For the record

I have a scotch-bet with a friend who is deluded enough to think that Obama will “sweep.” I say “deluded” because he’s a smart guy, but he’s been drinking the Obama kool-aid from the campaign and getting seconds from the media. So our bet is about whether or not Obama will win by over 110 electoral college points.

I have no worries about losing.

And, for the record, I think there’s about a 15% chance that McCain will actually win. A number that doesn’t exude confidence, but that at least allows me a good “told ya so” to those who gave him a 0% chance if he does win.

Why is wealth redistribution bad? (First post at a new blog.)

What-Ho All.

I’ve just put up my first (serious) post at a joint blog called Suite Talking. The title refers to the fact that it is a joint venture between myself a college suitemate. From now on I’ll probably be double posting most of my more “serious” posts over there. Feel free to come over and visit and comment and even check out some thoughts by that lanky bastard known as Nate.

So, without further ado, my first crossposting:

Why is wealth redistribution bad?

[Quick summary: a principle of fairness isn't enough to establish wealth redistribution policies as bad as there are two main intuitions about what fairness means, I predict that these two intuitions fall in line with two major ethical theories.]

One of my (many) major problems with the Obama campaign is its support of policies that would function as wealth redistribution. Like most conservatives, I find such socialistic tendencies abhorant*, but why?

Common answers would almost all appeal to fairness. It seems inherently fair that each person should receive compensation relative to the extent, difficulty, and quality of his work. To take compensation from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not is, without a doubt, unfair. But is that enough? Life after all, and as parents are so fond of reminding children, is not fair. Why should taxes be?

Or consider that the distribution of circumstances for those who are extremely wealthy and extremely poor has not been fair. The majority of the extremely poor were born in circumstances that significantly contributed to their poverty.**

The government could never make the world’s circumstantially fair. But if it redistributes wealth, then to some extent hasn’t it mitigated the unfairness of the world? If bad circumstances tend one toward bad decisions which tend one (and one’s children) toward bad circumstances, then isn’t it the case that not redistributing wealth is systematically contributing to the unfairness of the world?

I’m interested to hear what any of you think about this. Is it more fair to try to increase equality in the end result? Or to try to treat everyone the same as possible?

There are plenty of people in both camps, a good number of which like to argue. But, as per usual, I would bet that there is actually a more fundamental disagreement between the two camps than the surface quarrel over taxes. My guess is that the two groups will fall more or less in line with the following two ethical theories: those who tend toward a deontological ethic (focusing on duty and action) will have the intuition that everyone should be treated the same, and those who tend toward a utilitarian ethic (focusing on outcome) will have the intuition of endpoint equality.

My intuitive ethic is something of a Duns Scotian mix of deontology and divine command theory (a standard package, I’d wager, for most conservative Christians), and I bet that that accounts for my status as a wealth-redistribution-abhorrer. But I also question whether all of ethics can be propositionalized, which means that I’m open to understanding ethical decisions in other manners (e.g. faithful interpretation of a role rather than instantiation of a rule). And that probably correlates pretty well with my feelings that the case against wealth redistribution is not open and shut.

_____

*-I know it’s not a word… I’m working on making it one.

**-It may be argued that no one in America will be in abject poverty unless they make conscious decisions to act in a manner that directly leads to poverty (immoral or illegal activity, failing to perform well enough to even meet the minimal work requirements of a minimum wage job, etc.). These people are fully responsible for the decisions that they have made and therefore fully responsible for their impoverished state.

But for that argument to work mustn’t it be true that the (unfair) circumstances do not affect these decisions? But of course they do. A child raised to think that criminal activity is the norm would seem in some way to be less (ethically, not legally) culpable for criminal activity than one who has had a clear demonstration and example of right and wrong since we know that these sorts of examples leave a distinct impression on children and inform their decision making.

The Happening as a pro-life film?

Several months ago, when it was out in theaters, I saw M. Night Shyamalan’s most recent film, The Happening. To be honest, I was disappointed. The movie did having one of the best suspense devices I’ve ever seen (the first stage of death in the movie is that everyone stops and stands still, this is a device that legitimately warrants the term “Hitchcockian”). The intentionally wooden acting, however, didn’t do it for me. Neither did the unbelievably horrible science.

Matthew Mehan (a friend of a friend of a friend), however, has an interesting take on the film that might make me give it another chance. His article at mercatornet.com argues that Shyamalan intended his film to decry a shift in America away from a “culture of life.” Mehan’s case on some comments about bees by one of the main characters and the manner in which the three most gruesome deaths occur (analogous to three main types of abortion).

I’m not sure I agree with Mehan, but the article is definitely worth a look if you’ve seen the movie. Thoughts anyone?

My new favorite

Republicans need better marketing people

Have you seen any of the Republican campaign ads? Honestly.

I couldn’t resist

It should also be noted that Obama received the second most contributions ever from F&F… In three years… The only person who received more was a 27 year senate veteran (see here). Not that Republicans are innocent here, but still…

Top Five: Reasons I’m Not Watching The Debate Right Now

1. Politics just makes me angry. Not only will my blood pressure rise just watching the debate, but it would give me more fuel to want to argue and get angry at people about it later on.

2. Debates aren’t that great of a forum for policy anyway. At least not televised debates. Written debates would be much more informative. Of course, there’s more to presiding than just policy, but still.

3. My politics are based on principles. And there is never a question of which party’s candidate will come closest to those principles.

4. Who cares about VP’s? The Obama campaign and the media (but I repeat myself) care a lot about Sarah Palin because they see her as a much easier target than McCain (specifically, she’s a stereotype, even more useful because it’s the same stereotype they give for Bush–against whom Obama is really trying to run). But really, VP’s rarely do anything of importance, apart from possibly succeeding their P’s.

5. I don’t vote. And I’m not in the least bit ashamed of it. To anyone who thinks my vote “makes a difference”: I’d be happy to make a bet with you of a dollar against everything I own. We can do an easy counterfactual check after the election is done, and if my vote would have made a difference you get it all.

5a. No seriously. I would get effing pissed.

—–

Addendum (to number 4):  An argument can be made that this VP debate is more important because of John McCain’s age and health. This may be, but it’s only slightly more important. Matt Damon says to look at the actuary tables on McCain, but this neglects at least the two facts that McCain clearly has good stock (his mom’s still going), and he has access to the best medical treatment in the world.

Obama, satire, and stardust

By now you’ve probably all heard about and read, the satirical article “He ventured forth to bring light into the world” from Gerard Baker at The Times. It’s starts out:

” And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.”

But if there was any doubt about the piece’s appropriateness or accuracy, check out another article, “He came, he saw, he sprinkled us with stardust. Even Gordon Smiled.” Stardust!?! Really!?! This one is from another British paper, The Guardian, and contains bits like the following:

“But, mainly, he simply appeared, and sprinkled that stardust. Gordon Brown could be seen beaming. In the dark. The dark of the hall of 10 Downing Street. Obama wasn’t allowed, through protocol, to grasp Mr B’s hand outside for the cameras, as he is only a presidential candidate, and it wasn’t done for John McCain’s visit. But there was an Obama arm swiftly around Gordon’s shoulders, and a (rather fluid) returning lower-back pat, before the door shut.”

—–

As a reminder, you can vote for “rim fag,” my related entry to Urban Dictionary, here.

Michel Monday: The Chemical Brothers – Let Forever Be

[Michel Mondays were instantiated and explained here.]

Another great Gondry video with amazing transition after amazing transition. (Also, it kind of reminds me of Run Lola Run).

Links

This links post is kind of like me:  part politics, part comedy, all sexy.

1. Some more bad news for promoters of the idea that no one in their right minds isn’t freaking out about climate change, David Evans announces that he’s off the wagon in The Australian.

Who’s David Evans? He describes himself thusly:  “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.”

2. The Financial Times Deutschland recently ran an editorial in response to the large number of Obama fans in Europe. Here is a translation on the site Watching America. Included is this lovely quote,

“Obama is often praised for rekindling enthusiasm in democracy in people due to his drawing power. But mass obeisance to a charismatic leader really has little to do with democracy. On the contrary, the sociologist Max Weber describes charismatic domination as a condition that gains no legitimacy either through elections or tradition. The Obama-hype is similar to the month-long dance around the iPhone, except that the Apple cell phone will still have to submit to field trials.”

3. Every wonder what the guys from Mystery Science Theatre 3000 are up to? Check out Cinematic Titanic, Riff Trax, and The Film Crew.

4. Surprise! The New York Times is biased against Israel.

“…most headlines concerning attacks are written in the active style when concerning Israel, but in the passive when concerning Arab terrorists, who usually are called ‘militants.’”

5. Is your life dull and dreary? Perhaps you should take up a new hobby… like monkey torture!

Michel Mondays: The Rolling Stones – Gimme Shelter

[Michel Mondays were instantiated and explained here.]

The James Gang

Check out The James Gang on myspace. High quality.

It’s like a whole group of Andre 3000’s, with the jump blues and swing elements entering more traditionally than in Andre’s music. Some of the playfulness reminds me of Pigeon John as well.

Scientific debate over scientific bullying

Check out this statement from the latest issue of the journal Physics & Society. Here’s a highlight:

“There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

Can we please put talk of consensus on hold now?

—–

HT:  Junk Science

Guess the quote & a new project

Who wrote the following pair of Faulknerian sentences:

“In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine grace.”

Calvin?

No.

Luther?

No.

Give up?

It’s your boy, Jacobus Arminius (but you can call him ‘Jim’).

If you’re surprised, the likely reason is that Arminianism has become a very confused subject over the course of the last century. To the rescue, rides Roger E. Olson with his publication Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (considering the name of the author, and the subject of the book, can we all agree to refer to this work as the REO Free-Wagon?). I have just started reading Olson’s book, but I already love it. And one of the main points that he has made in the preface and introduction, is that Arminianism is most certainly not semi-Pelagianism. Furthermore, he notes that the majority of churches in the US that would be labeled the former are in fact the latter! Hence the oddity of the above quote.

As you might have noticed, I’m so excited about this book I could spit. Some personal history: I was raised in a non-intellectual, Arminian tradition that often tended towards semi-Pelagianism (not that anyone but the senior pastor and my father would have know what that meant!). In college, all of my conservative Christian friends were reformed Calvinists. Interacting with them forced me develop my theology quite a bit; the primary result was that I eschewed my semi-Pelagian tendencies, and heartily embraced an emphasis on the gospel of grace, and imputed righteousness under a heavily forensic metaphor for atonement (yay Anselm!).

In my mind, I no longer identified with Arminian congregations, even though I thought that perhaps other intellectual “Arminians” probably held similar views to my own. I was also fully aware that Arminianism had a history of which I knew little but the tangential polemics from Reformed Calvinist pulpits. Rejecting some of the doctrines they attributed to Wesley and others, I gave myself the negative and disappointing label “non-Calvinist.”

Until today. One of the first things Olson does is to establish Arminianism as a valid, evangelical, reformed theology. He distinguishes what he calls ‘Arminianism of the heart’ or ‘evangelical Arminianism’ from ‘Arminianism of the head’ or ‘humanist Arminianism.’ The latter seeks to elevate man by his participation in salvation. The former seeks to glorify God by affirming an interpretation of scripture that renders him just as well as merciful and gracious. If people asked me now, I would probably tell them that I am a reformed Arminian (I prefer that to ‘evangelical Arminian’ since it establishes unity with other Protestants through a long history of reformation as opposed to a recent reaction to fundamentalism).

But enough about me, here’s the new project: I’m going to blog through Olson’s book, chapter by chapter. I’ll start with the preface and introduction, then continue with each of the ten myths that are addressed.

1. Arminian theology is the opposite of Calvinist/Reformed theology
2. A hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible
3. Arminianism is not an orthodox evangelical option
4. The heart of Arminianism is belief in [libertarian] free will
5. Arminian theology denies the sovereignty of God
6. Arminianism is a human-centered theology
7. Arminianism is not a theology of grace
8. Arminians do not believe in predestination
9. Arminian theology denies justification by grace alone through faith alone
10. All Arminians believe in the governmental theory of the atonement

Hope you’ll come back for these eleven posts and let me know what you think of them and the book.

—–

HT: JollyBlogger, who gave an official-type review of the book that put me on to it. For the record, he heartily recommended the book, and he’s a conservative, high Calvinist, PCA pastor.

The Daily Show on the New Yorker cartoon cover

Wow. If The Daily Show keeps being this reasonable and funny, I may have to start watching again.

—–

[HT:  Kieth Burgess-Jackson]