Could God have created a radioactive-free world?

Those who believe him omnipotent would certainly say so. And those who don't believe him to exist would certainly say that he had nothing to do with it. Regardless of my own personal stance, there is room for both beliefs, I think.

This article touches on religion and nuclear power (sorta) and so it touches on two topics of endless interest to me. As a disclaimer, I generally like Slate.com, question the existence of God in a Buddhist "we can't know" kind of way, and support nuclear power. I believe there there are certainly good questions about God. This is not one of them:

Those who believe that suffering and evil can be explained, even justified, by the fact that man has free will and thus the ability to choose evil (the "blame-it-on-the victim" school of theodicy) and argue that courage and goodness would not mean anything if mankind did not have that free choice, still have to answer the question: Is this really the best of all possible worlds? Couldn't God have made it a little better? A little less suffering, fewer of those earthquakes, say, a slightly smaller number of childhood cancers, a little less heartlessness, a little more humanity in human nature? Whenever I hear people echo Voltaire's mocking (in Candide) of Leibniz's assertion this is "the best of all possible worlds," I hear Leibniz with a different, sardonic, anti-Candide questioning tone: "This, THIS is the best of all possible worlds?" This is the
best you could do, God, Mr. Big Shot burning-bush guy?

Asking questions like "couldn't God have made it a little better" begs the question. And while we are at it, couldn't he have made it a little worse? It's a juvenile argument, as far as I'm concerned. It really adds nothing to the conversation. If you think God is silly (as the author appears to), you should consider how silly discussing whether or not he could have created a "little better" world is really dumb. Even allowing that the author concedes the existence of God for this discussion, the discussion itself is entirely myth-based and unknowable.

"Could God have created a "little better" world by not including radioactivity" strikes me as a smoke-filled dorm-room/freshman philosophy question.

How much is too much?

You know what, I wasn't a very good person or husband tonight. It's true and it happens.

Anyway, beside that - I love my truck.

And I've been expanding my borders and watching World Cup soccer. But why have the two games I've watched so far sound as though they were played in a bee's hive? Not near a hive, and not merely the cheering of fans, but like the game was actually occurring in a fucking hive. INSIDE THE HIVE.

And I watched Karate Kid tonight. And it got me thinking... how much is too much when it comes to "compassion" for Buddhists? Is there a final breaking point? Should there be? I'm all for accepting each other, and helping each other, and giving the other the benefit of the doubt, but at what point does it end? At what point do we recognize that the world is as the world is and act in accordance. Or is the idea to change the world altogether? It seems like maybe its that second one.

And a few lines in the movie got me thinking... at one point Dre (Will Smith's son) says something along the lines of "Everything in China is old." How much of our "Westernistish" is from the fact that almost everything around us is less than 100 years old, let alone 200 or 1000. Doesn't being around 1,000 and 10,000 year old buildings and structures and history have to affect you in a different way than beind around 100 year old stuff? And does that necassarily mean that 1,000-year old stuff is better? Because doesn't that mean that 10,000 year-old cave drawings are better than anything that came after? I for one think that the "newness" of our nation means that A) we are bound to have a different outlook than the "older" world and that B) that's not necassarily a bad thing?

Having said that, I wonder if maybe we all couldn't be a little better if we were a little more Busshist? (As I write this, the Republic of South Africa - the host continent, if not nation - scores the first goal of the 2010 World Cup against Mexico. South Africa is the lowest host country in history.

Such a great weekend.

I had a gin-inspired post all ready, but I'm replacing it with this: I love life. The end.

Dealings with the Dalai Lama

Not personal ones, unfortunetly. That would be pretty cool though.

But on to the point of the post. Interesting article the the Dalai Lama, some of his recent statements, and the author's reaction to said statements are here. Its of special note because I'm reading the Art of Happiness.

Read some of the comments on the article for some... uh, criticism ... of the Dalai Lama's viewpoint. Some of it is even justified.

Anyway, take a read and come back. I'll wait...

-------

Done? Okay then. My problem is this - In my view, religious leaders often get stuck in a sticky web string of "touchy feely" philosophy rather than actual thought. The Marxist idea of everything to everyone get endorsed, despite never having worked anywhere and being responsible for some of the most heinious acts of man imaginable i.e. - N. Korea, USSR, China, et al. The fact that Capitalism has raised the fortunes of 1,000s is ignored. The Dalai Lama even acknowledges Capitalism's positive impact in China, and then dismisses it for the touch feely Marxism.

Part of the problem is that Marxism seems great at the moment if you apply it to a Capitalist made society that is promoting work and productivity because its already established a Living Standard A that can be distributed to all. But once you really start seeing the unintended consequences of a "from each, to each" philosophy, you realize that you now have a Living Standard B that will soon disintegrate into Living Standard C, on and on in a perpetuating cycle.

To me, the Devil is in the details. How much more "moral" can the system be, if it leads to the poverty - to the point of starvation - of thousands, if not tens of thousands? I suppose the Dalai Lama isn't all that worried about poverty - excepting starvation. But putting you in a more productive, prosperous place makes it that much more likely that another person, either through productivity or your generosity, can also be in a good place.

The second part is that it ignores that Capitalism does indeed have a moral underpinning. It suffers from having a title that isn't associated with a person's name, but it does have a moral underpinning.

Having said all this: The DL does seem to make some insightful points - mainly that Marxism/socialism has focused too heavily on destroying the successful class/ruling class and that as a result, when the revolution comes, there isn't much left to distribute. He suggests, instead of a resentful jealousy of the ruling class, that we employ a more compassionate stance overall.

I'm on board with that. I think there are rich that don't deserve their riches just as there are poor who don't deserve their poverty, and I'm not going to say either are totally deserving or undeserving of their lot. Nor am I going to pretend that being poor is the most horrible thing in the world or that being rich makes everything better. Both come with their own problems.

I'm not F'n around

Seriously.

I've about had it with asshats trying to run other peoples' lives. Its gotten to the point where I'm kinda bitter.

And, shhhhh, I'm not gonna file my Census form in protest. Oh, I may eventually. But I'm going to prolong it as long as possible.

Like I said, I'm getting bitter.

A nice vacation may be just what I need. Oh, and I think I need to stay off the Libertarian posting boards. Little too much echo, if you catch my drift.

The good news is that I've finally scaled a year-long writer's block. Chalk the delay up to my fear of heights. Chalk it up to being a crappy writer. Chalk it up to laziness. Chalk it up to my habit of never really finishing anything. Heck, chalk it up to the Man in the Sky for all I care.

Tonight I wrote - for the first time really - towards the ending of Falsley Accused. About half way, maybe 30% of the way towards the end of the road that remains. I actually know - for the first time - the "how" of how it will end. Sorta. More like I know the road I'll take, that the road heads East, and that it passes through 3 towns. Where exactly I'll end up, well, that's the exciting part.

Hoping to take the rough draft on vacation with me for review and light editing, notation and rewriting of the crappy parts.

So... the entire thing.

Everybody Draw Mohammad Day

By way of a little back story, Islamic extremists threatened South Park-creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker for using a representation of Mohammed in their cartoon.

So, someone with just my sense of humor, passive-aggressiveness and ideals has named May 20 as "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" in support of Stone and Parker. Genuis.

I plan on posting a drawing. I'll do this despite the fact that - my former incarnation as a graphic designer for a newspaper not withstanding (Photoshop/FreeHand/Adobe can do wonders) - I'm not a very good artist I'm no Darby Conley.

As a journalist, I kinda feel its my professional duty to the First Amendment. As a human being I kinda feel its my obligation to my fellow man. As a rationale egoist, I kinda feel its my obligation to myself.

I'm all for believing that such an image is against the will of your Man in the Sky. I'm all for forgoing such conduct yourself. I'm all for barring such conduct from fellow followers. Where I draw the line is dictating adherence to such a policy to nonbelievers.

If you don't want to curse the Man in the Sky, fine; but you can't ask someone else to forgo the same.

If I end up in hell, I won't send you a postcard.

I only ask that if you end up in hell, you return the favor.

Would you go back? Or forward?

During a great speech, Michael Specter at TED asks the question. The answer you give might tell me more about you than you really want me to know.

But in a speech well worth your time, he goes further than that. When I've gotten worked up about issues in the past, I've been asked "why worry about what people want to do. Let them make their choice, even if they are silly." Specter gives a great response.

I won't spoil it, you'll have to watch to see the answer.

My Theory

I've started The Art of Happiness. The fact is, I generally respond to questions of "how are you" with the response "excellent." Honestly. There are times when I'm so overwhelmingly happy that my insides feel like they will burst. Or melt into some kind of cosmic glow. And not just when I'm drunk - though I'm an exceedingly happy drunk.

Not to brag, but I really feel like I've had almost no bad breaks in life. Good jobs that I've never lost and always loved. Great wife who has a good job she likes and who is just as silly and generally as, or more, optimistic than me. Sufficient income. Nice house. And perhaps most importantly - good to great health. It really is all about having good health. If you are in pain and sick all the time, all those other things mean mostly, well, squat.

Maybe some of that is the choices I've made. Certainly some of it is luck and birth place and family. Some of it is that I'm a master at exclusion. I simply exclude that for which I have little time, or interest, or which is a drag on my happiness. I'm also a pretty good at parrying. I think I have a keen ability to to take most of what would derail me and - like a good karate block - us its own momentum to safely direct it away and around me.

Having said all this, I should note that I'm also sometimes worried that this means that I've got something very dark in store for me down the road. Hopefully it just means that I appreciate what I have and can block out bad stuff. But I'm still sometimes suspicious. And frankly, typing this isn't helping. Its making me nervous. Its like saying Beetlejuice three times. That summons him, right?

So I'll now move onto the real purpose of my post. I was a strong Republican through high school and into the early parts of college. From the last half of college onward though - and I don't remember the exact moment, but Ayn Rand was a key part - I have slowly moved further away from Republicans and more firmly into the Libertarian/libertarian/liberty camp. Some of my distancing from childhood beliefs is probably just natural growth into adulthood from a conservative upbringing. But some of it is the feeling that some of my childhood beliefs were based on lies.

So much so that while I was a huge anti-drug advocate in high school, I've now become disallusioned with the entire anti-drug crowd and now support drug legalization. So much of it seems like lies now that I have the whole truth.

Anyway, that isn't even the real point of the post. I've really come to believe that any use of force, except in self-defense, is a bad idea. Force - and force is almost always the taking something from someone for yourself - represents evil and darkness 99% of the time. Whether it be theft, or preventing gay marriage, or drug prohibition, or book burning, or racism. Sometimes the force is obvious - as in theft - and sometimes its just implicit - drug prohibition, book burning - and sometimes its just covered by a thin veil of morality - racism, preventing gay marriage.

Anyway, my theory: You should strive to be as liberty and openness loving as possible for your own personal place in the world. Maybe you can't bring yourself to support drug legalization for whatever reason. But you should always be open and accepting of those more open than yourself and mostly reject those more restrictive than yourself.

Maybe you don't support drug legalization, but you should always consider it a goal and possibility and option. Maybe you can't get comfortable with gay marriage (and shame on you, if you can't - that's me rejecting the more restrictive point of view) but you should allow it for the sake of liberty and openness.

I know - pure acquintances, mostly from message boards - some anarchists, or minarchists. And while I don't think anarchy has any chance of being imposed in any reasonable, not world destroying, way, I can accept their position and can see it and can wish that it would be possible. I wouldn't support its application here today, as we stand, because I don't think it would work, but I have no problem working toward its implementation. I reject all efforts at more restrictions, however. Its funny, because I've always rejected the "Indians knew best and were perfect" thinking. Until recently. When I've come around to the idea that maybe, just maybe, we would all be better off if we lived, not like them, but more like them. Keep the technology. Lose the subsistence living. Keep the dispersed, underpopulated nature. Its actually quite Jeffersonian, who believed we should be a nation of yeoman farmers and warned against cities.

Anyway, that's where I stand. I know this was long. And somewhat rambling. And somewhat pendantic, perhaps. And somewhat preachy. And not at all peachy - though click-and-sniff internet hyperlinks would be awesome and absolutely have to be the next thing people work on. I hope you managed to read all this and didn't quit. I feel like it was something that I needed to say and put out there. If only to have said it and explained it and made it clear to myself.

Also, I'd kinda like a critique or thoughts about my "more free than you" theory.

Reinventing the wheel

Another delayed post.

This from an analysis of the great Aristotle on a Stanford website:

The good of a human being must have something to do with being human; and what sets humanity off from other species, giving us the potential to live a better life, is our capacity to guide ourselves by using reason. If we use reason well, we live well as human beings; or, to be more precise, using reason well over the course of a full life is what happiness consists in. Doing anything well requires virtue or excellence, and therefore living well consists in activities caused by the rational soul in accordance with virtue or excellence.

And this from Gretchen Rubin's Happiness Project on Slate.com:

Act with energy. We think we ACT because of the way we FEEL, but often we FEEL because of the way we ACT. Trick yourself into feeling energetic by moving more quickly, pacing while you talk on the phone, and putting more energy into your voice.

Similar, me thinks.

Quick updates

I wrote last night for the first time in a while in anticipation of having to have my work completed by month's end. Not much. But it was a start. And I think I got over the block that was preventing me from going forward. We'll see.

Also, I'm thinking of ginning up either a Week of Double Daily Quotes. I would post one that I like and one that I don't or that is challenging and leave them for discussion. Or maybe I'd do this as like Quotation Monday or something.

I'm also kinda considering taking quotes from Rand and Jefferson and working up a dinner conversation between the three of us exploring various issues, where they stand on them, where I stand on them, and where, perhaps, you stand on them. Kinda my tribute homage to them. Plus, I thought it would make a neat (if tedious and labor intensive) project. I'd have to find the damn things, sort them, then make the entire thing light (as light as Rand gets, in any case) airy (ditto), fun and readable.

Also, I'd have to mediate and resolve the fist fight I keep envisioning as the result.

You call it derivitive parroting of others' works; go ahead and say I'm standing on the shoulders of giants. I call it an adult and creative exploration of my beliefs and heroes.

So neener neener.