You Have The Right To Remain Silent 09/09/2009
Yesterday, I ran across the following video regarding the 5th amendment. I think it's interesting that this right was originally bestowed in order to ensure that INNOCENT people were not forced into conviction by their own words. Most of the time, we'd assume that anyone who doesn't speak with the police or testify in their own defense must be GUILTY. After all, if they have nothing to hide, why wouldn't they want talk about it? Why would an innocent person hide behind silence? The video does a much better job explaining why, but if you don't have time to sit through all forty-eight minutes, I'll provide a brief summary below.
A friend of mine asked me the other day how it is that I can rationalize taking the New Homebuyer Tax Credit when I don’t believe in Federal subsidies, bailouts, and most welfare programs. Good question! He could have also asked me why it is that I took unemployment checks from the State of Washington if I don’t believe in government subsidies, bailouts, and most welfare programs. And he could have also asked why I cashed the stimulus check in the summer of 2008 if I don’t believe in government subsidies, bailouts, and most welfare programs. Here's the deal: I definitely filed for unemployment and I am definitely taking the New Homebuyer Tax Credit and I definitely cashed the stimulus check. All three are true and all three seem to be directly counterintuitive to this blog’s ideals on liberty and limited government. So the question becomes this: Am I a hypocrite for taking government money when I’m so adamantly against government spending programs? In the cases mentioned above, I’m going to say no. To prove this, I’m going to suggest that we tackle each of these apparent discrepancies in chronological order: First, the Stimulus Check, then the Unemployment Checks, and finally the New Homebuyer Tax Credit. The Stimulus Check: Back in the summer of 2008, we got a check in the mail from the Federal Government asking us to “Stimulate the Economy” by spending a few hundred dollars. Most Americans got one. I didn’t believe then that we’d be able to spend our way out of debt anymore than I believe it now, but I went ahead and cashed it anyhow. Why? Because this check proved to me that the government doesn't know what they're doing with the money we give them. Programs like these are rediculous. They tell us that if we just continue spending enough, eventually, everything is going to work out. President Bush told us after 911 that the Terrorists would WIN if we stopped spending our money and going on vacation. What? If one of my friends told me that their way out of debt would be to continue maxing out their credit cards until someone came along and offered them a job that would take care of the amazing stuff they just purchased- I'd laugh them off. And I'd definitely not feed their lunacy by giving them more money to waste. So, I decided that since I apparently know how to manage money better than the government- I'd keep the check and use it for something better than a "spend your way out of debt" campaign. Unemployment Checks: When I was laid off at the end of 2008, I filed for Unemployment Checks. And I received my unemployment checks for a few months until I got a new job here in Florida. They weren’t really enough to live on- so I’m really grateful for our savings account and my in-laws who were kind enough to help us out a little bit- but I still filed for unemployment and made it my “job” to search for a job (and I was pretty good at it, too). Why, if I don’t believe in Federal Welfare Programs, did I take Unemployment- doesn’t that violate my principles? There are really three reasons why I did it: First off, unemployment is usually the realm of the State government rather than the Federal government. While I don’t believe that government welfare programs are usually the most effective programs to ensure the welfare of the people, I’m actually OK with them on the local and state levels unless they violate the local or State constitutions. They usually don’t. What I am opposed to are Federal Welfare programs. This isn’t because Welfare programs are “evil” or anything. It’s merely because on the Federal level they are unconstitutional. No matter how helpful a program might be, we cannot continue to fund something that isn’t allowed within our US Constitution. Check this site for some interesting facts about how Welfare is in Direct Defiance of our Constitution. Anyhow, although I don’t believe that Federal Welfare Programs are the most effective means to bring about social justice and ease poverty- if our nation truly wants them, let’s vote to amend the Constitution rather than continuing to ignore it. Amendments aren’t easy to pass, but it’s better than allowing other things to slip by that undermine our freedom. So, to summarize- the first point is that welfare programs that are done on the State level aren’t unconstitutional and are OK, even if there are better ways to provide for people. Secondly, I paid into unemployment and so did my employer. We were taxed on it. Every week, we both had our own income taken out in order to fund the unemployed of our State. So after paying into it, I believe that it’s OK to take out of it, too. The same goes for Social Security- I don’t think it’s going to be around when I retire, and I think it was a bad program to begin with, but I’m not opposed to anyone taking Social Security checks- especially after paying into the program for their entire life. I hesitate to call it an entitlement because I hope that it’s gone one day… but for the time being, if it’s given to you- take it. Third, I couldn’t allow my principles to starve my wife and child. If I had been on my own, an idealist without anyone relying on me, I might have been more inclined to refuse help and go get a minimum wage job or live off of savings until I landed another position. But now that I have two other people depending on me (three other people by Thanksgiving) I couldn’t reasonably refuse unemployment on principle. My principle of taking care of those entrusted to me trumps any personal need to thwart the government. New Homebuyer Tax Credit: Tax Credits, we must understand, are different than welfare programs, stimulus programs, and bailouts, but since the definition is a very narrow one, I’ll need to explain it a bit more so that you’ll understand why it’s not hypocritical to take a tax credit- even when I’m against government spending programs. Stimulus programs, bailouts, and welfare programs all mean that the government is giving me something. I take money from the government. Tax Credits, on the other hand, mean that I owe less to the government in the first place. It may seem like a very arbitrary difference, but it’s very important to get this if we’re to understand property rights and such. Let me clear it up: I believe that I own 100% of my paycheck even though I am obligated to pay taxes. So every year, I pay the full amount of my taxes because I believe that we should obey the laws of the country that we live in. Those taxes are given to the government and they use them for whatever is in the Federal Budget that year (including a lot of things that I agree with and a lot that I don’t). If the government says, I owe $8,000 LESS this year because I just purchased a home, that doesn’t mean that they are GIVING me $8,000. That means that out of the taxes that I owe from the paycheck that I own, I am obligated to pay $8,000 less than normal. That’s my money that I no longer have to pay rather than a gift from the Federal Government. Do you see the difference? *Warning* Somewhat Crude Bathroom Conversation Follows Some things you should know prior to reading this post:
 a generic restroom layout Right off the bat, we’ll scratch stall number 4 off the list. It’s directly next to the urinals which means that anyone entering the restroom to use the urinals will be staring directly at your feet whilst relieving themselves.  Stall 4 is not an option So, we’re left with Stalls 1, 2, and 3. It may be hard to tell from this rendering, but Stall 1 happens to be a little bit larger than Stalls 2 and 3 since it is made to accommodate wheelchairs. Since it’s furthest from the urinals and also the largest stall, this option could potentially be used for some privacy- especially considering that once it’s taken, no one will probably take Stall 2 (see guideline #3 above regarding the “side-by-side” disclaimer). This means that worst case scenario, you’ll be in Stall 1 and someone else walking in might take Stall 3 (since Stall 4 is still out of the question). But that still means another person in the stall section. If you’re particularly conscientious, then this might not be the best scenario. So, for now we’ll leave Stall 1 as a potential.  Stall 1 might work? Picking Stall 3 would be a similar strategy as Stall one- hoping to thwart other users by implementing the side-by-side rule and forcing anyone else to Stall 1. But since Stall 3 is closer to the urinals and the door (and since it’s a regular sized stall versus the wheelchair accessible stall), I’d say that it’s not as good a choice as Stall 1. We’ll cross it off for now in favor of Stall 1.  Stall 3 is a weaker choice than Stall 1 This leaves us with Stall 2. It’s a bit closer to the urinals and the door, and it’s regular size makes it initially a little less appealing than Stall 1, but I think this is probably the best choice. Here’s my reasoning… Stall 4 is out of the question. No one wants to use the stall next to the urinals. And since we’ve already stated the side-by-side rule, most users wouldn’t want to use Stall 1 or Stall 3, either. Thus, picking Stall 2 gives the user the utmost privacy since he’s effectively cleared out the rest of the stalls and created his own little privacy space. He may still have to deal with urinal users and anyone who just HAS TO GO RIGHT NOW, but typically, the choice to use Stall 2 is the most effective one in creating the space you need to go about your business without anyone too close by.  Stall 2 is the best choice Yes, this is absolutely the silliest post I’ve ever written. But I had to get it out of my system. Thank you for 'bathroom humoring' me today. -NK  Jeff wrote a better summary of my post yesterday than I could- check out his blog for other good thoughts in a similar vein as my own: “What a great observation you imply here: Alien films are really a litmus test for how we answer three questions: A) What kind of universe do we live in (i.e. Is it basically hostile, basically kind, or basically indifferent)? B) How should we react and interact with the universe? C) What if our answer to A) is not in synch with our answer to B)?” * * * Day Three: The Man of Steel and The American Way Does anyone else find it ironic that primary defender of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” is from beyond the stars? Sure, he looks like us, and as Clark Kent he can hide among us as a mousey reporter, but the reality is- Superman is not from ‘round here. He’s an outsider for a distant planet. He’s an alien. He’s Kal-el. And yet, he’s tasked with defending the American Way? Isn’t that odd? Well, let’s think about The American Way for a bit and see if there’s a way to reconcile this. The American Way and the American Dream are traditionally used interchangeably. To some degree, they both mean that no matter who you are or where you’re from, you’ve got a chance to make a difference. You’ve got the same chance as everyone else, to become what you want through your own work, by your own means- no matter who you are or where you’re from. With this definition in mind, it could be argued that Superman is literally the actualization of the American Way. As an alien, he knows better than anyone what it means to be an outsider, making his way in a world that’s unfamiliar territory. Sure, he’s able to use his innate abilities to become the greatest hero and defender of all time, but that doesn’t subvert the fact that he’s not human. Interestingly enough, it’s probably the fact that he’s not “one of us” that makes it so meaningful. Had he been the kid down the street- a true all American Boy- it wouldn’t be a story that resonates so strongly with us. After all, consider that Superman was created in a country of immigrants. Even last year (2008) over a million people were naturalized as U.S. Citizens. In fact, some studies show that immigration is the only thing that is keeping our country’s population from shrinking now that the average U.S. family has decreased to 1.93 children. Immigration is the foundation of our country and the backbone on which we’ve thrived. The one thing that most of us have in common is that our family trees are rooted on some other continent. We’re all from somewhere else. Which could be a reason why we don’t even think about Superman as an alien until we’re forced to. He seems like a regular guy who happens to be super powered rather than some humanoid life form from another planet. Sure, some of it is due to the fact that he looks just like us, talks just like us, and has adoptive parents from Kansas. But it’s more than that. Perhaps he is just like us. After all, we’re all aliens in some respect.  Day Two: Fear and Loathing in South Africa On Monday, we explored some initial thoughts about why humans feel the need to create something other than us. It could be due to our own need for significance, or perhaps because we need to know whether or not our decisions matter, or possibly it stems from mere loneliness, but no matter what reasoning stands behind it- we all ask that question: “are we alone, or is there someone else out there?” Alien films, of course are an exploration of this issue and others. Of course, the answer to what “someone” else is like is up for debate, too. The aliens in ET: The Extraterrestrial and Close Encounters of the Third Kind look and act a whole lot different than the ones in Alien, Independence Day, or the recent District 9. Of course there are the Predator films which feature aliens who hunt humans for sport. And there’s War of the Worlds and the rest of the alien invader movies that presents grim hostiles from Mars who operate huge tripods and are bent on destroying human life to make room for their own kind. And then of course, there are films like ET where the alien is a sort of cute little brown guy who hangs out with kids. Something that really stuck out to me about District 9 is that the film is really about apartheid and the monstrosity of humanity’s actions against those we don’t understand. On a lesser level, ET and Flight of the Navigator echo the same meme. They’re both about the fact that man has a need to dissect what we discover in order to control it and understand it. But no matter what the film is, almost all Alien Films center on fear. Aliens represent something unknown and foreign. They represent something to be afraid of because they’re different, more powerful, problematic, violent, or such a mystery that we feel like we need to shoot first and ask questions later. But isn’t this pretty much what we do anytime we’re in a new situation or around people that seem different or strange to us. I don’t mean to suggest that we always kill other people or dissect them when they seem different to us- but isn’t there something curious about racism and prejudice? Both of these are prime examples of how we tend to treat other people like something alien. Something different. Something Other. Even the more subtle approaches like writing off another nationality because of a language barrier or mannerisms that don’t line up with social norms are a form of what I’m talking about here. When humans are confronted with something different than what we’re used to, we automatically assume the worst and look for ways to make ourselves more comfortable. This often means isolating ourselves from those who are different than us or deconstructing and “figuring out” their actions so that we can cut them down to size and make ourselves more powerful. Alien films are a way for us to key in on some of these issues that we have with other human beings. And if you haven’t taken the time to check out District 9 yet- it’s a perfect film to begin thinking through our actions and how they relate to other people. Check out A True Review for more info.  After watching District 9 last week, I was struck by the allegorical nature of aliens in pop culture. After this realization, I thought of all the “alien” films I’ve seen over the past few decades and began to wonder if each of these movies were actually existential explorations of human issues that need philosophical or theological resolution. Thus, I decided to take a week to look at limited selections of concepts and ideas that aliens can represent in film and literature. What follows is a collection of those ideas… * * * Day One: Is There Anybody Out There? Even before the telescope recast our planet as merely one of many specks of dust flying around in a vast universe of worlds, earth’s thinkers and religious leaders have speculated that there may be life on other planets. But since the moment when geocentricity was dislodged and a more accurate picture of the universe took its place, theories regarding life on other planets have been increasingly common in science, philosophy, religion, and pop culture. So this week, I specifically want to look at some of these pop culture references to see if there are any philosophical ideas being expressed though the use of extraterrestrial life forms. One of the earliest stories to include extraterrestrials is a 10th century Japanese Folk Tale called “The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter.” In it, a girl from the moon brings wealth to a family who shelters her. Through a series of misadventures, the Emperor of Japan falls in love with her, but is rejected over and over again. And when the girl’s people return for her from them moon and she leaves an immortality elixir behind, the Emperor refuses to drink it; for life without his love- the girl from the moon- would be worthless to him. Instead, he has his guards set the elixir on fire at the top of Mt. Fuji, thus giving Fuji a name (Fuji means immortality) and also providing an origin story for why Fuji, smokes from time to time. But whether we’re talking about a fairy tales, H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds or films like District 9, ET, and The Day The Earth Stood Still, each of these pop culture references asks the question “…is there anybody out there?” I think we want to know the answer for a couple of reasons: 1. Our Own Sense of Self Importance Are we the only ones like us? Given the fact that our universe is as big as it appears to be, it seems unlikely that we’d be the only planet where life abounds. But as we look into the heavens, there’s a tendency to feel both small and huge at the same time. We see the vast array of planets and star systems and we feel small in the wake of the enormous amounts of stuff out there. How could anything we do or anything we say amount to significance when faced with the reality of our size in comparison with the rest of creation. At the same time, however the fact that we seem to be the only planet and species that’s capable of interplanetary communication and travel beyond the confines of our own atmosphere leads us toward a sense of pride. It we are truly the top dogs in a universe of fungi and bacterium, then our problems are the most important and significant. Our seemingly insignificant debates about where to eat or what to do with our lives are the pivotal decisions of the universe if we are truly the only highly intelligent beings in the Universe. 2. Our Own Choices as a Species In The Day The Earth Stood Still, alien invaders come to earth as emissaries from the rest of the galaxy to assess whether or not humans should be allowed to interact with the rest of the universe or be quarantined off into our own solar system. The reason? Our planet cannot escape warring with each other and the universe wants to protect themselves from our violence and our inherent selfishness. If others exist- aliens in this case can be representational of other human beings- it follows that my actions cannot proceed purely from an individual perspective. When something or someone other than me is affected by my decisions, I must take this into consideration when I act. I cannot act as though I am the center of the universe when I am not, in fact, the center of the universe. The Church had a hard time letting go of their own geocentric paradigm during the decades surrounding the Inquisition. Many scientists paid the price through exile, excommunication, and even death. Aliens often represent the fact that something or someone “other” than us needs to be taken into consideration when we are making decisions. 3. Our Own Loneliness Probably the most obvious, but understated metaphor that aliens represent, is an answer to our own loneliness. Loneliness is one of the sentiments that all of us share- we live in the reality that we were made for relationship and we hurt deeply when we are cut off from other people. So taken on a macro-level, is it any wonder that humanity longs for companionship just as individuals do? Perhaps extraterrestrial creatures represent nothing more than an attempt to reach out to the world around us and know that we’re not alone. We want someone else there along with us so that we can fill the void of emptiness with something meaningful. Even when that something turns out to be terrible- every alien invasion film ever written- it could be argued these references are still an attempt to engage with something or someone beyond ourselves. A Preview of Coming Events 08/18/2009
I went to see District 9 last weekend and it got me thinking about aliens. And politics. And philosophy. And religion. That’s why I’m dedicating a week to exploring Aliens & Philosophy. This week, I’ve got a couple other thoughts to share about music & marijuana, but I wanted to give you a sneak preview of next week’s agenda… I’m really excited about it and I hope you’ll join in the discussion and conversation. Day One: Is There Anybody Out There? Day Two: Fear & Loathing in South Africa Day Three: Victims and Victimizers Day Four: The Man of Steel and Other Alien Christ Figures Day Five: Aliens & Philosophy- Additional Questions That Need Answers I hope you can join me!  Ethics For Everyone 08/12/2009
One of the things I've been pondering (mostly due to my research on Heidegger) is primal ethics. What this means is that I’m considering the sort of ethics that emerge without education, power, or critical thinking. Heidegger was concerned with the state of being that Dasein inhabits- one that is universal to all people whether they are scholars of world renown or mere peasants living in the rural areas of Germany, post World War 1. So along the same line of thinking, I'm wondering about the sort of ethics that transcend to all people, whether they are giving a lot of thought to ethics and philosophy or not. This is one of the problems that I have with both Consequentialists like Mills and Deontological philosophers like Kant. Utilitarian ethics (Consequentialist or Outcome-based ethics) require actions to be magnified under the lens of universal good. This requires a certain critical thinking ability to consider ALL people, not just yourself or those close by. I don't know that all people in all cultures truly have the ability to consider "everyone" and whether their actions will truly cause the "greatest good." This seems to me to be the “thinking man’s” ethics. Each decision must be carefully thought over to make sure that the eventual outcome achieves the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Most of us don’t have the time or ability to think that much about our actions and so I can’t fully buy into the notion that this is rudimentary enough to use as a standard we should apply to everyone. Likewise, the problem with Kant and other Deontological ethicists is that merely obeying the "rules" means that we have to be aware of what the "rules" are. Since there isn't universal agreement on what's right and wrong, it's really hard to apply a rule-following ethic to all people. I suppose that at the base of this theory lies a disinterest in self, and so one could argue that disinterested obedience (obedience that springs from following the rules because they are right rather than because it profits me, personally, to do so) is something that we could apply to all people, even if they aren’t disinterestedly following the same rules- except for the fact that this particular notion seems to be a reaction from Kant and other Western philosophers against the innate selfishness of man. If selfishness is truly innate, it’s hard for me to rationalize that we’d be able to come up with a Universal ethic that rebels against human nature. So, I can’t apply this to everyone, either. That said, I'm wondering what the universal ethics are? What are the things that are innate to all people whether they be poor or rich, strong or weak, native or alien, smart or ignorant, and whether they live under a dictatorship or democracy? If it doesn't truly express the human experience, is it truly an ethical philosophy that will transcend cultures and time, or is it specific to a particular people? Are 'Pay Per Post' Deals Morally Sound? 08/03/2009
My wife sent me a link today from a site that talks about making money blogging. A bunch of the sites that were suggested were these "pay per post" deals where a company contacts you and asks you to do a positive review of their website or business and in return they pay you some lump sum. I'm guessing that a setup like that would completely knock away any neutrality or objective eye that the blogger had which means that it's a little misleading to do something like that (unless there were a clear disclaimer, or if the blogger TRULY liked the site, movie, or merchandise before being contacted about it). Then again, if you're going to make money on the blogosphere, you've gotta have advertising, or a product to sell, or some sort of setup like this. Otherwise, you're just a "Free"lancer like me who blogs in his free time and doesn't actually have as much time to research and write as I'd like. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
About a year ago I ran across Micah Tillman's website, http://www.micahtillman.com, which espouses a very similar topic range as my own and after reading through a few of his posts, I discovered that he is indeed a most formidible scholar and a valuable voice regarding politics, religion, and philosophy. I immediately subcribed to his blog feed and I've been reading his posts ever since. Micah is a Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America and is currently writing a dissertation on Edmund Husserl’s theory of empty and filled intentions. He's also been kind enough to answer a number of my own personal questions through his blog and also by e-mail. The other day I asked if he's be willing to answer a few questions for my readers and he was kind enough to share his insights on life and his ideas on philosophy in the form of a casual interview. I'm really pleased that I'm able to post it here on my blog, today, and I'd encourage you to check out his website and his other writing if you enjoy what you read here. * * * Nathan Key: First question, you're teaching philosophy, which totally puts you in a different class than say, myself (I'm looking into grad schools for the future), but whenever I tell people about my own interest in philosophy, they always counter with some sort of "what are you going to do with a philosophy degree?" statement. So, let's go ahead and entertain that question for a moment. Other than just teach philosophy, what's the big goal of yours? What do you hope to accomplish with your PhD? |