February 23, 2014

  • Midwest Snow Exports

    Platteville, WI

    Near record snowfalls in the Midwestern United States has caused many denizens to throw in the towel against Mother Nature, which is saying something for people of the frozen tundra from the yesteryears of Super Bowl long past. Some people are so fed up, they just stay indoors and watch as mountains of snow build along their sidewalks and roads.
    “Well, that just means more snow for me,” chirped a ruddy Leau Baumgartner. The door jingled and as he entered his office, a swirl of snow following him in, as if it was a part of an imaginary cape. He sported a Green Bay Packers hat that oddly looked more like a green version of what Santa Clause would wear, and he had a twinkle in his eyes that spoke of something he knew that I didn’t. Jesterly, like he was a cousin of Jack Frost himself. I had to check his shoes to see if it didn’t have any bells. He flashed a minty smile, cool as the frosty Wisconsin air.

    Baumgartner is one of the few who loves this weather, but it wasn’t always that way.

    “I used to hate winter. I mean, it’s cold, windy, and there’s endless shoveling. On days like this one, you sometimes had to wonder if the skies were infested with crazy moths looking for some kind of flame. It made me feel so…blah. Or I suppose bleu, he said with a wink. I hated winter that much.”
    Now he’s bemused when people give him quizzical looks as he uses a Bobcat to shovel snow into a large truck to haul away. In fact, he sometimes hauls away whole towns’ worth of snow to a depot just outside Platteville, Wisconsin, his headquarters for his business It’s Snow Time. Platteville is one of his “supply depots” all around the Midwest, and what started out as a simple project has turned into a global multimillion dollar business.

    Several years ago Baumgartner got the idea of snow transportation while carrying out the odious duty of shoveling his sidewalk. As the snow piled up in his yard, he thought it might be a good idea to build a small hill so that the kids in the neighborhood could go sledding. He took his old Ford pickup and cleared the entire street’s worth of snow and built the hill over by Stumptown Road, west of town.

    “People were giving me weird looks, like I was Noah or something. More than a few came out of their homes to see what was going on, and I told them to come on by to go sledding in a few days. Most people just laughed, but a few neighbors and their families came out. We all had a blast. We set up grills, cooked brats, drank beer. Well, the adults drank, the kids got juice boxes. So did some of the adults. Pretty soon, word spread and the whole community was out having a….snowball.”

    Then he got a call from nearby Chestnut Mountain Ski Resort. Apparently they had heard about this wondrous deed of community building and wanted something of the same. It also helped that all their snow-making machines had failed and they desperately needed some snow to patch up their trails, having scoured the countryside for all its snow already. Baumgartner was more than happy to oblige, for a small fee of course. He had to rent some massive trucks and call in a few trucker friends with semis to haul the fluffy stuff across state lines. Now, the ski resort has a little annex off the Old Main trail where they sell beer and brats, recommended by Baumgartner himself.
    Pretty soon, other ski resorts were giving him calls for advice and other towns in the area were building their own little mountains of snow. Baumgartner had found himself in the middle of the new business of snow transportation and consulting. What had started out as somewhat of a flaky idea, now commanded a small army of snow removal equipment….and planes.

    “Turns out that in some places, particularly the warmer climates, people are desperate for snow. They hold these winter festivals but would like a few flakes in the air. So we load a few planes up and do a fly by to dust towns with a bit of snow. It’s not much, but the people seem to love it. For bigger projects though, we have to have a commercial shipper to do the job.”

    By this he means the recent call he got from the Russian government, requesting his help in transporting snow to the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. He was surprised that he got the call since the Russians do have the technology to make their own snow, even in temperatures as high as 60 degrees Fahrenheit. They were unsure however just how well their machines were going to be able to hold up to the spring like weather, so they gave Baumgartner the call after seeing an internet advertisement for “used snow” at Thissnowsforyou.com.

    “You have to realize that not all snow is in pristine condition. A lot of the time, it’s just plain dirty, especially after harvesting it from the streets, but that doesn’t mean you can’t build stuff with it. You just need to layer clean snow on top, so we sell “used snow” at a discounted price.” We also sell “aged” snow, you know, the kind that people call “packy” snow. We use temperature and humidity controlled cold boxes to get the texture just right. Hell, if you can do it with beef, why not snow?”

    Turns out the Russians did make a purchase from Baumgartner, but he couldn’t reveal exactly what they bought. Suffice it to say that there are planes in the air that are flying snow to the Olympics. What next for Baumgartner? He’s got some interesting ideas.

    “We tried a Valentine’s Day promotion this year,” he said, pulling out a red box with pink bow from his desk drawer. He opened it to show me some special insulation that kept the box cold.
    “These was moderate success. We would pack snow into heart shapes. When the box was opened, the heart would slowly melt. Inside the cover of the box we included a card with the slogan “My Heart Melts for You. Alternatively, we also sold ones that looked more like a brick saying, “You’re as Cold as Ice.” Chuckling, Baumgartner said, “Not everyone is happy on Valentine’s Day.” Stopping, he started to write something on paper. “Maybe next year I’ll add “This Snow Goes Out to the One I Love.”

    “Seriously though, I think the next venture for the company is in the water business. We plan to melt the snow, purify it, and then sell it as an all-natural bottled water. Maybe with a name like DeCiel to make it sound francy. I mean, if you think about it, with a name like mine, how could I not be in the water business right?”
    I was just about to say that he should then consider the tree business when his phone rang. From a furrowed brow and tense discussion, he became jovial and animated. Soon he was laughing. I was beginning to wonder if he really did have some family connection to a Winter celebrity of sorts. Nodding his head, he wrote down some numbers and promised to call back.

    “You’ll never guess who that was,” Baumgartner said as he looked directly into my eyes. That was some head scientist up at the North Pole. He wants to try some innovative glacier and ice cap repairing. It’ll take some special ice, but he wants to see if we can prevent huge chunks of polar ice cap from crashing into the ocean.”
    Then Baumgartner smiled and with that same twinkle in his eye said, “I suppose they don’t want desalinization of the ocean to happen so quickly. Cause you know, we wouldn’t want THAT to happen.”

    No, I thought. I suppose not. We wouldn’t want a real polar vortex to happen, would we?

November 16, 2013

  • First Sermon

    I preached for the very first time a few weeks ago. Here's a copy of it for those interested in reading it. It was of course delivered a bit differently, but the content was the same.

    CPR for the Soul
    Joel 2:23-32, Luke 18:9-14.

    As you all know, my parents are in Korea and they send their greetings. Now, imagine my surprise a month or so back when my dad asked me, “So, Why don’t you preach one of the Sundays that I’m gone?” I really had to think about that for a moment. I mean, while I have gotten a degree from seminary, it wasn’t for this kind of work. I’m a neuroscientist not a preacher. In fact, I’ve never taken a course in preaching. I’m missing a few Bible courses here and there, and I’m not ordained, or licensed. So much for all the excuses I can think of. But I am here nonetheless, and I guess we shall see just how much of being a pastor’s kid will help me this morning.
    Now, sermons usually open up with some kind of story to draw you in, to illustrate a point. I don’t have one to tell you, but I do watch a lot of movies. How many of you have seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? For those of you who haven’t, I will only tell you of a test Indy has to pass. I hate spoilers, so I won’t ruin the entire movie for you, but it is essentially a movie about a quest for the Holy Grail, which has the power to heal and give everlasting life. Upon getting to the temple Indy must pass the first test, which had previously thwarted attempts by Nazi hired hands. They just couldn’t figure it out. Some literally losing their heads as they approached the first test. With a mortally wounded father as motivation, Indy approaches the foreboding silken spider webs, chanting the line in his father’s journal, “Only the penitent man shall pass.” And then it clicks. Only the penitent man shall pass. The penitent man is humble. The penitent man kneels before God. As Indy does so, he ducks below whirling blades, somersaults through, and avoids decapitation.

    What does this have to do with the passages we have heard today? In Luke’s gospel, Jesus tells a parable of two men who go the temple to pray and the stark contrast between them. One way this parable has been interpreted, is to make ourselves the Pharisee. How often do we judge others in our churches? Gossip flies around as we field rumors about what such and such a person has done, while we secretly hold ourselves in higher regard. We point accusative fingers at people with “checkered” pasts who try to find restoration of their very beings in church. But, like the Pharisee who fails to recognize himself as a sinner, we are all too ready to metaphorically throw stones than consider our own sinfulness in our own ways. We somehow think that our sins are not as great as other people’s sins even though we all fall short of the glory of God. So in our parable this morning, our human judgment of sinfulness will not be the primary focus of the passage.

    Instead, let us consider the acts and non-acts of the Pharisee and tax collector. The Pharisee follows the Law. He tithes. He fasts twice a week. You can just imagine the smug look on the Pharisee’s face as he looks in the direction of the tax collector saying, “I thank you that I am NOT like other people, including that tax collector over there.” I do not steal, kill, adulterate, or even collect the Roman tax. Note how negative the thanksgiving is as he begins his prayer. The Pharisee sees himself as self-righteous because not only does he refrain from committing these sinful acts, but that by tithing and fasting he can make himself righteous with God. He is using the act of penance, or outwardly visible self-sacrificial acts as a given for righteousness. Perform these acts, and you are right with God; however, nowhere is there a confession of being wrong with God in the first place.
    By contrast, the tax collector opens himself up, confessing his sinful state, one that is inherent with his position. You have to remember that tax collectors were a despised lot. Often seen as co-conspirators with the Gentile Roman government and dishonest to boot, the cost of doing business made them unclean. While the text does not mention forgiveness, it is made implicit when Jesus describes the tax collector as the one who went home justified. We do not know how the tax collector lived, whether he really was a dishonest collector, or if he practiced the penance of fasting. The fact remains however that he was humble before God. Though he was not on bended knee, he was contrite enough to not gaze heavenly, that by opening himself to the mercy of God, to the grace of God, his sins would be forgiven. Through the faithful acts of confession and repentance, God restores the relationship between God Godself and the tax collector.

    On this Reformation Sunday where churches all over celebrate Luther’s nailing of his 95 thesis on the doors of the Wittenburg Cathedral spurring the Protestant Reformation, the difference between penance and repentance is important to recognize. Just as there shouldn’t be indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, the OUTWARD act of penance itself does not justify oneself with God. Rather, as John Wesley put it, “Godly sorrow for sin works in us an INWARD AND outward repentance; the same entire change of heart; renewed after the image of God.” In other words, fasting is not an accounting method to balance your sins, and to be done with it once you’ve completed it. Rather, fasting is a means of grace that pulls you towards repentance. It is the work of God’s prevenient grace. It is a humble opening of yourself up to divine action rather than a building up of the self through “good works.”
    The good news is that you do not have to accumulate good works to be right with God. You do not have to PAY penance to somehow atone for your sins. Only be honest with God and confess sins in an act of repentance so that God can restore the broken relationship. Confess. Penance in terms of repentance. And Restoration. C-P-R. God’s forgiveness resuscitates our souls making them alive. As a forgiven and freed people then, we are called not to just be good people, but a faithful people open to God’s divine action. It is the meaning of being freed from the bondage of sin, or the myopic sense of keeping track of good works.

    Now I know that sometimes it isn’t easy, that life is unfair and that life can be hard. The prophet Joel certainly knew this to be the case. We did not read the first two chapters of Joel this morning, but it tells of desperate times.

    Israel is in ruins, a famine across the land. Listen to what Joel says:

    “The seed shrivels under the clods, the storehouses are desolate; the granaries are ruined because the grain has failed. How the animals groan! The herds of cattle wander about because there is no pasture for them; even the flocks of sheep are dazed.

    And if you think this is bad, you only need to look to Job for something much worse. Yet, Joel calls for repentance, prayer, and fasting.

    “Yet even now, says the Lord, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; rend your hearts, and not your clothing. Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing.”

    So, as a means of grace, the penitent person, fasting, humble before God, perhaps even kneeling in prayer during difficult times, opens themselves to God’s grace, to move them in a new direction full of life. It is the hope of the tax collector as he goes home. It is our hope that in beating our breasts and confessing our inherent tendency to sin, that in rending our hearts open to God, that God will fill us with God healing power, to restore us. And that is indeed good news during desperate times. It is for us, one way for our souls to be made well. Perhaps it is in CPR that we find the Holy Grail.

    Amen.

    May the LORD bless you and keep you;
    May the LORD make His face shine upon you,
    And be gracious to you;
    The LORD lift up His countenance upon you,
    And give you peace.

September 3, 2013

  • Video Games as Art

    9/3/2013

    I’ve been stewing over whether video games can be considered art for quite some time now. Much has been written about the controversy, but recently, the controversy has been fomented by the inclusion of some video game prints in the New York Museum of Modern Art and Design. Critics have called the curator out, say that such pieces are not art, but games. For instance, chess is a wonderful display of strategy and mental execution. It may have elements of art, but in the end, it is a game. Similarly, watching two great tennis players volley back and forth is only a game, despite what can be described as an artful performance by the players. Aside from distinguishing between art and design, the curator stood by the concept of video games as art despite criticism from those who thought otherwise, including the late Roger Ebert who thought video games could never be art.

    A lot of the debate focuses on defining art and games. For some working definitions, you can go to the link below.

    http://thegamedesignforum.com/features/can_videogames_be_art.html

    For art critics, there seems to be a subjective value placed on art that evokes a greater appreciation for humanity. It is a closed-ended experience created by the artist for people who can grasp the intent of the artist, that the experience that went into creating the piece of art can be similarly experienced by the one who reads, looks, or hears it. Thus critics point to a “sublime” quality of art that is targeted to few individuals, those that can understand, as opposed to the masses. Not everyone can appreciate Brahms, Van Gogh, or a wadded up piece of tissue paper on a thin pedestal, but those that do reach into a greater awareness of emotion that touches humanity. Therefore, art always maintains a certain distance between it and the interpreter that elevates it into a rarefied cultural tier of “fine arts.” By its very distance and selectivity, art cannot be played.

    In stark contrast are the “low art” of games. They are meant to be played and thus incorporate the decisions of the player. Games are open-ended in that that the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. In certain respects, games are real-time whereas art is mostly static (even symphonies which are played, are still bound by the composer, however interpretive the director might be). Games are activities we do to simply pass time. We do not cultivate any greater sense of humanity or cultural awareness. Thus games garner a negative connotation (at least to art critics) as “time-wasters” despite however enjoyable they might be. It’s something children often do, and as adults something we supposedly outgrow, like Saturday morning cartoons. Games are not serious, but casual. We often say expressions like “quit playing games (with my heart, or anything else)” as an imperative to grow-up and act seriously. Whenever someone has been conned, we say that he or she has been played, not painted.
    It certainly doesn’t help the video game artists’ case that there is indeed casual gaming. With the advent of mobile gaming, how can a game like Angry Birds or Candy Crush Saga be considered art? Certainly the gamer is entertained as he or she passes time riding the train to work or to get home, but nothing greater is accomplished other than a sensation of enjoyment. We are merely entertained by games either as the performer or the spectator, and pay handsomely to do so, but is that the only function of games? Is it only an entertainment package to be consumed? Or can games instill a greater sense of cultural awareness that point beyond mere entertainment?

    As an avid gamer, I am of the opinion that indeed video games can be art, but there is the rub. They can be art, not necessarily that they are art. The distinction is important because it defines the function of video games as art. As a product of design, video games are, like most art, items bound by the creators’ intent. It does not matter whether a game is completely linear or if there are multiple story lines/endings. Despite whatever freedoms are given to the player, the games are still bound by the ones and zeros of their design. While players are able to create characters and classes, or select weaponry and gear, they can only do so from what the artists (yes, artists) have created for them. These “digital artists” deserve high praise for what largely goes unnoticed by the general public. In the narratives, character stills, voice acting, code, quality testing (a thankless job), and everything else that earns a spot in the end credits, the content comes together into a singular end product much like any other work of art. In fact, I dare say that more artistry goes into creating some video games than for books, movies, paintings, or music, that video games are able to exceed what “fine art” has to offer. However, while it can be said that the design of a game itself qualifies as art, video games are not art just because it has been purposely designed.

    For gamers it’s never only about being entertained, even if at an unconscious level. There have been many a game instances where I have been as frustrated as a minotaur lost in his own labyrinth. And in multiplayer games there will always be someone who will get the better of me. No, gamers are about the gaming experience. We referred to it as gameplay, the playability of a game that translates the design of a game into an interactive experience. THAT is where the art lies. Electronic Arts does have its slogan correct. It really is “in the game.”

    Thus, video games function to translate its art into player experiences from which narratives are born. This works best in games that are heavily involved in telling a story, but also works in the stories that are told by the kind of characters we play. For example, my favorite game series is Mass Effect. Combine elements of a first person shooter and role-playing game and you get a game trilogy that incorporates decisions made from the first game that have consequences into the third. Say you get a player killed in the first game. He or she will not appear in the third. There are ethical decisions to make that have consequences in the series. There are questions that probe the depth of humanity even though aliens are involved. The game tells a story where a piece of the player is reflected in the character and decisions made in-game.
    Another example would be the Baldur’s Gate series from the glory days of PC gaming. It was some of my fondest college gaming memories. As with any other franchises, a certain continuity exists in the sequels to the original. Sure it drives some of the software sales, but there is a certain expectation of story with a gameplay that is distinct to the franchise. Baldur’s Gate is based off Dungeons and Dragons, so already it has an expectation of a story driven game experience, but the choices that you make are about how to create an effective party. However, while the story does revolve around the protagonist, each of your party members have their own stories to develop in the game, assuming you choose to develop them. Suffice it to say one of my college friends often times just watched me play because the game unfolded like a movie.

    These are all more conscious decisions in a story driven game, but what about the “mindless” multiplayer first person shooters such as Modern Warfare 3? Sure, there is a campaign mode, but most people hop online to pick teams where the objective is to kill other virtual players. But even in this, the kinds of classes people play still reflect, to a degree, the type of person they are. With headsets, other team members can put a voice with the character and interestingly enough, even with only a voice, personality shines through. With enough time, people start to notice that one plays a certain way on certain maps. For example, on many maps I use a riot shield as my style of play. I don’t particularly care that it’s not an offensive weapon. The point is that I use it as one of my favorite ways to play, to the annoyance of many an opponent (and sometimes teammates). This is beyond just an entertainment value, but symbol for players themselves. Video games point to something else about the person playing the game. It’s about how they want TO BE in the game.

    Thus, video games must be considered as art, and despite the time wasters they appear to be, are no less artistic than a good book or a movie. True, some video games are of the causal nature. They aren’t meant to be art pieces, but to generalize this other games is to be ignorant to what games can represent. Part of gaming is the narrative that is offered, but more importantly, the game is about how you interact with it. It can be reflective of the type of person you are, and that is art. Art is a medium that must speak to you, so if games do not function in this capacity, then it has failed as art…for you, just like toilet paper on a pedestal has failed for me. In the end however, the content of art still carries weight because ultimately what becomes art is between it and its creator. Isn’t it interesting that video games can do just that while being played?

    Some more links to consider:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_as_an_art_form#cite_note-12
    http://thegamedesignforum.com/features/narrative_in_games.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/nov/30/moma-video-games-art
    http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-the-collection-for-starters/

May 11, 2013

  • Dove For Men vs. Old Spice body washes

    5/11/13

    Awhile back I made a Facebook post on how I had mischaracterized Dove for Men (DfM) body wash.  A friend of mine doubted its cleaning/moisturizing effects and requested a full review.  Therefore this post is an analysis of DfM body wash vs. Old Spice body wash.  Now, I tried to do this as “scientific” as possible, but there is PLENTY of that is subjective.  You’ll have to make that decision yourself.  So…Round 1.  FIGHT!

    My original disappointment with DfM was its lack of lathering ability.  Aside from the fact that I had to annoyingly squeeze the body wash out of a small hole in the bottle, when applied to the Salux I was using, the lather would not work up well…..that is until I changed to a new Salux.  Upon changing to a fresh one, DfM did an adequate job of lathering, though not as vigorous as Old Spice despite similar amounts applied to the Salux.  Round 1 goes to Old Spice.

    For those of you who do not know what a Salux is, it is a Japanese nylon wash cloth.  You can get it for a buck or two at an Asian store, but I’ve pasted the Amazon link below to give you an idea of what it is.

    http://www.amazon.com/Salux-Nylon-Japanese-Beauty-Cloth/dp/B000CSDDDG

    It is rough, so it exfoliates and is long enough to “towel motion” the back.  Way better than a loufah, but back to the subject at hand…or should I say…arm. 

    In order to test the moisturizing capability of DfM, the advertising point, I applied DfM on my right arm and Old Spice on my left arm everyday for 1 week.  Each day, I visually inspected my arm for dryness (flaky dry spots), and felt for smoothness with fingers as well as lips.  Why the two methods?  Lips are supposed to be more sensitive than fingertips.  What did I find?  Interestingly enough, the Old Spice side (right arm) was indeed dryer than the DfM side (left arm).  I could see a dry whiteness on my right, but could not see a similar dryness on the left.  Moreover, tactile sensation verified the moisturizing capability of DfM.  My left arm felt smoother than my right.  In addition, I could feel a better hydrated skin on my left when I gently pinched the skin.  Overall, my left arm had a greater “elastic” feel than my right.  Round 2 goes to DfM.

    Now, would it have been stronger evidence if I could have gotten independent verification?  Or if I was blinded to what I was using?  Of course.  But how does one go about asking someone to verify the results of my little experiment?  Just imagine the conversation. 

    “Excuse me, but could you rub my arms and tell me which one you think feels smoother?”

    Or

    “In the name of science, do you mind caressing my arms with your lips to determine which one is smoother?”

    Yeah.  Not gonna happen.  Such things require a more intimate relationship of which I am not involved.  As for being blinded, I think I’d be able to pick up on the color as well as scent of the body washes being used.  DfM does not have a wide range of scents.  They are more functional than they are sensational.  Old Spice on the hand….er….arm, has a variety of scents that please the olfactory senses.  Not that DfM has bad scents, just not as good ones as Old Spice.  I will say however, that upon talking about my experiment, a female friend was correctly able to identify which arm had used which body washes. 

    I also did the reciprocal after the one week period of testing.  For the next week, I switched the body washes on the arms.  Intriguingly, I was not able to detect dryness on either arm and it was more difficult to distinguish smoothness.  My hypothesis here is that DfM had a moisturizing protective effect that lasts with time, enough so to overcome any “stripping” effects of Old Spice.  Thus in the future, I would need to have a washout period so that I could have a “zeroed” baseline for each arm.  Interestingly enough, another female friend did correctly identify my right arm as the one that received the DfM treatment.  Her rationale was a certain sheen that shown from right arm that did not come from my left.  Hmmm….perhaps Moses washed his face with moisturizer after talking with God.  Hehe…ok.  Only funny (if at all) to those who are in seminary or have read Exodus.

    So where are we in this body wash battle?  It’s a tie so far, so for the next week I tried various kinds of DfM and followed it up with another week of only Old Spice to test the effects over time.  Remember what I said about the “elastic” feel?  Imagine that for the all skin.  You don’t turn into a rubber band or anything, but it’s a hydrated sensation that while rinses cleanly….gives a “weighty” sensation that detracts from feeling completely clean.  I wasn’t particularly fond of it.  As I remarked earlier the DfM scents aren’t all that great.  The Clean Comfort smelled like J&J baby oil.  The Fresh Awake has a citrus scent while the Extra Fresh has a cooling sensation due to the menthol in it.  And I haven’t tried the other ones, though the Aqua Impact sounds interesting with sea salt as an ingredient.  As an aside, the Extra Fresh is the one I bought at Costco, so I have a lot to go through, but it isn’t as good of a “cooling” agent as Right Guard Extreme Cooling.  With that, you can definitely feel a vapory goodness, as if you were a Halls cough drop.    

    Does DfM do what it is advertised to do?  Yes, it doves….I mean does.  When compared to Old Spice however, I find it a bit lacking.  In general, I don’t think men are overly concerned about moisturized skin, and Old Spice doesn’t completely dry it out.  Old Spice also has a variety of scents, from sweet to citrusy, from spicy to clean.  There is more to work with, which is also the case in the lather generating department.  My recommendation?

    I would stick with Old Spice, but de temps en temps (from time to time), use DfM to moisturize.  If my moisturizing buildup hypothesis is correct, then you can benefit from DfM, and still use your favorite Old Spice body wash.  My current favorite Old Spice body wash?  Belize.

    Smells like fresh air, guitar solos, and triumph.

    Too bad, they don’t seem to be making it anymore. 

December 24, 2012

  • Schrödinger’s cat, hope, and Advent

    With advent, Christians anticipate the coming of Jesus, the Emmanuel, God with us.  For those of you that are not familiar with Christian tradition, the four weeks of advent are themed Hope, Peace, Joy, and Love, and are ordinal.  The first, Hope, deals most with Schrödinger’s cat and quantum physics.  In fact, Hope can be an exercise in probability, the measurement of certainty or uncertainty depending on how you look at things.  The following blog entry is my take on how quantum physics and hope are related.  I must admit that I’ve cheated here and taken most of following from a paper I wrote, but the topic was close enough to allow me to do it.  Sorry if it reads a little dryer than usual.  And longer.

    Quantum physics, the physics that happens on the particle level has ramifications that can broaden and perhaps enrich a person’s faith.  While true that on the macroscopic level, Newtonian physics works quite well in a very deterministic fashion, quantum physics is not so predictable.  In fact, that is the way quantum physics operates, on a level of probability.  Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that one cannot know the position AND momentum of a particle at the same time.  Because light is used to make measurements, the precise properties of particles are unknowable.  Light with its wave frequency (the number of waves in per second) property is in essence the “ticks” on a ruler.  More precise measurements can be made with higher frequency light.  Higher frequency light however, has more energy, so when measurements are made with higher frequency light a “bouncing” effect makes the measurement more imprecise (David W. Nelson).  This paradox of sorts leads to the idea that reality is unknowable.  Either humans in trying to measure it introduce uncertainty, or a precise theoretical state may exists, but is unknowable to the inquirer.  In either case, quantum physics suggests that there is uncertainly abounds, which necessitates the use of probability.

    The uncertainty that arises out of knowing and not knowing is illustrated by Erwin Schrödinger’s famous cat paradox. Intended as a critique of Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen interpretation, a cat is placed in a closed box with what amounts to a 50% chance of being killed within an hour.  After that hour, one intuitively “knows” that the cat is either dead or alive.  This is similar to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s duck-rabbit figure.  One can either see the figure as a duck or a rabbit, but not both simultaneously.  The Copenhagen interpretation however, posits that until the observer actually looks into the box, the cat is both alive AND dead.  Viewed in another way, the various s and p orbitals (concepts students are taught in high school) represent electron “clouds” or snapshots of probable places electrons can be.  A gestalt picture (a sphere or a lobe) provides a concrete picture of reality despite arising out of probability.  The electron is either at a location or it is not.  The Copenhagen interpretation does not deny such a picture of reality, but takes probability to its logical end where the electron cloud exists only after measurements have been made.  Until then, the electron simultaneously exists and does not exist in particular location in a “cloud.”  In either model however, human interpretation or “consciousness” of reality causes uncertainty.  In one model, the electron is interpreted as being in a theoretical reality while in the other an unknown state until observed.  The state of the electron is created by human minds.  The uncertainty of quantum physics and human participation thus relates to hope because it too is an exercise in uncertainty. 

    Hope has gotten a lot of attention in the past two US presidential elections and is a topic of conversation in the Shawshenk Redemption.  In one instance, hope can wrought change while in the other, drives a person into insanity.  By in large however, hope’s operation is due to whether one takes on a Copenhagen interpretation or the alternative multiple world interpretation.  For those that follow Copenhagen, hope is to a degree within the human hand in creating reality.  What is brought out of uncertainty into fruition, though imperfect, is what we have.  Hope is a forward driving in that it remains with us as we move into the future.  Alternatively, in a multiple world interpretation, every reality occurs but does not communicate with each other.  This could be comforting since everything one does is essentially due to chance, even if strongly influenced (consider that a world did indeed spawn with your alternative decision), and one does not need to worry about what actually happens.  The consequence however, is that hope becomes some far off reaching ideal that may or may not ever be reached, that one must be satisfied with circumstance no matter how much one desires what hope can offer.

    Now how does quantum physics apply to ideas about God and how God may work?  Part of this question relies on God’s knowledge, traditionally deemed all-knowing. Surely, God would know exactly where electrons are, and according Job 38:33, God answers saying, “Do you know the laws of the heavens or impose its authority on earth?”  This implies that God is indeed omniscient.  The question explicitly remains however, to what degree and for what purpose?  To try to use scientific concepts in describing God’s knowledge is a hypothetical exercise.  The fact that we do not even know “what” God is makes God as a divine “measurer” seem ridiculous.  God does not “measure” where a particle is located, yet the assumption that God just “knows” seems equally dissatisfying.  There is an uncertainty about God, about God’s transcendence or immanence. 

    Of course, God cannot be scientifically provable, and in a certain sense, neither can religion provide a proof for God’s existence.  The only thing that we as humans have as “data” are the effects, or human experience, that may or may not be Godly.  It is not within the scope of this essay to try to prove God’s existence.  Rather, the affirmation that God is mystery precludes God from being put into Schrödinger’s box.  Language by its very nature cannot fully convey human experience, but there is no alternative but to use words to communicate to another the authentic experience of God.  Theological words too however, are a result of the tension between form and function, between who God is and how God works.  Thus, we are confronted with the same quantum conundrum.  In making “observations” about God, are we defining the state of God though uncertain, or are we “splitting” into a world where God is who God is but not God in another?  Does God somehow exist in a perfect state that is above all conditionality as most philosophical abstractions tell us?  The answers to these questions are the very reason we have so many stories about God.

    If however, Christians choose to believe that God truly creates new possibilities, then they must also be prepared to consider that God also operates with probability or chance!   The speculative notion that God is anything but the classically depicted God must be undertaken, with the idea that a there must be a balance between God’s transcendence and immanence.   Is God omnipotent?  Some consider that based on the conditions of the world that God is not.  Others think that God consciously self limits God’s power.  The alternative is to consider that God while still omnipotent cannot break the rules that God Godself has created.  Is God omniscient?  If chance is a part of the parameters of God’s creation, then God’s knowledge while not limited in the plurality of potentials is limited in what actually is brought into being as history unfolds through human action.  God attempts to provide direction to reality and is creative because new possibilities truly arise apart from any “blueprint” drawn up in the beginning.  Simply put, God takes on risk.

    Such a concept of a “God that plays dice” was certainly disturbing to Albert Einstein, and continues to be for most people of religious faith.  God as a cosmic gambler threatens divine omnipotence and the ideas about purpose and justice in the world.  God’s uncertainty for creation must be given some weight however, whether as God’s operational parameter or as a physical reality itself because God is a Creator God.  This is important because to not consider the element of chance predisposes one to hold a God who operates in a one-directional predetermined fashion, that out of all the possible worlds, THIS one is the one purposely created.  In such a world, religious life does not have any function.  Blessing and curses hold no meaning, nor does prayer do anything since everything is in the hands of a sovereign God who has already chosen to bless, curse, or answer prayer.  Worse still is the idea that if you pray hard enough, you will get a boon, as if God selectively favors people above others based on “goodness.”  For instance, some are more “blessed” because they are more faithful to God than others.  This is precisely a God who does not play dice.  Rather, it is a God who caters to human concern, to which Bohr (in conversation with Einstein) responded, “Do not tell God what to do.”  In other words, creaturely determination cannot constrain the ultimate freedom of a God who in God’s creative capacity takes on risk.  Taken in context, the element of chance, of probability, allows creativity (something new) to manifest.  Prayer has its power in the creative moment with God and the supplicant.  In this sense, reality as we know it is co-created with God through creative human response made available because of chance.  This is risky venture indeed!

     

    A final consideration takes us back to Job, and his plight in front of God.  The disquieting thing about Job is that God allows the Devil to test Job even though God knows that Job is a blameless, righteous man.  In context of what has been discussed, it certainly appears that God is gambling with Job’s life.  Furthermore, God provides Job with no answer, but only an admonishment of Job’s knowledge of the situation.  What if God did not know how Job would respond?  If this is true, then by playing “chance” with Job, the creative possibility of Job’s experience of God was made possible, and the less God knows, the more creation is able to respond.  Does this mean that people must suffer in order to experience God?  No, not necessarily, for there could be worse conditions than the current plight people find themselves.  Rather, it is the idea that perhaps a “perfect” world was never meant to exist.  Instead the cosmic unfolding of history is the ultimate story of God and God’s relationship with creation, which requires chance for its fullest development.

    In the season of advent, Christians anticipate the coming of Jesus because Christians claim him to be the hope of the world.  Not only hope however.  Jesus is also Peace, Joy, Love and the Christ.  Jesus, amidst all the uncertainty is Emmanuel, God with us.  Jesus is the joy we feel because there in a God/Man is the realization of our hope.  In Jesus, Christians encounter the love of God expressed for the world and its people and that God chooses to be “entangled” with creation.  Yes, entangled.  Although, there might be an infinite number of possibilities, the workings between God and creation collapse a particular reality into being.  It might not be perfect, but we have a hope….perhaps THE hope, that works with us and guides us to a better future. 

    So….as a new year dawns (post Mayan Apocalypse),

    Hope of the world, O Christ of great compassion:
    speak to our fearful hearts by conflict rent.
    Save us, your people, from consuming passion,
    who by our own false hopes and aims are spent.

    Hope of the world, God's gift from highest heaven,
    bringing to hungry souls the bread of life:
    still let your Spirit unto us be given
    to heal earth's wounds and end our bitter strife.

    Hope of the world, afoot on dusty highways,
    showing to wandering souls the path of light:
    walk now beside us lest the tempting byways
    lure us away from you to endless night.

    Hope of the world, who by your cross did save us
    from death and dark despair, from sin and guilt:
    we render back the love your mercy gave us;
    take now our lives and use them as you will.

    Hope of the world, O Christ, o'er death victorious,
    who by this sign did conquer grief and pain:
    we would be faithful to your gospel glorious;
    you are our Lord, and you forever reign!

December 5, 2012

  • Twilight and the F-word

    A couple weeks ago I saw the final installment of the Twilight Saga on the big screen.  And for the most part, I can see why so many people love it.  It’s got love, intrigue, and action.  Some weird stuff going on with a vampire civil war…..It’s almost anime-ish in concept.  It’s no Vampire Hunter D, but there are some similarities between Twilight and the second Vampire Hunter D movie.  A forbidden love between a vampire and a human?  Yeah, it’s been done before.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0hq8jzLw1M

    But now on to the topic of the blog.  The F-word.  Twilight glorifies being a vampire.  Not only are you endowed with super-human strength and speed, but all senses are heightened.  You can see the smallest detail as if you had binoculars attached to your eyes.  You can hear the faintest of sounds, and oh…what you can feel.  There’s that too.  The sex.  Mind-blowing sex.  Never mind that when she was human, Bella was having sex with a dead guy, undead to be more accurate, but definitely dead.  Normally people would be freaking out about the living having sex with the dead, but now that Bella is also dead, I guess it’s ok right?

    This brings me to the actual F-word.  FOREVER (that was said Sandlot style btw).  Not where you thought I was going eh?  Part of romantic nature of the series hinges on a love….forever.  And people want this, a love that lasts forever, which is somewhat ironic since marriage vows hold until death do us part.  Maybe it’s the elusive nature of finding such love in the real world combined with the desire to find a lasting love that makes the series popular, but I don’t think people really think about what forever means.  Twilight certainly promotes foreverness as a good thing, but living forever has not always been a good thing.  In fact, it has been viewed as a curse.

    Who can forget this scene between Heather and Conner in The Highlander?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNKZATZHWZI

    She grows old, while he remains young.  They cannot have children.  Twilight brushes this all aside with a half-vampire child, and of course the ceasing of aging.

    Then what about Duncan and Kate/Faith from Highlander Endgame?  Yes, I know…probably none of you have seen it, so I’ll tell you.  Both love each other and are to be married.  They speak of loving each other forever, which for Duncan is quite possible, but for Kate, requires the leap into immortality.  You see, Duncan is immortal and so is Kate.  He knows because he can sense it, but she doesn’t know it.  In order for immortals to be “born,” they need to die a violent death.  So, on the marriage night, Duncan kills her so that their love can be forever.  She naturally freaks out and for most of the movie hates Duncan.  She resented not being able to have children and to be able to grow old with the man she loved.  Twilight does similar things, but without the unpalatable insinuation of murder…or suicide I suppose.  Either way, Bella must first die before being able to live forever.  It’s just told in a way that glorifies the relationship, a love worth dying for.

    In the process however, people ignore the potential consequences of living forever.  Is it not possible that after some time even vampires will not love forever?  What about all the death they have to watch?  What about never growing old?  I mean, haven’t people considered Elrond’s warning?  Oh that’s right.  Only a certain segment of the population will have seen Lord of the Rings….so here the link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6mc3Fv7vDM

    It is disturbing to think that people seem to be quite content with giving up on being human, that to exceed the bounds of a finite life is what they want.  If you don’t believe me, talk to some people in the medical industry who are trying to cure aging, or people who believe in transhumanism/post-humanism.  Consider that there are researchers in Texas who want to replace your heart with two turbines that will pump blood throughout your body…..so long as the battery is working.  There seems to be a trend that denies humanity.  I mean, who wouldn’t want a world free of aging and death (since..well…you’re already dead), where one is super human in strength, speed, agility….and baseball skills?  Who wouldn’t want to become vampire beautiful (compare the human quality of skin to that of Bella’s post vampire transformation)?  Who wouldn’t want to be able to have heightened sensual pleasures?  All…..FOREVER!

    Well.  I would be remiss of me to not write about some theology here, especially since we are talking about being “born again” and having “everlasting life.”  The key difference between Christian concepts of afterlife is the endpoint.  Twilight promotes an escape from human life, but the everlasting life promised by Christianity is not one of escape, but dealing with the problems of human life.  Contrary to an “opiate for the masses” that promotes a resignation to human frailty, Christianity attempts to engage it in a way that promotes the value of human life.  Christianity is not about getting to heaven.  It is about having an assurance that lets us deal with the reality of our lives.  That Jesus, God incarnate, would die (a love worth dying for btw) is an affirmation of human mortality and that bodily resurrection is an affirmation and vindication of the human condition. 

    In the end, I suppose Twilight is just a story…entertainment.  And it is.  Twilight had all the elements of Dawson’s Creek (even the music was similar) except with vampires and there is an entertainment value to that.  But that fact remains that sometimes entertainment hits closer to our desires than we’d like to admit.  Twilight is no exception.

November 24, 2012

  • Online Gaming, DDO, and a bit about myself

    Nerd Alert!  So yes…as my roommate will attest, I have recently reinvigorated my inner nerd.  I’ve never been a WoW fan, so I can’t really criticize it other than what other people have already written.  I’m more of a DnD player, who still has a character from when the game first came out.  Thus from a Dungeons and Dragons Online (DDO) perspective, I can say something about how the game has evolved.  Some good….but lots of bad.  First however, for those who care about a post such as this, a little character analysis.

    There are various theories about character development in a game.  Some people see it as a way to project their wishes.  You can be whatever you want to be within the rules of the game.  Feel like you want to be a medical student?  Well, you can be the ultimate heal bot, with impeccable heals just when a party member thinks he or she has bitten the dust, and with those long lasting buffs, you are the ultimate support character (minus rogue skills that is).  Other people however, play true to their real lives.  Perhaps he or she is the health conscious gym persona who given a task, relentlessly pursues it.  Sounds kinda like a straight up fighter to me.  Chances are though that the kind of character one builds is a bit of both theories.  This isn’t to say that a character is a true reflection of a real person.  Rather, elements of character, as well as play, factor into the overall BUIDLING of a character.  It’s about character development….at least it should be. 

    Most of my characters are support class characters.  Of the twelve characters that I have, 3 are clerics, 4 are rogues, 1 is a paladin, 3 are fighters, and 1 is a monk.  Five are male and seven are female.  Even though a good number are supposed to be damage dealers, they are not DPS (damage per second) builds but specialist classes, sometimes even to the point of being “flavor” characters.  These characters are derisively known to have no viability in the game.  I guess the point here is that I prefer NOT to be the DPS guy because I want the game to more than a Diablo hack and slash type game.

    Over the last few years however, DDO has changed, perhaps for the worse.  This isn’t some kind of nostalgic, “Oh I wish the game was like when it first came out.”  No, it’s the observation that DDO has made the game much more individualistic.  It used to be that clerics/healers were essential to a party makeup….and they still are.  No hireling will be able to suffice for higher level healing, but the fact remains that you can still buy hirelings to help you with the quest….by yourself if you so choose.  No party needed. 

    The game has thus shifted to a soloist mentality, or self-sufficiency to the extreme.  Characters are now built that can deal the damage, heal themselves, and disable all the traps….well, maybe not the traps.  Nevertheless, these characters can start and finish a quest by themselves, killing a dragon if need be.  Sure they might put up an LFM (Looking for Members), but they qualify it with BYOH (Bring your own Heals).  I am simply amazed that a game that is supposed to be about parties is increasingly about individual accomplishment.  Yeah…I suppose it’s cool that you can solo a dragon, and true enough if they made chaotic evil characters then sure, all they care about is themselves.  But it’s incredibly frustrating when these people rage quit in the middle of the quest. 

    So we have the death of the PUG (Pick up Group).  Early on, pick up groups were the only way to form parties.  You made friends and found times to play together.  Then came the guild.  Essentially it’s the same as PUGs, but you know everyone.  In fact, some of these memories, even though I have never met a single guild member, permeate time.   For instance there was a time, when our guild only had 3 clerics and I was one of them.  Among the other two was one that I haven’t played with in over a year, yet he shows up one day, and it was just like the old times.  And that’s the great thing about guilds.  On a guild run, we do things together where PUGs foster more of” an everyone for themselves” attitude.  The drawback, is that no one runs in PUGs anymore.   They hate them because some “noob” causes a party wipe.  Or…some knowitall zergs on ahead.  Gone are the days when party wiping was something that brought people together.  Now it’s a nuisance that drives people apart. 

    You would think that with so much negativity, I would just stop playing.  But no.  All PUGS aren’t bad, and I still have fun with my guildmates.  There are always new things to try, characters to build, even if the quests are the same.  DDO does a nice job giving updated content and for the most part, I’m a happy gamer.  One day I’m a Halfling female fighter, with red hair tied back in pig tails, defiant with handaxes in each hand ready for a close encounter with an ogre.  Another day, I’m a male warforged paladin undead hunter, smiting evil (and there is plenty of evil in DDO) vampires wherever they may be.  See, while gaming does have its cliquishness, it is a journey….especially for those that are patient enough to let the story of the characters to be told…..and have people along the way who are equally patient enough to listen.

October 31, 2012

  • Soundtrack Composers

    So I’ve been mulling this one for awhile now.  I used to collect soundtracks.  There was something about the score of the movie that gave me the chills sometimes.  I still find soundtracks great, but I don’t quite have the same enthusiasm as I used to.  Part of this has to do with the fact that I don’t go to the theatre as often, but also because I just don’t collect anymore.  I don’t know the new composers, only the vanguard of composers past.  That said, I’ve been listening to some soundtracks recently, and want to share the observation that a lot of the time, you can tell a composer by the soundtrack.

    Here’s one analysis:  Aside from the coincidental coloration of both movie albums for National Treasure and Remember the Titans, Trevor Rabin has a distinctive style.  I’ve linked some music for you to compare the stylistic as well as melodic similarities from the two movies.

    National Treasure:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olg4i1Z8N8k (Interrogation).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KDfVB1g9BQ (Treasure)

    Remember the Titans:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAeSl3CXfs (Titan’s Spirit)

    Rabin changes tempo a lot in his tracks.  In general, the fast tempos are “big sound” and generate suspense.  Examples of this are at 2:30 in Interrogation, 2:30 in Treasure, and 2:40 in Titan’s Spirit.  The slow tempos are mostly relaxing but then lead to more suspense.  Note that for the slower tempos, there are melodic similarities.  These can be found at the beginning of Interrogation, 0:50 of Treasure, and 3:20 of Titan’s Spirit.  Also, probably due to his days at YES, Rabin includes some synthetic/electric guitar in places, but doesn’t over do it.  The tracks are still symphony driven, lots of bottom for the “big sound,” but high, high strings too. 

    For comparison, Rudy, which was scored by Jerry Goldsmith, is much more symphonic for a dramatic football movie.  It’s more similar to Star Trek First Contact.  Note some of the similarities in his use of French horn.  Well, maybe…..or I just LOVE the French horn part in Star Trek.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHInW9C9kNo (Final Game)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhoa7oWPPhk (First Contact)

    So there you have it.  You can do this also with James Horner.  Compare Glory, Bicentennial Man, and of course Titanic. 

    Finally, just for kicks, compare this from Armageddon to Rabin’s other score material.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuxrDLlsOvU

October 23, 2012

  • Equalty and Equal Opportunity

    Most of us are familiar with the following phrase:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    Yes, the issue of slavery in that day makes the statement hypocritical, but that is not what I want to discuss today.  With the final debate taken place and the 2012 Presidential election two weeks away, equality and opportunity are two words that should be in the minds of voters.  They cover a wide range of issues including education, immigration, and women’s rights.  A careful distinction however, needs to be made because I think the two terms are often equated.

    Let us first consider equality and the following statement made by Buster Kilrain in Michael Shaara’s, The Killer Angels.  For those of you who haven’t read it, it’s a Civil War novel, and this particular discussion between the commanding officer of the 20th Maine Joshua Chamberlain and Buster Kilrain centers around how each feels about African slaves.  Chamberlain argues along the line of createdness, but Kilrain disagrees.

    “Colonel, you’re a lovely man.  I see at last a great difference between us, and yet, I admire ye, lad.  You’re an idealist, praise be.  The truth is, Colonel, that there is no divine spark, bless you.  There’s many a man alive no more value than a dead dog.  Equality?  Christ in Heaven.  What I’m fighting for is the right to prove that I’m a better man than many.  Where have you seen this divine spark in action, Colonel?  Where have you noted this magnificent equality?  The Great White Joker in the Sky dooms us all to stupidity or poverty from birth.  No two things on earth are equal or have an equal chance, not a leaf or a tree.”

    What Kilrain says appears to be true and critiques the Declaration in that complete equality does not exist even with createdness.  Note also that even the Declaration does not say that everything is equal, but that a sense of equality is contingent on the act of creation by a Creator.  I will bypass the issue of religion here because it is not the focus of this essay.  Rather, I want to bring to attention that disparity will always exist.  The problem is how much disparity in the system is acceptable and under what circumstances.

    I would argue that true equality is something that we do not want.  Why?  True equality denies the particularity of individual beings, restricts growth, and makes choice irrelevant.  In scientific terms no works gets done under conditions of equilibrium.  It’s a zero sum game, that is, an individual is constrained by the set conditions of equality.  Thus, when people talk about equality, it is not true equality, but a qualified one.  As such however, it still operates under the principles of equality.

    Should qualified equality be policy?  Fairness dictates yes.  Equal qualifications, equal work, should result in equal pay.  This…equation comes from the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  More recently, the Lilly Ledbetter Act has gained attention, but from what I have read, the LL Act amends the Equal Pay Act so that gender discriminatory grievances can be brought paycheck to paycheck, not only within 180 days of employment.  Thus, it would seem that people have improperly associated women’s equal pay with the LL Act.  That said, since it’s enactment in 2009, not much seems to have changed. 

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/fact-check-obama-and-equal-pay-for-women/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecooper/2012/10/22/its-about-equal-pay-not-binders-and-opportunity/

    But if advocates of equality are serious, even under qualified conditions, then they must also recognize that despite the Equal Pay Act being a woman’s concern, men are also affected.  Let us bypass the other hidden cost of hiring SAME sex candidates based on equal qualification and get straight to gender inequality.  There is no question that where work and qualifications are equal, pay should be equal.  I doubt however that all conditions of equality are met all the time.  That is, there is a disparity between a man and woman rationale for work, and the amount of work done over a lifetime.  Take this Forbes article, which I can only say makes sense though I am unsure of its veracity since I have not read his book.

    http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/12/women-wage-gap-cx_wf_0512earningmore.html

    The article argues that while inequality still exists, under the most equal conditions, women actually make MORE than men.  Should this not also be rectified?  Furthermore, in the event that a woman makes life choices that reduce working efficiency or output, should not their pay also reflect a reduction when compared to similarly titled employees?  Or is the title all that is important in pay grade?  Of course this equally applies to the man as well as woman, but IF indeed “flexibility” and life choices are important to women, then women should not be surprised to find disparity in wages where conditions are not equal.

    What about equal opportunity?  While the title suggests equality, it does not guarantee equality, nor is it adequately enforced.  In fact, current education practices in the United States only make one equally opportunistic where one is QUALIFIED.  Even then, education alone at times is not enough for a job.  To simply state that education gives greater opportunity, while true, understates business hiring practices.  Job postings are often times more closed than open, since a candidate has already been chosen and the posting is to conform to the Civil Rights Act.  Furthermore, even if a job is desirable and open, a candidate cannot be over qualified, since that would violate equal pay status.  It would appear that for some companies and businesses, they do everything possible to skirt equal opportunity.  Nevertheless, equal opportunity seems to be the best compromise that retains personal freedom.

    Is it up to the government then to impose equality in its many forms?  I suppose that someone or thing needs to set the conditions of equality.  The rub however, is that people must be willing to accept the consequences as well as benefits.  The government however, cannot set different conditions for different parties and then call them equal.  Alternatively, it is up to the corporations to act responsibly for its employees, but some have given up on this prospect given the nature of corporate greed.  However, the most flexible approach seems to be along the lines of equal opportunity, which in theory for qualified candidates is business decision, not a government one. 

October 2, 2012

  • Romney's tax return, the rich and their investments

    http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-political-slant-marks-romney-tax-return-070444703--election.html

    Wednesday the first presidential debate will happen.  This post will not be about what the candidates will talk about.  I’ll write that after the debate happens.  No, this post is about Mitt Romney and the brew-ha-ha over his tax returns.  The most recent revelation has the democrats up in arms over his supposed machinations in order to get his paid tax in-line with a stated average 14% a year.  Romney did not take the full deductions possible for charitable giving, thus his effective tax rate came out to be 14%.    This tax of course is not more than is legally required because if he did, it would make him unfit to be president.  Or so Romney says.

    The interesting thing here is the extreme negativity that has resulted from his GIVING.  Who cares if he gave money without getting credit for it on a tax return?  I mean, if he used Turbo Tax he surely would have gotten a lower tax rate and that would mean he could lied about his effective tax rate.  Even if he gave money to charity, it was to the Latter Day Saints, so that doesn’t really count.  And he’s supposed to tithe 10% anyways, which he clearly hasn’t done that every year.  All this makes Romney a candidate who you can’t trust, etc. etc.

    *Sigh*  Oh the woes of being a rich man, Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.  One alternative has Romney painted as a miser who doesn’t pay his share of taxes, while the other crucifies him for manipulating his taxes so that he pays more.  All are possible of course because he is fabulously wealthy to begin with.  Quite different from our Jewish friend Tevye, who while acknowledging his poor status as nothing to be ashamed of, questions God on if some great cosmic plan would be destroyed had he a small fortune. 

    Well, there is no denying that Romney is rich.  Some question his amassing of his personal fortune, but suppose we give him the benefit of the doubt and that he acquired it legally.  He also gets most of his income from capital gains and dividend distributions which are “only” taxed at 15% through current Bush tax cuts.  Being a rich man, Romney has invested substantially in companies, and has reaped the rewards.  To the contrary, the poor man does not have such luxury.  There probably are probably other “loopholes” that allow Romney to gain more than his poorer brethren, but let’s be clear that taxes on capital gains and dividends are NOT loopholes.  It is current tax policy that affects everyone, even though disproportionately wealthy individuals can take advantage of paying only 15%.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/romney-earned-nearly-14-million-in-2011-paid-141-percent-tax-rate-campaign-says/2012/09/21/e62e5096-0417-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html

    Let’s ask a more basic question.  If you had the means of paying only 15% on your taxes would you do it?  Let’s ask another question.  If you didn’t have to “work” for money would you do it?  Let’s ask one more question.  If you could take as many deductions possible on your taxes so that you would get a lower tax rate with the greatest return, would you do it?  For the majority of people, my guess is yes to all those stated questions.  As the Capital One commercial suggests, who wouldn’t want more money for the simple choice of switching to Capital One?  Let your money do more work for you.  Isn’t that the financial advice we all get and we all support?  Isn’t that the reason why we invest in the market in the first place?  Sure, most of us do not have the resources to put large sums of money into the market, but then again I think most of do put money into the market in some form of financial planning.  Personally I invest in mutual funds, and invest through Sharebuilder.  I don’t have huge sums of money, but I save what I can and invest what I can. 

    Now, let’s be clear about something else.  I have not seen a single document that shows how much of the investment income Romney gained was used towards his personal living expenses.  Of course this is no extrapolation to what Romney does because who knows really, but what do I do with capital gains and dividend distributions?  I reinvest them!  I don’t see much if anything in terms of discretionary dollars that I use towards living expenses.  The point is that when I earmark something as investments, it is put toward the future, and at some point those investments are realized.  It’s what we all do with retirement accounts, just not taxed, and what Romney does with the caveat of being taxed.  Will I be a rich man when I retire?  Probably not, but I used the very same market forces to accumulate my personal wealth.

     

    Now, is something a loophole if everyone is bound to the same law or is something a loophole if there are ways to evade what should be common law?  One could interpret Romney as evading taxes since he pays no income tax, but this ignores the fact that there are separate taxes based on different classes of income, not income itself, and is one that is open to all people.  Now consider a tax policy that taxes the rich at double the rate for their capital gains and dividend distributions the than middle-class and poor.  A progressive tax rate you say?  Or is it a loophole, one perhaps even more egregious because it would allow different taxes based on different incomes and not the commonality of capital gains and dividend distributions?

    Finally, one cannot demonize a rich man simply for being rich.  Romney, for his faults (some that questions his presidential candidacy), cannot be faulted for giving nearly 30% of his income to charity, and he cannot be faulted for giving MORE to the government by not reporting the full amount of charitable deductions.  As far as I know, there is no legal requirement for you to take charitable deductions in the first place.  Furthermore, so what if gives most of it to a church?  One may raise the issue of not reaching 10% (Romney got to 7% this year and 12.5% the year before), but how many of those who go to church give 10% as well?  Since most appear to only give 2-3%, for you church goers, a certain parable should come to mind.  The problem is

    In the end, is it equitable to raise taxes on the rich so that you in the middle-class have better opportunity yourselves?  The answer may be yes, after all we already use a progressive tax system.  A differential tax based on capital gains for the rich however, doesn’t seem like a fair answer.  At the same time, income tax alone doesn’t seem like the answer either, but if we are to only use income tax, how far are we willing to go?  As far as they have proposed in France?

    http://news.yahoo.com/france-unveils-budget-heavy-taxes-124501335--finance.html