I'm still alive.

K mentioned last week how I feel very responsible for others. This is a good observation, and I've decided it's because deep down I think I'm smarter than them. This is how I try to rationalize my pride - by saying the outlet of feeling responsible is a good one.


It got me thinking about the best ways to remain dumb in life. I've come up with a few, but only 1 important one.

1. Only listen to people you agree with. I remember at Caltech (liberal central) there are many people who can't even stand to listen to conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. I'll go on record to say this is absolutley horrid. Grow a pair. Such insecurity, such dogmatic thinking, such closed-mindedness where one is simply incapable of listening to someone they disagree with. People like that are the reason for the anti-intellectual church. As an intellectual you should be listening to people you disagree with more than people you agree with. This means as conservative Christians we should be listening to Keith Olberman and Chris Hitchens, not shying away from them. After all, as intellectual Christians we have at least some handle on the arguments for our faith, so where is the threat? And as conservative intellectuals we have some handle on the reasons for our conservativism - how else can we grow?

2. Don't read, 3. Don't attend lectures or talk to people about anything of consequence, and other things that aren't that important - I was mostly thinking of talk radio.

Reading

My New Year’s resolution was to finish 15 books this year. In short, I want to be smart and smart people read. I remember talking to my mom once about how smart the Matthews were, and she simply said “they read.” It’s nice to go through times of little reading and more thinking as this last year, although on the whole reading is integral.

There was an article in the WSJ a few months ago by Karl Rove of the reading competition between himself and President Bush. Rove won all three years but the number of books they read was massive: from ~70 to over 100. I’m not in love with President Bush but my opinion of him went way up after reading this. Granted, this means time taken away from news, media, and other things which are also important. However, on the whole I respect readers’ opinions more than nonreaders. I want to be a reader.

Federalism

So it's been a couple months since my last post. Sorry. Women have that effect of causing the mind to stray from what is most important in life.

I have been watching the HBO television series John Adams and thinking about this financial crisis (and living in California) has made me think about the role of the federal government vs. state government. There was an article in the WSJ a few months ago written by two governors about how our country has become all about the federal government with the state government having less responsibility. For example, all talk about bailout comes from the federal government, even bailouts for states. We have become a federalist government in this time of crisis.

I wonder if that is the best strategy. I remember this discussion coming up in “John Adams” where Adams is talking about the federal government taking over the debt of the states to develop federal credit. This caused them to be called “federalists” – in essence they believed in a very strong central government (as opposed to “republicans”). Also, California’s budget impasse has just caused their credit rating by S&P to drop to the lowest of any state and there is talk of the federal government loaning California some money (preferably at a low interest rate).

A part of me wants California’s budget problem to stay with California. I think there’s a lesson to be learned in fiscal responsibility for California to deal with this themselves, although that lesson is diminished because of the severity of the crisis. Also, I guess I see this as their responsibility so the default is they should figure it out themselves (it seems weird that New Yorkers should bailout Californians). Lastly, I have some emotional aversion to the federal government being so powerful, the “big brother” ready to bailout the states or help when needed. I simply like the idea of more independent states when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Now, this is not to say that the government shouldn’t give the states financial assistance; I’m simply wondering the extent of that assistance. I have no idea how California is going to get out of its budget crisis. I suspect tax increases and spending decreases are required, although it’s so interesting how there is so little compromise on either end, especially the Republicans. The ASSembly needs only 2-3 Republican votes to get the budget passed but the Republicans took a “no new taxes” pledge. One rep from ~Pasadena area rescinded and he’s taking massive heat for it. Ordinarily I would prefer almost all the changes to come from spending decreases, but in the California political climate and the urgency of the need I feel both are required. You can call me a lib if you want.

Posting

One more note: I really do enjoy the written dialogue from this blog so I encourage people to post. This is fun and helpful to everyone also but my motivation is mostly selfish. I am more of a thinker and sometimes I run out of things to think about. I especially love posts from those who think differently than me. I have heard some are intimidated or fearful, but....just don't be. We are all human and realize some of our positions are undoubtedly wrong. The more areas we have opinions on the more likely we are going to be wrong on something.
This is a viewpoint I innately hold and try to encourage. I don't take the adversarial approach to argumentation but think of discussion as two people trying to come the truth together (like Plato). It's hard for me to interact with those who take the other approach - I don't understand the advantage and I am not that way. And it's weird to me that almost everyone takes the adversarial approach - I believe this is a effect of ignorance. I know enough to say I don't know - such confidence encourages the communal approach to discussion but most people don't know this much.

Homosexual Marriage

SoCal had Prop 8 pass last week (~52.5%) that made a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Here are my reasons for and against gay marriage as state law
Against
1. Homosexuality is immoral. Morality does not determine law but does affect it. As in, we don't allow parents to beat their children not just because it's bad for society but because it's wrong. The trick is determining which moral to legislate.
2. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. This has been always been the definition, so it should be the default. It seems there should be a reason to stray away from the norm.
3. I'd rather live in a moral than immoral society. This stems from homosexuality as wrong, and given a choice I'd rather society encourage morality.
4. It devalues marriage. Allowing a more liberal/inclusive view of marriage cheapens or diminishes the traditional marriage.

For
1. It's not the state's roll to regulate a traditionally church-related institution. The state should take the position of most freedom and allow individuals the freedom to determine marriage as they see fit. Also, since this is such a religious view the state should be very careful about intervening in church affairs. Separation of church and state is good.

Incidentally, I don't see this as a discrimination issue as it is often postulated but a definition of marriage issue. It would be discrimination if we were not allowing gays to practice or allow people to hire based on sexual orientation. Those are already allowed; the issue is what does marriage mean? We have already allowed so much liberty in terms of homosexuality that I feel it is established by the state that homosexuality is ok; this is a little piece at the end of a long line of homosexual liberty.

Temptation

There is a paragraph in Lewis' Screwtape Letters where the older demon tells the younger demon to convince his person that chastity is unnatural and the only way to make temptation go away is to give in to it (this belief is called "our best weapon"). This is absolutely true - one of the great lies of the devil that I constantly consider and it actually helps me deal with temptation, not just sexual as was inferred. When I want to say or eat something bad I think of how my desire would go away if I just did it.

This great lie is believed by many atheists and half-ass Christians as well in the realm of sex. They see supressing sexual desires outside of marriage as unnatural. The desires will only get stronger and eventually come out as something more perverse than simply giving in immediately. Sometimes it is thought of as impossible to preserve sex for marriage as the desires will become too powerful. What an ingenious lie - take some truth and twist it so maliciously. Again, the preversion of the best is the worst. Note any reference to Scripture is forgotten and one attempts to create morality with pure reason from one's own head. As with any such attempt, common sense is also forgotten and while one has confidence that they were reasoned into such a belief they actually forsook the real world in favor of the idealized reasonable world.

Self-awareness

I have also started to think of how much I value self-awareness. For instance, knowing the type of person you are and also the type of people your friends/family are. This helps with relations and in moderating expectations, but I value it highly not because of its efficacy but simply as an attribute. This attribute is actually fairly easy to determine in someone, especially by their humor. Sarcastic comments require a more intimate knowledge of people and situations and thus I tend to gravitate toward sarcastic and witty people and view them as smarter. I love the quote in V for Vendetta (which everyone should join me in watching Nov 5): "Is everything a joke to you?" "Only the things that matter." As a side note, self-awareness becomes markedly easier with age.

It's interesting to note too that who you feel intimidated by has the attributes you value. For instance, I am not intimidated by Caltech professors even though they have so much science knowledge and experience. However, I am intimidated by a successful businessman because he has the self-awareness and business savvy that I value. This is a problem in my field since I only care what my professors think of science; in other areas they are as smart as Joe the Plumber. And they definitely are not self-aware or think of how to encourage a productive work environment; this is of course weird to me since I think of those things a lot. I have to actualy consciously remind myself that these people are smart but they just don't have the attributes I value.