Don’t look Romeo…
Buckle up Brown’s fans, here we go on that familiar near post-season ride~
November 30, 2008
November 27, 2008
Malone Thanksgiving
The annual Malone Thanksgiving was on Saturday in Cleveland. Click on the photo for additional pictures~
 |
| From Malone Thanksgiving 2008 |
November 24, 2008
Four Very Cool Philosophy Questions
“…the end of our exploring,
Will be to arrive where we started,
And know the place for the first time.”
T.S. Eliot
I caught this article last week as part of National Philosophy Day. I think it’s really cool~
1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it
be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one
of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?
Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the
kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the
other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do
not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he’ll release you.)
If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the
previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider
yet another: you’re in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people
tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to
the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied.
Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.
But then why not kill Bill?
2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?
Consider a photo of someone you think is you eight years ago. What
makes that person you? You might say he she was composed of the same
cells as you now. But most of your cells are replaced every seven
years. You might instead say you’re an organism, a particular human
being, and that organisms can survive cell replacement - this oak
being the same tree as the sapling I planted last year.
But are you really an entire human being? If surgeons swapped George
Bush’s brain for yours, surely the Bush look-alike, recovering from
the operation in the White House, would be you. Hence it is tempting
to say that you are a human brain, not a human being.
But why the brain and not the spleen? Presumably because the brain
supports your mental states, eg your hopes, fears, beliefs, values,
and memories. But then it looks like it’s actually those mental states
that count, not the brain supporting them. So the view is that even if
the surgeons didn’t implant your brain in Bush’s skull, but merely
scanned it, wiped it, and then imprinted its states on to Bush’s
pre-wiped brain, the Bush look-alike recovering in the White House
would again be you.
But the view faces a problem: what if surgeons imprinted your mental
states on two pre-wiped brains: George Bush’s and Gordon Brown’s?
Would you be in the White House or in Downing Street? There’s nothing
on which to base a sensible choice. Yet one person cannot be in two
places at once.
In the end, then, no attempt to make sense of your continued existence
over time works. You are not the person who started reading this
article.
3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
What reason do you have to believe there’s a computer screen in front
of you? Presumably that you see it, or seem to. But our senses
occasionally mislead us. A straight stick half-submerged in water
sometimes look bent; two equally long lines sometimes look different
lengths. But this, you might reply, doesn’t show that the senses cannot provide
good reasons for beliefs about the world. By analogy, even an
imperfect barometer can give you good reason to believe it’s about to
rain. Before relying on the barometer, after all, you might independently
check it by going outside to see whether it tends to rain when the
barometer indicates that it will. You establish that the barometer is
right 99% of the time. After that, surely, it’s readings can be good
reasons to believe it will rain. Perhaps so, but the analogy fails. For you cannot independently check
your senses. You cannot jump outside of the experiences they provide
to check they’re generally reliable. So your senses give you no reason
at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you.”
4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited
intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing
the universe and all the properties of every particle that then
existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked
out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would
too, and that right now you would be reading this article.
After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about
the location and state of every particle that now exists.
And once those facts are fixed, so is the fact that you are now
reading this article. No one’s denying you chose to read this. But
your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example),
which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So
your reading this was predictable by Fred long before you existed.
Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do
anything about it.
Now, of course, Fred didn’t really exist, so he didn’t really predict
your every move. But the point is: he could have. You might object
that modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of
fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset
Fred’s predictions. But is this reassuring? Notice that, in ordinary
life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes
question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill
begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with
randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and
responsibly.”
November 19, 2008
Dwight
One of my favorite characters on television is Dwight from “The Office.” Recently I was watching the deleted scenes from season four and I found the most hilarious quote from Dwight. For those of you that don’t know, Dwight was Amish and now runs a beat farm with his cousin Mose. No offense to animal lovers, I just thought this was funny (in a dry “office” sense of the word:) Here it is:
“My cousin Mose’s best friend was a dog. One day I caught him foaming at the mouth and had to shoot him dead. Turns out he had only eaten one of Mose’s cream pies. Did I feel bad about shooting him, no I did not, that’s how you deal with a thief.”
November 12, 2008
Core Beliefs and Bias
An interesting story from NPR on core beliefs and bias Some quotes from the NPR story and blog are below:
“Between June 9 and Oct. 19, 2008 my office received 282 emails specifically accusing NPR of favoring Obama and 252 emails accusing NPR of favoring McCain. Hundreds more insist the network is either too conservative or too liberal in general, and the writers allege specific bias with particular stories.”
“When people are really committed to some ideological position, especially with politics, even if you present them with empirical evidence that supports the opposite of what they believe, they will reject it,” said Philo Wasburn of Purdue University. “Core beliefs are very, very resistant to change.”
November 10, 2008
Power Paradox
As a teacher I borrow constantly. I pick out the things I like and discard those that I do not. I also love to borrow ideas and pick out things that I resonate with. This column was in Sunday’s Middletown Journal by the well known columnist Cal Thomas and I wanted to post it for two reasons. First, I agree with many of the things that Cal says and I believe he says it in a very graceful and loving way. Secondly, I think this illuminates a very fundamental issue that in my opinion is the root of many disagreements among Christians, politically speaking. In my opinion, many issues in America today are not a matter of what we believe (especially as people of faith), but a matter of how we carry out what we believe and what kind of power we appeal to. I, like many others, see the dangers in swinging too far to the left and I also see the dangers in swinging too far to the right. It’s striking a balance and open conversation that’s important. I think this article captures much of that sentiment:
By Cal Thomas
When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.
Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.
Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?
I opt for trying something else.
Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?
The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?
If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?
Such a strategy could be more “transformational” than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.
Scripture teaches that God’s power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom”?
Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.
November 9, 2008
Results
Again not that my opinion matters greatly but I really appreciated the way John McCain handled his campaign and all of his followers after the election defeat on Tuesday. His concession speech was moving and showed a civility that seemed somewhat absent during the last few months of the election. And without getting too political and detailed, was that the real John McCain that America saw over the last few months? I’m not so sure it was. Did he really support and believe in many of the things projected from his campaign and followers.
Well, I guess this ends the campaign chatter on most of the blogs. It’s nice to know that one man can never control everything in our Country, that’s impossible; our Constitution provided controls for that very reason.
Now what are all the political bloggers gonna do?
November 4, 2008
Starbucks, Goat Cheese and Perspective
At times I feel vain when reporting everyday happenings in my life. Why should anyone be concerned about what I think or do. Oh well, thanks for being interested.
Today, I reflected a bit on my rant yesterday. I reflected by grocery shopping at Kroger. Weird uh, I think it’s kind of weird too. But I just love going to the grocery store. If I’m in Orrville, I love Beuhlers; in Canton I loved going to Giant Eagle and here I love going to Kroger. Kroger has all of these amazing taste stations and organic salad stuff. Today I ate some goat cheese and sipped on my free coffee from the Starbucks located in the store. I wore my “I voted sticker” just cause I wanted to. It was fun.
I came away realizing that people are really what matters. Not issues, theological discussions, arguments etc. Not that those things don’t have a place but the conversation with the guy about the many different kinds of waffles seemed more important than my opinionated blog entries. I’ve come to this realization before but sometimes I think as humans we need to experience what we already know again and again in order to reinforce what we already know.
And I have a presidential prediction: either Barak Obama or John McCain will be president~
November 3, 2008
Ashamed
Yep, I’m annoyed, please bear with me:
Right vs. Wrong; It’s catchy and easy; We want clear answers and thick lines that separate good and evil (us from the rest) good guys and bad guys. Christians vs. non-Christians. I just turned off the television after an advertisement accused someone in a Senate race of not believing in God. Is that really what professing Christians should be up too, attacking political opponents for not believing in God? I’m fed up with with the way this election has turned Christians (professing Christians) into political attack lions and complex issues into one word Jr. High propaganda.
During this election season, I’ve seen an ugly side of the Church that at times I’m ashamed to be a part of. When will we realize that our only distinction from the rest of the World and its’ religions should be the tremendous capacity to love at all costs.
No human being has a monopoly on truth; Hey Church, lets loosen the grip and stop acting like we do. Seems some of us have fallen prey to “Small God Syndrome”