A Moral Question

To some extent, it seems we choose what we like. This isn't always the case, as we all have some guilty pleasures that we just can't resist indulging in once in a while.
However, it is true that our surroundings and ourselves greatly influence what we enjoy. I, for example, don't like any sports except hockey. And I think this has little to do with how I was at birth or that hockey and I were meant for each other or something like that. It is because I was raised in northern Wisconsin, where hockey is like little league, and I played it for 10 years. I associate fond memories of going to see the North Stars and winning hockey tournaments.
And in my adult life, we seem to have some control over what we like as well. I convinced myself to like coffee, for example, and to enjoy going to plays and music recitals. And its not really like I am lying to myself, because I actually do now enjoy those things, when there was a point when I consciously decided to enjoy them. Maybe it could be argued that the enjoyment was always there, but was only 'latent'. (Well shut the hell up, Freud.)
So what does this have to do with a moral question?
My question is, ought we, as much as is in our own power, decide to enjoy hobbies that are ethical? To some extent we do this, for example when you recycle and you get that warm feeling inside like you are 'making a difference'.
But I am talking about a more radical version of this--for example--let's say I am considering taking up a hobby, because I have some free time. Could someone be morally faulted (though probably very slightly) for taking up photography, which uses all kinds of toxic chemicals and is in some respects wasteful, over organic gardening?
Now if someone has a passion for photography, that is a little different--as I said, certain pleasures we cannot choose, and we can't feel bad about that. But I am talking about someone who is, as of now, neutral as to which hobby to choose. Is it even slightly obligatory for a person to consider ethical factors when choosing something like a hobby?
Truthfully, this is probably not a very relevant question, because very seldom is there an 'all things being equal' about pleasures. But I ask because it has come up in my life a couple times, and I didn't know if contemplating the minute ethical differences was really worth it.

High Quality Humans

I have just returned from Cleveland, where a lovely apartment was leased for Emily, Felicia, and myself. You can ask them for details.
Cleveland is a great place, from what I can tell. I stereotyped it as a large city with mean people--driven to even more extremes of negative actions by the huge poverty level of the city. But we didn't run into any of that, really. Granted, we were mostly in a suburb known as Lakewood. However, the overall experience left me with a warm general feeling towards humankind. First, we wandered around a very run down neighborhood that both my parents wouldn't even drive through. But no problems--someone did yell out a car window a racist remark, but I think it was more of hitting on the girls than anything else. We walked around for a couple hours trying to find a decent place--the sidewalks were covered in dirt, and there were no businesses that remained, well, in business. It was all just shit. Barely any people around, even. As we finally found a subway station, a man started talking to us. He explained to us more about the transit system than we wanted to know, even missed his train because he was showing us all the routes and explaining why its cheaper to get a 7 day pass. He told us to watch out for people, and stay off crack. He asked nothing in return. He was just a nice guy that took time out of his day to help strangers, even strangers of a different race (which, as he explained, would have been sacreligious in Cleveland 20 years ago).

And the first woman who showed us an apartment took us to a nearby park and explained that this park was all around Cleveland, so no matter where we lived we would be near it.

And the woman who we are renting from, Linda, made a special trip on Thursday night to get our credit checked out before we left this morning--she said she wanted to maker sure it all got taken care of before we left Cleveland.

So I guess the lesson I learned, is don't misjudge people. They can be nice for the sake of being nice.

I kind of have a theory that paranoia and distrust are the beginnings of selfishness and deceit in people. That is why is seems to me so important to keep a positive idea of human nature.

More of this politics shit

(Well, no one responded to my non-political post, so I am just going to assume I can post whatever I want...)

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• A mixed economy, consisting mainly of private enterprise but with government owned or subsidised programs of education, healthcare, child care etc for all citizens.
  
• Regulatory systems over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
• Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.<
• An extensive system of social security (though usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
• Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure.
• Environmental protection laws such as combating global warming and increasing alternative energy funding.
• Immigration and multiculturalism.
• A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Most social democrats support gay marriage, abortion rights and a liberal drug policy, while others are either non-committed or opposed to these policies.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
• As well as human rights, social democrats also support social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.
• From Wikipedia
  

Goodbye Music, Hello Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

So...the band that I am in went to Des Moines this weekend and recorded 12 songs for what hopefully will become an album. I don't really know what will come of it...maybe we will make 10 copies, and maybe 100. Its not really important.
I'd like to take a survey. I want to know the reasons why people play in bands. To me, it has always been to write and play music that I loved. To create. This seems innocent, and obviously true.
But if this is so clear, why do people whom I talk to focus so much on fame and fortune? The band I am in could never get famous...we go against the principles of fame. We aren't catchy, we have very few 'hooks', we aren't very pleasant on the ears. The conclusion to most laypeople would be that we suck--we aren't good enough to sound like a band you would hear on the radio. We CAN'T write hooks, we CAN'T put together verse-chorus-verse songs. We CAN'T be pretty. But this assumes that our ultimate goal, our ultimate desired end is fame or money.
To be sure, this isn't just 'laypeople', and I'm not just insulting you for not 'getting it'. Because there are a million bands out there that are the same way. Believe me! I have heard the words "Listen, if any label is going to take a second glance at us we are going to need a few singles!" spoken without a hint of sarcasm. Now my band is breaking up, as I am moving to Cleveland in the fall. And to certain bands this may seem like a failure. We never got off the ground. Hell, we didn't even have a MySpace account! That is just poor marketing.
But to me, we have succeeded. We will have a recording of all of our work, and damn them if they can't enjoy music for music's sake. I don't know. Am I alone here? Sometimes I think I might be, when my own close-knit group of musicians has a traitor in its roost.

In summary, I don't care that I won't get famous. When art stops being done for art's sake, I question whether it is even art anymore.

I think I am becoming...a pundit....

Not like a opinion leader or anything of that sort, because...well I haven't known many people who take my advice or hold my viewpoints. But I am just politics obsessed lately. Its pretty disgusting.

Anyway, stumbled across this great site yesterday--- WorldPublicOpinion.org
They gather surveys worldwide about stuff and bring it all together. Want to know how Muslims feel about Americans? ...we all know the world doesn't feel too greatly about America, but how does the world feel about the EU?
Polls are interesting because they are another outlet for democracy. And it is amazing how much polls can vary from the politicians that poll-takers voted in.
A couple of interesting things I've stumbled across so far:
Most Americans support the UN, and want it helped along to become a relevant international player. This is interesting, possibly only to me, because conservatives tend to be against the UN on the grounds that they don't get anything accomplished. But to me, this isn't a reason to abolish the UN, or quit funding it, but to improve it. Some people seem convinced that you can't fix what is broken, but it seems ridiculous to disband an international community of rational people because they haven't gotten a lot done lately.

How about this...Muslims overwhelmingly think the US is trying to divide and weaken Islam!

Ok...I can't even begin to respond to that. Obviously some policies need to be changed somewhere, if we are alienating not just a few radicals but the entire international Muslim community. Has Bush seen this poll?

And then, of course my favorite...the one which I argued with my own mother about.
Iraqis want Americans out.
Now we aren't in Iraq for WMDs. We are arguably not in Iraq for Al-Qaeda...I say arguably because even though no links between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda have been proven, it could still be said that Sadaam let them hang out in the country...they are both Sunni. But that is a questionable link. So the official government argument is that we are in Iraq to promote democracy in the Middle East.
But let's stop right there.
Is U.S.A. really always pro-democracy, or are they pro-democracy when democracy happens to be a good thing for the U.S.? Case in point: The 2006 Palestinian election. Hamas comes in and wins a democratic election, as far as everyone knows fairly, and aid is withdrawn left and right. I understand Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. I understand they are seen as a terrorist organization. But ok, I guess we don't support democracy in all circumstances. Am I speaking too radically if I say you have to accept politicians you vehemently disagree with to win elections?
Now, back from that tangent, let's look at this poll, example number 2 of why the U.S. isn't really pro-democracy all the time. Iraqis want Americans out. 80%. So there you go. There is democracy. read the article, I won't waste my time repeating it.
My point is, and this is coming off of the top of my head, if you are going to support democracy, support it all the time, even when you disagree with how it turns out. Not doing so is just as bad as those liberals (Yeah, thats right, I'm attacking my own crowd) that are pro free speech until something sexist comes out of someone's mouth.

And finally, I Like Al-Jazeera. I think what they do is wonderful. But more on that next time....

One reason why I hate MySpace

Is MySpace really a 'place for friends'? Or is it just a place for SPAM?

Here is an e-mail our band account somehow received:

From : Sent : Monday, May 14, 2007 3:02 PM To : Subject : Get fans on myspace

| | | Inbox

Hey there,

If you were wondering how all those bands get a lot of fans on myspace,
well here it is.

They're using this program to add friends, promote shows, post comments
etc. It works great for venues,00

promoters, bands, DJ's. Check it out - you'll be a star in no time!

http://www.friendadder.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=348

Cheers,
John

endquote

Social networking is a euphemism for 'using other people for personal gain'.

Gay Marriage

Emily and I finished Angels in America by Tony Kushner last night. It is a brilliant piece of art, 6 hours long but all worth it (I would suggest dividing it up into 2 or 3 nights however).
Anyway, it reminded me also I wanted to post something about gay marriage.

Chances are most people who read my blog are pro-gay marriage, so this might be like preaching to the choir. But that aside, let me explain why I think gay marriage should be legal:
A lot of Christians think homosexuality is a sin. That seems to be the argument behind why gay marriage should remain illegal. And most gay rights activists respond to this strangely--they try to argue that it is not a sin, or immoral, or something along those lines. Well, I do personally think the bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin, but whether or not this is true is really all beside the point. See in the wonderful nation of U.S.A, we have a policy called "separation of church and state". This means that even if God came down to Earth and clarified that homosexuality IS a sin, it would theoretically mean nothing to the government. Biblical scholars may unanimously shout out that homosexuality is a sin (which they don't), but none of that is important. Because the government has no business in putting ethics into law. There is no good argument I have ever heard against gay marriage. If it is immoral, so be it. Immoral is not a sufficient reason to make something illegal, especially when it does no damage to others. If the churches don't want to marry homosexuals, that is certainly up to them.
Oh yeah, I guess there is the 'sacred bond between a man an a woman' response. But this is either based on church teachings (which makes it irrelevant), or just plain false. What is sacred about arranged marriages between old men and 13 year olds? Should we go back to those days simply because of 'tradition'?

Now this is where most people will probably lose me...but what business does the government have in marriage anyway? It shouldn't be part of the public sphere if you ask me. Marriage should be between the church and people. --what about the tax breaks and stuff? Well, either get rid of those, or give it to everyone, or something else. I'm not sure what motivation the government has anymore in wanting people to get married anyway. That is just another moment of legislating morals.
Privatize marriage...now thats a true libertarian idea....

Capitalism and Christianity

At some point in my life, I would like to study this more in depth, but alas, I know little about the bible. I only have one class by Jay Holstein under my belt. And who knows what to trust with a post-modern interpreter like Holstein?
But I will say this...I do not understand how true Christians can support capitalism. Or at least free market economics. I have heard many Republicans say things like "America is a country based off of Christian ideals" --listen, I understand that to Christians every man was created equal, but I'm just not sure how far the Christian influence extends beyond that. I know our founders were Christian, but if Fred Phelps is right about one thing, it might be that the U.S.A. is not a Christian state (God, please don't let Fred Phelps be right about anything else).
Ok, I can see it coming from a mile away. "What?! Are you saying Jesus was a Communist? Communists are a Godless people. They are a violent people. They hate individual rights. Jesus wasn't like that at all!"
You may cite two pieces of evidence.
#1 - Marx called religion the 'opiate of the masses', and pretty much wanted to abolish religion, because it took away power from the state.
#2 - Luke 20:25 "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." --Jesus Christ

First I shall address these criticisms, and then I will show you my positive evidence for my case.
#1 - Ok, so Marx hated religion. And so does Castro. But people are so quick to make a giant logical leap from communism to capitalism. Alright, obviously Jesus wouldn't like throwing away religion. But does this really mean he would throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject communism? I mean, communist theory has been revised quite a bit...but it is still communism. Or, maybe its called socialism. But the point is, to me it seems like Jesus would love some kind of reformed communist state in which the government ensured citizens weren't starving, homeless, or jobless. Don't call it communism, but don't tell me that its libertarian, laissez-faire capitalism.

#2 - Read the context! Jesus can be interpreted here as either a) Keeping good with the Romans (he is talking to spies), or b) Giving the lesson that even Christians need to pay taxes and follow laws according to their political leaders. Alright, so Jesus would not like the idea of a revolution against the government. Obviously! He hates violence. He promotes love above all, 'love thy enemies'. Sidepoint--Marx was not for armed rebellion. He theorized that communism would gradually take over as a natural result from capitalism's flaws....oh wait...social security...medicare...public utilities...FEMA...Oh my God, Marx was right? Its hard to believe how brilliant Marx was, considering how much hatred people have for him. Maybe they saw Rocky IV too many times? Read the Communist Manifesto if you don't believe me. Everything Marx predicted has begun to come true, though not at the pace he predicted.
The only thing Marx got wrong (that I can think of now, it having been a couple years since I read the Manifesto) was his failure to predict labor unions.

So, I have shown two objections to be mostly unfounded. What is my evidence for Jesus as communist?


Book of Acts
32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ³³With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. ³⁵They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. ³⁶There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement"). ³⁷He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Have you ever read any stronger red propaganda than this paragraph in your life? The U.S.S.R must have something to do with this!

Ok, so maybe a system like the one above wouldn't work. I don't know...maybe it would. I am a socialist, so I think a system sort of like this would work. I have an idea in my head. But I am not saying this system would work. I am saying that if you truly are a Christian, than shouldn't this begin to shape your political views on the economy? Can you really be more than a Fairweather Christian if you vote Republican? I am not sure...I guess socially the republicans are closer in line with Christian ideals, so its sort of a toss up. But my point is that I don't understand Christians. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Christianity or Christians. But I don't know why so many people call themselves Christians, but only believe the parts of the bible that fit in with how they want to live. What makes people be able to pick and choose what holy scripture is really holy?
I just don't understand how we can be 85% Christian in the U.S., with all these greedy filthy rich business people running around trying to figure out how they can get more money, when things like "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25) are in the bible.

I know its easy to rip a religion apart when you are agnostic, but feel free to respond and terrorize my cloudy reasoning process.