News
Saturday, May 24th, 2008
Hey all, this is one of those protypical posts where a blog author who hasn't blogged in a long time apologizes profusely, talks about how busy he is, and then promises more activity.
:)
I do have a new site design being worked on, with a bit better layout. Let's just say that since my last blog post, I've been to about 5 different countries, and my work with Liferay has been going better than ever. I currently blog over on the company blog, but I will be doing more stuff here.
What about artwork? Well, it seems I don't get to create as much as I used to. My passions have kind of evolved into UI design and User Experience, Javascript, and more front end stuff.
Does that mean that there won't be more artwork coming? Nope, I still draw, and I plan to scan it in and post it. I also plan on actually making time to create more artwork.
So yeah, I'll keep it short, but come say hi over at the Liferay blog:
http://liferay.com/web/ncavanaugh/blog
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 2:30 pm
Monday, July 02nd, 2007
Well, the title is a tad bit hyperbolic, but here are two ways that I think Microsoft could easily garner some really good will, and perhaps generate some true love for it again.
If done, either of these would make Internet Explorer the darling of web developers and designers out there.
The first way is probably unlikely, but I would give another toe to see it happen:
1.
Swap the rendering engine with GeckoLong term, this makes the most sense for Microsoft. They could very seriously profit from the open source communities hard work if they would drop the Trident rendering engine currently in IE. Yes it would cause unholy hell for numerous websites, BUT it needs to be done.
Why would MS do this if IE just becomes synonymous with Firefox? Because Microsoft understands the platform better than anyone. They could create extensions and hooks from the app itself that would be incredibly powerful. They could build the browser on the same foundation, but the unique features and user experience it offers, not to mention the fact that it would come bundled with every computer an edge.
Trust me, Trident is not what's keeping people hooked on IE.
But by doing this, they would save countless, unpaid man hours that web devs waste now trying to get things to work across all browsers. No offense to the webkit and Opera folks, but in all honesty, those systems aren't going to explode off the charts any time soon.
Heck, make it to where if the document is in Quirks mode, it uses Trident, if it's in standards mode, it uses Gecko. I'm sure I am terribly naive about the effort on Redmond's part, but if hubris is the only thing keeping them stuck to Trident, I say drop it. Serve the users, not the ego.
2.
Support multiple backgrounds on an elementIf they don't drop Trident, which I very highly doubt they will, they could add one feature, one small CSS addition that will make people love them.
Let developers add more than one background to an element.
This feature alone will make the world of web devs rejoice. By proactively going after this functionality, MS will definitely benefit.
Think about how often we want rounded corners, think about how many lines of code, in HTML, Javascript and CSS have been written to address one problem that there is already a fix for.
All IE has to do is support it. I could deal with the operation aborted errors, the stupid random bugs, if I don't have to add in 15 pounds of code just to have a semantic and easily styled box.
Just a thought.
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 1:30 pm
Monday, June 25th, 2007
After reading Ryan's response, I think the disagreement goes deeper than just between socialism and capitalism, but on economic principles, and even applied rational thought.
As such, I am going to be an anal jerkwad, and pick through his response, both for his edification, as well as my own (and anyone who is reading this). I would love some feedback though, especially if any of my thoughts are illogical.
Point 1: "
Economic wealth is theft"
I have to strongly disagree, and I can prove why this is wrong, both from a point of view from Biblical morality, as well as general common morality.
He did not say "some economic wealth is theft", which is surely is. He implied that all economic wealth is theft.
However, let's look at the definition of theft:
Theft (noun) - The crime of taking someone else's property without consent.
Does all wealth involve taking someone else's property without consent? No it does not.
I'll use Expanse as an example here. I created a piece of software that others have found value in. Every single customer willingly and eagerly offered to me their hard earned money in exchange for the product.
They willingly gave their property.
If 5 million people were to each willingly offer me their property in exchange for the software I created, I have not stolen anything, and I now have economic wealth.
So that point is completely obliterated, because frankly, by showing that wealth, at it's core, is not theft, and not morally wrong, disproves his first point.
From a biblical perspective, there are numerous people in the Bible who are both wealthy and highly moral (and revered). I can think of folks like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, King David, King Solomon, etc. who were all wealthy, not theives, and their wealth was given to them by God.
Since God would not bless people with wealth if indeed wealth is theft (1 Corinthians 6:10 - "...nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."), that means wealth in and of itself is not theft.
Jesus also used many parables where God was represented as a wealthy owner of private property.
However, even though it completely goes against anything the Bible teaches, Ryan seems to be suggesting that there is no such thing as private property. For that, I go to the second point.
Point 2: "
Food (for example) belongs to everyone, not just those who have accumulated pieces of paper and plastic."
I actually happen to agree with Ryan here. I would say that most everything was given to all of us. However, there are two things that are truly and uniquely our own private property, and those are our time and our abilities.
The time I take to cultivate the land, to ward off pests and the like, the time I take every day to plant seed, water the seed, care for the plants as they grown, and the time and back breaking labor I put into the harvest are mine, and as such, the rewards and results of that time belong to me.
To say otherwise is to say that I have a moral obligation to be a slave. Also, what happens when two people want the same item? In a world of limited resources, what criterion do you use to decide who should get what?
Need? That would be a completely arbitrary and extremely subjective standard to use. Why need instead of say, desire? Nowhere in the Bible does it correlate with Marx's claims of "to each according to his need", so one would wonder where this so called Christian ideology would come from.
And this entire point seems to miss any concept of what money and currency really are. They are symbols of contracts that we each sign with each other. It says "I have used my time in such a way that you are willing to give me X amount of your time and energy in exchange for the results of my time and energy".
Lastly, the Bible confirms the concept of private property over and over again, even in the Ten Commandments (Do not covet your neighbors property), leading one to wonder why God seems to keep reaffirming the concept.
Point 3: "
When you're huddled in a doorway trying to sleep in the rain at night, and you can't eat while some people expand their garages to accommodate their 7 Hummers, you can't help but wonder whether it's really the people at the bottom who should get in trouble for theft."
This is another emotional appeal, and it sounds good, but frankly, emotions change with the day. Emotions are influenced and changed by things such as the weather, digestion, a chemical imbalance, not taking enough vitamins, etc.
So the emotional aspect has to go.
What you seem to be saying, underneath this point is: "Some people shouldn't have more, while others have less". You can't say "Some people shouldn't have more, while others have none", because very few people actually have "nothing".
But that's not the point. The point seems to be that there shouldn't be disparity between people. And this is a patently foolish and, quite frankly, an asinine statement.
God made disparity. He approves of it, and disparity, in and of itself, is not bad.
Now to prove my point: Some people are born blind. They were handed disparity. Some people were made blind. They were also handed disparity.
Nowhere in the Bible, or any moral code for that matter, does it say "Everyone should be equal in all regards".
Some are tall, some are short, some are heavy, some are light, some can sing, others can dance, and some can't even walk. Some are educated, others are not.
That's disparity.
The Bible is full of disparity, and in every situation in the Bible, every rule that handles disparity, he never ever even suggests that we eliminate it.
He tells us to understand it, to respect it, and to help it. But He never says to equalize it.
As a good example, we can use the theocracy of the Old Testament, in which God Himself laid down the law. He made provisions for disparity, and always managed to take care of those with less, but in every provision, He never once said "take from Rich Person A, and give to Poor Person B".
For instance, one of His commands was that the Rich were to harvest their crops, thereby enforcing the concept of private property, and to leave the edges to the poor and foreigners.
Leviticus 23:22 - "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.'"
This is actually a wonderful piece of brilliance when you truly sit down to think about it. God provided a way for the poor to take care of themselves, while still maintaining their dignity by commanding them to work for their food, meaning that they had the satisfaction of work, while also being provided for.
But God never said "equally split up the harvest", or "make sure everything is equal".
Point 4: "
We've made so many exceptions to the Golden Rule that a Carnegie can put scores of people on the street and pay his own employees pittances then get a pat on the back for building a museum none of these people can go to."
This is out of the order in which is was stated, but it was such a frivolous point that I saved it for the end.
The simple fact is, for every case of greed and evil in capitalism, I can show at least one for the evils and abuses of socialism.
We're not talking about specific examples here.
We can sit here and throw back and forth historic examples of each ideologies rotten apples, but that proves nothing. That would be like a white person and a black person constantly saying "Well, Hitler did this" and "Oh yeah, Idi Amin did that".
So, now that I've dealt with the specific points, I would like to discuss some core basic principles.
Capitalism and socialism, at their core, are simply just means of resource aggregation and dispersal. Both systems say: "To get resources, do X, to give resources, do Y". Both are just constructs that dictate the trade of resources within a society.
And in the end, I think each system, taken to an extreme, is evil, and leads to evil. Capitalism without regard for the poor, the sick, and those unable to care for themselves is not a system that I endorse, nor does the Bible, and nor do most people on the right.
Socialism, which uses coercion and force to distribute goods, taken to it's extreme, leads to mediocrity, discontent, and in fact, creates more poverty.
And I think what we currently have in America is a bit too far towards socialism, but still, I believe now, within the realm of where it should be.
And I'll explain. I think we all agree that there are those things which are better when they're shared. The Internet is an example of this. If a private party owned the Internet, it would be a much worse off place, with much less innovation.
Ideas are best developed when they are shared.
Now, that doesn't mean that we should use the force of law and government to force people to share their ideas. That would lead to mediocrity, and stifle the development of those ideas.
Why? Some people would say that people are greedy by nature, and therefore capitalism feeds off of that greed.
But I disagree. Greed, like every other sin, is some good thing which has been polluted. Sexual immorality is taking a good thing (sex) and perverting it. Theft is taking a good thing (ownership, and stewardship) and perverting it.
And the moral good that greed is perverting is the moral good of "rewards". All throughout the Bible, God promises us rewards. Over and over again, He drills into our heads that if we do good things, we will be rewarded.
We are promised a reward, and in exchange, we have a driving ambition to get that reward. And a reward is more than a good feeling. God promises us material rewards, such as eternal life, His presence, a material afterlife, literal crowns, etc.
That is not sin. That is a moral good.
And socialism completely misunderstands that and removes that. It somehow assumes that the reward of a good feeling is the only thing that should drive us to produce, but because it has such a narrow view of humanity, it fails.
And capitalism will fail if it forgets the real human condition of disparity.
But socialism fails because where capitalism rewards efficiency, socialism does not. Capitalism rewards hard work, socialism rewards laziness and hard work equally, but it actually produces laziness. Why? Because human beings will always try to find the shortest distance between two points.
Why work, when someone is willing to give it to me for free?
This isn't even a problem of application, this is a problem of fundamentals. Where as capitalism can lead to greed, and can be abused, socialism at it's fundamental level has these problems.
Also, I believe that we should use the law to encourage giving, and taking care of others, but you cannot force morality. Forcing someone to give at gunpoint is not that person being moral.
And you must understand, if the fundamental basics of an ideology is flawed, it won't work if you just throw more bodies at it. For instance, trying to jump and touch the moon won't work, no matter how many people are jumping.
The idea is just flawed.
The same goes for socialism. If the idea breaks down at the most basic level, it won't work on a bigger level.
However, all that being said, our society must make room for SOME socialism. I think most of the right is not against socialism, per se, but against it at a government mandate. Our government encourages charitable giving (with material rewards no less), and I think that policies like welfare can be abolished when the private arena takes care of those real human needs.
I now believe that the way to remove failed governmental policies is not to vote them away. They're trying to fill a very real need, and voting them away does not eliminate the need, nor does it guarantee that the need has been filled.
The way forward, the best way IMO, is to outgive those programs. We need smart, wise, shrewd, ambitious and savvy people to step up and find creative ways to outgive the government. When we can do that, when the welfare offices are empty because people would rather get help from somewhere better, then welfare will die, and governmental enforced socialism will go away.
We've been missing the mark, and I will confess the sins of those of us on the right. We're using the lazy man's approach to the problem of welfare. I believe that there are many things that the private sector can do better than the public sector can, and I think providing for the poor and downtrodden is one of those.
So let's do it guys. Let's apply our superior efficiency, our more motivated employees, our economic craftiness to not only help poverty, let's eliminate it as much as humanly possible. There will always be some poverty. Poverty has a few root causes, and some of them are voluntary causes, and short of imprisoning people because they choose to be poor, we cannot eliminate those causes.
But we can fill needs. We've already set up a system where our homeless people eat better than many wealthy people in other countries. Our number one problem is obesity. We have engineered a system where one man can work for an hour and feed himself and his family for the day.
No other time in history have we had this abundance, and I think we can utilize those same principles to outgive.
That's my call to arms.
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 4:12 pm
Friday, June 01st, 2007
Even though Ryan hasn't written back yet, I was thinking over my own post, and it occurs to me that I made a few statements that seem kind of contradictory, and I'd like to clarify those.
The apparently contradictory statements is like this:
It appears that I am against socialism because of the Golden rule, and yet morally okay with imprisonment and even torture in rare circumstances, even though those both violate that rule.
The argument I can anticipate goes something like:
"Since people being able to eat trumps the moral rule of do not steal, it should be okay for socialism to take the money from individuals, and use it to fulfill a higher moral good."
Here is the difference, and this is where the clarification comes:
I believe that moral exceptions are unique, and usually isolated instances.
For instance, stealing food when your family is starving to death, I think in that instance, the stealing would be justified.
But, I don't think you can make a system of governmental (or patriarchal, etc) rule around a moral exception, nor do I think you can make a system of rule based around a violation of the rule.
It would be akin to legalizing perjury to save someone from imprisonment.
Sorry, I am used to battling myself this way :)
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 5:24 pm
Thursday, May 31st, 2007
Okay, so Ryan posted his reasons for not agreeing with Bush, and since I think we're both arguing from the same foundation (that of a Judeo-Christian morality), I figured I could address his issues, and maybe get a good discussion out of this, as well as some clarity.
For those who still contend that morality has no place in politics, the questions still stand.
But let's get to it:
1. "
Bush gives tax breaks to the wealthy and the corporate while increasing taxes and cutting programs for the poor and the weak."
This one SOUNDS like a good argument, but when you critically examine it, I feel that it comes up short.
Right now, ~95% of the current tax revenue comes from the top 2% of earners in the country. That means that any even handed and fair tax break will give millions more to them than to others.
Let's just do the simple math:
Bob RichieFancyPants is making 2 million dollars a year, is married, and has no children. Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, that his current tax liability is around 50%. That means he owes one million dollars in taxes every year.
Joseph HoboHasNoPants earns $30,000 dollars a year, and for the sake of discussion, say that his tax liability is 25%, which means that he owes $7,500 dollars.
So let's say that Bush cuts everyones taxes by 10%.
So now, Bob RichieFancyPants now has an extra $200,000 floating around in his pocket, while Joseph HoboHasNoPants has an extra $3,000 in his bank account.
So, yes, Bush just gave a fat tax credit to the rich. But is it immoral or unfair?
I don't think so, and here's why:
One, is that it was a completely even tax break. Two is that taxing someone harder because they make more money is just as unfair and immoral as taxing someone harder because they make less.
However, there are many moral benefits to giving this money back to the person who earned it in the first place:
Bob RichieFancyPants, even if he only spends a portion of that, will most definitely put it back into the economy.
So let's look at the options:
Give the money to someone else
Give the money to the person who earned it
Now, on a moral level, the person who earned the money has the rights to that money.
If we give it back to him, he will either spend the money on something he wants, which in turn helps everyone, or he could put it in the bank, where the bank will take the money, and use it in the economy, which again, helps everyone.
Both of these options (spending or saving) actually benefit the poor much better than a direct handout in the form of welfare, or other social programs.
Why?
Because one method gives gainful employment and work to people who might not otherwise have it, and the other does not. This is fairly easy to prove.
Bob RichieFancyPants takes his extra $200,000, and splurges on a yacht for himself and his wife. While this purchase was not a noble one, and would be considered selfish and extravagant by many, this purchase actually provides quite a few moral benefits to others.
First is the boat builder, who is now able to feed his family, provide for adequate housing, good health care, and even luxuries.
But the boat builder must get his supplies from somewhere, so he buys his materials from his different suppliers, who are now able to buy those same necessities and luxuries for their own families.
And this effect will trickle down to each of their suppliers, and spread out around through the economy.
This means there will be more jobs and more goods for the poor, who, if they so choose can take advantage of that.
The other option is to take the money from Bob RichieFancyPants, and use it to give it directly to the poor. This may seem like a good solution until you account for the middlemen who are all hired to process this money, and keep a portion for themselves.
Now, the end effect may be similar, but the problem with this scenario, and socialism in general, is that the method of money transfer in socialism does not spur new technologies, new services, new goods, new resources, etc, that it does in the capitalist system.
Instead, the money develops new ways of skimming from the top of that capital, without contribution back for that skimming.
A middle man in the capitalist scenario at least provides goods in return for his skimming. The middle men in socialism have no incentive to provide anything.
In the end, this is not a problem with Bush, and this is not a problem with tax cuts, it's about socialism vs. capitalism.
And capitalism, when not abused (anything abused will go bad), can accomplish much more “morally absolute” good than can an equally socialist system.
Also, socialism's basic premise violates a standard rule of morality, so inherent to the foundation of morality that it's called the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Socialism does follow that halfway: By giving money to some people, we're doing unto them as we'd like them to do to us.
But the second half, the taking of that money, directly violates that rule. We would not like people coming up to us, and taking that which we've worked for, and giving nothing back.
And as such, without the taking, there isn't much to socialism.
Now would a morally good system, or even a morally neutral system, expressly and intentionally violate that moral law?
Two notes that I would like to attach to this admittedly simplistic explanation:
Capitalism has a bad side, and I think any system that does not keep a moral focus will go bad. People can corrupt and pollute any good or neutral thing, and make it bad.
That's not a problem with the thing itself, but with its implementation.
Secondly, that I do think it's fair and right for people to agree to set aside resources for the sick, poor, and those unable to provide for themselves.
However, tax cuts actually contribute to that pool of resources. By lowering income tax, people spend more freely, and let the money flow through the economy much more readily, thereby increasing tax revenues from purchases.
Why does it do that? Because when you raise the income tax, you lower motivation (and, no matter how moral you are, chances are that you're going to work harder for your own family than for someone else's. That's not immoral, that's just reality.), as well as increase the chance that people will hide their income, and stagnating the flow of money through the economy.
But when income tax is lowered, the extra money increases the flow of capital, and results in greater tax revenue from that resultant flow.
2."
He sends other people's children into war while he dodged service himself."
I can't really speak about this, since I know he was in the air force, but didn't see actual combat. I don't know the reasons behind that, and I wouldn't be able to claim that he "dodged" the service, or used his father’s position to avoid going to war.
But for the morality of this argument, we can look to another president who we know did actively dodge even being in the military, and that is Clinton.
Would I, and did I support Clinton when he sent troops to fight, and possibly die? Yes.
Why? Because he's the President.
That may seem convenient to some, but consider this:
Did Roosevelt see any fighting in any war? Did he ever even join the military? No.
But he sent troops to die in WW2.
In fact, our Presidents have many times required and ordered people to do thing that they themselves haven't done.
But is that morally wrong? And if it is, where do you draw that line?
The statement that a president must have done everything he ordered to be done is a moral rule that knows no precedent anywhere else, and where is the cut off?
Does George Bush have to go and fly a helicopter in Iraq before he has the moral authority to order a soldier to do so?
Must he kill and die before he has the authority to order someone else to do the same?
If so, then that same moral rule must be equally applied to every President, and every decision. He must serve jail time before he can have people arrested.
The fact is, our society entrusts every President with powers and privileges, without requiring the above rule. We ask that they make wise decisions, but we're not stupid enough to think that wisdom can only be attained by direct experience.
If that were the case, everyone would be dead, because no one would have gained the wisdom to avoid jumping off of a cliff, or swallowing hydrochloric acid without first doing it themselves.
3. "
He claims we're fighting for freedom while authorizing imprisonment and torture."
To come to grips with this one, and this one is tough, I think we need to ask ourselves, are freedom and imprisonment and torture mutually exclusive?
Personally, I don't think so, but I can understand if some people may feel differently.
Well, first off, imprisonment in and of itself is not mutually exclusive to a free society, any more than a toilet is mutually exclusive to a clean house.
That may seem denigrating to our "fine" men and women behind bars, but it's not meant as an insult, but as clarification.
Imprisonment exists to quarantine those individuals who have expressed a desire to not live with the rest of society.
Sometimes imprisonment is unjust, but is it unjust to imprison a person with stated intentions to harm others? Again, that's what imprisonment is for.
I think you're saying that Bush has imprisoned people with no ties to Al Qaeda, and I agree that would be an injustice.
But is that a moral crime, or a moral mistake? The difference being that one requires forethought and intention, and the other is something that happens beyond our intentions.
Do you truly believe that Bush wishes to imprison every Muslim, even peaceful ones?
If you do, then I'm sorry, I don't know where you'd get that information from, or how you got such a personal insight, but it makes no real sense.
As for torture, is it ever okay to torture people?
I would argue that it is sometimes morally necessary to torture people.
I wouldn't say that it's ever something that should be entered into lightly, or that it is something that should be used other than in extreme situations.
But to declare that it's always and absolutely wrong?
The first counter argument I can anticipate would be that it violates the Golden rule, and the same could be said for imprisonment.
In fact, discipline of any sort violates the Golden rule, and so we either have a contradiction, or a mere paradox.
I posit that it's a paradox, and here's why:
The moral good of preserving life trumps the moral rule of do unto others. I know for folks who haven't codified their morality into an hierarchy, it's both convenient and confusing, but it's not without justification.
The Bible, and Jesus himself makes reference to a moral hierarchy. Sometimes doing the greater good means breaking a lesser moral rule.
A good example of this is that in Exodus, the midwives lied to Pharaoh, and God blessed them, as well as God blessing Rahab for lying in order to save the lives of Joshua and Caleb.
Why is God, the God of truth, okay with all of this deceit? Because the moral good in both cases, saving a life, trumps telling the truth.
This, however, is not "ends justify the means" morality. It's a very tough rope to walk, and fraught with disagreement, and that I am fine with.
But it is a moral reality that sometimes you must kill to save a life, sometimes you must lie to protect an innocent, and sometimes you may have to break someone’s arms in order to save someone.
Some people find this contradictory, but these same people are okay with allowing a murder to happen in order to keep from having to make that tough decision.
And in the end, I'd rather face God with a couple of broken arms on my conscience, rather than facing Him knowing that I let someone be murdered.
In fact, I'd rather have someone’s death on my conscience rather than knowing that I let that person kill an innocent.
BTW, that's not bravado. I don't fool myself into thinking that I am some hardcore superhero, but just a statement of morality.
4. "
He cuts countless regulations that are meant to ensure that we're good stewards of this planet."
I have to rely on what I said in the last section about the moral hierarchy for this one.
I do believe that we have a moral obligation to this planet, and that we are to wisely use the resources we have, and to take care of that which was given to us.
But there are many socialist policies that are in fact opposite to being good stewards. For instance, allowing private enterprises to own sections of forest, and allowing them to cultivate it and profit from it actually increases forest growth.
The same for fishing, farming, raising cattle, etc. And yet socialist policies hamper that growth.
But that wasn't your point, so I'll try to clarify:
Man's moral obligation to be good stewards of the earth should drive us to be efficient as possible, to care for the other creatures roaming the earth, and to in general take care of the planet.
However, man first has a moral obligation to man. If taking care of the earth is ever in direct conflict with taking care of man, then taking care of man has the moral priority.
To illustrate, if a society cannot feed itself, it cannot take care of the planet. Being good stewards of the earth first requires us to be good stewards of ourselves, otherwise, there will be no people to be stewards of the earth.
Some wacko extremists are okay with that happening, but if someone believes that, they're a scientific and moral fool.
Let me point out though that mankind making an impact on the earth is not bad stewardship. For instance, when we level a forest to build houses, or we break up a mountain to retrieve valuable resources, we're not doing anything inherently bad, anymore than a beaver who chews down trees to make a dam. They're interacting with their environment, and we're interacting with ours.
Now, all such decisions must be made in the context of wisdom, and good decisions overall.
If Bush passes a regulation that restricts environmental controls, but makes business prosper, and thereby allows the opportunity for a new, cleaner technology to come of it, then is that morally wrong?
Or, forget the new technology. If he passes a law that removes environmental regulations, and it kills 2 million fish, but now 1,000 humans are able to eat, is that wrong?
Or let's look at it more realistically:
The environmental regulation saves 2 million fish per year, and stifles jobs in one industry, but another industry benefits, and 100 people are able to have gainful employment.
Is it better to have 2 million fish dead and 1000 people eating, or 900 people starving, and 2 million fish alive?
I don't think it's even as easy as that. But sometimes, in the face of multiple possibilities, you have to make a choice, and you have to make a choice that will benefit the greater good of people, not only in the short term, but in the long term as well.
Okay, that concludes my sleep inducing responses.
Ryan, feel free to respond here, or via email, or not at all, if you so choose.
I just thought it'd be fun to discuss this with someone who agrees to the playing field (morality in government), and who believes in opposite ways of achieving the moral good.
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 3:01 pm
Friday, May 18th, 2007
I am asking this not to start some sort of stupid argument, but to truly understand:
Why exactly do most liberal or left-leaning Democrats have a problem with what Bush does on a day to day basis?
What I mean is, why is there so much invective and hate towards the guy?
According to them it's because of the war in Iraq, the civil liberties at home, etc. But even if all the bad stuff they say about him is true, which I only concede for the sake of this discussion, why do they care?
They're the same group of people who do not want any morality legislated, and the law is not based upon anything other than the decrees of elected individuals.
So, here is my list of questions, and I truly ask this to try and understand:
- If morality can't be legislated, and morality shouldn't have a place in politics, why do Democrats harbor animosity towards Bush? (Ostensibly it's for the war, but if morality has no place in politics, the war's morality [including any war-crimes/deaths/etc] has no place in the discussion. Then if that all has no place, why get angry with someone over a simple policy decision?)
- If you're angry because American soldiers are dying, why are you angry? In the eyes of the federal government, all human beings are nothing but movable meat, and since human life has no absolute value (after all, your value of human life is directly related to morality, and morality has no place in politics), why get angry over movable meat becoming less movable?
- If you're angry about civil liberties being lost, why are you angry? According to the rules set above (that morality has no place in politics), laws and rights and liberties have no basis other than what the government deigns to give, and can be revoked at any time. To say that human beings have innate rights is to not only invoke metaphysics, but also morality, which, again, has no place in politics. So why get angry if your current rights change from one set, to a different, and morally equivalent set?
- If you're angry over oil prices, why are you angry? No one said you were entitled to oil prices being a certain level, and the greed of any given corporation has no relevance in a political discussion, why are you angry?
- If you're angry over Bush promoting his religion in office, why are you angry? When you state that morality should not have a place in politics, you're either stating that there is a higher standard by which the law and politics are judged (which is awfully close to morality), or you're stating your personal preference. If it's your personal preference, and you would never impose your preferences on someone else, why are you angry?
Okay, that's my 5 questions that I am really dying to know. This is not aimed at anyone who does believe morality has a part of politics, but rather to the far left, who think that any morality in politics is bad.
It just seems that even by invoking the phrase "Legality should not be part of politics" implies a certain morality which is intrinsically part of politics.
But perhaps there is an aspect of the argument I am missing, and hence, I am curious to the answers :)
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 7:06 pm
Tuesday, May 08th, 2007
If you've been doing PHP or Javascript programming, and you've never used the ternary operator then you're in for a treat.
But if you have used it before, I think I have a tip that will help when using it.
Here it is:
var x = (expression) ? result1 : result2;
Now, what does that say?
Basically, it's for when you're assigning variables, you can evaluate an expression, and depending on the result, it will give you multiple results.
It's basically equivalent to this:
var x;
if (expression) {
x = result1;
} else {
x = result2;
}
So obviously, you can see the benefit of doing it all on one line.
Now, however, many people's complaint is that it leads to highly unreadable code. However, it's still really cool. So what I've done is try to come up with a way that combines legibility with code convenience.
Basically, here it is:
var x = (expression)
? result1
: result2;
So, you see by putting the ? and the : on the same alignment with the expression, you have a much more legible expression, without the extra code.
As a side note, you can also do multiple expressions, though, in general, if you start getting that crazy, an if/else/if or a switch are both easier to maintain long term for highly complex expressions.
Here's how you'd do multiple expressions:
var x = (expression1)
? result1
: (expression2)
? result2_1
: result2_2;
Enjoi!
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 10:21 pm
Monday, May 07th, 2007
The problem with the idea of Karma, in my humble opinion, is this:
Supposedly, you're on this cyclical journey, spiraling ever closer to the nebulous and dilutive rejoining of spirit to "Eternal force", and you're successive lives depend upon the actions that you've done in your current life.
However, here's the problem:
Joe is a jerk in his current life. He takes advantage of people, cares only for himself, and is an all around a-hole.
So in his next life, he comes back as a dog.
So, his new owners, if they're good people, treat him well, teach him tricks, feed him, and provide a home of love.
But for the karmic scales to truly balance out, Joe needs to get reimbursed for his sins, and getting belly rubs and potty training doesn't do it.
So, if the new owners beat JoeDog, he get's a taste of cosmic justice. But now his new owners will come back as dogs too, because beating dogs is bad.
So, by being good to him, they enable him to be further from true enlightenment, but by giving him his comeuppence, they propel themselves further away from enlightenment.
Yes, a tad bit strawman, but the point is the same, and that is, there is a bit of a flaw in the karmic system.
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 1:14 am
Thursday, May 03rd, 2007
Jim: "I think we should have nationalized healthcare, so that those who can't afford it can still get access to it"
Bob: "Why should I care about those who can't afford it?"
Jim: "Because you may one day be in a position where you need it and can't afford it."
Bob: "Well, I can save up for my future expenses, so I won't need it"
Jim: "Yeah, but not everyone has that opportunity"
Bob: "And again, why should I care about them?"
Jim: "Because it's the moral thing to do"
Bob: "Moral for you perhaps, but why should I be subjugated under your morality?"
Jim: "Fine, it's a pragmatic thing then. More sick people leads to more civil unrest and instability".
Bob: "And again, I'll take care of myself. Why should I care about the rest of society?"
Jim: "Because if the people in society work together for each others good, we can accomplish much more"
Bob: "That's fine, but why should I care? I don't want to accomplish more, I want more for me"
Jim: "But if everyone thinks that way, there won't be enough for everyone else"
Bob: "And I ask once again, who cares? With enough might, I can control everything."
Jim: "Then you'd be a dictator."
Bob: "And your problem with that is?"
Jim: "Dictators are not good for a society."
Bob: "Well, besides the pragmatic good that can come from a dictatorship, why should I care about what's good for society?"
Jim: "Because that's what civilized people do."
Bob: "Then call me uncivilized, but a name doesn't matter, because in the end, I get what I want."
Jim: "Well, thankfully, not everyone thinks like you."
Bob: "And if they did, so what? You're talking as if there is a certain way people SHOULD think. If all morality is equal, and there is no absolute standard about how to live, then what matters is not what people SHOULD do, but what people WILL do to get what they want for themselves, at any cost."
------------------
Okay, I tried not making this a strawman argument, nor is it supposed to be some sort of rebuttal against nationalized healthcare.
What this is meant to convey is that political discussions almost always end with what someone SHOULD think or what someone SHOULD do.
There are a lot of shoulds out there, and it's almost always from the same group of people who say we SHOULDN'T legislate morality. But the problem is, almost any time you have a "should", you're implying some higher standard that other people must try and live up to.
Now the truth is, no one wants to take morality completely out of the political arena. They may say they do, but they only want to until some pet cause of theirs is at risk of being destroyed at the whim of the mob.
But, you cannot have it both ways. I suppose you could, but then you're devolving into anarchy. And that's fine if you're an anarchist, but for the rest of the population with their brainstem still intact, that won't do on a day to day basis.
Just a thought.
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 1:36 pm
Sunday, April 15th, 2007
Okay, so one of my favorite studios,
Asterik, has a pretty snazzy website. It's very grid based, which is probably why they chose to design it based upon tables.
However, it's a little sad to see such a cutting edge firm using such 1997 HTML techniques to markup their page, when in the span of literally 2-3 hours, they could have a semantic, cleanly coded, HTML/CSS solution.
So, here I provide proof that it's possible in only 2-3 hours.
Asterik - a CSS based implementation.
While it's not 100% to the pixel accurate, it's probably around 97% there. Another hour would probably take care of any remaining issues. Right now, you'd have to be a designer to see the major differences.
A few notes:
- The old method was using inline Javascript rollovers for the Featured Work rollovers. I fixed that to use only CSS.
- Code clarity is much improved
- AFAIK, it works across the major browsers.
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 3:36 pm
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Older »