Station Break

My partner and I have been watching "Absolutely Fabulous" recently. Last night, while watching the episode titled "Jealous", Edina (Jennifer Saunders) gave one speech that, if you pay attention, actually gives a rather meaningful message to today's society:

"I was gonna make a speech, but I just can't be bothered anymore. I mean this used to be, like, fun, you know. You know it used to be fun, you just ball out all the fun bits now, you know, with all these lunches and launches… You know, with some no career celebrities and party desperates… And what for, huh? It all culminates in crap-tags and mags? Well I'm sorry there has to be something more than that, doesn't there? Well I had a speech, you know? The whole projected-intergrated-global-tele-network system, bloody system, system… But you know, if that's what the world's coming to I don't want to be in it, I don't want that. I don't want to be in some sort of hyper-space bloody virtual reality, I don't want that! Exchanging email with some bloody old-age hippies with more information at their fingertips than is safe, I don't want that. What kind of reality is that, with a 13-amp plug on the end of it, huh [Emphasis mine]? That can be unplugged like that. [She gets up to leave] No, I'm not going yet. No, you, [points to her competition] you you sit there with your bell-curves and bloody ad-man, crack-head ad-man over there, those kings of bastardization, who took anything that was ever real and genuine and honest and attached it to a toilet cleaner. Whereas I, like a bird upon the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried, in my way, to be free. [Edina tries to sing] You can laugh but you know something, I don't want more choice I JUST WANT NICER THINGS! And you, tear that look off your face with your whales and your cancer and your AIDS and starvation, yeah, skimming any profit off the whole of human misery, ladeling us all with this 'global guilt.' You know it may not be all great and good but it ain't that bad, you know, so common' world cheer up, it may never happen? [Emphasis mine]."

Eddy... I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ramblings On Abortion, Part Two

Okay, let's talk a little more about the charged topic of abortion. Last post I created a simple syllogism to show my problem with the current state of abortion on demand:

P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.

The greatest argument I see people having is with P2, my statement that the fetus is an innocent human being. How, let's discuss that premise for a moment. There are two parts in the description of a fetus: (1) it is innocent and (2) it is a human being. Let's start with the second part first, as that seems to be the largest source of objection. Let's look at it first as a logic puzzle (ignoring for the moment any emotional appeals) and ask "What are our possible options?" These options are rather simple, either the fetus is a human being or it is not. Two options. However, the problem goes a little deeper than that as a main part of the argument of Roe (and, honestly, almost all pro-abortion arguments) deals not just with ontology but also epistemology(that is, not just what the fetus is, but what we know about what the fetus is). So, when thought of this way, the options laid out before us are as follows:

Option 1: The fetus is a human being, and we know it.
Option 2: The fetus is a human being, and we don't know it.
Option 3; The fetus is not a human being, and don't know it.
Option 4: The fetus is not a human being, and we know it.

Now, I take the position of option 1, which means that abortion does equate to murder. Most pro-abortionists would claim option 4 is correct and, if they are correct, there is no reason to disallow abortion in any case. However, a large number of people (perhaps even the majority of Americans) claim to hold one of the "agnostic" position (option 2 or option 3). In fact, Blackmum in his opinion about Roe v Wade made the statement that the Supreme Court could not settle the question of the personhood of the fetus and thus they should err on the side of pro-abortionists (essentially, we don't know what it is, so it is okay to kill it). I claim that this is the wrong path to take in the case of expressed agnosticism. In the case of option 2, abortion is at best manslaugher, the accidental killing of a human being. It's like fumigation without checking if anyone is in the building. If there is and they die, you cannot plead ignorance. Thus the more conservative approach of checking before you release the gas is the best course, that way you can say that you know the building is empty and knowingly answer the question "Is there anyone in the house?" Now what about case 3? Again with the fumigation example, you didn't check, fumigated the building, and no one died. So what? At best, you got lucky. You didn't care, you were simply irresponsible (and criminal negligence is still open as a charge). Thus to me, the agnostic position cuts the way opposite of that taken by most pro-abortionists. Being a responsible human being means erring on the side against the willful killing of the fetus.

Ramblings On Abortion, Part One

Today my good friend Chris sent a link to an issue I admit has been off my radar scope for some time regarding the decision of the South Dakota supreme court on abortion. The letter was short but passionate regarding his disagreement with their decision. I'm not too sure if he knew my thoughts regarding abortion, so to make the record public I hereby declare myself firmly in the "pro-life" camp. Now to be honest, my most passionate reasons tend to stem from my theology rather than my philosophy but I do think that my rational processes create a valid structure for being against abortion as it currently stands. The email though did something to me (something good), it started me thinking about the subject matter again, which lead me to think about this whole blogging thing. Some topics are really difficult to write about, especially ones that are (1) emotionally charged and (2) require strong, often long-winded and intricate logical arguments. I don't know about you, but I still have problems reading online articles for extended periods of time. So, to help us both out I will chop what I have to say into several hopefully smaller articles (though perhaps not consecutive, depending on who Cheney shoots or Michael Moore lies about). I will also try to the best of my ability to leave overt reference to theological arguments out since not everyone is convinced that God or some higher power exists.

So here goes nuttin': For me, abortion as practiced today is simply murder. Okay folks, thanks for stopping by, don't forget to tip on your way out. But seriously, if my understandings are correct, the conclusion is inescapable and we must take action (after all, murder is at the very least illegal if not down right immoral... and yes, I do separate the two). So how do I come to this conclusion? By the following argument:

P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.

Now I don't think my definition of murder is off the mark so P1 should stand. Some people may quibble with my use of the word "fetus" in P3, so if you want to use "embryo" that would be fine with me, I think that the argument works as well. Where I think most people will have problems is with P2, that is, they will say that I am off my rocker to say that a fetus (or embryo) is an innocent human being. In fact, to me, that is the the nut of the problem that needs to be cracked, and unlike Justice Blackmum in the original Roe v Wade decision , I am not afraid to try (interesting enough, I think one of his strongest arguments works against the pro-abortionist, but more on that in a later blog).

So, there you have it, my starting point. In subsequent writings I hope to expand on the argument with attention to P2. Hope you stick around and let me know what you think.

"Don't be evil": Only as good as the definition of evil.

For those of you who do know know the significance of the phrase, "Don't be evil" is the informal motto of Google, probably the most talked about company of the last couple of years. Over the past couple of weeks I have seen more articles than I care to recount on how American search companies (including Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft) are dealing with China and how they caved in to the pressure exerted by the Communist Party (no, not the Democrat party of the U. S., the Communist party that controls mainland China). If you really, truly don't know what I am talking about, here are a couple of articles, two condemning their actions from the International Herald Tribue and Reporters Without Borders (yeah, I'm referencing them, don't have a stroke), and one that is a bit more mixed from InformationWeek. Now I think there may be some merit in the arguments of the big companies that they are "bringing the Internet" to China and that it is practically impossible to actually block everything. So be it. But let's be honest, if in the pursuit of profit they are willing to compromise here then what else will they compromise on? As Google is market's "flavor of the moment" they will be the main topic of discussion, but in all honesty they bring it upon themselves. You see, for all the supposed depth that the Googlites think exists in saying they are guided by "Don't be evil", I am shocked that these supposedly smart people would allow themselves to be guided by such fuzzy thinking. Google has claimed that they are simply making themselves be in compliance with a foreign government. I hope they do not really think that legal = good (or moral). In fact, if you look at their activities in other areas, this appears not to be the case those this is their main argument with respect to the China issue. When examined from a philosophical point of view they are terribly all over the map... which I suppose reflects a solid indoctrination in elitist moral relativism (and in reading up on my subjects under current discussion, that appears to be an accurate assessment of their background). For example, in an article in Wired, Google says that they have a policy of not accepting ads for any person or group is "anti- anything". So if you are a group against the selling of children for sex (that is, "anti" child sex slave trade), Google wouldn't, based on this simple statement of their current moral view, accept an ad from you while there is at least the possibility of them accepting one advertising the Asian child sex trade (after all, if you are advertising it you can take that as a "pro" position)? Of course, the "anti" policy seems to be more a suggestion (or a quip for the press) than a true guide since Google does accept ads for "anti-smoking". The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on their morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not... welcome to contemporary liberal thinking. And lets not forget that while they didn't acquiesce to the federal goverment's request for search information in the name of privacy, they did collaborate with China in the fight AGAINST freedom of access of information.

Contemporary market purists may say that what these companies are doing is simply "the price of doing business". This is why I suppose I am not a proponent of contemporary market theory. I am all for free markets, but I do not buy what has become known as the Nexus of Contracts Theory of the corporation, an outgrowth of economic work lead by Milton Friedman based on the idea of the corporation's sole moral obligation of protecting shareholder profits. I think we let companies get away with far too much just because of market valuations. I'm sorry, but for me "money makes right" has no more argumentative strength than does "might makes right".

Work, work, work

Short post. Between work and school starting back up this week has been quite busy. And look at all the fun we could be having! I mean, how many times does the vice president shoot someone during a hunting trip? And just how many ways can California Democrat assembly people reject a sexual predator law (and just what is the acceptable number of images of child pornography should one be allowed)? And your friendly conservative blogger has actually found a terribly liberal cartoon funny (no, not the ones causing the Islamic uproar... Boondocks!). So, hold on, I'll be back ASAP.

Two Huhs?

Huh Number One: In yesterday's San Diego Union Tribune, Babak Rahimi, assistant professor of Islamic Studies at UC-San Diego, wrote the following in an editorial titled Why Many Muslims Are Angry: "In sum, the demonizing caricature of Muhammad is more about the reduction of the Muslim world into a single sterotypical image of violence and rage than a satirical critique of Muslim's rejection of freedom of speech." So let's see... they react to the West's supposed caricature of them as full of violence and rage by, let's see, being violent and showing rage? What makes it almost humorous is Rahimi's throwaway sentence, after eight paragraphs of speaking of inflamatory cartoons and "explaining" why they act that way, "The above explanation is not, however to absolve those Muslims of responsiblity of the recent violence...", but then goes on to say that they are taking the "bait" and that the "true reality" is that the Muslim rage is a reaction to the "dehumanization" of Muslims than an essential feature of Islam. Geeze, let's see, if the initial, common reaction is rage and violence, from where does this come? And the dear professor seems to overlook the fact that repeated reports of Islamic clerics fanning the flames of the common people. Now where do the common people find their understanding of what is core to Islam? Hmmm...

Huh Number Two: While I rarely, rarely read the Los Angeles Times (AKA Left-Angeles Times I came across an article that really, really made me go "HUH?". The article was End Is Not Near Enough for Pastors. The opening was typical of those about evangelical gatherings, Evangelical ministers meet in Inglewood to discuss ways to convert millions and hasten the Second Coming. Hasten the Second Coming? "No way" I thought, but then I read the whole article and sure enough there is a quote from James Davis, president of the "Billion Souls Initiative"of the Global Pastor's Network: As we advance around the world, we'll be shortening the time needed to fulfill that great commission [Christ's command to spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth]. Then, the Bible says, the end will come. Excuse me, but having read and studied the same passages of the Bible, I see nothing of the sort. Logically what we have here is a problem of causality. Spreading the Gospel to the whole world will not CAUSE the Second Coming. At most we can say that while it is a necessary action it is not sufficient in a causal manner on its own. In the end, no one knows the time, only God. There is no indication that you can manipulate God's divine timeline. Why, oh why, do they have to make such statements in a public forum? It just makes it harder on the rest of us.

I just don't get it

This is what I get for going too long between vents. The more I read in the papers the more confused and angry I seem to become. Let's take two events, one major and one that should have been major but got little coverage in the San Diego Tribune.

First, has anyone not heard about the cartoons involving Mohammed? If you've been sleeping for the last few weeks you can read the story here. Because of some Danish cartoonists depicting Mohammed in not necessarily the most flattering of light we have had riots, massive property damage, dozens of injuries, and even deaths. Some of the extremists within Islam are calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, claiming that any depictions of Mohammed are prohibited by the Koran. Apparently that is not true. While Islam carries the same prohibitions against graven images as the Christian Bible, there is no explicit prohibition against creating images of Mohammed (see here). Now it has come to the surface that not only is the initial argument about the prohibition against images of Mohammed bogus, but so are some of the images circulated by come Islamic leaders being used as instigation and agitation of Arabs around the world! And they want to be called the religion of peace?! Let's get real. At lunch the other day with my friend Andrew I compared how the "peaceful" radical Islamists handle the cartoons with those of how fundamentalist Christians handled the infamous Piss Christ and The Virgin Mary where we have in one a crucifix submerged in urine and the other an image of Mary splattered with elephant dung. I searched for reports of rioting Christians, acts of vandalism, injury, and killings... couldn't even find a Christian fahtwa. Let's see, on the one hand we have Mohammed, a prophet, whose image is drawn, not necessarily in the most flattering of light. On the other we have a crucifix, a symbol of God incarnate at the supreme moment of passion, submerged in a jar of human waste along with a depiction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, the one the Bible declares to be the most blessed of women, covered in animal excrement. Geeze, which would you think should generate the most heat? What's worse, my own government, headed by those who are supposed be of my party and represent my values, are screwing up again. On the one hand our state department seems to be saying that the cartoonists were naughty and shouldn't have done it while President Bush says that we stand by our friends in the Netherlands. Please, people, one signal (and in this case it had better be at least on the side of Bush's rather lukewarm support).

The second story is somewhat related to the other at least tangentially. Last year a mother in Queens, Andrea Skoros, sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited. The school officials said that the display was of secular symbols and did include a Christmas tree (oops... shouldn't say that, in our screwed up world we are supposed to say "holiday tree", which I suppose means I can keep mine up all year round since we have holidays throughout the year and those who demand the use of the "holiday tree" term don't specify WHICH holiday... naw, I'll call it what it is, a Christmas tree). What is frightening is that today a small AP article states that a federal appeals court has upheld the school's policy. What idiots! The menorah isn't a religious symbol? Are those people completely ignorant of what the menorah symbolises?! And the star and crescent represents what? (Is there ANYONE who doesn't know... anyone?) I am so happly at least one judge dissented, the brave Judge Chester Straub, who said that the policy utilizes religious symbols of certain religions but bans the symbols of another. So let's see, the school places symbols of certain religions in the display but has banned a nativity scene... how can anyone disagree with Judge Straub's commonsense dissent? As Mrs Skoros has said, she never was wanting the other symbols removed, just add an appropriate symbol for the nearly two billion Christians. Now, if she were a (so called) peaceful extreme Islamist do you think she would be seeking the addition at least one symbol of equal communicative value, or the subtraction of all symbols not a part of Islam? And yet gentle readers, what religion, what one set of beliefs is it okay to disparage and ban in our supposed modern age? Here, let me help you, it isn't Islam...

Old enough to read fairy tales

Okay, I admit it, I cried during some scenes in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (LWW for short). Tonight, while finishing up Lewis' The Horse and His Boy a few tears fell again. Perhaps now in my advanced years (remember, I am now 43... horrors!) I am old enough to read fairy tales. Lewis wrote that line in the dedication to his goddaughter and it has been published in every edition of LLW. Obviously it has nothing to do with base literacy. Let's face it, the words in fairy tales are hardly difficult to read, but remember Lewis was a professor of literature and for him reading was far more than simply knowing the meaning of words in print. Reading was connection, and tonight, just like when I sat watching LLW (all three times actually), I connected again with what Lewis (and Tolkien) called "true myth". Unfortunately today the word myth has taken on a connotation of falsehood, but that isn't quite what they had in mind when they used the word. Christians get terribly squirmish in use of the word "myth", but as this wonderful article from Christianity Today states, Myth Matters. Here are are a couple of samples of what touched me tonight:

"Don't you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?" said Shasta.

"There was only one lion," said the Voice.

"What on earth do you mean? I've just told you there were at least
two the first night, and--"

"There was only one; but he was swift of foot."

"How do you know?"

"I was the lion." And as Shasta gaped with open mouth
and said nothing, the voice continued. "I was the lion
who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who
comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the
lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I
was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of fear
for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune.
And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat
in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore
where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you...

Who are you? asked Shasta.

"Myself," said the Voice, very deep and low so that the
earth shook: and again, "Myself," loud and clear and gay;
and then the third time "Myself," whispered so softly you
could hardly hear it, and yet it seemed to come from all
around you as if the leaves rustled with it...

He [Shasta] turned and saw, pacing behind him, taller than
the horse, a Lion. The horse did not seem to be afraid of
it or else could not see it. It was from the Lion that the
light came. No one ever saw anything more terrible or beautiful.

Myth, properly understood and applied in the hands of a master, connects you to "the true", or, to sound a little more philosophical, to Plato's highest form, "The Good" (or for Lewis you can remove one 'o'). For a Christian what better mental image of God can you ask for? What better way to describe a being who is perfect love, perfect mercy, perfect compassion, as well as perfect justice (the attribute most often forgotten) as someone who is both terrible and beautiful! When I read stories like this it makes me stop all of the generally meaningless hustle and bustle of my own life and experience the same reaction as Shasta:

But after one glance at the Lion's face he slipped out of the
saddle and fell at its feet. He couldn't say anything but then
again he didn't want to say anything, and he knew he needn't say
anything

Rudeness

Why are people so rude? I'm not talking about the inability to set a table or knowing the proper manner of introducing people, but simple, common, everyday courtesy. Take driving. Driving in San Diego is a nightmare. Yes, we have had a huge influx of "square state" refugees in recent years, but that doesn't tell the whole story (and in my humble opinion simply pushes off responsiblity to the nameless "them"). Part of my commute to work takes me past several merges where the drivers on the freeway refuse to allow people on. I've seen people in the right hand lane deliberately close a gap just so a car cannot merge onto the freeway. What do these people think they are going to win by keeping someone from merging in front of them. When my parents taught me to drive I was taught the "one car" rule... to let one car merge in with the idea that the car behind you would do the same, kind of like shuffling cards. People get on the freeway, traffic may slow but doesn't stop, pretty much the best situation. Of course courtesy on part of the people who want to merge is also expected. If someone creates a gap for one car to merge, two cars shouldn't attempt it ("wait your turn" is another lesson in courtesy). But rudeness extends beyond playing in traffic. My gym has a large plaque stating very clearly "All Members Must Have A Towel At All Times", yet there isn't a day go by when I don't see people without towels... and some of those with towel should really learn to use them (I mean, who likes to put their hand on the handles of the elliptical machine and feel the nice wetness of sweat, or sit on a weight bench and suddenly HOPE that what you feel is sweat). And don't get me started on the bathroom... I can't speak for the ladies' room, but for heaven's sake men, make sure the toilet paper goes into the bowl and FLUSH!). Today I was coughed on and sneezed at by people who refuse to cover their mouths. I mean, really, who raised these people?

I think people have forgotten the reason for good manners. They are not to impress people (and in fact, as in the case of proper speech, good manners will cause many today to think less of you than more of you). In How To Be A Gentleman, John Bridges has this to say (with my assistance to make it more PC *ugh*):

"The truth of the matter is, being a gentleman [or lady] is not rocket science. Being a gentleman [or lady] requires a little logic, a bit of forethought, and a great deal of consideration for others [emphasis mine]. It is not about complicated rules andconvoluted instuctions. Instead, it is about trying to make life easier for other people. It is about honestly and sincerely being a nice guy [or gal]. "

Just being considerate, being thoughtful of others and aware that the world really doesn't revolve around any one of us (well, actually, my friend Nicolas sent me a picture of two Americans at Burger King who looked large enough to have their mass be considered in the gravitational attraction calcuations of heavenly bodies, but that is another rant for another day) would make our lives go much more smoothly. And people, please, the next time you use the treadmill don't use to hand to wipe off sweat from your head and fling your hand to get rid of it... here's a hint: that's what the towel is for.