axaday

Thursday, July 17, 2008

More Marcus Aurelius

Everywhere and all the time it is up to you to honour god in contentment with your present circumstance, to treat the men who are your present company with justice, and to lavish thought on every present impression in your mind, so that nothing slips in past your understanding.

The gods, who are free from death, do not resent their need thoughout all the length of eternity to tolerate in such numbers such worthless creatures as men: what is more, they even care for them in all sorts of ways. And do you, with the merest time before you own exit, refuse to make the effort--and that when you are one of the worthless creatures yourself?

Friday, May 16, 2008

More Marcus Aurelius

They cannot admire you for intellect. Granted--but there are many other qualities of which you cannot say, "but that is not the way I am made". So display those virtues which are wholly in your power--integrity, dignity, hard work, self-denial, contentment, frugality, kindness, independence, simplicity, discretion, magnanimity. Do you not see how many virtues you can already display without any excuse of lack of talent or aptitude? And yet you are still content to lag behind. Or does the fact that you have no inborn talent oblige you to grumble, to scrimp, to toady, to blame your poor body, to suck up, to brag, to have your mind in such turmoil? No, by heaven, it does not! You could have got rid of all this long ago, and only be charged--if charge there is--with being rather slow and dull of comprehension. And yet even this can be worked on--unless you ignore or welcome your stupidity.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Marcus Aurelius' Meditations

A while back when I saw Gladiator for the first time and was trying to find out how historically accurate it might be, I learned that the old Emperor in the movie wrote a book. I bought the book, but was slow in getting around to reading it. I'm reading it now and it actually has some nice gems in it. Some because the advice is good, some because it is just kind of amazing that the same things go on now that did in 190 AD.

The book is a collection of short ideas that Marcus Aurelius wrote down. Some a couple of sentences, few longer than half a page. And one has little to do with the next. It serves as a good pickup book that you can read for 5 minutes and put down. Some are boring, but there are some really nice ones and the whole book isn't all that long. It is worth reading to anyone interested in Philosophy. Bear in mind that the writer is the Roman Emperor, the most powerful man in the world.

Here are some clips for those interested:

[What I learned] From Alexander the Platonist: rarely, and never without essential cause, to say or write to anyone that 'I am too busy'; nor to use a similar excuse, advancing 'pressure of circumstances', in constant avoidance of the proprieties inherent in our relations to our fellows and contemporaries.

[I am thankful] That I came under a ruler and a father who was to strip me of all conceit and bring me to realize that it is possible to live in a palace without feeling the need for bodyguards or fancy uniforms, candelabra, statues, or the other trappings of suchlike pomp, but that one can reduce oneself very close to the station of a private citizen and not thereby lose any dignity or vigour in the conduct of a ruler's responsibility for the common good....That whenever I wanted to help someone in poverty or some other need I was never told that there was no source of affordable money: and that I myself never fell into similar want of financial assistance from another.

Say to yourself first thing in the morning: today I shall meet people who are meddling, ungrateful, aggressive, treacherous, malicious, unsocial. All this has afflicted them through their ignorance of true good and evil. But I have seen that the nature of good is what is right, and the nature of evil what is wrong; and I have reflected that the nature of the offender himself is akin to my own - not a kinship of blood or seed, but a sharing in the same mind, the same fragment of divinity. Therefore I cannot be harmed by any of them, as none will infect me with their wrong. Nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him. We were born for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. So to work in opposition to one another is against nature: and anger or rejection is opposition.

Even if you were destined to live three thousand years, or ten times that long, nevertheless remember that no one loses any life other than the one he lives, or lives any life other than the one he loses. It follows that the longest and the shortest lives are brought to the same state. The present moment is equal for all; so what is passing is equal also; the loss therefore turns ou to be the merest fragment of time. No one can lose either the past of the future--how could anyone be deprived of what he does not possess? So always remember these two things. First, that all things have been of the same kind from everlasting, coming round and round again, and it makes no difference whether one will see the same things for a hundred years, or two hundred years, or for an infinity of time. Second, that both the longest-lived and the earliest to die suffer the same loss. It is only the present moment of which either stands to be deprived; and if indeed this is all he has, he cannot lose what he does not have.

Hippocrates cured many diseases then died of disease himself. The Chaldean astrologers foretold the deaths of many people, then their own fated day claimed them. Alexander, Pompey, Julius Caesar annihilated whole cities time after time, and slaughtered tens of thousands of horse and foot in the field of battle, and yet the moment came for them too to depart this life. Heraclitus speculated long on the conflagration of the universe, but the water of dropsy filled his guts and he died caked in a poultice of cow-dung. Vermin were the death of Democritus, [b]and vermin of another sort killed Socrates[/b]. What of it, then? You embarked, you set sail, you made port. Go ashore now. If it is to another life, nothing is empty of the gods, even on that shore; and if to insensibility, you will cease to suffer pains and pleasures, no longer in thrall to a bodily vessel which is a master as far inferior as its servant is superior. One is mind and divinity; the other a clay of dust and blood.

Friday, January 25, 2008

The 21st Time

I just heard this song on my way home from work. Overall the message is a good one and it is a cleverly written song. But there is just one part where I really go, "Hmm...Not sure that's what Jesus meant."

The Twenty-First Time Lyrics Monk & Neagle

Nowhere to live, nowhere to fall
He used to have money, but he’s wasted it all.
His face is a photograph burned in my mind,
but I pretend not to see him for the twenty-first time

He sleeps under stars, that’s all he can afford
His blanket’s an old coat he’s had since the war
He stands on the corner of Carter and Vine
But I pretend not to see him for the twenty-first time
He may be a
drifter, he’s grown old and gray
But what if he’s Jesus and I walk away?

I say I’m the body and drink of the wine
but I pretend not to see him for the twenty-first time
She’s twenty-nine
but she feels forty-eight
She can’t raise three kids on minimum wage
She’s cryin’ in back of the welfare line
but I pretend not to see her for the twenty-first time

She may be a stranger tryin’ to get through the day
but what if it’s Jesus and I walk away?

I say I’m the body and drink of the wine
but I pretend not to see her for the twenty-first time
This is a call
for a change in my heart
I realize that I’ve not been doin’ my part
when I needed a Savior, I found it in Him
He gave to me, now I’ll give back to them
Drifter or stranger, father or
son
I’ll look for Jesus in every one’cause I am the body and drink of the
wine
and I’m thankful there’s more than the twenty-first time

Monday, January 07, 2008

It is kind of funny to me the way Huckabee wants to make such an important distinction between his and Romney's religion. He's right that there is a lot of difference between Southern Baptist and Mormon, theologically, but the way he brought it up makes me lean more toward Romney, given the choice between the two. And that seems pretty ironic to me, given that I am a Southern Baptist myself.

But I'd like to ask Huckabee why people should be afraid of Romney's Mormonism. Granted, there IS a theological rift between Mormons and most of the rest of Christianity, but theology isn't the issue here. Christians don't vote for Christians because they want someone in office whose theology is just like their own. If they did, Baptists would only vote for Baptists and Catholics would only vote for Catholics and Pentacostals would only vote for Pentacostals. Christians vote for Christians because they want someone whose policies would reflect their values and philosophy.

How do Huckabee and Romney differ on values and philosophy? They are both against abortion. They are both against federal funding of stem cell research. They both want abstinence taught in sex ed. They are both against gay marriage and civil unions. They both support the war in Iraq. They both support the death penalty. Their positions on evolution/creationism are slightly different (Romney says God created the world and controlled evolution; Huckabee says God created the world and he doesn't know if evolution was involved) but not remarkably different. .... .... Am I forgetting something? Are there any issues left where one might be expected to pursue opposite policies because of their religion? To the best I can tell the essential differences between Huckabee and Romney are gun control and immigration and I don't think either is because Romney is a Mormon.

There are some issues there in the mix where I disagree with Romney. So it is just too bad for Huckabee that he agrees with Romney so much.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

What are the cages for?

-Justice? This is the easy answer. It's what everyone says. But what does it mean? It is ill-defined. In my opinion, the proper definition of justice is in atonement, but when I hear the word said, it usually sounds to me like they are talking about revenge. "I just want to see justice done!" I don't think justice is something that we should want to see done. Yes, it must be done and we know it. But it should at least make us a bit sad to SEE it done.

-Atonement? They are in there to be punished. But what does that mean? I think the clearest way to understand this is to say that when a wrong is done, it must be somehow made up for. Things must be set right. Can a person ever atone for one of our great felonies like murder or rape? Does being executed a person in any way make up for what they did? It doesn't undo the wrong. I hope this isn't the goal, because it is an unattainable one. God is equipped to handle this issue, but men are not.

-Rehabilitation? We say that our parents punished us when we did wrong as children, but we don't really mean atonement. What they were trying to do was rehabilitate us. (At least ideally. Some parents do it for revenge.) There are programs out there that work, but if this is our goal we have done very poorly on the whole. It often seems like few prisons give it an honest effort, but it is worse than that. Society outside is rigged against rehabilitation too. We are often unwilling to forgive and disinterested in redemption. But if it were our goal (and it is a worthy one, where possible), we could DEFINITELY do this better. It should be obvious, though, that execution cannot serve this goal.

-Revenge? An alarming number of victims or victim's families act as if (or even openly state that) they believe the convict is caged or killed on their behalf because of their great need to see the person who hurt them hurt. To bring them that greatly craved thing called "closure". Execution is much better at meeting this goal, but I judge state sponsored revenge to be an unworthy goal.

-Deterrence? It seems logical that having a hardworking justice system in place would prevent crime. People fear what they have to lose for breaking the law. This is a very worthy goal. I would much prefer that crime was prevented rather than punished. It is very difficult to guage our success in this goal, though. How does one form an experiment with a valid control and variable? There are studies that show that execution is a deterrent and there are studies that show it is not. This is the only issue that gives me pause. If executing a guilty prisoner is going to prevent another person from killing an innocent victim, that makes a compelling pragmatic argument for execution. The the success of deterrence does not seem to be certain.

-Protection of the Public? Honestly, I assume that this is our goal. If for no other reason because it is the only one that we are particularly good at. Though there are occasional accidents, I believe we are good enough at this that it isn't necessary to execute for this purpose.

Monday, May 14, 2007

35 MPG is too much?? 2020 is too soon??

So...W said today that he wants every car made in America to get 35 mpg by 2020 and the automakers say it isn't fair and they can't do it.

Yipes.

So...W thinks we've got enough oil reserves that 35 mpg THIRTEEN years from now is a strategy??

And...The automakers think it's a pipedream?? Well, if they can't do it, I guess we can fall back on the current strategy. Let Toyota do it FOR them.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Secret Messages

If I post secret messages to Luke here will anyone else see them?

Friday, April 06, 2007

The Audacity of Hope

I'm just about halfway through and have been reading it only in pickup time at home, but it is already clear that it is a very good book for anyone interested in politics. Anyone.

Two warnings:
1) Sometimes he'll remind you of the kid in gradeschool who used extra big words to sound smarter than you.
2) The first chapter was not as good as the rest of the book so far. Don't quit.

Now...I really don't know if he can DO what he envisions, that being to get people to start thinking more about what unites us than what divides us. But he can discuss it very well. From some inside insight into the Senate to a very candid discussion of what the media has become to a very well-studied understanding of the history and issues facing our economy (something very few politicians seem to understand), the book is very good.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Tax Time Fun!

Well, I filed on February 1st and got my returns a long time ago. But suddenly a few days ago Ameritrade sent me an email saying that they were sending me out a corrected form. I went to my papers and found the original form they sent and it matched my records, so I figured it was some nothing.

The form arrived today and is a little different from my original. It shows $11.40 in dividends that I'm not convinced I even got. I called Ameritrade and they couldn't provide any level of detail but assured me that it is definitely right and that they are sending the corrected form to the IRS, so I had better do so as well. With 12 days left before the deadline.

Well, I don't know what it is for, but they aren't giving, so I figured I'd better take care of it so I don't get audited. But do you really have to do something about such a small amount? The federal government taxes these at 5%, so the tax incidence is $.57 (which rounds up, by the way. My state taxes slightly higher, but rounds down, so I confirmed that they don't want me to do anything.)

So I called the IRS. It takes a while to get to an actual person with your question, but the lady they sent me to seemed helpful. She told me that I do have to pay, but I just need to fill out a simply 1040X form. Sounds good. So I hung up and went to get the form. But the form only covers normal income. Nothing about dividends. Back to the phone.

The second time, they connected me with a guy with an almost impenatrable accent. He wanted me to go line by line down the new form and read it to him, but Ameritrade doesn't send proper forms. They send these silly, stylized combined forms that don't have all the normal stuff and pretty soon I didn't know what he was asking for. He told me that I had to count it as normal income because they weren't qualified dividends and argued with me for a few minutes about it, despite my assurance that 1) I know what a qualified dividend is and know that these are and 2) the silly form is itemized and specifically says that all of my dividends were qualified dividends. So I just excused myself from the fight and called back in.

The third lady was very nice and very smart and able to think outside the box. She told me that I probably wouldn't get caught if I did nothing, but that it was probably smart to go ahead and be proactive. She told me to print out the 1040X and just fill out the top, ignore the worksheet, and then write out the situation on the second page and include the form and a check for $1. At least this way, she said, they'll see that I am acknowledging the issue rather than trying to duck it and if the person who recieves it isn't satisfied they will call me rather than audit me.

So I am sending back ONE DOLLAR of my federal tax return. This is the value of 30 minutes of their support line, and the time someone is going to spend updating my file and cashing the $1 check.