PlanetWabu

Thursday, August 26, 2004

'Old Faithful' Update

So after trying out my 'Old Faithful' deck in several best of 3 matches, I can say that it doesn't seem to have lost any of its power over the years. I lost a few individual games, but for the most part, it seems to be fairly brutal in it's effectiveness.

I realized that my original post didn't have any details about the sideboard, so here it is:

2x Akroma, Angel of Wrath
2x Weathered Wayfarer
3x Damping Matrix
3x Isochron Scepter
3x Sacred Ground
2x Story Circle

I think I might make a few tweaks, given that the Gilded Lotus is a great card, but a bit expensive to behave as mana acceleration. Nothing in my deck costs more than 5 mana, so a mana accelerator that costs 5 mana to put in play is a bit silly. I think that I might replace the Lotuses with Damping Matrixes to enhance the control capabilities of the deck. If I do that, I will add more creatures to the Sideboard, I am thinking about Mawcors because they are flyers that have direct damage capabilities.

I'll test that configuration and update.

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Magic the Gathering

After a hiatus of many, many years, someone that I work with innocently mentioned Magic the Gathering and that he wouldn't mind starting to play it again. I casually mentioned that I had played it in the past, and would be willing to get back into it. Boy was that ever a mistake.

Now I am just as hooked as I was back in the heyday, and have moved my obsession to the online version so I can play anytime. I remember when they were launching MTGO (Magic the Gathering Online) and hearing that they would charge people the same price for online cards as they do for physical ones. I also remember thinking, "What a racket" and "Who would be stupid enough to pay for digital cards?". Well, I am here to tell you that I am.

So I recreated my old tournament deck (yes, I played in several of the original MtG tournaments) online, or as close as I could get with the cards that exist online.

My 'Old Faithful':

Creatures:
4x Clone
4x Prodigal sorcerer
2x Daring Apprentice
4x Serra Angel
4x Intrepid Hero
18 creatures

Other Spells
2x Gilded Lotus
4x Counterspell
4x Condescend
4x Disenchant
3x Glorious Anthem
3x Arrest
20 other spells

Land
4x Coastal Tower
7x Plains
7x Island
2x Secluded Steppes
2x Lonely Sandbar
22 land

Seems to be working well. The Intrepid Hero/Serra Angel combo was unforeseen, but very nice, as the Angel can handle anything below a power of 4 and the Hero can take care of anything above. Plus, the sorcerers let me take out the annoying creatures that don't really get into combat, like other direct damage creatures or mana generating creatures. The spells are all intended to let me control the tempo of the game, other than the Anthem, which makes the game shorter by boosting my creatures.



Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Games I want

As a game collector, we are rapidly approaching the time of year that I both love and hate: the Fall. The Fall is when all of the game companies traditionally launch their big titles leading up to the Holiday season. From September through Thanksgiving, it is a time of plenty for gamers everywhere. It is also a trial by fire for your wallet.

Without further adieu, I present the list of games coming for the rest of the year that will probably be bought (most anticipated titles highlighted):

August/September
ESPN NHL 2005 - Xbox
Star Ocean - PS2
Spy Fiction - PS2
Phantom Brave - PS2
Silent Hill 4 - Xbox
Sly 2 - PS2
Demon Stone - PS2
Def Jam 2 - Xbox
Final Fantasy XI: Chains of Promathia - PS2
Blood Will Tell - PS2
Monster Hunter - PS2
X-men Legends - Xbox
Shin Megami Tensei - PS2
Fable - Xbox
DoA Ultimate - Xbox
Pikmin 2 - GC
Donkey Konga - GC
Half Life 2 - PC
Kohan 2 - PC
Call of Duty:United Offensive - PC
Sims 2 - PC
Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War - PC
Rome: Total War - PC

October
ESPN NBA 2005 - Xbox
GTA: San Andreas - PS2
Death by Degrees - PS2
Otogi 2 - Xbox
Red Ninja - Xbox
Paper Mario 2 - GC
Close Combat - PC
Armies of Exigo - PC

November
Ratchet & Clank - PS2
Lord of the Rings: The Third Age - PS2
Gran Turismo 4 - PS2
Metal Gear 3 - PS2
Jak 3 - PS2
Prince of Persia 2 - Xbox
Viewtiful Joe 2 - PS2
Halo 2 - Xbox
Baiten Kaitos - GC
Ghost Recon 2 - PC
Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth - PC

Damn. Looking at that list makes me want to cry - both in anticipation of gaming goodness and how bad my wallet will hurt.




Sunday, August 15, 2004

Is there an absolute morality?

This is a conversation about moral relativism. Before we can discuss it, let’s define what I am talking about. Relativism is the philosophy that denies any absolutes. Any absolutes. Everyone believes that some things are relative, but relativism claims that all things are inherently relative.

As far as I can find, there are four types of relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral and religious relativism. You can claim that there are no absolutes anywhere in reality – that’s metaphysical. You can say there are no absolutes in human knowledge – that’s epistemological. Anywhere in morality – that’s moral relativism, and the topic for discussion here. And finally you have no absolutes in religion – that’s religious.

Atheism is the same as metaphysical relativism – there is no Absolute being. Religion is about relationships with the Absolute, so religious relativism says there is no absolute best or truest method for communicating with God. Epistemological relativism is the same as agnosticism – it says that perhaps there is a God, but it can’t be known. There is no absolute in human knowledge. So, where a metaphysical relativist says there is no absolute in reality, and an epistemological relativist says that, “Perhaps there is an absolute in reality, but not in knowledge,” a moral relativist says that perhaps there are absolutes in non-moral knowledge, but not in moral knowledge, i.e. 2+2 does equal 4. But there is no moral absolute. Religious relativism says that there are moral absolutes, such as the Golden Rule, but no religion has it absolutely correct.

I think we all know what ‘moral’ means, so I’ll skip defining it unless specifically requested. ‘Relative’ is always relative to something else, contingent upon something else, or conditional on something else. ‘Absolute’ means ‘not relative’, not contingent but necessary, not conditioned but unconditioned. No ifs, ands, or buts. Absolutes are unchangeable, universal, and objective. There are no distinctions for time, place, or class/culture.

The reason I take such care in defining the terms we use is to properly frame the discussion.

Let me begin by saying that I am a believer in moral absolutes. I think that there is an absolute right and wrong. I believe in good and evil. I think that moral absolutism crosses all cultures and civilizations throughout history. I believe that right and wrong are objective. Right and wrong are taught by all cultures, showing that we are all born with a moral compass pointing the difference between right and wrong. And I think that empirical data proves that out. The first and foundational moral experience that we all have is always absolutistic. Only later in life do we discover relativism. That’s why little kids are always so ‘black and white’.

There is an absolute measure of right and wrong, one that stretches across humanity. It is only through knowing the absolute that we are able to raise ourselves and make progress. Morals and values cannot originate with man. When you are drowning in quicksand, you cannot lift yourself out by your bootstraps.

There has never been a successful society which repudiated moral absolutes. Not one. I think that this issue is important, because the modern West will either disprove one of the most universally established laws in history, give up relativism and survive, or persist in relativism and perish.

It is widely mentioned by those who believe in moral relativism that different cultures have different moral values. The premise of this argument is that moral rightness and wrongness are relative to culture because what is right in one culture is wrong in another. Because a culture’s values differ from one culture to another, moral rightness differs from one culture to another.

The hidden assumption to that argument is that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to your culture’s values, that it is always right to obey your culture’s values. That implied premise assumes cultural relativism. This is important because there can be a difference between what is believed to be right and wrong and what actually *is* right and wrong. Just because the Nazi thinks genocide is right, doesn’t make it so.

But upon investigation, the differences between cultural rights and wrongs are always rooted in a difference of interpretation of a deeper, underlying moral agreement. Different mores for the same morals. Sure, there are differences, but they are like fleas on an elephant – a lot of little disagreements circling around a big agreement. The moral relativist merely ignores the elephant.

To say it another way, the differences between cultures are usually differences in emphasis, not a whole new value system. For example, most pre-modern societies valued courage more than compassion, while most modern societies value compassion above courage. But neither society says that cowardice is good, and neither says cruelty is good. There has never been a wholesale relativism of opinions about values that the relativists portray.

Moral disagreements in history have been either matters of degree or disagreements about how to apply a more basic value that both agree upon. These disagreements share the same morals as a common premise. If you don’t have a common premise, you can’t have a disagreement about how to apply that premise. The fact that one culture values or interprets one moral differently than another culture only proves both cultures recognize that moral and that these morals are universal.

This truth can also be found in language: all cultures have words that represent the same moral tenets. That is what makes translation possible. A culture that has never seen an apple can have no word for it, but all cultures have words for love, honor, charity, courage, good and evil.

If you disagree with that, try to imagine a totally new morality. It is impossible. You can’t envision another morality any more than you can imagine a new set of numbers or colors. Try to imagine a society where honesty and justice and courage and self-control and faith and hope and charity are evil, and lying and cheating and stealing, and cowardice, and betrayal and despair and hate are all good. It can’t be done.

Friday, August 13, 2004

The myth of church and state

I think it's time for a little history lesson, so kick back and relax - this is going to be long. The First Amendment states, and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Founding Fathers never thought that religion was bad, or that religion shouldn't be a part of the lives of public officials. They made a prohibition against the establishment of a national religion (such as the Church of England), and said that Congress would make no laws to restrict religious freedom.

This is seen when you look at the other documents of the time for context. In James Madison's first draft of the First Amendment, his wording was:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

His context was that there would be no more Salem witch hunts, no Inquisitions, etc. - not questioning the importance of religion as the basis of morality in our government, nor the applicability in government of the laws of God.

After much discussion, the House Select Committee, on August 15, 1789, proposed this version:

"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

Noting that the words are subject to being interpreted out of context, Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York, objected to this version, saying on the floor,

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."

James Madison then proposed the insertion of the word "national" before "religion" but this was not agreed upon, so Madison offered this version:

"That Congress shall not establish a religion, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to his conscience." Note the implication that of course men would worship God according to their conscience."

Again, a Congressman arose in concern. Congressman Benjamin Huntington, son of the Governor of Connecticut, protested:

"The words may be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion." (Little did he know.)

He then suggested that the Amendment be made in such a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who profess no religion at all.

Roger Sherman did not even want an amendment, realizing that the federal government was not to have any say in what was under the individual states jurisdiction.

James Madison realized that Congressman Huntington understood the meaning of the words to be that Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

Madison then responded agreeably to Congressman Huntington and Congressman Sylvester, that he (Madison) believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two (Congregational and Anglican) combine and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. (This is in context with what the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson was about, which we will discuss in a minute.)

On August 15, 1789, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire, proposed the wording:

"Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."

Other subsequent versions coming during Senate debate included the following:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

"Congress shall make no law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society."

"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."

"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious society in preference to others, or to infringe on the rights of conscience."

The final Senate version was,

"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

A joint committee of both the House and Senate then finalized the wording of this part of the First Amendment as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was finally ratified by the states. This was a declaration of what the Federal Government could not do, leaving the states free within the control of their own constitutions.

For further context, I refer you to the Northwest Ordinance. The Northwest Ordinance is ranked number four in importance relative to all Government documents, behind the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. Article III of the Northwest Ordinance reads as follows:

"Article III. Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary in good government, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

This statement presumes that public schools are proper and necessary to teach religion and morality which they did for over 200 years.

The Founding Fathers stressed the need for religion as the basis of morality. The first amendment is not about repressing religion. The first amendment is a footnote about what the federal government cannot do respecting religion, and insisting that the biggest thing government and society cannot due is inhibit the free practice of religion.

The Ten Commandments were taught for over two hundred years in our public schools. There were federal designations of publicly observed Days of Thanksgiving to God for special favors from God. Our national day of Thanksgiving was proclaimed and there were designations of National Prayer Days -- all routinely established down through our history.

The First Amendment, written in the same year as the Northwest Ordinance, could not possibly have meant anything like what today's judiciary say it means.

So where does the current confusion come from? Most of the current arguments for the separation between church and state are based around Thomas Jefferson's famous comment about a 'wall of separation between church and state'. However, that statement has been taken out of context in the pursuit of ridding the government of all references to God. The statement was made in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in response to a letter from them.

The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801. The original letter from the Danbury Baptists reads as follows:

"Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.

Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson"

To which, Jefferson replied:

"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

Inferring that Jefferson was saying that the state can have nothing to do with religion is proven false when the comments are looked at in their original context. All he was establishing is that the Congregationalists in the state of Connecticut cannot by virtue of being a majority church in that state infringe in any way upon the freedom of practice of their religion by the Baptists.

Thomas Jefferson also said:

"I am for Freedom of Religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another..."

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus."

"Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christians." "I have always said, I always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.

1. The doctrines of Jesus are simple and tend to the happiness of man
2. There is only one God, and He is all perfect.
3. There is a future state of rewards and punishment.
4. To love God with all the heart and thy neighbor as thyself is the sum of all. These are the great points on which to reform the religion of the Jews."

Among many other things, Jefferson in establishing the University of Virginia, not only encouraged the teaching of religion, but set aside a place inside the Rotunda for Chapel services.

The issue of separation between church and state is a wholly modern creation. The Founders never intended to prohibit the practice of religion; in fact, they encouraged it, both publicly and privately.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

The difference between the Left and the Right

When I talk about left vs. right I am not talking about economic systems. The free market, when applied with the rule of law, is unbeatable as an economic system.

I am talking about the ideology for implementing social change. The 'left', as I am using the term (and as most conservatives do), profess a vision of social change, implemented by the wisdom of the few (i.e. them).

The left typically believes that what is lacking in the implentation of social change is will and power, not knowledge. The right typically believe that there is an inherent nature of things, which if it can be altered, humans don't have the knowledge or the wisdom to do so yet.

To touch on a few of the ideological differences:

The left believe that policies don't fail because of a faulty pretense for the policy, but instead because the plan was not implemented properly. You can see this when looking back over the failures of the war on poverty and the criminal justice reforms of the 1960's. The policies put in place failed miserably by any objective standard, and yet they are defended by saying that the measurements aren't fair because the policies weren't executed according to the vision. The right typically believe that common sense and systemic change are more effective for creating lasting social policy, and that the 'unfairness' that might result from those policies are unfortunate but unavoidable.

The left believe that there are 'solutions' to problems, such as crime, poverty, the environment, etc. These solutions are waiting to be put into place, and all that is lacking is the political power. The right recognizes that problems will never go to zero, and that any fix is inevitably a trade-off that might cause problems in another area. It boils down to which answer is the least distasteful.

The left believe that social correlations are proof of social causation; for example, loan rejection discrepencies for minorities are directly indicative of racism. The right believe that incentive structures within a system provide the basis / remedy for observed social phenomena. To use the previous example, if minority loan rejection is systemically occuring, there would be a lower level of profitability for banks who are rejecting otherwise qualified applicants. Similarly, this creates opportunities for banks to address this (underserved) niche because of the oppty for super-normal profits.

The left typically believe that economic costs in implementing policy is incidental. Ends justify the means especially when economic costs are concerned (e.g. "save the environment" = eliminate DDT, eliminate asbestos, etc.). The right believe those economic costs are crucial to the decision making process. The cost of "changing over" to a new system is critical in determining the value of the new system. (e.g. before DDT was eliminated, malaria had almost been eradicated. Within two years of the elimination of DDT, countries where malaria was endemic saw malaria cases rise back to or exceed previous levels. All of this when there was and is no conclusive proof that DDT was dangerous)

To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, the left vs. right discussion boils down to 'good intentions' vs. 'results, in the face of imperfect knowledge'