Just a Thought

Langston Hughes wrote the poem (and I memorized it in 10th grade):

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore–
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

In the best speech I have ever heard, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

As Barack Obama is hailed be the media as the first black presidential candidate from a major party, notice that Dr. King’s dream is still unrealized.  Why?  Because he is not being hailed solely for his policies, he candidacy is also being extolled for the color of his skin.  He himself never references his nomination in conjunction with his color as a reasons to celebrate, but many others at the convention and on TV did.  The Dream will not be realized until people simply say that Obama is their man because he will punish the rich by taxing them, because he told Georgia to show restraint when Russia invaded them (what would he have told Poland in 1939?), or because Obama will try to make sure government is involved in almost every facet of our lives.  Until then, and for as long as people reference his nomination as a black citizen running for president, the dream is still deferred.

Tags: Politics // 1 Comment »

John McEnroe has oft times asked a tennis official a question and then yelled, “Answer The Question!”  Listening to a Barack Obama interview, I have almost an overwhelming feeling yell at him, “Answer the Question!”

When asked by Rick Warren, “at what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Obama first says the question is outside his pay scale (not a very confidence building claim for voters).  But then he never comes close to talking about the rights of babies.  He instead talks about the rights of women.  That’s nice, but, “Answer the Question!”  Transcript for the interview can be found here.

Pastor Warren’s next question was, “Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?”  Guess what?  Obama talked about respecting views, people of faith, and reducing pregnancies, but he never answered the question.

When Stuart Scott asked him on a SportsCenter interview, whether or not, as President, he would have boycotted the opening ceremonies.  Surprise!  Obama says, Well, I said very early on, I don’t want the olympics to be overly politicized.  But when a host country is violating human rights, I think we ought to say sonething.  And it would have been an appropriate statement for the President to say, ‘I will not go to the openning games unless we see some progress on the issue of Tibet.’”  So would he have gone or not.  He thinks it would be apprpriate, but he does not tell us what HE would have done.  Here is the video.

Obviously Obama does answer some questions, but most of the time he spins around the question until you forget what it was.  Do you think this will work with Putin and Medvedev?  With Ahmadinejad?  With China?  It may work with the voters, but it won’t work on them.

Obama - Answer the Question!

Tags: Politics // Add Comment »

They are called, “The Redeem Team,” but there should be no reason redemption is necessary.  After the controversy of 1972 and the boycott of 1980, the USA first lost the gold medal with amateur players in 1988 (the amateurs lost by 6 to the Soviets in the semis).  This marked the end of the US fielding an amateur hoops squad for the Olympics, as in 1992, the US sent The Dream Team to Barcelona for a coronation as gold medal champions.  The US also lost the Gold Medal in 2004.  The last time they won the quadrennial World Championship in Basketball was in 1994 (a drought which includes the embarrassment of 2002 coming in 6th while hosting the tournament).

My question is this, “outside of selfishness, why should the US ever lose in men’s basketball?”  Every one of the players on the US team for the past 16 years is an all-star; in fact they are so good they did not even bring the Finals MVP Paul Pierce (of the Boston Celtics) to China for the Olympics.  This is not really different than teams in the past who have not won.

Yes a ton of credit goes to Coach K for building the team into a united unit, but why does it take him to bring them together?  Where is the pride of country for our NBA players to play for the USA and to play their best for the country that has made them unbelievably rich and famous?  We are seeing it now, to a certain extent, but can they get past their selfishness to continue to play to their potential in the future?

A “Redeem Team?”  I suppose this basketball team’s mission is to redeem the past teams of being remembered for their selfishness.  But can USA basketball keep from making redemption necessary in the future?

Tags: Politics // Add Comment »

8-8-08 is a day to commemorate one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Red Sox player in history.

He may not have been the best hitter (Ted Williams), or the greatest outfielder (Lynn or Crisp), but as a player, a gentleman, and a representative, he may well be unsurpassed.  The last player to hit for the triple crown, number 8 was a leader for the Impossible Dream season of 1967.  Yaz hit more than 450 home runs and 3000 hits with the Red Sox (one of only 7 players in the history of baseball to hit for these numbers), and he handled the media with humility and class.

Oddly enough, this date comes just a day after the anti-Yaz, Manny Ramirez, is being investigated by baseball.  Although they both played the same position at Fenway, and Yaz has two World Series rings less than Manny, Yaz will always be more than twice the Red Sox player Manny ever was.

In the history of baseball, Yaz ranks 2nd in games played, 3rd in at-bats, 6th in hits, as well as 8th in doubles and total bases.  These stats from a classy leader and player most fans around the league have never heard about.

Today is the appropriate day to be thankful that our number 8 is Yaz!

Tags: Thoughts, sports // Add Comment »

There is no doubt that Manny Ramirez has helped the Red Sox Nation escape from under the curse, but there is also little doubt he has to go.  Dan Shaunessey outlines the frustrations, and dare I say outright anger, that the management of the Sox and the Nation as a whole has with Manny.  He skips  the game last night because his knee hurts?  David Ortiz plays almost a whole season on one leg and Manny can’t play against the Yankees because his knee, which a MRI showed to be clean, hurts a little?

Oddly enough, I am not surprised, but I am baffled.  What does Manny get out of this?  His blown at bat at Yankee Stadium (in which he watched three straight strikes) looks very interesting now that the first time he has the opportunity to make things right, he sits down with a mysterious knee ailment.  Is he trying to stay in good graces with the Bombers so they will sign him next year?

I do understnad his knee could be sore, but after throwing in the towel for his own reasons so many times, this looks too suspicious.

Tags: sports // Add Comment »

In his article of May 27, A Matter of Law and Rights, Richard Larsen states, “the fallacy here is in believing that morality is an absolute. It has never been and never will be an absolute.” Larsen’s problem is he makes moral judgments throughout his article. He attacks religious people and conservatives for being, “misguided,” “part of groupthink,” tyrannical, and extremely prejudiced. If there are no moral absolutes, then from what basis does Larsen make these claims? Why are they wrong while he is right? His diatribe simply equates to writing, “go Dodgers, boo Angels,” since he is making a moral statement and there are no moral absolutes.

Larsen proclaims slavery, suffrage, and interracial marriage are examples of change in American morality. This is odd, since if he simply touts change, then we could return to racism and bondage without being wrong because there are no moral absolutes. On the other hand, if he wants to cite these as examples of moral progress, it is equally strange. If there are no moral absolutes, there can be no evolution, there can only be change. In order for progress to be made, there must be a goal. Without moral virtues, there is no goal to attain to and there is only change, not progress. Larsen also writes, “if people cannot see errors in their thinking,” but if there is no absolute morality, then what counts for errors? In fact, what would Larsen say if the 13th Amendment (outlawing slavery) was repealed? He would be unable to say it was right or wrong to do so since there are no moral absolutes.

Lastly, Larsen claims, “the will of the people stops the moment it infringes on the rights of others.” This sounds very noble, but even he admits, “just as one man’s freedom of speech stops at the door of another.” What is he trying to point out? Each person has the rights as long as they stay out of other people’s business is great, but we arrest people for animal abuse even if it takes place in the privacy of their own home. The will of the people can raise my taxes and that not only kicks down my front door, but busts open my bank.

It is difficult to understand Mr. Larsen’s (lack of) logic. He claims some people are horrible, while claiming there are no moral absolutes. He desires morals to improve, but since there are no moral absolutes, they cannot. He wants the voters to stay out of each others’ homes, yet there are evils for which he would (I assume) demand people be arrested. I do not know if Mr. Larsen is right or wrong, but neither can he if there are no overarching morals.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts // Add Comment »

The California state supreme court invalidated a law (approved by the voters) which limited marriage to a, ‘union between a man and a woman.’ I understand the purpose of the court is to ensure laws which are passed, even by the voters themselves, comply with the Constitution and legal precedent, but I also thought their decisions should comply with the laws of logic.

One of the basic laws of logic is the law of identity, A=A. this is meant to show that each thing has is own essence or its own identity. Therefore, if what we define as a union between a man and a woman
is marriage, then anything else we call marriage should share the same essence. Homosexual unions do not. If marriage is defined, as it has been for thousands of years, then to call a new type of union a new name is more than reasonable. Should we have started calling telephones “telegraphs” because a lot of people like that name and we wanted people to accept telephones? No, because they are not telegraphs. The main reason to call homosexual unions marriages is to make them feel better. It is philosophical, not practical.

I know courts are being accused of redefining laws, but redefining logic? Probably not a good policy for them to pursue.

Tags: Thoughts // Add Comment »

I saw Ben Stein’s movie expelled this week. I thought that in general it was very interesting. If you do not like a philosophical documentary, you may not enjoy it. It is certainly a piece of propaganda, and some of the claims of ‘expelled’ professors and writers may be a bit exaggerated. But there are some very interesting points he makes, and in general, it was well done. Some general thoughts:

1. I hope his main point is not lost. The point of the movie is that the debate between Intelligent design and evolution is over the interpretation of the data, not necessarily the data itself. Since there is agreement on most of the data, it is the interpretation of that data which is up for grabs. This being the case, the ID-evolution discussion is a theoretical one. Stein’s point: the discussion in educational institutions should not be one sided.

2. Some may get lost in the discussion over Nazism. However, it does show the rational end (eugenics) to consistent naturalistic-darwinistic thinking.

3. Here is an argument to consider:

A. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design
B. It is not due to physical necessity or chance
C. Therefore, it is due to design

There are no other options to A

There are scientific reasons to support B

It could be said that since the science is agreed upon, then the science classroom is not the place for the debate. It should be in the philosophy department. However, when other theories of science (quarks and dark matter for instance) were theorized, these discussions on the interpretation of the evidence were held in the science classroom as well. So why not this one? Obviously because one of the viable options has a theological attachment, it has been excluded.

I just saw a debate in which atheist Peter Singer dismantled Christian Dinesh D’Souza. It was not on the basis of facts, but on the basis tactics and ability. At any rate, Singer says we should not denounce atheism simply because it leads to subjective morals. If something is correct and but it leads to undesired ends, it is still correct. To quote Singer’s own words, “sometimes things are true, even if we do not like the consequences.” Maybe the atheists should take a page from one of their own and open up classrooms to discuss the interpretation of the data even if they do not like the consequences of the truth.

Tags: Thoughts // 5 Comments »

In his editorial, “Misreading U.S. society,” Richard Larsen himself misreads the Pope. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am a Philosopher, and Larsen not only allows his presuppositions regarding religion to cloud his arguments, but also makes logical fallacies himself. I will only touch on a few due to space, I am leaving out at least two.

Pope Benedict XVI is quoted as blaming secularism as the cause of a, “growing separation of faith from life.” Larsen translates this to mean, “secular society must always take a back seat when a religion decides its moral and social beliefs must take precedence.” In a number of ways, Larsen simply misses the point. His ‘translation’ is a non sequitur. The Pope, from this and other comments he has made, means that people should live out their faith. In other words, if Americans believe something, they should act upon it. Why would he criticize that?

The Pope is later quoted as saying, “overcoming every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom and happiness,” is one of the goals of religious belief. Larsen criticizes this as being un-American. But is it? Everyone’s belief, in a god, in humanism, in atheism, or in themselves, should be consistent with their actions. No one has the right to unbridled freedom and happiness. Besides that, to trade in your beliefs for freedom or happiness is not at all honorable.

Larsen states, “[i]f people are making choices in life that a religion feels go against faith, the fault does not lie with secular society, but with that religion.” Here, both the Pope and Larsen are incorrect, but Larsen’s view creates a straw man while Pope Benedict’s does not. Secularism may indeed contribute to inconstant living, but it is certainly no the cause. The Pope seems to put too much blame on society and not enough, from what is quoted by Larsen, on the individual. However, if an individual is living an inconsistent life, it is also not a religion’s fault. For instance, if a man believes adultery is wrong, but goes out and commits it anyway, how is that the fault of religion? Christianity made me do it? Hinduism forced me to compromise? I cannot be the fault of religion. Either way, it is still the husband who has made the choice, not religion or secularism. And, if the husband commits adultery, we also assume he has rationalized his actions or changed his beliefs.

The largest mistake Larsen makes is justifying humanity’s propensity to believe one way and act another. It seems as though all of us should seek to grow in consistency between our beliefs and our actions. Most would call this integrity or character. If I believe in atheism, then I should act consistently as I follow the outspoken leaders of my ‘faith.’ If I believe, as atheism does, that this life is all there is, then should I not act in a manner that will bring me happiness? It would be inconsistent to do otherwise. So why does Larsen promote an incongruency between beliefs and actions? I assume the writing of his editorial is in line with his beliefs. If he believes the Pope is correct and writes the article, this would be odd. I can only suppose, from reading his piece, that Larsen truly believes the Pope is wrong. At least that is the way the editor is acting.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts // Add Comment »

A little list compiled in class at my request this year.

Tags: Thoughts, Wisdom of the Word // Add Comment »