Thursday, August 30, 2007
Cheers!
At first I doubted; I am a lowly fan. For, the Cubs have gained the lead and seem to be on the upswing. Should I predict a NL Central title? I think I shall, but save the crystal for the dance, for now I raise my plastic flute and toast to the eventual champ. Next year is NOW! So, lets party like it's 1999 2003!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
10 RIBS!!!
No, it is not the per cap on a Texas Barbeque order. Garret Anderson had 10 RBI on four hits last night against the Bronx Bombers, but who are we really calling the bomber? Among his 10 RBI were 4 coming on the eighth grand slam of his career. Don't look now, but he is is a Free Agent in the I've Got Wood Fantasy League.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Freedom?
This post is a result of a conversation on the Blog-O-Rama. It is a discussion of what it means to be free.
There are several definitions that I would like to discuss.
First: Freedom is the ability to act without external, or unconscious* internal compulsion.
In this definition, no person is truly free for every moment of his life. There are some decisions that are compulsory. If I unknowingly touch a hot stove, I will remove my hand and this action will be outside of my volition. For this reason people do not like this definition. (Stronger examples can be given, but I think the conclusion that we, at times, act according, not to our wills, but to some external compulsion is strong.)
Second: Freedom is the ability to choose among two or more choices at each time a choice is available.
This definition seeks to rule out harmless compulsory actions so that the general ideal is that choices that I have are not taken away by some external source. For example, I could prefer country music to reggae and no one will make country music illegal to broadcast and listen to in a way that would limit my decision to listen to country music.
The general ideal of freedom as a qualifier of actions seems to be incorrect however. Human beings are communal beings. We live in communities, and so these communities will invariably affect our choices and in some ways our freedom as it is contrued in the first two definitions.
This thought brings us to the Third definition: Freedom is the ability to act in accordance with that which brings about the good of the whole community.
This seems nice for altruistic people, but we are not all altruistic and even those of us who are cannot live this definition. This definition requires one to consider whose it is to decide which action is for the good of the whole. If it is to each his own then there are a few problems. For brevity's sake, I will focus on the one that I think is the biggest problem. If I am to decide for myself what actions are good for the whole and freely live them, then I proclaim myself to have the right, guaranteed by my freedom, to perform any action. But, does freedom include the right to perform an injustice(I define justice as giving to each person what they are owed in all respects). I argue that it does not, inasmuch as performing "freely" an injustice acts to impede the freedom of the person harmed. I know that here I assume an ethical code, but insofar as the discussion that prompted this post criticized a government for impeding rights, I feel this assumption is granted in this forum.
It seems then that freedom should not be defined in the third way as it is too vague.
Here is the problem that I am attempting to get at in an abridged way(I have much more to say, but I figure I shan't take too much of your time). Anytime that a government exists, it limits freedom. Governments are given power by the people to inforce and agreed upon set of rights(hopefully). It is the very nature of the creation of a government to have a code of what is right and what is wrong. In a proper democracy then, the people decide amongst themselves what this code is. If you disagree with the code, then you are not free to act against the code. The government is given power over you. Even if you assent to every object in the code, your freedom is limited for you do not have the ability to change your mind and act accordingly.
The alternative is anarchy. Anarchy limits freedom inasmuch as those who are stronger in some way will invariable limit the rights of those who are for whatever reason defenseless.
The only definition of freedom that makes any sense to me is that freedom is the ability to not sin. I don't you to take that without a grain of salt and you could argue well against it. But if you are willing to assent to something greater to yourself that is ordered to your happiness, then you will likely find happiness and that is a lot like freedom to me.
*For awhile, let us not argue about whether humans can be affected by an unconscious state.
There are several definitions that I would like to discuss.
First: Freedom is the ability to act without external, or unconscious* internal compulsion.
In this definition, no person is truly free for every moment of his life. There are some decisions that are compulsory. If I unknowingly touch a hot stove, I will remove my hand and this action will be outside of my volition. For this reason people do not like this definition. (Stronger examples can be given, but I think the conclusion that we, at times, act according, not to our wills, but to some external compulsion is strong.)
Second: Freedom is the ability to choose among two or more choices at each time a choice is available.
This definition seeks to rule out harmless compulsory actions so that the general ideal is that choices that I have are not taken away by some external source. For example, I could prefer country music to reggae and no one will make country music illegal to broadcast and listen to in a way that would limit my decision to listen to country music.
The general ideal of freedom as a qualifier of actions seems to be incorrect however. Human beings are communal beings. We live in communities, and so these communities will invariably affect our choices and in some ways our freedom as it is contrued in the first two definitions.
This thought brings us to the Third definition: Freedom is the ability to act in accordance with that which brings about the good of the whole community.
This seems nice for altruistic people, but we are not all altruistic and even those of us who are cannot live this definition. This definition requires one to consider whose it is to decide which action is for the good of the whole. If it is to each his own then there are a few problems. For brevity's sake, I will focus on the one that I think is the biggest problem. If I am to decide for myself what actions are good for the whole and freely live them, then I proclaim myself to have the right, guaranteed by my freedom, to perform any action. But, does freedom include the right to perform an injustice(I define justice as giving to each person what they are owed in all respects). I argue that it does not, inasmuch as performing "freely" an injustice acts to impede the freedom of the person harmed. I know that here I assume an ethical code, but insofar as the discussion that prompted this post criticized a government for impeding rights, I feel this assumption is granted in this forum.
It seems then that freedom should not be defined in the third way as it is too vague.
Here is the problem that I am attempting to get at in an abridged way(I have much more to say, but I figure I shan't take too much of your time). Anytime that a government exists, it limits freedom. Governments are given power by the people to inforce and agreed upon set of rights(hopefully). It is the very nature of the creation of a government to have a code of what is right and what is wrong. In a proper democracy then, the people decide amongst themselves what this code is. If you disagree with the code, then you are not free to act against the code. The government is given power over you. Even if you assent to every object in the code, your freedom is limited for you do not have the ability to change your mind and act accordingly.
The alternative is anarchy. Anarchy limits freedom inasmuch as those who are stronger in some way will invariable limit the rights of those who are for whatever reason defenseless.
The only definition of freedom that makes any sense to me is that freedom is the ability to not sin. I don't you to take that without a grain of salt and you could argue well against it. But if you are willing to assent to something greater to yourself that is ordered to your happiness, then you will likely find happiness and that is a lot like freedom to me.
*For awhile, let us not argue about whether humans can be affected by an unconscious state.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Friday Night!
For the first time since 2000, I am going to walk on to the field for the LC vs. LN football game courtesy of my friend who is a coach. I am pumped to get back to the hysteria that happens when two high school rivals get together on the gridiron. In fact, Friday nights hold some of my greatest high school memories.
I began to reflect about who I was then and who I am now. I recalled an editorial that I wrote for the Cub Reporter. I called for free admission for students to home games. I argued that fan support was important to the teams and that the school would draw just as much revenue, if not more, from concession sales. I also exhorted the students to attend the games. I thought it was reprehensible that a school of 2000 students could not put up more than 800 for a football game or more than 400 for a basketball game. Fan support, however, is not the crux of the argument. High school sports give students the opportunity to unite towards a single goal. So many small communities are drawn together because of high school athletics. It is a time for everyone in the community to put aside their differences and pull for the home team! I felt so strongly about this that I neglected to go to a single LC sporting event for the first seven years after my graduation.
You could judge me for my idealic portrayal of high school sports. You could draw attention to all of the negative things that come from high school sports: bitter rivalries, cheating, special treatment for athletes, or non-inclusive, athletic cliques. You could talk about how people over-emphasize winning. Nevertheless, high school sports have provided structure and support for many athletes who have become solid men and women in our society. Attending high school athletics supports a good cause and creates unity within communities. You could focus on all the things that it doesn't do, or you could get involved, go see a game, and have a lot of fun!
I began to reflect about who I was then and who I am now. I recalled an editorial that I wrote for the Cub Reporter. I called for free admission for students to home games. I argued that fan support was important to the teams and that the school would draw just as much revenue, if not more, from concession sales. I also exhorted the students to attend the games. I thought it was reprehensible that a school of 2000 students could not put up more than 800 for a football game or more than 400 for a basketball game. Fan support, however, is not the crux of the argument. High school sports give students the opportunity to unite towards a single goal. So many small communities are drawn together because of high school athletics. It is a time for everyone in the community to put aside their differences and pull for the home team! I felt so strongly about this that I neglected to go to a single LC sporting event for the first seven years after my graduation.
You could judge me for my idealic portrayal of high school sports. You could draw attention to all of the negative things that come from high school sports: bitter rivalries, cheating, special treatment for athletes, or non-inclusive, athletic cliques. You could talk about how people over-emphasize winning. Nevertheless, high school sports have provided structure and support for many athletes who have become solid men and women in our society. Attending high school athletics supports a good cause and creates unity within communities. You could focus on all the things that it doesn't do, or you could get involved, go see a game, and have a lot of fun!
Sunday, August 12, 2007
When is next year?
It is mid-august and the charging Chicago Cubs are in a familiar place: right in the middle of the chase. It looks like we have about fifteen days to fulfill our destiny. Will the dawn of September bring tidings of another year that we almost won the division.
Everything looked wonderful and then, Soriano goes down, Ramirez won't be 100% for the rest of the year, Piniella calls a team meeting, and so many Cubs fans cringe at the pattern that is emerging. Unable to take the Division lead from one game down in the midst of a four game Milwaukee losing streak with the Cardinals acting like they want a piece of the action, the Cubs seem to be losing the July/August steam that is known to so many of us.
Eternal optimists, do not fear. Kerry Wood has returned and looks very good. Jim Hendry continues to tell us that Jaque Jones and Cliff Floyd will hit home runs, and Soriano says he can play hurt.
Piniella said earlier in the year that this team has a losing mentality. It looked for a time like he got them to shake it, but we are back in the rut at the first sign of adversity.
Maybe it is the result of 18 straight games, maybe it is the torment of years past, maybe I ought not think of that little man with his headphones, maybe we will be alright. We certainly have the talent, but haven't we heard that before.
Everything looked wonderful and then, Soriano goes down, Ramirez won't be 100% for the rest of the year, Piniella calls a team meeting, and so many Cubs fans cringe at the pattern that is emerging. Unable to take the Division lead from one game down in the midst of a four game Milwaukee losing streak with the Cardinals acting like they want a piece of the action, the Cubs seem to be losing the July/August steam that is known to so many of us.
Eternal optimists, do not fear. Kerry Wood has returned and looks very good. Jim Hendry continues to tell us that Jaque Jones and Cliff Floyd will hit home runs, and Soriano says he can play hurt.
Piniella said earlier in the year that this team has a losing mentality. It looked for a time like he got them to shake it, but we are back in the rut at the first sign of adversity.
Maybe it is the result of 18 straight games, maybe it is the torment of years past, maybe I ought not think of that little man with his headphones, maybe we will be alright. We certainly have the talent, but haven't we heard that before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)