Archive for February, 2007

OK, so my DI column this week is not as confrontational as the title of this post. But it does tackle a sensitive subject: homophobia in the black community. My emphasis here is on homophobic black celebrities, whose comments can have a strong influence of millions of impressionable black youth, but it’s certainly a problem within the broader African American community as well.

Check it, and if you’re so inclined, wreck it.

Oh, and I spotted a comma error that was NOT in my original version. Just sayin’.

The Problem of Evil and My Theodicy

Many, Lally in particular, have brought up the problem of evil as a proof that God does not exist, or that at the least he is not omnibenevolent. The argument goes simply that if God exists then he would not allow people to suffer at the hands of evil.

How much greater is your appreciation of Spring and Summer because we have a dreary Winter? I would guess that us Midwestern folks appreciate our Springs and our Summers more than Floridians living under the constant warmth of the sun. What would Heaven be if humans never knew anything else? If humans never had to endure Earth, could they appreciate Heaven? Heaven without Earth is just Earth without Heaven.

The rich man’s son enjoys the bounties and the fruits of wealth while never knowing anything else, and so he grows lazy and spoiled and entitled and pathetic, because he does not appreciate his stake in life. But the beggar whose genius or luck thrusts him into wealth does appreciate it and is more likely to share it.

There is also a Biblical story of when Jesus healed the Blind Man of Bethsaida and his appreciation of sight far surpassed those who had always known it.

We would not understand or revere Heaven if we never knew suffering and evil.

Who will go to Heaven?

Pascal’s Wager is that “it is a better ‘bet’ to believe that God exists, because the expected value of believing that God exists is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Indeed, he claimed that the expected value is infinite.”

In other words, if you’re an atheist and you’re wrong, then you’re eternally screwed in the arse with a javelin pole, but the opportunity cost from belief in God is comparatively small if God does not exist. Pascal is wrong about this. If God is all knowing, wouldn’t he reject someone who accepted Pascal’s Wager and held a disingenuous belief in God? My guess is that God accepts good atheists and rejects bad believers. It is irrelevant to God that through family influence or random social circumstances that someone is atheist.

To go even further, if you had two people who were borderline candidates for Heaven, but one was an atheist and one was a theist, and both had lived precisely equal “good” lives, I think that God would send them both to the same place, in other words, Faith is not a “plus factor.” I also don’t think that the particular type of religion matters, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc, God likely does not care about the finer points of belief (I disagree entirely with Dante or with anything that resembles his construction).

What will Heaven look like?

Most people think that Heaven is eternal and thorough happiness. I’m uncertain of this. For Heaven to be eternal and thorough happiness it would have to be imposed on people in some manner. Perhaps God is capable of doing this, I’m not sure. But it seems to me that any belief or mental state which is imposed upon someone is not genuinely held by that person, and is therefore, not genuine happiness. I don’t think God will be force feeding us Soma. Instead, I see Heaven as everyone having access to an abundance of resources, access to the opportunities and avenues which lead toward happiness, but not imposed happiness itself. This view leaves open the possibility that humans will be in Heaven once they create sufficient abundance and limitless opportunity on Earth.

Sometimes when I think of Heaven, beyond seeing lost family and friends, I see Socrates lecturing to a countless and eager crowd, even Jefferson is in attendance. The colors around me are pastel but the floor is white, they are probably firm clouds. Socrates gets up on a platform and his voice echoes and waves through the hall. He sends his ideas out to us as unassuming blue butterflies which gently land in our ears and sneak inside our minds, but we are happy to let him do so. Socrates is philosophy’s vibrant adolescence, before it was drugged and beaten by metaphysics and epistemology. His youth endures in Heaven and it endures in us.

Does Heaven exist?

For people to just disappear…I don’t understand that concept. My Grandpas, my Grandma, Gary, Fred, everyone else…they are too alive to die, they are here, they are with me, I can feel them.

For people just to die. No. Things don’t work that way.

Listen to Bruce Springsteen’s “Reason to Believe“

My general antipathy to all things hyper-masculine has made me skeptical of the new darling of the Democratic Party, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Don’t get me wrong, I’m delighted he won and, by ousting incumbent Senator George “Macaca” Allen, gave the Democrats a one-seat majority in the Senate. It’s just that when Democrats start celebrating “tough” and “macho” new Senators like Webb or Montana Senator Jon Tester, I get a little nervous. Call it bigneckaphobia.

Senator Webb, however, has been far exceeding my lowered expectations for him. It started with the firm, understated speech he delivered as the Democratic response to President Bush’s State of the Union address. Now it is his simple insistence on receiving an answer to a question.

A month ago, Webb asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice if the Bush administration holds the position that it has the power to take military action against Iran in the absence of both a direct threat and Congressional approval. Rice declined to answer, saying, “I’m really loathe to get into questions of the president’s authorities without a rather more clear understanding of what we are actually talking about. So let me answer you, in fact, in writing. I think that would be the best thing to do.”

A month later, Webb is still waiting for an answer. And he is still demanding one. From his speech on the Senate floor late yesterday:

The Administration’s view of its presidential authority to conduct unilateral military action against other countries, and particularly with Iran, was documented in President Bush’s signing statement accompanying the original authorization for use of force in Iraq October 16, 2002. I would urge my colleagues to read this language carefully. It states in part, “My signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President’s constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests…”

I have raised this language with Secretary of State Rice, as well as Deputy Secretary Negroponte. My question was whether the Administration believes that it possesses the authority to conduct unilateral military activity against Iran in the absence of a direct threat and without the approval of the Congress. I have not received a clear answer from either on that point. And that is troubling.

Yes, it is. Regardless of your views on the war in Iraq (and mine were largely positive), this administration’s attitude toward its unchecked military authority is grounds for concern.

Webb is demonstrating both leadership and intellect here. How the Bush administration can let this question go unanswered, and how the media can let this story go untold, is baffling and saddening and alarming. This is a time for dogged persistence on the part of both the media and the Democratic Party (and, one would hope, the entire Congress). Webb is doing his part. It’s time for others to step up to the plate.

Monteith adds: On the subject of Senator Webb, I engaged in a point-counterpoint in the DI with columnist Eric Naing on the subject of whether Webb would be a good choice for the Democrats’ Vice Presidential nominee in 2008. Naing argues against his nomination here, I counter here.

In the sidebar you’ll notice a new link under the “University of Illinois Thinktank” section called “DI Opinions Blog.” I, along with recent additions to Urbanagora Jon Monteith and Lally Gartel, will be among the contributors to this new blog, along with the rest of the Daily Illini opinions staff. It will definitely be worth looking at. I’m not exactly sure how I’m going to divide my posts between here and there, but when I have something to post I’ll probably just do it at whichever one needs a new post more. Just a heads up. Go check it out.

A Lottery is a Taxation,
Upon all the Fools in Creation;
And Heav’n be prais’d,
It is easily rais’d,
Credulity’s always in Fashion;
For, Folly’s a Fund,
Will never lose Ground;
While Fools are so rife in the Nation
– Henry Fielding, 1732

There is a legend about a devout Christian man who prayed to the Lord to let him win the lottery. His prayer continued through years of blue collar labor until the man grew old and weary. Finally, on his death bed, after decades of praying to win the lotto, the man cries out “Lord, I’ve been your humble servant my entire life and I’ve only ever asked you for one thing, why have you forsaken me.” Suddenly, a blinding light shines down from the heavens, God sighs and says in a thundering voice “you know, you could buy a ticket!”

I will freely admit that I have played the lotto a few times. This was caused by an irrational belief in fate, not an irrational belief that playing the lottery is a good idea. I played the long odds that I was meant to win the lottery. It wasn’t in the stars.

Lotteries can be traced back to the Han Dynasty (~200 B.C.). While it may seem like the government recently stole the whole concept of the lottery from organized crime, a lottery actually helped fund the American Revolution.

Many critics call the lottery a “regressive tax” because a disproportionate amount of the revenue generated comes from the poor. It’s funnier, and probably even more true, to call it a “stupid tax.” If you must gamble, you’d have to look hard to find worse odds. Of course it isn’t a tax at all – playing the lottery is voluntary. I would call the lottery a failure of government to justify its policy prerogatives.

A lottery is a mechanism for raising revenue without directly raising taxes. In some states, a lottery provides a mechanism to support programs that the public couldn’t otherwise be convinced to support. In others, it’s a shell game. Lotteries are used to fund programs with broad public support so the funds that should be supporting those programs can be shifted to projects that are not public priorities. The latter is the case in Illinois.

In Illinois our schools are our justification for our lottery. Because the wealthy and the powerful want their kids to learn in palaces, we fund our schools at the local level through property taxes so they can keep revenues local.

Instead of honoring the Illinois Constitution which says the state has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education, we insist on keeping the funding local. Instead of insisting that students across Illinois have a roughly equal educational experience, the powerful are protected and the poor are given lottery based school funding. The result: Illinois has one of the nation’s largest gaps, in both funding and achievement, between rich and poor public schools.
Governor Blagojevich, looking for another short term fix that will pass our states fiscal problems on to future administrations, wants desperately to sell or lease the Illinois lottery system for a short term pool of cash to balance the budget. This will lead to a smaller percentage of revenues going to fund state programs and likely an overall expansion of Illinois lottery operations. While this could fill a short term budget hole, the policy is a disaster, and a poor substitute for either further cutting spending or modestly increasing taxes.

If I were dictator of the world, I would abolish the lottery. Instead, I’ll make one modest reform proposal. If you take a short drive across Champaign to the other side of Bradley, and interview those who buy lotto tickets $20 at a time, you would likely find many welfare recipients in that $20 dollar club. I’ve met more than a few in my own blue-collar central Illinois town. It is particularly troubling when public funds are gambled/recommitted into lottery system. While I generally oppose tracking technology, I propose creating a state lottery registration card. Everyone who wants to play the Illinois lottery could be issued a card, and those receiving public benefits like food stamps, welfare, or social security disability payments, would have a cap on the amount per month they are permitted to spend on lottery tickets. This could also help curtail counterfeiting and ticket theft. I realize some will likely argue it is protecting people from themselves, but it’s also protecting public funds.

I look forward to your thoughts on this proposal.