of especially tense relations between the two countries.
or maybe
Mr Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, urged the US people to support the right of the Palestinians to live in their own homeland.
Awesome work there, BBC. Way to keep your delivery smooth and impartial.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Free Will
I read dilbertblog fairly regularly. It's a blog written by Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. It's normally pretty interesting, but that's irrelevant to this post. What is relevant is the constant debates over whether or not free will exists that take place in the comments for the blog.
Adams is a firm believer that free will is a collective illusion: we do not have any power to choose an option, we're simply "moist robots" whose conditioning and genetics control all of our choices.
The most common argument against him is very flawed: If free will doesn't exist, then why do we have prisons? Why do we punish children who do wrong? They have no control over their actions. The obvious retort is that prisons and other forms of punishment are a form of conditioning: even though the children don't actually make the choice, they won't misbehave in the future because they've been conditioned to value doing the right thing out of fear of punishment, or because they've been convinced that doing the right thing is what's important.
The argument made by the detractors shows a fairly gross understanding of what Adams defines as free will. He doesn't argue our lack of free will equates to a world where nothing anyone does will make a difference since the choices we'll make are set in stone...in fact, his definition of free will is nothing like that. Adams free will is, put quite simply, that there is a reason for every choice we make. When we are faced with a choice we will always do what our brain tells us to do.
When the viewpoint is stated plainly, it's fairly difficult to furnish an effective argument. If free will is the capacity to choose something we don't want to choose, free will can't exist. For example, right now I have no desire to slap myself in the face. Slapping myself in the face doesn't prove I have free will, just that I had a desire to slap myself for whatever reason (perhaps to prove the existence of free will, perhaps to show that I have power over my actions, or perhaps because of a hidden masochistic tendency). I'd only hit myself in the face if I wanted to hit myself in the face. This is a pretty simple experiment that you can try right now. I guarantee that you won't hit yourself unless you decide you want to: try it as many times as you want.
I don't know why Adams likes to define free will in this manner - normally, it will just inspire argument. It's like saying, "The earth isn't round!" and letting people argue while all the while all you're really saying is that it's spherical -- amusing, but counterproductive.
The real question of free will (by Adams definition) is not whether we have any power over our choices but instead over the conditions that cause us to make our choices. We can't choose to be hungry, but do we have the power to choose whether or not to eat? Is there a choice or is it merely a complex calculation?
My opinion: of course there's a choice. But you don't get to hear my argument, as I have to get to work. While you make your own decision, ponder this: "How could someone as smart as Aaron be wrong?" =)
Adams is a firm believer that free will is a collective illusion: we do not have any power to choose an option, we're simply "moist robots" whose conditioning and genetics control all of our choices.
The most common argument against him is very flawed: If free will doesn't exist, then why do we have prisons? Why do we punish children who do wrong? They have no control over their actions. The obvious retort is that prisons and other forms of punishment are a form of conditioning: even though the children don't actually make the choice, they won't misbehave in the future because they've been conditioned to value doing the right thing out of fear of punishment, or because they've been convinced that doing the right thing is what's important.
The argument made by the detractors shows a fairly gross understanding of what Adams defines as free will. He doesn't argue our lack of free will equates to a world where nothing anyone does will make a difference since the choices we'll make are set in stone...in fact, his definition of free will is nothing like that. Adams free will is, put quite simply, that there is a reason for every choice we make. When we are faced with a choice we will always do what our brain tells us to do.
When the viewpoint is stated plainly, it's fairly difficult to furnish an effective argument. If free will is the capacity to choose something we don't want to choose, free will can't exist. For example, right now I have no desire to slap myself in the face. Slapping myself in the face doesn't prove I have free will, just that I had a desire to slap myself for whatever reason (perhaps to prove the existence of free will, perhaps to show that I have power over my actions, or perhaps because of a hidden masochistic tendency). I'd only hit myself in the face if I wanted to hit myself in the face. This is a pretty simple experiment that you can try right now. I guarantee that you won't hit yourself unless you decide you want to: try it as many times as you want.
I don't know why Adams likes to define free will in this manner - normally, it will just inspire argument. It's like saying, "The earth isn't round!" and letting people argue while all the while all you're really saying is that it's spherical -- amusing, but counterproductive.
The real question of free will (by Adams definition) is not whether we have any power over our choices but instead over the conditions that cause us to make our choices. We can't choose to be hungry, but do we have the power to choose whether or not to eat? Is there a choice or is it merely a complex calculation?
My opinion: of course there's a choice. But you don't get to hear my argument, as I have to get to work. While you make your own decision, ponder this: "How could someone as smart as Aaron be wrong?" =)
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Alchemist
Thoughts on "The Alchemist" by Paulo Coelho
Coelho's "The Alchemist" is a book I can wholeheartedly recommend to most people who believe that a big part of life is realizing our dreams. The primary message of the book is that the happiest people are the people who aren't afraid to chase their dream. Our dream is obvious when we are very young, but as we age we prioritize other things. It eventually becomes painful to remember our unrealized dream, so we forget it.
It's a book appropriate for most ages (12+), and a quick read. If you liked "The Little Prince" you'll probably like "The Alchemist": both books have the same innocence, and both books have a quality that make them appealing to children and adults. The rest of this post will be some personal observations or insights made in relation to specific passages or themes in the book. It probably won't be very interesting unless you've read the book, and even then I can't guarantee anything.
"It's the possibility of having a dream come true that makes life interesting". -Santiago
Santiago says this very early in the book, and it's very revealing of his idealistic and innocent lifeview. I think, for someone who truly wants to realize a dream, it might even have some truth. For most of us, life is not about realizing our dreams (which might be a lot of hard work) it's about choosing a path in life that might make us happy. It's funny how easy it is to be lazy - but can we ever be happy if we're lazy? It's counterintuitive, but happiness doesn't come with leisure, it comes with the hard work of working hard for something you believe in. I don't think you can be happy unless you're satisfied with yourself and the path you've chosen.
We know our life dreams as children or at a very young age, but we forget them as we grow older and integrate as an acceptable citizen of society.
Why is there always an idea that we know what our life goal is at birth? How would we ever know our Personal Legend before we understood life? I think this idea merely sounds appealing - much like the idea of karma. It sounds so simple and we want it to be true because of how wondrous it would be...but that doesn't make it true. Perhaps the values we discover/create at a very young age will have a large bearing on our "Personal Legend", but I think that as children we might not have the necessary knowledge to deduct what our legend will be.
While I'm talking about Personal Legends, why can't we choose one? Why can't we decide upon a dream?
"The closer we get to our Personal Legend, the more that Personal Legend becomes our reason for being." -Santiago
Whether or not you can make a choice or not about your Personal Legend, this statement had a lot of truth for me. As you work harder and harder to achieve something, the other things in life become less important and the achievement's importance is amplified.
I am left with questions though. For the sake of simplicity the Personal Legend of Santiago was something so simple and something so obviously achieved: finding treasure. I don't think that everyone will have a life goal that can be achieved in such a cut and dry manner. Coelho tended to simplify life goals into a single achievement: for example, the crystal seller who wanted to travel to Mecca, but feared that if he ever reached Mecca his life would lack meaning.
Is a personal legend ever a simple black and white achievement? I think we could say that Mother Teresa lived a life very close to her personal legend, but was she ever actually done? I think most Personal Legends are unreachable goals - it's not something simple like owning a house, making a trip, or even becoming rich. It's something undefinable or unreachable: helping the poor, enlightenment, a happy life. We work towards these ideals by setting concrete goals: I will donate this much money, I will...well, you get the idea.
Maybe I'm overcomplicating things. Coelho would say so: Santiago's wisdom and personal strength came from his ability to see the simplicity in life, and this was encouraged by The Alchemist.
Simplicity
Coelho's focus on simplicity over complexity is probably most apparent in the contrast between the Englishman and Santiago. There is a clear recognition that both are working diligently towards reaching their Personal Legend...but there's also a clear bias towards the methods of Santiago. The Englishman is presented as inferior to Santiago, mostly because of his inability to recognize simplicity and his inability to learn from personal experience. His inability to recognize simplicity is most apparent when, after Santiago has read all of his books, he is greatly disappointed when Santiago merely states a few simple facts that are the basis for all alchemy. The reader is left feeling that Santiago is the wise one because he has left with the universally important truths, and pitying the Englishman for not recognizing Santiago's wisdom. His inability to learn from personal experience is also highlighted at the same point: he tells Santiago that after days of watching the caravan travel through the desert he has learned nothing. While Santiago has a talent for recognizing the unity of all existence, the Englishman has a strong desire to view everything as a separate entity. This difference is one of the primary reasons Santiago is approached by the Alchemist.
Santiago and Fatima
This is probably one of my least favorite parts of the book for one reason: Coelho puts a strong focus on love at first sight. I believe this is a dangerous idea to teach to children and even adults - it puts emphasis not only on appearance but also on initial impressions. Isn't the divorce rate high enough?
Love
Despite my misgivings about how Santiago and Fatima "fall" in love, I love the mature view of love presented in the book. I love the very literal "setting free" that Fatima does for Santiago (If you love something, set it free...). Culturally, this idea is not always supported. There are a wide range of beliefs about the best way to find and keep love...sadly, I think there is a lot more emphasis placed on the latter. Don't get me wrong, I understand that love is difficult, but I think it's much more important to find someone we truly love than it is to keep a relationship with someone we thought we loved. Fatima's acceptance that Santiago had to live life before their relationship could truly begin is symbolic in many ways, but most noticably it allows Santiago the opportunity to realize that his love for Fatima is true.
This is a minor point, but I also like the idea that love should never hold us back from doing what we want to do or being who we want to be. As I've already made clear, we won't be happy unless we are who we want to be. If we aren't happy, we can't really love.
Fatalism
The word fatalism is never directly spoken in The Alchemist, but there is a brief section where it is brought up that the leaders of the tribesmen "do not want to hear their future because it is difficult to fight with all your valor if you know you will die". This is the same predicament many fatalists run into - why try when the future is already decided? The leaders of the tribesmen realize that whether or not fate (their future) exists or not is immaterial - knowing that the future is already decided should not affect your actions.
Journeys
The wisest characters in the book were very aware of their own mortality (save, of course, The Alchemist who wasn't mortal). Even if they lived a life seeking their Personal Legend, they recognized that they might die before they reached it. Seemingly in spite of this, they were ready to die on any day. The idea is "We should live lives striving to reach our Personal Legends, but we should be proud of the journey to reach them."
Perhaps the lack of wisdom is again best exemplified by the Englishman. Both the Englishman and Santiago worked very hard to achieve their goals, but Santiago worked hard and was happy. This important distinction allowed Santiago to face the sword of the Alchemist (and his own death) without fear or regret. Were the Englishman placed in the same situation, he would not have faced his death fearlessly - and if he knew he were going to die he would feel his life wasted as he had never reached his goal. "You cannot seek only the treasure of your personal legend, you must live it."-Alchemist
Fatima vs. Santiago: Goals
Fatima is not portrayed to have the same strength or drive as Santiago. She is portrayed as a wise character, but The Alchemist himself says that her Personal Legend is Santiago. She is pigeonholed into a traditional female role where she waits diligently at home while her love explores the world. I think the book would have been more effective if Fatima had already reached her Personal Legend, as it is, it comes off rather sexist. This isn't Coelho's intent and Fatima is presented with great respect, but on a second glance that respect seems unearned.
"One is loved because one is loved. No reason is needed for loving."-Fatima
This is not only Fatima's viewpoint, this is how love is presented in the book. I can't believe this is true. Overly romantic but lacking substance.
"Even though I complain sometimes, it's because I'm the heart of a person and people's hearts are that way. People are afraid to pursue their most important dreams, because they feel they don't deserve them, or that they'll be unable to achieve them. We, their hearts, become fearful just thinking of loved ones who go away forever, or of moments that could have been good but weren't, or of treasures that might have been found but were forever hidden in the sands. Because, when these things happen, we suffer terribly."-Santiago's Heart
"Our heart can never suffer if we are following our Personal Legend." -Alchemist
I like this part, and I like Coelho's explanation of why our heart might discourage us from following our dreams. That's all.
"When you possess great treasures within you, and you try to tell others of them, seldom are you believed."-Alchemist
It's funny, but this kind of reminds me of what Will Smith said in the preview for his most recent movie: "People will try to tell you that you can't do something because they couldn't do it themselves." Both statements are true, because it's easier for us to believe that if something is too difficult for us it will be too difficult for someone else...sometimes even though we never really tried.
"That is what Alchemists do. They show that, when we strive to become better than we are, everything around us becomes better too."-Alchemist
A fundamental tenet in many Buddhist belief systems and also a statement I believe in strongly. Good begets good.
Lingering Question
At the end of the book, a thief tells Santiago about a vision he had about his own Personal Legend. I wonder, how was that thief able to come so close to achieving his own Personal Legend? How could someone who almost achieved their Personal Legend ever become such a mean person?
A final complaint
I felt it was unneccessary for Coelho to give Santiago actual treasure. I suppose the entirety of the epilogue was unneccessary (it was basically just Santiago going to find his treasure, finding it, and then thinking of Fatima). The treasure is much more powerful as a figurative object than a literal, and the book loses a bit of symbolism by having Santiago find physical treasure. I suppose I can dismiss it as a necessary simplicity to make the book easier for children to relate to.
Coelho's "The Alchemist" is a book I can wholeheartedly recommend to most people who believe that a big part of life is realizing our dreams. The primary message of the book is that the happiest people are the people who aren't afraid to chase their dream. Our dream is obvious when we are very young, but as we age we prioritize other things. It eventually becomes painful to remember our unrealized dream, so we forget it.
It's a book appropriate for most ages (12+), and a quick read. If you liked "The Little Prince" you'll probably like "The Alchemist": both books have the same innocence, and both books have a quality that make them appealing to children and adults. The rest of this post will be some personal observations or insights made in relation to specific passages or themes in the book. It probably won't be very interesting unless you've read the book, and even then I can't guarantee anything.
"It's the possibility of having a dream come true that makes life interesting". -Santiago
Santiago says this very early in the book, and it's very revealing of his idealistic and innocent lifeview. I think, for someone who truly wants to realize a dream, it might even have some truth. For most of us, life is not about realizing our dreams (which might be a lot of hard work) it's about choosing a path in life that might make us happy. It's funny how easy it is to be lazy - but can we ever be happy if we're lazy? It's counterintuitive, but happiness doesn't come with leisure, it comes with the hard work of working hard for something you believe in. I don't think you can be happy unless you're satisfied with yourself and the path you've chosen.
We know our life dreams as children or at a very young age, but we forget them as we grow older and integrate as an acceptable citizen of society.
Why is there always an idea that we know what our life goal is at birth? How would we ever know our Personal Legend before we understood life? I think this idea merely sounds appealing - much like the idea of karma. It sounds so simple and we want it to be true because of how wondrous it would be...but that doesn't make it true. Perhaps the values we discover/create at a very young age will have a large bearing on our "Personal Legend", but I think that as children we might not have the necessary knowledge to deduct what our legend will be.
While I'm talking about Personal Legends, why can't we choose one? Why can't we decide upon a dream?
"The closer we get to our Personal Legend, the more that Personal Legend becomes our reason for being." -Santiago
Whether or not you can make a choice or not about your Personal Legend, this statement had a lot of truth for me. As you work harder and harder to achieve something, the other things in life become less important and the achievement's importance is amplified.
I am left with questions though. For the sake of simplicity the Personal Legend of Santiago was something so simple and something so obviously achieved: finding treasure. I don't think that everyone will have a life goal that can be achieved in such a cut and dry manner. Coelho tended to simplify life goals into a single achievement: for example, the crystal seller who wanted to travel to Mecca, but feared that if he ever reached Mecca his life would lack meaning.
Is a personal legend ever a simple black and white achievement? I think we could say that Mother Teresa lived a life very close to her personal legend, but was she ever actually done? I think most Personal Legends are unreachable goals - it's not something simple like owning a house, making a trip, or even becoming rich. It's something undefinable or unreachable: helping the poor, enlightenment, a happy life. We work towards these ideals by setting concrete goals: I will donate this much money, I will...well, you get the idea.
Maybe I'm overcomplicating things. Coelho would say so: Santiago's wisdom and personal strength came from his ability to see the simplicity in life, and this was encouraged by The Alchemist.
Simplicity
Coelho's focus on simplicity over complexity is probably most apparent in the contrast between the Englishman and Santiago. There is a clear recognition that both are working diligently towards reaching their Personal Legend...but there's also a clear bias towards the methods of Santiago. The Englishman is presented as inferior to Santiago, mostly because of his inability to recognize simplicity and his inability to learn from personal experience. His inability to recognize simplicity is most apparent when, after Santiago has read all of his books, he is greatly disappointed when Santiago merely states a few simple facts that are the basis for all alchemy. The reader is left feeling that Santiago is the wise one because he has left with the universally important truths, and pitying the Englishman for not recognizing Santiago's wisdom. His inability to learn from personal experience is also highlighted at the same point: he tells Santiago that after days of watching the caravan travel through the desert he has learned nothing. While Santiago has a talent for recognizing the unity of all existence, the Englishman has a strong desire to view everything as a separate entity. This difference is one of the primary reasons Santiago is approached by the Alchemist.
Santiago and Fatima
This is probably one of my least favorite parts of the book for one reason: Coelho puts a strong focus on love at first sight. I believe this is a dangerous idea to teach to children and even adults - it puts emphasis not only on appearance but also on initial impressions. Isn't the divorce rate high enough?
Love
Despite my misgivings about how Santiago and Fatima "fall" in love, I love the mature view of love presented in the book. I love the very literal "setting free" that Fatima does for Santiago (If you love something, set it free...). Culturally, this idea is not always supported. There are a wide range of beliefs about the best way to find and keep love...sadly, I think there is a lot more emphasis placed on the latter. Don't get me wrong, I understand that love is difficult, but I think it's much more important to find someone we truly love than it is to keep a relationship with someone we thought we loved. Fatima's acceptance that Santiago had to live life before their relationship could truly begin is symbolic in many ways, but most noticably it allows Santiago the opportunity to realize that his love for Fatima is true.
This is a minor point, but I also like the idea that love should never hold us back from doing what we want to do or being who we want to be. As I've already made clear, we won't be happy unless we are who we want to be. If we aren't happy, we can't really love.
Fatalism
The word fatalism is never directly spoken in The Alchemist, but there is a brief section where it is brought up that the leaders of the tribesmen "do not want to hear their future because it is difficult to fight with all your valor if you know you will die". This is the same predicament many fatalists run into - why try when the future is already decided? The leaders of the tribesmen realize that whether or not fate (their future) exists or not is immaterial - knowing that the future is already decided should not affect your actions.
Journeys
The wisest characters in the book were very aware of their own mortality (save, of course, The Alchemist who wasn't mortal). Even if they lived a life seeking their Personal Legend, they recognized that they might die before they reached it. Seemingly in spite of this, they were ready to die on any day. The idea is "We should live lives striving to reach our Personal Legends, but we should be proud of the journey to reach them."
Perhaps the lack of wisdom is again best exemplified by the Englishman. Both the Englishman and Santiago worked very hard to achieve their goals, but Santiago worked hard and was happy. This important distinction allowed Santiago to face the sword of the Alchemist (and his own death) without fear or regret. Were the Englishman placed in the same situation, he would not have faced his death fearlessly - and if he knew he were going to die he would feel his life wasted as he had never reached his goal. "You cannot seek only the treasure of your personal legend, you must live it."-Alchemist
Fatima vs. Santiago: Goals
Fatima is not portrayed to have the same strength or drive as Santiago. She is portrayed as a wise character, but The Alchemist himself says that her Personal Legend is Santiago. She is pigeonholed into a traditional female role where she waits diligently at home while her love explores the world. I think the book would have been more effective if Fatima had already reached her Personal Legend, as it is, it comes off rather sexist. This isn't Coelho's intent and Fatima is presented with great respect, but on a second glance that respect seems unearned.
"One is loved because one is loved. No reason is needed for loving."-Fatima
This is not only Fatima's viewpoint, this is how love is presented in the book. I can't believe this is true. Overly romantic but lacking substance.
"Even though I complain sometimes, it's because I'm the heart of a person and people's hearts are that way. People are afraid to pursue their most important dreams, because they feel they don't deserve them, or that they'll be unable to achieve them. We, their hearts, become fearful just thinking of loved ones who go away forever, or of moments that could have been good but weren't, or of treasures that might have been found but were forever hidden in the sands. Because, when these things happen, we suffer terribly."-Santiago's Heart
"Our heart can never suffer if we are following our Personal Legend." -Alchemist
I like this part, and I like Coelho's explanation of why our heart might discourage us from following our dreams. That's all.
"When you possess great treasures within you, and you try to tell others of them, seldom are you believed."-Alchemist
It's funny, but this kind of reminds me of what Will Smith said in the preview for his most recent movie: "People will try to tell you that you can't do something because they couldn't do it themselves." Both statements are true, because it's easier for us to believe that if something is too difficult for us it will be too difficult for someone else...sometimes even though we never really tried.
"That is what Alchemists do. They show that, when we strive to become better than we are, everything around us becomes better too."-Alchemist
A fundamental tenet in many Buddhist belief systems and also a statement I believe in strongly. Good begets good.
Lingering Question
At the end of the book, a thief tells Santiago about a vision he had about his own Personal Legend. I wonder, how was that thief able to come so close to achieving his own Personal Legend? How could someone who almost achieved their Personal Legend ever become such a mean person?
A final complaint
I felt it was unneccessary for Coelho to give Santiago actual treasure. I suppose the entirety of the epilogue was unneccessary (it was basically just Santiago going to find his treasure, finding it, and then thinking of Fatima). The treasure is much more powerful as a figurative object than a literal, and the book loses a bit of symbolism by having Santiago find physical treasure. I suppose I can dismiss it as a necessary simplicity to make the book easier for children to relate to.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Family and Politics
I don't know how it happened that I got so lucky with my family. I went down south to visit brother and wife Jason and Chris this weekend...it was a lot of fun. It was kind of a dual birthday celebration even though I didn't get either one a present :/. Fun times, though I won't mention the atrocities of Saturday night or the calamitous ramifications on Sunday. Nah, instead I'll talk about fun and kids.
So, let me tell you what I did and that it was really fun. Me, Chris, Tyler (youngest bro, 17) and Katie (niece, 9) played keep away in the living room with a pair of my socks (clean, of course). Yup. Keep away. We played in the living room, and adjusted the rules slightly so that if you were over the age of 10 and you were touched while holding the socks, you were it. It's the kind of thing you'd think we were just doing for Katie...but no. All four of us were pretty into it. OK, all four of us were very into it.
I don't really know what to make of it. How can people spend so much time bored when it's so easy to have fun? I guess the real situation is that I'm lucky to have other people who can have fun doing simple things. I have to admit, Katie was a bit of an impetus - I doubt we would have played without the kid there as well. Jason did a good job finding Chris, she fits right in with the weird family that will do things like that...the kind of family where all 4 boys play ping pong, ddr...everything.
---------------------------
On a completely different subject...I was looking for an interview of Leonard Peikoff for Lydia a while ago, and the recent election has kind of brought something he talked about here (that link won't stay good if you're reading this far in the future, but I'm quoting the relevant part anyway).
How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.
Socialism - a fad of the last few centuries - has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial - is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.
Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."
First off, let me say that so far I'm not particularly fond of Peikoff. Peikoff follows Rand's books like a Bible - his viewpoint always seems to match hers exactly, beyond the point of logical deduction and closer to a kind of worship. I feel that Peikoff does not come to his own conclusions but rather attempts to mirror Rand...I wonder if wears a bracelet "wward" (sigh, that joke really had potential, but I couldn't deliver it well for some reason).
Anyway, now that you're done reading that it's really irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I like Peikoff because it's not him we're talking about, it's his ideas. Or in this case, a particular idea of his. Democrats = socialism and Republics = religious rule. The reason this has stuck in my head is because I (sadly) believe there's a lot of truth here. Sure, originally the republican party was in favor of big business and individual power while democrats...well they want more governmental programs but at the same time more constraints on big business. Obviously that's changed -- I'm fairly sure we've got the majority of those with the lowest economic status supporting Bush, for example (where democratic governmental programs would help them and republican big business support would hurt them).
So is it fair to say the Republican party is turning into the "Christian" party? Bush does say he is a Christian, and I think that there are a large number of Christians who want a Christian president. I wish this wasn't the case - I wish that Christians would realize that it's immaterial whether or not they are right, separation of church and state is the way to go. Religious empires fail, and religion corrupts government more than, well, anything. Obviously this is a dandelion wish, not something I actually foresee happening.
I'm done.
So, let me tell you what I did and that it was really fun. Me, Chris, Tyler (youngest bro, 17) and Katie (niece, 9) played keep away in the living room with a pair of my socks (clean, of course). Yup. Keep away. We played in the living room, and adjusted the rules slightly so that if you were over the age of 10 and you were touched while holding the socks, you were it. It's the kind of thing you'd think we were just doing for Katie...but no. All four of us were pretty into it. OK, all four of us were very into it.
I don't really know what to make of it. How can people spend so much time bored when it's so easy to have fun? I guess the real situation is that I'm lucky to have other people who can have fun doing simple things. I have to admit, Katie was a bit of an impetus - I doubt we would have played without the kid there as well. Jason did a good job finding Chris, she fits right in with the weird family that will do things like that...the kind of family where all 4 boys play ping pong, ddr...everything.
---------------------------
On a completely different subject...I was looking for an interview of Leonard Peikoff for Lydia a while ago, and the recent election has kind of brought something he talked about here (that link won't stay good if you're reading this far in the future, but I'm quoting the relevant part anyway).
How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.
Socialism - a fad of the last few centuries - has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial - is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.
Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."
First off, let me say that so far I'm not particularly fond of Peikoff. Peikoff follows Rand's books like a Bible - his viewpoint always seems to match hers exactly, beyond the point of logical deduction and closer to a kind of worship. I feel that Peikoff does not come to his own conclusions but rather attempts to mirror Rand...I wonder if wears a bracelet "wward" (sigh, that joke really had potential, but I couldn't deliver it well for some reason).
Anyway, now that you're done reading that it's really irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I like Peikoff because it's not him we're talking about, it's his ideas. Or in this case, a particular idea of his. Democrats = socialism and Republics = religious rule. The reason this has stuck in my head is because I (sadly) believe there's a lot of truth here. Sure, originally the republican party was in favor of big business and individual power while democrats...well they want more governmental programs but at the same time more constraints on big business. Obviously that's changed -- I'm fairly sure we've got the majority of those with the lowest economic status supporting Bush, for example (where democratic governmental programs would help them and republican big business support would hurt them).
So is it fair to say the Republican party is turning into the "Christian" party? Bush does say he is a Christian, and I think that there are a large number of Christians who want a Christian president. I wish this wasn't the case - I wish that Christians would realize that it's immaterial whether or not they are right, separation of church and state is the way to go. Religious empires fail, and religion corrupts government more than, well, anything. Obviously this is a dandelion wish, not something I actually foresee happening.
I'm done.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Proposition 83
California is in the process of passing a law, proposition 83, that will ban all convicted sex offenders of coming within 2000 ft. of a school and also require them to wear global GPS trackers at all times.
I understand that sex offenders have done something terrible. I know there are lifetime effects on the victims, though I think very few can claim to understand them.
That said, there is no evidence that how close a sex offender lives to a school is related to repeat offenses. This proposition is going to be passed (and it will) not because it's an effective deterrent, it's going to be passed because it's safe for politicians to back it and difficult for them to oppose it. Everyone hates sex offenders, so defending them in any way is equivalent to political suicide. People accept that if a proposition like this exists, it's sensible - it must be because it's going to reduce problems. I don't think it does reduce problems, but it's simple and it's easy and supporting it makes a politician look good.
In California, where this law is being passed, it will be basically impossible for a sex offender to live in a city. It will be even more than it already is to find employment. Really, it will be difficult to ever re-enter society. It seems that what people really want is an execution, but we can't do that...so instead we do what we can to make them feel like they are no longer human. But why dehumanize them? If sex offenders are going to be allowed back into society, shouldn't the emphasis be placed on recovery (instead of doing something that could possibly cause them)?
Is it inconceivable that a sex offender might, well, recover? A study in Hawaii showed that only 2-6% of offenders repeated the offense ( http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/07/ln/ln07p.html). According to the article these numbers are less than national figures, but it still gives you an idea. What proposition 83 is doing is making a sex offender something less than every other citizen, no longer fit to live with the rest of humanity (ever). I can only guess at the psychological ramifications, but I wouldn't guess that this ostracism is any kind of deterrent...it makes a road to recovery that much more difficult to find.
-------------------------
Speaking of execution, I'm against the death penalty. To me, the death penalty says, "There is a justifiable reason to kill a human being." When an entire culture proclaims that as true, what's to stop people from making their own reasons?
I understand that sex offenders have done something terrible. I know there are lifetime effects on the victims, though I think very few can claim to understand them.
That said, there is no evidence that how close a sex offender lives to a school is related to repeat offenses. This proposition is going to be passed (and it will) not because it's an effective deterrent, it's going to be passed because it's safe for politicians to back it and difficult for them to oppose it. Everyone hates sex offenders, so defending them in any way is equivalent to political suicide. People accept that if a proposition like this exists, it's sensible - it must be because it's going to reduce problems. I don't think it does reduce problems, but it's simple and it's easy and supporting it makes a politician look good.
In California, where this law is being passed, it will be basically impossible for a sex offender to live in a city. It will be even more than it already is to find employment. Really, it will be difficult to ever re-enter society. It seems that what people really want is an execution, but we can't do that...so instead we do what we can to make them feel like they are no longer human. But why dehumanize them? If sex offenders are going to be allowed back into society, shouldn't the emphasis be placed on recovery (instead of doing something that could possibly cause them)?
Is it inconceivable that a sex offender might, well, recover? A study in Hawaii showed that only 2-6% of offenders repeated the offense ( http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/07/ln/ln07p.html). According to the article these numbers are less than national figures, but it still gives you an idea. What proposition 83 is doing is making a sex offender something less than every other citizen, no longer fit to live with the rest of humanity (ever). I can only guess at the psychological ramifications, but I wouldn't guess that this ostracism is any kind of deterrent...it makes a road to recovery that much more difficult to find.
-------------------------
Speaking of execution, I'm against the death penalty. To me, the death penalty says, "There is a justifiable reason to kill a human being." When an entire culture proclaims that as true, what's to stop people from making their own reasons?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
