A Roll of The Dice

Dane sent me a topic for discussion about material inequality and fairness. Here's what he had to say:

"The student newspaper recently featured an article (read here) about some film students who went to Cambodia to make a documentary about the lives of people who live in an enormous garbage dump there. Among things that struck me about this article, was what likely happened after the filming. The Americans were able to get on an airplane and fly back to their comfortable homes whereas the Cambodians will continue to live in the same squalor, with almost no chance of achieving a standard of living even close to that of the Americans. In large part, this discrepancy has little to do with thei ndividuals: the Americans were born within the boarders of the geographic area that we call the United States and the Cambodians were born within the boarders of the geographic area that we call Cambodia. By the simple facts of where each individual was born and how the world has been divided upsome individuals get comfortable homes and great opportunity and for others the most appealing place to live is a in garbage dump. Is this just?"

And, if anyone else wants to create a posting on this blog, feel free to type it up and email it to me, and I'll most likely post it.

Live and Let Live?

I found a great article about tolerance in the Times today called "The Limits of Tolerance" (read here). The overtly liberal writer discusses where "tolerant" people should draw the line and declare something to be wrong.

Here are a couple of quotes from the piece--

Addressing some recent issues in the Islamic world involving flagrant violations of women's rights, the authors asks:

• "For us, gender equality is a fundamental value. But we also profess tolerance for other people’s culture and religion. Which principle should prevail? Should we respond to these developments with tolerance?" To which he replies "We should not. Tolerance ends where harm begins."

He goes on to say:

• "Tolerance — live and let live — is a wise response to things that are morally neutral, that harm no one"

I recommend reading the whole piece, and even some of the commentary. It touches on a lot of topics that you all might want to comment on.

Tolerance, it seems, is one of those ideas, like pacifism, that requires all parties to ascribe to it in order to be effective. If only one side in a conflict practices pacifism, then my money's on the other guy. Likewise, it seems like the most tolerant societies sometimes host the most intolerant voices because no one is willing to say "shut up."

Much of the discourse I see relating to tolerance consists of abjectly intolerant people demanding tolerance of their intolerance. I'm not the first to notice the irony.


I don't want to frame this issue as an indictment of Islamic society. Certainly we have our own tradition of religiously-rooted intolerance.
So, where should we draw the line? Should we defend free speech absolutely? Are there some ideas that are so dangerous that even discussing them should be outlawed? Should we tolerate behavior that we think is immoral, but that doesn't actually harm anyone?

Ahoy, Mateys!

Avast! With "National Talk Like a Pirate Day" a mere 161 days away I feel it appropriate to mention the fascinating drama playing out off the coast of Somalia (read here).

Somali pirates have been getting quite a bit of press lately. I heard a piece on NPR yesterday discussing how the international community should handle the situation. One of the guests on the program mentioned that current laws won't really act as a deterrent, as the pirates would have to be taken back to the country of the vessel that captured them and tried there.

Of course once they're in the country they can claim refugee status. This is not what one might call a disincentive for a destitute resident of the Horn of Africa.

Most "experts" I have read about agree that military action is only a band-aid, and will not solve the deeper problems feeding the phenomenon. They argue that the best way to stem the growing trend is to establish a stable government in Mogadishu.

This begs the response, "We tried that, and we got Blackhawk down."

So, maybe a strong naval response is the best option, for lack of will to build another nation. Or should we just change laws so that private vessels can equip themselves to fend off attacks? Should we just pay the occasional ransom? That might be cheaper in the end.

In the meantime, I'm going to brush up on my Somali accent for National Talk Like a Pirate day, and trade in my cutlass for an RPG.

The Earthlings are Coming!

Take a look at the picture below and try to guess where it was taken.



Arabia maybe? The Sahara perhaps? Could be the Gobi, right?


Nope. It was taken on Mars.

I hate to think how much money this picture cost to create, and yet I feel undeniably proud that it was taken. Not proud in a narrow patriotic sense, but proud in a transcendent way that our species is able to do this. Go team Humans!


Which brings me to a odd question. Say we were just contacted by aliens and they invited us to send a delegation to some galactic meeting. We need a flag that represents Earth (yes, even aliens are flag wavers). What should this flag look like? What symbols and images, if any, would it display?


I just hope it doesn't look anything like Zambia's flag, which is probably the strangest flag I have ever seen. In case you don't know what it looks like, here you go:

Right and wrong

Here's a little primer for a discussion about moral relativism:
In case this cartoon doesn't make any sense to you at all, please read here for some context.

So, what say you? Are some legal codes simply "better" than others? And if a legal code is a reflection of a society's values, morals and ethics, can we say that there are some societies that are objectively more moral than others?

And if you don't want to comment on any of those questions, expressions of indignation are certainly welcome.

Extremely moderate and decidedly ambivalent

I am a fence sitter. I often catch flak for this attribute. "Pick a side" people say. "At least I stand for something" they declare. I am a dreaded "swing voter" (sorry Ms. Coulter).

But it seems to me that sitting on the fence is more tenable than most of the other positions out there. I am merely exerting my right to say "I don't know."

And in fact, I don't know. And in many cases I don't think anyone really knows most things they say they "know," in an objectively truthful way. Ask me my opinion on most everything, and I'll likely give you both sides of the argument.

There are of course exceptions. There are many things which I think are objectively true. Here are some examples:

• 1+1=2
• Nothing rhymes with Orange
• You really can't just eat one 'Lay's' potato chip
• Most people routinely engage in irrational behavior and have inconsistent beliefs (which brings me to my next point)

For those readers who are unaware, the title of the blog comes a quote taken from the footage of the demise of the Hindenburg (seen here). I think this event is both tragic and typical. Tragically typical.

Had humans conquered the air? Yes. Did we do it in a completely reckless and irresponsible way? Again, yes. Can you think of other instances where we have repeated this trend? I can.

My fence sitting is rooted in my deep distrust of other people's beliefs. Most people believe many things that are simply not true.

I would like to use this blog as a forum for my friends and family to discuss ideas, lay out arguments, and occasionally share a laugh.

Hopefully you can help me discover some new ideas that I can add to my "objectively true" list.

So now my question to you is where shall we begin?