Life is crazy...

I've been way too busy lately post anything of substance. The only thing I've even seen lately has been the inside of my physics book. Will be back as soon as things calm down!

Fraudulent email: "JOB OFFER"

I received this email on one of my junk accounts the other day. Can you imagine actually falling for this kind of thing?

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: DAVID MOORE
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:54:42 AM
Subject: JOB OFFER

Dear Sir/Madam,

Would u like to work online from Home/Temporarily and get paid weekly?

We are glad to offer you a job position at our company, HERITAGE
TEXTILES AND FABRICS. We need someone to work for the company as a
Representative/Book keeper in the USA AND CANADA. This is as a result
of not having an office presently in the U.S.A.AND CANADA You dont
need to have an Office and this certainly wont disturb any form of
work you have going at the moment.

The Company produces the following varieties of clothing materials:-
batiks, assorted fabrics for interior decor, silk and traditional
costumes which we have clients we supply weekly in the USA.

the fact is we plan on moving over to the u.s.a and to have our
permanent office .but in the meantime,we are expected to finish every
paper work we have with the U.S internal revenue which is basically
taking us some time and other paper work that is being required of us.

We have decided to open this new job position for solving this
problem. Our integrated yarn and fabric manufacturing operations use
state-of-the-art textile equipment from the world's leading suppliers.
Order processing, production monitoring and process flow is seamlessly
integrated through a company-wide computer network.

* The average monthly income is about $4,000.00 USD.
* No form of investments from you.
* This job takes only 1-3 hours per day

About The Job:
We have sales representatives all over the world to distribute our
products.
You know, that it's not easy to start a business in a new market being
the US). There are hundreds of competitors, close direct contacts
between suppliers and customers and other difficulties, which impede
our sales promotion.
We have decided to deliver the products upfront, it's very risky but it
should push up sales on 25 percent.

Thus we need to get payments for our products as soon as it possible.
Unfortunately we are unable to open Bank Accounts in the United US
without first registering the company name and preparing logistics for
warehousing and integrated shipment.

Presently with the amount of Orders we have, we cannot put them on
hold. For fear of loosing the customers out rightly. Secondly we
cannot cash these payments from the US soon enough, as international
Checks take about 14 working days for cash to be made available.

We lose about 75,000 USD of net income each month because we have money
transfer delays*

Your task is to coordinate payments from customers and help us with the
payment process. You are not involved in any sales. Once orders are
received and sorted we deliver the product to a customer (usually
through (FEDEX).

About 90 percent of our customers prefer to pay through Certified
Checks and Money orders based on the amount involved.while some prefer
to pay through direct deposit or wire into your provided account

Your tasks are;
1. Receive payment from Customers
2. Cash Payments at your Bank
3. Deduct 10% which will be your percentage/pay on Payment processed
4. Forward balance after deduction of percentage/pay to any of the
offices you will be contacted to send payment to.
(Payment is to forwarded either by Money Gram or Western Union Money
Transfer).

www.westernunion.com
www.moneygram.com

Local Money transfers take barely hours, so it will give us a
possibility to get customer's payment almost immediately.
For example you've got 3000.00US You take your income: 300.00 USD
Send to us: 2700.00 USD

First month you will have 15-20 transactions on 3000.00-4000.00 USD So
you may calculate your income.

For example 18 transactions on 3000.00 USD gives you 5400.00 USD Plus
your basis monthly salary is 1000.00 USD Total: 6400.00 USD per month

After establishing a close co-operation with us you'll be able to
operate with larger orders and you'll be able to earn more.

Our payments will be issued out in your name and you can have them
cashed in your bank or other Cashing Services.
Deduct your weekly salary and forward the balance to the company via
western union money transfer or money gram money transfer.

We understand that this is an incredible job position. This job
takes only 3-7 hours per week. You'll have a lot of free time doing
another job, you'll get good income and regular job. But this job is
very challenging and you should understand its requirements. We are
looking only for the worker who satisfy our requirements and will be a
serious assistant.

We are glad to offer this job position to you. If you feel that you
are a serious worker and you want to work for HERITAGE Textiles
Company Kindly indicate interest by replying this mail. You will then
be furnished with the necessary materials to commence operations.

YOU can CALL ME ON THIS NUMBER +447024078081

ONLY SERIOUS AND INTERESTED APPLICANTS/WORKERS SHOULD PLEASE REPLY
N.B..reply along with your informations so as to commence at work
position immediately.

NAME..................................

ADDRESS...............................

PHONE ................................

CELL .................................

EMAIL ADDRESS.........................

AGE ..................................

GENDER................................

M.STATUS..............................

COUNTRY...............................

STATE ................................

CITY..................................

ZIPCODE...............................

My Contact Address
HERITAGE Textiles Company
111 Trinity Lane, Waltham Cross,
Herts, EN8 7EW United Kingdom
Telephone +447024078081


YOURS FAITHFULLY
Mr David Moore

Questions about copyright law

I have been reading Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture lately, after a friend recommended it. It's very interesting. Right now I'm in chapter 4. (I wish I had more time to read!)

Here are some of the questions the book has raised:

• What is the extent of our right to ownership of private property?
• What is "property"?
• What does it mean to take away our right to property? (This is important. Does it just mean depriving the owner of gain, financial or otherwise? Or does it include any use of another person's property?)
  

I have not come to any conclusions yet about what copyright law should be.

Funny letter

I got a hilarious piece of mail yesterday!  It was addressed to  Mr. Marissa R. King.  The letter began, "Dear Mr. King,..."

Katrina and I laughed so hard!

Implications of the end of government

The end of government is the preservation of our rights. Some people agree with this, but argue that the government may take action or pass laws for the purpose of "benefitting society" also. They would say that the public school system, for example, is legitimate because education "benefits society."

The problem with this is that every time the government passes laws that are not to secure our rights, but simply to benefit society, our rights are infringed. In the example of the public school system, the government imposes a heavy tax to fund the schools. This abridges our right to the ownership of property - the government is taking our money without our consent. Rather than fulfilling its purpose of the preservation of our rights, the government is taking away our rights.

The government should stay strictly within its purpose. Therefore, the preservation of our rights - and not societal benefits - should back every law the government makes.

Note that when the government acts according to its purpose, society is benefitted. For example, the government has rightly passed laws banning murder, because murder deprives the victim of his right to life. Banning murder certainly benefits society; however, societal benefits are not and should be the sole backing behind this ban.

The U. S. Constitution

When I was 12 or 13, I read the U. S. Constitution for the first time. I thought I understood it. After all, it seemed pretty straightforward. Since then, however, I've discovered that I actually understood very little of what I had read.

Here are a few of my childish misunderstandings:

• I thought that Congress had only a few, clearly defined powers. (Article I, Section 8)
  
• I thought that the states had the majority of the power, since they had all the power not explicitly granted to Congress. (Amendment 10, 1791)
• I thought that "cruel and unusual punishment" just meant that torture is illegal. (Amendment 8, 1791)
• I thought that the Ninth Amendment meant that all of our rights can't possibly be listed, and that just because they weren't listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that they don't exist.
• I thought that the Fourteenth Amendment clarified the implications of U. S. citizenship, specifically for former slaves.
  
• I thought that the job of the Supreme Court was to decide who is innocent and who is guilty of a certain crime. (Article III, Section 2)
• I thought that the way to learn more about the Constitution and law in this country is to read the Constitution.
  
• I thought that the Constitution is a legally binding document that the federal government simply obeys (Article VII), and that the way to change it is to amend it (Article V).
  

Since then,

• I've learned that Congress's power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" means that Congress has the authority to make any and every law. (See Article I, Section 8)
• I've learned that the 10th Amendment is "but a truism" (e.g. see this commentary), because the federal government has all the power it wants.
• I've learned that "cruel and unusual punishment" describes any kind of punishment imaginable.
• I've learned that the Ninth Amendment guarantees rights to homosexuals and other groups not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution.
  
• I've learned that the Fourteenth Amendment provides for affirmative action, abortion, and just about anything one can think of.
  
• I've learned that the job of the Supreme Court is to decide which laws are "constitutional."
• I've learned that the way to learn more about the Constitution and law in this country is to read Supreme Court precedents, so I'll understand what the Constitution is really saying.
  
• I've learned that the Constitution is a "living" document and that the way to change it is to "interpret" it.

Why is this? Our country is drifting away from our "rule of law" to "rule by men" - exactly what the Founding Fathers fled. We should not need to appeal to what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says; we should appeal to what the Constitution says. Otherwise, we have made the Supreme Court not just the highest court in the land, but the highest law in the land.

(For more on this topic, see John Whitehead's Second American Revolution - a book that I really will get around to finishing someday!)

Copyright law, version 2

Note: this is simply an edited version of the previous post.

I think we all agree; copyright law can be pretty ridiculous. Exhibit A: It's actually against the law for us to make recordings of copyrighted music and give them to our friends and family without permission from the publisher. So every year, Dad spends hours emailing dozens of publishers so we can make CDs for Christmas gifts. Most of the publishers give him permission, but we've had to exclude several pieces from our recordings because we couldn't get permission, because getting permission was too difficult, or because we couldn't get permission without paying a fee. In fact, there are entire publishers that we don't even bother emailing.

This area of copyright law strikes me as unbelievably stupid. Here's why: first, our recordings do not deprive the publishers of business, and second, our recordings actually promote the publishers' products.

Imagine this scene: My friend gives me a recording of her playing Mr. Smith's arrangement of Hymn X. I really like Mr. Smith's arrangement. What goes through my mind? "Well, I already have this recording. Guess I don't need to buy the sheet music from the publisher!" Of course not! My friend's recording certainly does not obviate the need for the publisher's product.

In fact, I'm far more likely to buy the sheet music for Mr. Smith's arrangement after hearing my friend's recording than I would be if I'd never heard the piece before. If anything, publishers should support the recording of their sheet music as free advertisement!

Our recordings are not just unharmful to the publishers; they're actively beneficial. And they would be even if we sell them.

But we're not selling them. We're giving them as Christmas gifts to our friends and family! That we should need permission to do so is simply ridiculous.

Copyright law

(This is the stream-of-consciousness version of the above post.)

I think we all agree; copyright law can be pretty ridiculous. Exhibit A: the laws governing what recordings we can make. It's actually against the law for us to make recordings of copyrighted music and give them to our friends and family without permission from the publisher! So every year, Dad spends hours emailing dozens of publishers so we can make CDs for Christmas gifts. Most of the publishers give him permission, but we've had to exclude certain pieces from our recordings because getting permission was too difficult, because we couldn't get permission, or because we couldn't get permission without paying a fee.

And we usually only email the publishers of hymn arrangements and sacred music! We don't even bother trying to get permission to record copyrighted editions of classical music (the music itself is in the public domain - it's just the editions that are copyrighted). What if the music is memorized? What if we used more than one edition?

This area of copyright law strikes me as unbelievably stupid. If anything, publishers should support the recording of their hymn arrangements as free advertisement. Such recordings promote the sheet music - they don't obviate the need for it. If my friend gives me a recording of her playing Mr. Smith's arrangement of Hymn X, and I really like it, I don't think, "Well, I already have this recording. Guess I don't need to buy the music from the publisher!" Of course not! Instead, I'm much more likely to buy the sheet music than I would be if I'd never heard the piece before. If I'm not a musician, then I wouldn't have been buying the sheet music anyway, so my friend's recording certainly wouldn't have robbed the publisher of business.

These laws hurt us and they hurt the publishers. We need to make a change!

I can't believe this!

Today I received a piece of mail that was absolutely infuriating. It was a big envelope of "information" from Russell Sage College. Russell Sage is an all-women's college a few blocks from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where Mom and Dad went to school. According to Mom and Dad, the Russell Sage girls had quite the reputation - bubbly bimbos who showed up at the RPI bars and parties and who were there for their MRS degrees.

So needless to say, I'm terribly insulted whenever they send me mail (this is I think the third time I'm heard from them). This time the letter began, "Dear Marissa, I'm very happy that you continue to be interested in learning more about Russell Sage College." Ouch...

And their viewbook was absolutely unbelievable. It has an entire section entitled, "What About Men?" The section reads, "Frankly, we're surrounded! There are 23 colleges in the Tech Valley region - and Sage sits at the heart of it. You'll find Rensselaer Polytechnic University just a few blocks up the hill here in Troy, where over 5,000 (mostly male) undergrads study."

I'm still seething...

It's a snow day!

It's freezing here. We have a storm warning in effect until 7:00 AM tomorrow, there's about a foot of snow on the ground, and the roads are a terrible mess. As a result, all church services were cancelled for today.

So I'm home, and I'm trying not to look at today as a "free day" in which I can do whatever I want. Calculus and music practice await!

My philosophy

First of all, check out an essay I wrote for what I don't believe.

What I do believe is that

• Apart from Christ there is no objective truth. Without Christ and the Bible we may question whether truth even exists.
• Apart from Christ there are is no objective reality.
• Apart from Christ there is no absolute morality. While God has imprinted the "Law of Nature" on the hearts of man, natural law is not an absolute standard. Since our reasoning has been corrupted by the fall, everyone interprets natural law differently, and one can never be sure that his interpretation is correct. The Bible, not natural law, is the only absolute moral standard. Sir William Blackstone elaborated on this in his Commentaries:
  

"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life: by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.

This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their Intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together." [emphasis added]

Because there is no absolute truth, morality, or reality apart from Christ, we do not deal in absolutes. Our responsibility as Christians, however, is to come as close to God's standards as possible.

The end of government

In this post and this post, I've referred to the purpose of government, but my views on that need to be expounded upon for those posts to make sense.

The end of government is the preservation of our rights. By "end," I mean "that which could not be accomplished, or not so well accomplished, by any other thing." (see Plato's Republic, page 32.) This only makes sense; the protection of our rights is the whole reason we have government, and we cannot be guaranteed of our rights unless we have government.

The Founding Fathers recognized this end in the Declaration of Independence:

"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." [emphasis added]

The Founding Fathers borrowed this view directly from John Locke, a key political theorist who was a profound influence on the Founders (Jefferson himself, the author of the Declaration of Independence, cited Locke as one of the men on whose writings "all [the Declaration's] authority rests." - Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, 118.) Locke wrote in his Second Treatise of Government (pages 203-204) that

"If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up his empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. " [emphasis added]

In other words, men unite themselves under a government for the purpose of securing their rights. The preservation and protection of our rights is the entire purpose of government.

Whenever the government does not uphold this purpose, it acts without authority.

Relative goodness

This is Aristotle's description of relative goodness, taken from his Rhetoric, Chapter 7. Knowledge of relative goodness - and good in general - is important because good is the end toward which men aim. When one is attempting to persuade someone of something, one must appeal to goodness to be effective.

This list was part of an assignment for my rhetoric class. Sometime I'll post Aristotle's list of goods.

1. A greater number of goods is a greater good than one or than a smaller number.

2. If the largest member of one class surpasses the largest member of the other, then the one class surpasses the other.

3. If one class surpasses another, then the largest member of the one class surpasses the largest member of the other.

4. If one good is always accompanied by another good, but does not always accompany it, the one good is greater.

• Accompanied simultaneously (as life accompanies health)
  

• Accompanied subsequently (as knowledge accompanies the act of learning)

• Accompanied potentially (as cheating accompanies sacrilege)

5. If one thing is productive of a greater good than is another, the one thing is itself greater.

6. That which has been produced by a greater good is itself a greater good.

7. That which is desirable in itself is a greater good than that which is not desirable in itself.

8. That which is an end is a greater good than that which is not an end (since it is chosen for its own sake rather than for the sake of something else).

9. That which needs fewer or easier things than does something else is the greater good (since it is self-sufficing).

• If one thing needs a second to come into existence, while the second can exist without the first, the second is greater.

• If one thing does not need anything else is greater than that which does need something else.

10. That which is the beginning of other things is a greater good than that which is n

11. That which is a cause is a greater good than that which is not.

12. That which arises from something important is greater than that which arises from something less important.

13. That which is rare is a greater good than that which is plentiful.

14. That which is plentiful is a greater good than that which is rare (since we can make more use of it).

15. The hard thing is better than the easy (because it is rarer).

16. The easy thing is better than the hard (because it is as we wish it to be).

17. Positive goodness and badness are more important than the mere absence of goodness and badness (their presence is an end, while its absence is not).

18. In proportion as the functions of things are noble or base, the things themselves are noble or base (because the nature of a thing corresponds with its results).

19. In proportion as things are good or bad, their functions are good or bad (because the results of a thing correspond with its nature).

20. If superiority in a thing is more desirable or honorable than superiority in another thing, the first thing is the greater good.

21. If a normal thing is greater than another, then an unusual degree of that thing is greater than an unusual degree of the other.

22. One thing is greater than another if it is better to desire it than the other.

23. If a science is greater than another, its activity is also greater than the other.

24. That which would be or has been judged a good thing or a better thing than something else by the majority, the wisest, or those with the most understand, is good or better. 2

25. A thing is better if it is associated with a better man.

26. A thing is greater if it would be chosen by a greater man.

27. The pleasanter of two things is better (since all things pursue pleasure, and it is an end in itself).

28. One pleasure is greater than another if it lasts longer or if it is less mixed with pain.

29. The nobler thing is better than the less noble (since the noble is either what is pleasant or what is desirable in itself).

30. Those things are greater goods which men desire more earnestly to bring about for themselves or for their friends.

31. Those things that are lasting are better than those which are fleeting, and the more secure than the less.

32. What is true of one word is also true of all related words.

33. That which is chosen by all is a greater good than that which is not.

34. That which is considered better by competitors or enemies or by authorized judges.

35. That which all share (because it is a dishonor not to share it).

36. That which none or few share (because it is rarer).

37. The more praiseworthy a thing is, the better it is.

38. That which looks better merely by dividing it into its parts.

39. That which is accomplished by a man beyond his natural powers is better than the natural.

40. That which is natural is better than that which is acquired.

41. The best part of a good thing is particularly good.

42. That which is of service when the need is pressing.

43. That which leads more directly to the end in view is better than that which leads less directly.

44. That which is better for people in general is better than that which is only good for an individual.

45. That which can be gotten is better than that which cannot.

46. That which is at the end of life is better than what is not.

47. That which aims at reality is better than that which aims at appearance.

48. That which is more useful than another thing is also better.

49. That which is accompanied with less pain and with actual pleasure is better than another thing.

50. Of two good things, the thing is better whose addition to a third thing makes a better whole than the parts.

51. That which we are seen to possess is greater than that which we are not seen to possess.

52. That which is dearly prized is better than that which is not.

---

1 One may prove 1) that a thing is greater because it is a beginning or 2) that a thing is greater because it is an end and not a beginning. Compare 8).

2 Here Aristotle is relying on his definition of good in a previous chapter: "what beings that acquire understanding will choose in any given case." While this may or may not be a true definition of goodness, it is certainly an end toward which men aim. It should therefore be understood by the political speaker.

Victimless crimes

Since the government's powers should be limited to interpersonal relationships, the government should not create "victimless crimes."

For example, I do not believe that pornography should be banned. Yes, it exploits women, but the women whom it exploits are choosing to be exploited. Since pornography doesn't infringe upon the rights of others (unlike murder or rape, for example), its harm is not in its effects on relationships between men but its effects on relationships between men and God. The government does not have the authority to make laws relating to a man's relationship with God.

Child pornography is another matter. It exploits children, and children do not have the maturity to choose to be exploited. Child pornography certainly victimizes the child, infringing upon the child's rights, and should therefore be banned.

For the same reason, the government should not abridge our freedom of religion. We have the right to choose how to worship God or whether to worship God. God gives us the choice whether to accept him, and so should the federal government.

Government vs. rights

The government's powers - especially the federal government's powers - should be extremely limited. When they are not limited, they conflict with our rights, one of which is the right to freedom and liberty.

I think (not entirely sure about this yet!) that the government's jurisdiction should be limited to interpersonal relationships. It should NOT concern itself with relationships between men and God. For example, the government should not abridge the freedom of religion.

I also believe that the lawmaker has the responsibility to prove not only that a proposed law will have benefits (e.g. banning murder will result in increased human rights, etc.), but also that the government has the power to make the law ( e.g. the government may ban murder because murder infringes on the rights of the people).

For example, Prohibition had some admittedly beneficial effects: crime rates went down, fewers families were broken, etc. I do not believe, however, that the federal government was justified establishing Prohibition. Banning the sale of alcoholic beverages is simply not something the government is specifically authorized to do, by natural law or logical reasoning (or by the Constitution, but that's another issue). Even the Bible does not condemn any and every use of alcohol!

The government is not automatically entitled to make any law that would have "benefits." Every time it makes a law, it impinges upon our freedoms. It must prove that it is authorized to make a law before it may rightfully do so.

I hate labels.

I hate it when people either a) categorize entire philosophies with a simple label and/or b) dismiss or support those philosophies simply by referring to the label. Examples:

• "He's going to church there? I heard that was kind of emerging church."
• "As fundamental independent Baptists, we believe that..."
• "That's very postmodernist."
• "Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?"
• "That viewpoint is very liberal."
• "That's an extremely Democratic way of thinking."

I don't like being categorized under a generic label. I refuse to describe myself as Republican (there's quite a bit of Libertarian in there!), postmodernist, Calvinist, or Arminian - although there are elements of each of these in me. I especially don't like seeing my beliefs dismissed under a label (e.g. "That's a very postmodernist way of looking at it!"), and I especially don't like seeing someone "prove" his/her point simply by referring to a label (e.g. "Well, as Republicans we believe...") C. S. Lewis coined a term to describe such intellectual sloppiness: Bulverism. He wrote in his essay, "God in the Dock,"

"The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that [a man] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.”"

Precisely!

There is one label I accept and embrace, however: "Christ-follower."

Born as a sinner?

Something Baptist preachers are fond of saying is that "people aren't sinners because they sin; they sin because they're sinners."

Last I checked, the definition of "sinner" was "one who sins." How could one possibly be a sinner before s/he sins? The typical answer is that "man is born in sin."

But I don't think this is supported biblically. Undoubtedly we are all sinners; the Bible clearly states and empirical evidence eloquently demonstrates this. We have also inherited "sin nature," or the propensity to sin. I have yet to see an indication, however, that we have actually inherited the "sins of our fathers." I do not believe that we are actually sinners before we have sinned. I do not believe that we are born guilty.

The definition of guilt is "the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty." If I - personally - have never "committed a breach of conduct," then I am not guilty. I am not a sinner because Adam, my great-great-ever-so-great-grandfather sinned; I'm a sinner because I sinned. It is my own sin, not Adam's, that makes me a guilty sinner before God.

Faith of Our Fathers search engine

Here is a custom search engine that I created a couple months ago. It searches for documents from the founding era.

PHC scholarship application is done!

Today I wrote and submitted my essays describing my qualifications for scholarships at PHC. The essays were optional, and I considered not writing them, but I'm really glad I did. Persuading the financial aid person through an essay is much better than just handing him a list and letting him draw his own conclusions! Also, it shows him that I'm willing to go the extra mile and work hard.

I'm confident now that I've done all I can for financial aid at PHC. My SAT score can't be better, my GPA is high, I applied early, I took the application extremely (!) seriously, I submitted the financial aid application as soon as I could, and now I've written essays describing my qualifications for the scholarships. I've done all I can - the rest is up to God. I know that if He wants me at PHC, He will certainly provide a way to make it happen.

Interesting geometric relationships

Check out these relationships:

• The derivative of the formula for the volume of a sphere is the formula for the surface area of a sphere.
• The derivative of the formula for the volume of a cone is the formula for the base of a cone.
• The derivative of the formula for the area of a circle is the formula for the diameter of a circle.
• The first derivative of the formula for the volume of a sphere is 4*(area of a circle). The second derivative of the formula for the volume of a sphere is 4*(diameter of a circle).
• The derivative of the formula for the volume of a cylinder is (diameter of the base)*(height) + (area of the base).

So interesting! Could it have implications for dimensions beyond the three we know of?

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, who cares?

Am I the only one who's so SICK of hearing people complain about people wishing us "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas"?

Isn't it the spirit of Christmas that's important, not what we call Christmas?

Is it a Christ-like attitude to be putting up a fight over what people call the day on which we celebrate Christ's birth?

Choose your battles! There are many, many more important things to be worried about!

Accepted into PHC!

Today I found out that I've been accepted into PHC. I'm very relieved and happy! Now I need to worry about financial aid. I already submitted the financial aid application, but I'm wondering if I should write an essay on why I "deserve" a church leadership scholarship.

I probably could sufficiently demonstrate this. I'm exactly the kind of person toward whom this scholarship is directed. While I haven't been on any mission trips or served in any soup kitchens, I've maintained an active music ministry throughout all of high school. I play violin for congregational singing in Sunday morning and evening services. I often do offertories with the other church musicians, and I frequently play special music on violin or piano. I also accompany on the piano when the other accompanist is missing.

In addition to my music ministry at my church, I also use my talents in local nursing homes and hospitals. Just today my sister and I played our instruments at Kirkhaven, a nursing home about forty-five minutes from our house. We had prepared a twenty minute mini-concert of Christmas music, including violin-flute duets, a violin solo, and a flute solo. We supplemented our program with Christmas carols from the hymnal, when needed. My sister and I played on four different floors of Kirkhaven.

This was not my first trip to Kirkhaven; my sister and I played for the residents' spring party earlier this year. I've also ministered at other nursing homes, including Blossom Nursing Center, DeMay Living Center, Aaron Manor, and Hamilton Manor, and at Rochester General Hospital and Strong Memorial Hospital as well. Once a member of our church died of cancer only a few days after a friend and I had visited and shared our music with him at Strong Hospital. His widow requested that we also play at his funeral. We played "It Is Well with My Soul" as a violin duet.

While my ministry may not be what comes to mind when one hears the phrase "Christian leadership," my minstry actually requires much more diligence and dedication than do most short-term service projects. I practice my instruments for several hours every day, I take weekly private lessons, and I'm involved in two orchestras. I must remain committed and dedicated to my responsibilities as a musician - my responsibilities to myself, to my parents, to my teachers, to my church family, and most importantly, to God.

I am exactly the kind of person this scholarship is geared toward. Through my music minstry at my church and local nursing homes and hospitals, I have been able to excel as a Christian leader.

I guess this is the rough draft for my essay!

My Questions

What is the significance of a question? Well, that's my first Question. This is a list of the Questions that make me seriously wonder and that I have no hope of answering. Discovering these Questions and writing them down is the first step in "knowing." (By the way, if anyone reads this and thinks s/he has an answer, please feel free to email me!) So,

1. What is the significance of a question?

Questions about "knowing"

1. What does it mean to "know"?

2. Is it possible to "know" anything?

3. If the answer to question (1.) is [x], how do we "know" [x]?

4. Is there any reliable foundation upon which to base "knowledge"?

5. The answer to question (4.) MUST have something to do with Christ and the Bible (Proverbs 1:7, NIV: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” John 14:6, NIV: “Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life…’” John 17:17, NIV: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”) What?

6. What is the difference between "believing," "thinking," and "knowing"?

7. Is there any "fact" upon which we may base all "knowledge" and even our definitions of "knowledge"? See question (5.).

8. How do probabilities relate to "knowing"?

9. Is anything not a probability? (again, see question (5.).)

Questions about metanarratives

1. How does a metanarrative relate to the "unified field theory"? (A "unified field theory" still hasn't been discovered. If we can't find a "metanarrative" of sorts in physics, one of the most objective and unified areas of human study, what does this mean for the possibility of a complete metanarrative?)

2. How does a metanarrative relate to Godel's Theorem?

3. How does a metanarrative relate to Jesus and the Bible?

4. Why does it "feel" like there should be a metanarrative?

Questions about our presuppositions

1. What do the premises we simply accept have to do with "truth"? I ask this because I used to think that postmodernism is stupid, but when I researched it and gave it serious attention, I realized that it's closer to "truth" than anything I've seen (by "truth" I mean "compatible with the Bible," "complementary to the Bible," "free from as many contradictions as possible," and "as close to empirical evidence, experience, and observation as possible"). But what do my initial presuppositions reveal? Are they closer to or farther away from the "truth"? Or do they simply reveal nothing, because they are culturally conditioned?

2. As a follow-up on question (1.), how should we deal with things we just "feel" are wrong (by "wrong" I mean either (1) immoral or (2) different from the truth [by "truth" I mean absolute truth, not our perception of it - that's why it's not in quotation marks. This is topic for another discussion!])

3. What role does natural law play in all this? *pulls out Blackstone's introduction to his Commentaries* *pulls out Locke's Second Treatise*

Questions about truth

1. What is truth?

2. Again, is anything not a probability and how does Christ relate?

3. Can truth be "known?" More specifically, can absolute truth be known?

4. Does Satan "know" the truth? (define "know" and "truth" how you like)

Questions about logic

1. How do we derive the system of "logic" and is it flawed? To be considered in attempting to answer this question:

• Paradoxes. Ex.: "If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists." Abbreviate "this sentence is true" as "S" and "Santa Claus exists" as "E". (We'll use ">" for the if-then operator.) We now have

S > E.

The only way for this sentence to be false, according to the laws of logic, is for S to be true and E to be false. But if S is false, then "this sentence is true." We must therefore conclude that the sentence IS true, because either 1) S is true so the sentence is false (paradox) or 2) the sentence is true. Therefore, Santa Claus exists (modus ponens).

Logic can't escape this, at least to the best of my knowledge.

2. As a follow-up for question (2.), should we accept the laws of logic and why? See also my questions on our presuppositions. Logic seems right, it feels right, but is it right?

Other questions

1. What are the implications of Godel's Theorem?

2. I think like a postmodernist (in many areas), but act like a modernist. In other words, my philosophy is basically postmodernism from the viewpoint of a Christian worldview, but I refuse to make decisions without a logical basis. What is the meaning of this contradiction and does it matter? Does it reveal something about postmodernism - that it is not viable as a worldview?