On Morals

I have made plenty a person upset by the following statement, however I absolutely believe it to be true:

Morals are determined by societal constructs, not by any natural capacity of man.

Most people will yell things like, 'but without morals there is no proper society' or 'but morals are the fabric of human interaction.' And they aren't necessarily wrong in saying those things. But they get upset because they view my statement at face value, they think I attack morals and become a nihilist or atheist or something. What I am actually saying is not that morals are unnecessary, just that they are determined by society, not by man, and that many morals will change based on various societal pressures. Think about it: at one time, it was basically amoral for women to wear pants. We've come a long way.

Its not that morals are unnecessary or relative, I think that a society must have a strong foundational moral code to function properly. But most of all, this foundational moral must be rooted in a strong sense of justice. And not just in the retributive, eye-for-an-eye justice that most people so narrowly know; a strong principle of justice also reflects freedom, respect, tact, and honesty. Justice is getting what you deserve, (an Aristotelian derived definition btw) whether that is good or bad, positive or negative. That means receiving punishment for wrong doing, but it also means minding your own business, and treating people with respect, because that is what you want people to give to you.

Think of it this way; if everyone asked the question 'are my actions just?' before they did something, is it wrong to assume that people would behave with better "moral" behavior? I don't think so. Morals themselves are reflective of the character of a people; a people who have a strong sense of justice (with a broader meaning than simple retribution, I cant hammer that point home enough) will have a strong character. Simply put, a good, foundational moral will come only if the people appeal to principles other than simple moral behavior. For me, that principle is true justice in a broad sense.

So I decided to start music again

I once defined myself by my ability to play guitar. Seeing as I never got too great at it and could never sing that well I decided to focus on my mind, and therefore politics. That being said, music is amazing and since my voice decided to jump up a few notes randomly (true story - I think it was all the say anything and post-hardcore I started to listen to again. it forced me to sing higher, so now I can hit notes I couldn't before) I thought that recording again would be a good Idea. This is the first song that I was happy with how it came out. Probably because of its simplicity. Its actually a re-write. The original was a very involved metalcore song that just didn't make a lot of sense so I stripped it out and added some blues tones. Sorry about a few of the missed notes, but my voice is maturing.

The song is about a guy who wakes up to realize that he is being hunted by werewolves. As such, he decides to reflect on his life, which seems like the right thing to do in that situation. I actually wrote the words as part of an uncompleted series about werewolves, where they attempt to take over the world. And I wanted to write it through the eyes of someone who is turning into one, while he reflects on his own life
throughout. Deep right? oh well. Its found at the link below. Enjoy! or hate it. I don't care.

Still Alive

Climate Policy: Are we really all going to die?

If you listen to most of the "climate scientists" who make headlines today, we are all going to die, soon, because the earth hates us because we have mistreated her. Hell hath no fury like mother earth right?

No. Especially when you take a rational look at what the policies are that these people pursue. Thats what the documentary Cool It is about. Its a very interesting look at why the current politics of "global warming" are wrong and what to do about it. Cool It is about controversial environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg and his view on the climate problem. He believes that global warming is both real and man made, something that I personally want more facts on considering all the lying that has gone on, but he also has completely different ideas for solutions.

I know that most of the people who are for climate-related policies are big time lefties but listen to what Lomborg has to say. Its better than what most of the right has become: "hey, the left has this terrible idea. lets mock it and not come up with a solution ourselves." I would rather contribute to the debate, rather than take away from it.

For one: he hates cap and trade because it is so easily exploitable by big business. I couldn't agree more. Cap and trade is nothing but bad legislation that allows people to pollute if they can spend enough money doing so. It also makes a business out of buying and selling credits for polluting, meaning that a company can create something to be "destroyed" that will count towards carbon credits. This is not good energy policy.

Lomborg believes that the environmental problem can be solved by redirecting the current policy (the ones like cap and trade, and the kyoto and other agreements) to real world applicable solutions, rather than promises. Things like alternative energy and increasing global levels of wealth will help more at the margin than big government solutions. He does this by bringing together economists, not scientists, to figure out a cost/benefit analysis of climate policies, then choosing which ones with bring the most marginal benefit. After all, choosing the most marginally beneficial option will lead to the most cost-effective and positive solution.

I personally think that the future of energy is personal. Personal wind, water, and especially solar energy could be cheap, powerful, and efficient. If you can power your whole house (and possibly your car) by paying a lump sum and then only maintenance, which would be small, would you? I certainly would. Energy costs are ridiculous and our current system is broken. Many people sell their extra power from these forms of energy back to the energy companies to be used elsewhere. Eventually these technologies will become cheap enough to afford for the average household. When that happens, i'm sure people will be happy to not ever have another energy bill.

In sum: watch the documentary, it certainly gives a new perspective to the climate debate.

Book Review: Patience with God

Apparently, Francis Schaeffer sucked as a person. At least his son seems to think so. Patience with God was written by Frank Schaeffer, who openly rebels against his father's evangelicalism, juxtaposing it with new atheism. He tells stories on how his father brought his mother to a "parisian night club" (read, strip bar) because he wanted to have a "genuine parisian experience." ... watching half naked women with your wife is apparently what they do in paris. Who knew? And his wife was more concerned with the fact that she couldn't witness to the couple across from them because of where they were than the fact of where they were. And Apparently little Frank Schaeffer was told this story when he was extremely young...So anyone doing a book study on Francis Schaeffer, you should probably know that he was a little unkempt with a few of his morals. For the record I was actually legitimately surprised at some of these anecdotal stories because most evangelicals are portrayed very differently. I of all people should realize that not many exceed your expectation of them, and that we are all depraved in some way.

About his general thesis - that both fundamentalist/evangelicalism and new atheism are actually one in the same - is hard to argue with. He presents these basic facts:

1. Both fundamentalist/evangelicalism and new atheism misrepresent the bible. (literalistic interpretation)
2. Both want to recruit to their "movements" and will evangelize to do it
3. Both "sides" of the "argument"basically just yell at each other the same simple phrases they memorized and are told to say
4. Both appear to care about the truth, but actually care about being right, and being a part of a community of like-minded individuals, ignoring truth in the process
5. Both excoriate their members if they stray too far away from the party line

And if you look at most of either movement he is right.

The most important point he makes, the way I see it, is that both attempt to justify their positions by misrepresenting the Bible's themes. Many people use their own lenses in reading the Bible and forget to either put things in context or ask what the original meaning of the words/verses are. And no, context does not mean the verse before and after. A perfect example is 1st Corinthians 13, the "love chapter." Out of context it is simply a very pretty love poem, in context of the surrounding chapters it is saying that your spiritual gifts, including things like hospitality as well as the "controversial" speaking in tongues (gasp), should all be done in a context of loving one another otherwise they are either useless or at best completely misguided.

My problem with him is that he sometimes uses their arguments against each other without coming up with a true alternative other than relativism, almost to the point of denying absolute truth. (which, by the way, would deny God, something Frank does not want to do)

I think he rightfully sees problems, but like almost all very liberal commentators he misses the point on the prescriptions. He sees heaven as living his life and caring for his granddaughter, something that brings him immeasurable joy, but forgets who "God" is. And although I dont believe in a "bearded man in the sky" god, de-fanging him to almost non-existence isnt right either. God, as I described in an earlier post, is everywhere and everything, and is completely omniscient, which I know can mean almost anything, but that is precisely my point. Frank tends to react to evangelicalism more than critique it, which obviously clouds his vision and informs his skepticism, but that doesn't excuse his relativistic and humanistic "god" character that he presents.

What he needs to do is open Ecclesiastes, the point of which is to say that nothing really matters outside of finding joy in your work and giving glory to God. Now some people have taken that to mean you have to actively promote God in everything that you do, and scream "I AM DOING THIS FOR GOD" but I dont really think that. Personally I take that to mean that you should lead by example, not by evangelizing necessarily. Live your life the best way you know how, dont force people to listen to you, but if the conversation happens to come up, tell them what you believe and why. You dont necessarily have to live your life perfectly as long as you are sincere. Unfortunately I think this point will be lost in Patience with God and buried beneath the rest of his arguments, but that is the most important part.

Also, his anecdotes are entertaining. Worth the read if you are ok with getting offended a few times.

Final Grade on an arbitrary scale of Ayn Rand to Richard Matheson: about a C+ (you shouldn't spend a lot of money on it, but reading it should be beneficial)

Why the Cavs should trade for Al Jefferson

Realizing that my opinion matters to just about no one, and that I know precious little about the inner workings of exactly how the NBA trade process works, I believe that I have a great idea. The Cleveland Cavaliers should trade for Al Jefferson. I know this has been talked about for a while, and that the Cavs passed on him last year because they felt he wasnt a game changer (at best a no. 2 option on a title team), but I really think this trade could be an incredible trade for them.

Look at the offense. The main thing we lack in the motion offense is a reliable post presence. Jamison has shown flashes, but we need him to be effective and efficient in order for the offense to do well. Frankly, I'm not confident in that, and I dont think anyone else is either. The Cavs do have Varejao and Thompson but both are realistically best suited to play power forward, and there is no real, alive center on the roster. Al Jefferson is actually the perfect player for that role because he is a good two way center with proven post up ability and solid defensive ability.

Al Jeff clearly fills a need with the Cavs, but what do they Cavs have that Utah wants? Guards. Specifically, Ramon Sessions. I know he has been effective this year for us, but I really dont see him as being a long-term option for this team because he is terribly flawed and one dimensional, and the first overall pick in the last draft plays his position. As such he is one of three great trade assets they have, the others being Varejao and Jamison's expiring contract. A perfect trade would be Jamison's contract, and Ramon Sessions for Al Jeff and a $4 million dollar trade exception. Would the Jazz take it? I think so, they want Jefferson moved and want a guard in return, Sessions gives them some instant offense from the guards and Jamison is a major cap boost. Would the Cavs? I just dont really think that they like Al Jeff as much as they should, because he is a very effective player when used correctly.

As I mentioned before, Jefferson would make a great addition to the Cavs, but why exactly? The motion offense relies in part on low post ability and off ball movement to create mismatches and open looks. Since the Cavs dont have that post presence the opposing defense can keep one-on-one match-ups on the bigs and prevent open looks from happening as often. Al Jeff can change that because when he plays well, he is a fantastic post player. He is also an effective rebounder, which is always a plus. And although he can certainly play the 4, he is much more suited to play center, allowing Thompson and Varejao to play the 4 and use their superb cutting ability when the defense collapses on Jefferson.

I honestly think that the most underrated part of this trade would be on the defensive end. Al Jefferson is no slouch on defense; he has the ability to hold his own against most NBA big men, which is way more important than you think. When the Cavs play larger post players like Dwight Howard, Al Jeff can be the main one guarding them while Varejao does all the dirty work and makes their life hard. Tristan Thompson could then use his athleticism as a weakside blocker while playing with him. That is an ELITE frontcourt defense as I see it, something that the Cavs could really use at this point.

So what is stopping them from making this trade that seems so smart? I said it earlier, the cavland clevaliers really dont seem to have any a lot of love for him, which is mind boggling to me. I think they dont see him as someone who can significantly help a team, but think that he would help too much to get a high draft choice. Its very unfortunate because Al Jefferson is really the best player on the market for the cavs, unless Dwight Howard decides he wants to come to cleveland because he reads ESPN blogs, which is unlikely to happen. Unfortunately, this is probably one of those moves that wont happen, but for a lot of reasons really should. For what its worth, I hope that it happens because Al Jeff is an underrated, reasonably young player who can give the Cavs a major boost and take pressure off Kyrie Irving when he is having trouble. And for those worried about the draft, there are plenty of fantastic wings available later in the 1st, and we could always make another trade to move up. Lets hope Chris Grant wises up and makes the trade, even if its late in the year, because it would be a great move.

Politics of Perfection

Lately I have been thinking about my personal philosophy, one which I started explicitly thinking about while writing a few papers for the incredible professor Dr. Neikirk (whose now infamous quote among Geneva poli-sci grads adorns the title of my blog). I tentatively titled one of the papers The Politics of Perfection; the prompt for the paper was, "what is your worldview." It didn't turn out all that well. But then again, if I hand you 15 pages and say put everything you know about the world and how it works, you might have trouble too.

The point of this particular post is to say this: we need to stop chasing perfection as most people define it, and start pursuing what will end up in the best possible arrangement, freedom. Most people define perfection as attainable; perfection can be achieved by anyone or anything with enough effort. This is simply not true. The definition of perfect is that something is absolutely without flaw. Almost perfect is not perfect because almost perfect has some minor flaw. Even something that is perfect but for some small unnecessary detail is not perfect, it is almost perfect. For this reason I think that there is only one true concept of perfection that exists, and that is a concept of God.

I have consistently said a statement to people that makes people pretty uncomfortable. (not surprising coming from me? oh well) It is, "If the God you worship can not do something, he is not God, and you should not worship him." Seeing as I say this mostly to Christians, they get a little upset about that. But dive deeper and this is the only, and the way I see it only biblical, view of God. Any concept of God, the unmoved mover and I Am, has at its core the idea that the God is perfect, free from influence or flaws. God can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he sees fit. A Christian doctrine that supports this is the story of the burning bush. What did God say when asked who he was? I Am. Think about that for a second. That's not a name, that's a state of being. And its a state of being that encompasses all that exists. Who are you? Existence, everything that ever is, was and will be, there is nothing that I am not.

In a word, perfection. As I said perfection requires an absolute, and I Am gives it. I Am is the ultimate absolute. Everything ever. And because of that God is the only thing that can ever be truly perfect, without flaw. Humans cannot be perfect because we are finite, we get sick, we die, we forget, we sin, we do bad things. Our creations cannot be perfect because they were made by imperfection, meaning that they will ultimately have inherent flaws. So then why do people strive for perfection? Because the misunderstand the concept. They believe that almost perfect is the same as perfection and its not.

So why post this on the Internet for all to see? Because I believe that this misunderstanding fuels one of the more popular political beliefs today, Progressivism. Progressives believe that man, in some measure, is perfectible, which I have said is impossible. They also believe that the state can and should have a large role in perfecting its citizens. There are a whole slew of problems with that one, but the most basic one is that it forgets two fundamental concepts: than man cannot be perfected, and that the government cannot solve all problems. The only thing that can help man become better (not more perfect, because that implies partial perfection which is also impossible) is to allow him to learn and use his resources to make himself better.

Again in a word, freedom. Freedom is the only thing that can take man from his inherent imperfection and take him into being generally "good." Allowing a person the freedom TO do good is the only thing that will incentivize good behavior in general. And I understand that not everyone will do good, and that many will fall short and stick to their negative ways, but attempting to legislate good behavior is like a parent telling their child not to touch something in a gift shop, its more of a challenge than anything. And not all legislation is bad, but no legislation should hamper freedom in any meaningful way. Rules will be broken and there is no way to enforce all of them. The only answer is to allow people enough freedom to make their own mistakes and become better people.

Unfortunately for many, this means the abandonment of the welfare state because it incentivizes bad behavior in the name of altruism. It means removing a lot of current regulation and replacing it with regulation that just requires full disclosure. It means a destruction of the fascist corporate welfare that allow companies to thrive in high barriers to entry. It means not getting America entangled in foreign conflicts that have no benefit to us, and cost us in good young men and women dead. It means a lot more things, but you get the picture. Allow people the freedom to do good, and don't incentivize them to do bad, and I believe we would be much better off.

Don't listen to the Progressives who say that altruism is what Robin Hood did. Its not the government's job to take from people at the point of a gun and force it on others at the point of a gun. Its our own job to take care of those in need and love one another. You want people to be helped? Don't vote for others to help them, go and help someone. The Politics of Perfection in a nutshell: A perfect society is impossible, but if we work hard enough we can have a damn good one, and you don't need government to make you do that.

Objectivism, The Economy, and ... Chris Paul?

The actions of the past few days in sports have really made me upset. On Thursday the Browns opened the Factory of Sadness and filled Cleveland fan's souls with more hate and pain. Already upset about the state of Cleveland sports, the Chris Paul to the Lakers trade ridiculousness happened. Now, this by itself is enough to be upset, but then I find out that Dan Gilbert, the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, sent this monstrosity to the NBA commissioner basically complaining that the trade could not happen because then the Lakers would be getting too good.

boo. hoo.

Plenty of people have given their 2 cents on the issue and I will save space by saying that most of the media have condemned the commissioner for being stupid and Dan Gilbert for being entitled, and that I wont go too far into it. Personally, I think the issue is actually much more fundamental than just entitlement or poor decisions. I believe that there is a fundamental belief among the "business class" in corporatism and objectivism, that is, everything should exist for my benefit.

Tangent anyone?

We all know that the economy is broken and that Washington is too inept to do anything about it. Everyone lobbies. Everyone is lobbied. Conflicts of interest and genuine misunderstanding of the constitution, economics and law seem to make each and every person part of the problem rather than the solution. A perfect example of this is the U.S. tax code. Almost everyone agrees that the tax code has something wrong with it, its either too high, doesnt tax "rich" people enough, too complicated, whatever. This is because the tax code is a perfect example of government incentive policy and benefit handouts. If you want a certain activity to stop (say smoking?), tax it. If you want another to increase (alternative or clean energy?) carve out exemptions or write offs. Your campaign get lots of money from a certain industry? Allow them to write off a specific aspect of their business (remind you of GM?).

Why does this happen? Because every businessperson has read Atlas Shrugged. Ok, the truth is that Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, encouraged a philosophy she called Objectivism, the basis of which is the idea that self interest is the only moral, that anything done for any reason other than your own benefit is amoral. So each person who believes this philosophy (more than you think, Rand is a very popular author among the wealthy) will believe that everything they support needs to benefit themselves. Unfortunately for Rand, who thought that the government was inherently evil and hated everything government, especially Socialism/Communism, it isn't a stretch for someone to say that since it benefit me, the government should carve me out an exception, or give my company this policy or that program. Once that happens, you are at Corporatism.

This is part of whats at the heart of the economic downturn, bad government policy that makes no sense in context of a complex economy that needs some measure of freedom to function properly. But since everyone is getting what they want, the same people keep getting elected and the status quo stays the same.

So what does any of this have to do with the NBA? Remember, objectivism teaches that you should do whatever it takes to increase your self interest. Dan Gilbert is trying to force his way into damaging the Lakers, Hornets, and Rockets just because he is upset because he couldn't keep his own superstar. The league thought they were making a statement that the lockout was to stop superstars from forcing their way off teams (it didn't).

The same line of thinking that stopped this trade, that the NBA should use its powers to benefit one team over another, is the same line of thinking that is part of the reason for the problems in our economy, that the government should use its policies to benefit one company or industry over another. Its unfortunate that our society, at all levels, is coming to this, but it has. No one REALLY believes the powers that be should enforce anything fairly, they just want the system to benefit themselves.