Byung Kyu Park's Personal Website

So, over about one week of Kindle Fire ownership (and getting as much chance to play with it as I could) , I’ve found some neat things about it, as well as some not so nice things as well.

One of the not-so-nice things: I got tired of Kindle Carousel fairly quickly. It’s difficult to use and clumsy (e.g. if my finger slides even a little while trying to select an item, I just jiggle the thing a little). So, I finally broke down and installed the GO Launcher. So now my home screen looks more like a proper Android device, not one that’s been tied down to be a book reader.

Over the long term, I suspect my satisfaction would depend on how well the Gorilla Glass holds up, but, well, so far so good.

P.S. Oh, and one of the nicer things: I found an IM program in the App store that can do Skype chat.

Is it right for me to eat meat?

This is actually a difficult moral question: depending on whom you ask, you will get different answers. Teachers of Judaism would say that it depends on the meat: if it’s not on their allowed list (as pork and shrimp, for a couple popular examples, are not), then it is morally wrong for me to eat meat. Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists would also answer similarly, although some particulars may vary (e.g. for Hindus it is wrong for me to eat beef; I was never sure about rules with Buddhists, although I know they look down upon killing of any life, even nonhuman, and monks are not supposed to eat meat—but that may more have to do with prohibition of desires than moral rectitude and/or wrongness of eating meat).

If you are inclined to chalk it off frivolity of ancient religions, consider modern ones: vegetarians and vegans would consider me a barbarian for daring to eat meat. Many environmentalists, depending on their denomination, would also consider me unrighteous for eating meat (the reasons given vary widely: from the nonsensical (to me) position that animals are our companions to the more sensible proposition (at least according to their central tenets) that ranching is a large contributor to greenhouse gases).

So, who is right? Questions like this drive some to postmodern moral relativism: as nearly all of us know some who tell us we must not eat meat, and yet most of us want to continue eating meat, sometimes it seems as if moral relativism is the only way to keep us from attacking each other.

Well, guess what Paul, one of the two pillars of Christian church, says on the matter, in the letter to Corinthians: “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do,” only qualifying this freedom by saying, “But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak … Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”

There is indeed nothing new under the sun: whatever points moral relativists wanted to get across has already been made by Paul, in the same letter to Corinthians regarding his (and all believers’) freedom: “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved by anything.”

Then was Paul a moral relativist? Of course not; relativism relativizes itself when brought to contact with a system of morals that would disallow moral relativism. A system of morals must stand upon a foundation so that it can contend with other contradictory systems. The moral system of Paul stands on foundation established by the early church: adherence to Noahide laws, and the principle that in dealing with one another, edification comes first of all (“Let all things be done for building up.”).

I finally broke down and bought a Kindle Fire which arrived yesterday and I have been playing with for half a day or so. So far I managed not to root it or install Android Market (although the latter is not for lack of trying).

So far the biggest annoyance? Disappearing Enter key. (Was it so hard to ensure there would always be an equivalent of an Enter key accessible on the virtual keyboard?)

From today’s reading (I’ve been behind as, well, the recent illness messed up my daily routines):

For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money.

Much attention is paid to the servant who received five talents and the servant who received one talent, but I wonder if it isn’t the servant who received two talents who is the most remarkable. As the Scripture says that the master gave to each according to his ability, one can say that both the servant with five talents and servant with one talent performed more or less as the master expected: the servant with five talent (the ablest of them all), gave the master 100% return on his money; the servant with one talent (the least able of them all), gave the master 0% return on his money (but did manage to return his money, unlike, ah hem, some modern money managers).

The one servant who outperformed the master’s expectations was the servant with two talents: although perceived as less able than the first servant, this servant also gave the master same rate of return on his money (i.e. 100%), which is what counts as performance metric (at least these days).

Which brings us to the question of the day: would you rather meet a high expectation or would you rather exceed a medium/low expectations?

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.” —Paul of Tarsus, in a letter to the church at Corinth

Feminists have rightly freed women from the sexual bondage that men of flesh have put on them for centuries—that sex is somehow a shameful thing that should be covered up, never to be enjoyed and never to be discussed. Do they know that they are merely following in the footsteps of Apostle Paul, who enjoined husbands to please their wives as it is their rightful duty (and only as a consequence of that duty, do wives return the favor)?

I don’t know for sure if Paul was the very first to claim that it is moral, righteous, and proper for a husband to please his wife (not merely to give an offspring—I Corinthians 7 speaks of no such things, but simply sexual conducts not necessarily as a reproductive act), but he certainly did it before all the modernists and post-modernists made it cool.

Perhaps the credit ought to be given where it’s due.

What do following Federalist Papers passages have in common?

Federalist No. 25:

All violent policy, as it is contrary to the natural and experienced course of human affairs, defeats itself. Pennsylvania, at this instant, affords an example of the truth of this remark. The Bill of Rights of that State declares that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up in time of peace. Pennsylvania, nevertheless, in a time of profound peace, from the existence of partial disorders in one or two of her counties, has resolved to raise a body of troops; and in all probability will keep them up as long as there is any appearance of danger to the public peace. The conduct of Massachusetts affords a lesson on the same subject, though on different ground.

Federalist No. 39

On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appoint indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States. Even the judges, with all other officers of the Union, will, as in the several States, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves, the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard, and to the model of State constitutions. The House of Representatives is periodically elective, as in all the States; and for the period of two years, as in the State of South Carolina. The Senate is elective, for the period of six years; which is but one year more than the period of the Senate of Maryland, and but two more than that of the Senates of New York and Virginia. The President is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware, the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other States the election is annual.

Federalist No. 57

Are not these facts the most satisfactory proofs of the fallacy which has been employed against the branch of the federal government under consideration? Has it appeared on trial that the senators of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, or the executive council of Pennsylvania, or the members of the Assembly in the two last States, have betrayed any peculiar disposition to sacrifice the many to the few, or are in any respect less worthy of their places than the representatives and magistrates appointed in other States by very small divisions of people?

Whether it comes to such weighty matters as keeping of a standing army or the republican nature of the new federal government, or even down to smaller details such as the size of legislature, the Federalists—the same people who wrote the Bill of Rights—had a strong argument in their favor: the States were already doing what they propose the federal government to do.

Mitt Romney must have a better argument for his sins than the fig leaf offered by the Tenth Amendment (yes, part of the Bill of Rights). What the States can and willingly do, the federal government will eventually find the argument for itself to do itself. If Romney was justified in leading Massachusetts into mandated health care purchase, in like manner, the federal government will eventually be justified in following Massachusetts’ example.

And if Federalist Papers is too far removed in history to alarm you, consider this: a supermajority of States passed prohibition laws before the United States passed and ratified the 18th Amendment—and this was no more than a century ago. Where States go, United States will follow. It is inadequate for Mitt Romney to simply excuse that he was only a governor, not the President. Mitt Romney must repent and recant.

President Obama, as he is wont to do, misquoted the Scripture again for political gain:

“And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing.

But that hasn’t been the most annoying thing about this incident. This is par for the course. I’m firmly convinced that Obama is, in fact, an atheist. An atheist sees no problem misusing the Scripture; they fear no punishment from God.

My main problem is the conservative reactions to it. These conservatives are supposed to Christians, and most of them didn’t even think to go to the actual Scripture to see if Obama used it correctly, rather than falling back on weak ad hominem arguments relying on Obama’s clear lack of divinity or making non-sequitur argument about other unrelated sayings of Jesus.

Well, I guess I should be glad at least some people had the right reaction. To recap, the context of the passage (see: Luke 12) isn’t dealing with mere material possessions; it’s dealing with our obedience to God. And what “unto whom much is given” refers to knowledge of the Law (so that we know what to obey), not any material possessions.

But really, conservatives, if they hold themselves out as Christians, well, at a minimum, they should be familiar with the Bible as Christians ought to be. Then they might even have been able to retort to the (atheist) president: “Did not the same Jesus say, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away’?” (See Luke 19; also, in fairness, see Luke 8 as well. The lesson here is, the Bible is too wonderful to be misappropriated for partisan purposes.)

“And why not do evil that good may come?” —Paul of Tarsus, in a letter to the church at Rome

Or so Paul is quoted as saying. But this can’t possibly be right; Paul was the “Pharisee of Pharisees”, who regarded observance of the Laws as important above all else and (perhaps more importantly in distinction to Sadducees) feared supernatural punishment from above. And of course this quote can’t be right.

Similarly, Romney is recently quoted as saying,

“I’m not concerned about the very poor” —Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, in a televised interview with CNN

But this can’t possibly be right; to the great conservative consternation, this Massachusetts moderate upped their state’s Medicaid spending during his tenure. Why would he do that if he wasn’t concerned about the very poor? To reward state and federal bureaucrats for their support? Of course, the whole quote is, “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

But really Romney should have known better. He’s a Mormon. And it was Joseph Smith (or the Holy Spirit; but that’s a … doubtable theological point) who refused to translate a second time from the same tablet, because slanderous sinners will twist your own words (in this case, that no two translations are usually identical word-for-word) to promote unjust ends. Every word he says should have been spoken with that possibility in mind; no 5 words should be strung together if they can be taken out of context to fit the purpose of unscrupulous politicians (or particularly dull news anchors).

And of course, the quote of Romans 3:8 above ends as follows:

“…—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.”

They say history rhymes (something that Gingrich the historian perhaps might agree with), and Mitt Romney would do well to draw some lessons from History.

The time was 4th century, B.C., Athenians were in a struggle for supremacy (and later, survival) against Spartans. Spartan battle tactic was to draw Athenians out of their cities to fight in open fields, where Spartans had the advantage (Athenians were generally better at naval tactics). As part of that tactic, Spartans ravaged the field outside the city walls, in order to anger the Athenians into coming out for battle. Furthermore, there was a twist to their tactic: ravage all the land but those belonging to Pericles, the Athenian leader urging Athenians to pick their battlefield wisely, in order to put additional pressure on Pericles (you know, the good ol’ politics of envy that never quite dies). But Pericles had an answer for this tactic:

Whilst the Peloponnesians were coming together in the isthmus, and when they were on their march before they brake into Attica, Pericles the son of Xantippus, who with nine others was general of the Athenians, when he saw they were about to break in, suspecting that Archidamus, either of private courtesy or by command of the Lacedaemonians to bring him into jealousy (as they had before for his sake commanded the excommunication), might oftentimes leave his lands untouched, told the Athenians beforehand in an assembly, ‘that though Archidamus had been his guest, it was for no ill to the state; and howsoever, if the enemy did not waste his lands and houses as well as the rest, that then he gave them to the commonwealth,’ and therefore desired ‘that for this he might not be suspected.’ Also he advised them concerning the business in hand the same things he had done before, ‘that they should make preparations for the war and receive their goods into the city; [2] that they should not go out to battle but come into the city and guard it; that they should also furnish out their navy, wherein consisted their power, and hold a careful hand over their confederates,’ telling them, ‘how that in the money that came from these lay their strength, and that the victory in war consisted wholly in counsel and store of money.’

Thus inoculating himself from the politics of envy and effectively leading Athenians in the war effort, at least until his death in the plague.

Romney can similarly inoculate himself from similar politics of envy (although I don’t expect him to; Pericles was a leader for the histories—is Romney?). He can pledge his wealth (amounting somewhere in the hundreds of millions) to the U.S. Treasury, should he win the presidency. While he is the President, he will have the room and board provided, along with the salary; after his presidency, he will have a pension to provide for his retirement (this republic saw too many presidents, including Madison, the father of the Constitution, die broke).

If Mitt Romney wants to win the presidency so that he can lead America for better future, then he can do this. If he wants presidency for personal ambition (as Gingrich clearly does), he probably won’t.

Since it is likely that Democrats will hit on Romney’s Bain Capital record when the general election starts, I’d like to, well, anticipate some of the worst attacks that are sure to be forthcoming.

One I can imagine them doing (perhaps geared toward kindling their youth support) is rebranding the MILF acronym to mean “Mother I’d Like to Fire” (analogy to VPILF of last cycle, although I thought that was more tongue-in-cheek support than attack). The associated imagery here would be substantially similar to the Mediscare imagery of grandma being pushed over a cliff (although I’m not imaginative enough to think of a specific image … but I’m sure some liberal will).

What I’m still hoping for is that Mitt Romney’s talented campaign staff will have ready answers (both in debates and TV ads) to charges made by Gingrich (and will be made by Obama) that will work in the general election, not just GOP primary (where almost-reverent attitude towards free market made such attack risky on Gingrich & Perry’s part in the first place).