Author Archives: Jer Clifton

About Jer Clifton

Unknown's avatar
Look up, friend. The world is too beautiful for my eyes alone.
July 21, 2011

The Island of Yap

By Jer Clifton

As I studied economics, I ran across this story a number of times.  Perhaps you have heard it.  It helps me think about the nature of money and valuation.

The indigenous people on the island of Yap developed money that consisted of enormous round slabs of limestone, up to 12 feet in diameter, with holes in the middle.  Limestone was not found on Yap, but on a neighboring island.  Quarry and transport costs accentuated its value.  Of course, nobody owned very many of these huge stones, called rai, but they did change hands for dowries, or as a last resort after a failed crop (though hopefully your crop was the only one that failed, otherwise you might be facing rai inflation).

But rai did not change hands per se.  They were too big.  Instead, when you acquired rai, it was merely acknowledged that the stone now belonged to you.  You left it in the town square, or marking the path, or wherever it lay.  It was yours and everyone knew it.  Now you had enduring stored value, ready for you when you needed it.

Once, while transporting a large rai stone, it fell into a deep part of the sea.  Oh no!  But after some discussion, everyone concluded it must be down there somewhere, and so it continued to be exchanged as if it was regular rai.  It is still traded, though nobody has seen it for over 100 years.

It seems to me that the brilliance of modern finance is to say, “Why are we going through the trouble of mining and transporting these stones (or in our case, precious metals) in the first place?  Seems like a waste of time.  Instead, why don’t we pretend that all our rai are already lying on the bottom of the sea?  We’ll just use banks, accountants, and ledgers to keep track of it all, just like we were doing already, but in order to lessen the impact of cycles of inflation and deflation, let’s create a quasi-governmental organization (the Fed) to control how much fictional rai at the bottom of the sea we are allowed to think exists.”  Brilliant.  If we are all going to play make-believe, we might as well ensure our make-believe world is as stable as possible.

8 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Economics, History, General

July 11, 2011

Adventures in Economics

By Jer Clifton

The realization irritatingly flicked my enormous nose two months ago: in order to realize my full potential as a snob, I need to learn more about economics and develop some stronger opinions.  The context for this realization was a year of Alicia taking the equivalent of intellectual steroids in her masters program–just plain unsportswomanlike.  I used to hold my own with her when debating monetary policy, development economics, and recent global economic history.  Now I’m an infant.  At least I could still play the “well I have some insight because at least I grew up in another economy” card.  But Eric, a friend from Taiwan, moved in and took that tiny advantage from me.  And, before Alicia went to Rwanda, they had impassioned debates that I enjoyed only as a spectator.  That’s just unethical.  All arguments should include me.

Seriously, economics is important, and I know very little.  I can’t pretend to be a well-informed citizen if I don’t have an informed opinion on, for instance, the gold standard.  Therefore, I went on a binge and listened to the following (feel free to skip the list):

Economics.  3rd Edition (36 lectures).  Timothy Taylor does a good job.  He’s managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Principles of Economics (14 lectures) With Peter Navarro (didn’t get all the way through it)

Freakonomics.  By Steven Levitt. Interesting!

The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World by Niall Ferguson.  I enjoyed it.  (I understand everything so much better when I understand the story of its development.  However, Ferguson could have been more systematic about it.  The phrase “financial history” makes you think it will be a history.  Its more of a collection of interesting tidbits of history.)

The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 by Paul Krugman.  Ok.

The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell.  Statistics heavy.

The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.  Mildly interesting!

Overall I was amazed with how boring economics can be.  I need my intellectual adventures to be a bit more adventurous.  This is why I love ancient Greece!  Nonetheless, I am now a bit more informed.  Here are some of my new positions and some old ones that were confirmed (new positions are in italics):

First, the gold standard is silly.  It takes away our ability to counteract inflation or deflation.  It might make more sense to the public, it might be easier to wrap our heads around, but it’s bad for the economy.

Second, the Fed is the best option we have.  Yes, it’s weird.  They do weird things.  But money is a fiction, and a shadowy quasi-government bank seems to be the best way to make it happen.

Third, the government needs to spend a ton during economic downturns.  It needs to cleverly bail out banks, GM, whoever, in order to ward off catastrophic failure.

Fourth, unions suck.  Sure, it’s a generality, but this is economics.  Formerly essential, currently destructive, unions are hurting us in most sectors (in America) where their presence is strong.

Fifth, any sort of protectionism is a subsidy.  It’s a tax on everyone else.  This does not mean that I am necessarily always against it, but we should call protectionism taxation.  As a corollary, we should generally be for free-ish trade.

Sixth, I am still a huge fan of the fair tax.  Huckabee/Petraeus 2012!

Seventh, I’m thinking more and more that privatizing social security might be a good idea.  The idea behind social security is that the younger generations owe the older generations that can’t work a decent standard of living for raising them.  I have two problems with this.  One, this moral obligation breaks down when so many in the older generation play no role in the creation and maturation of the younger generation.  In other words, those who don’t have kids or contribute to the raising of kids, should not be a forced burden on the kids of others.  This is happening, of course, en masse with the boomer generation.  Now, more than ever, our kids are our retirement plans.  Those who don’t have them need to be expected to make their own plans.  My second problem with social security is that we have proven inept at reforming it.  I would love to help those forced into retirement for health reasons.  But the retirement of able-bodied men and women is an incredible luxury, not a right.  We would need an overhaul of social security even if it was not going belly-up momentarily.

Eighth, tax cuts generally aren’t ideal for stimulating the economy.

Ninth, we need a big gas tax.

Tenth, because the market’s invisible hand will simultaneously give you cookies (progress) and stab you in the back (economic collapse and rising inequality), my general policy is this, as said by Drew Ludwig in response to Random Man’s question:

Random Man: Do you believe in socialism or capitalism?

Drew: I believe in the power of a well-regulated free market economy.

I think this makes me a moderate.


5 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Economics

July 6, 2011

Jon Huntsman

By Jer Clifton

Huntsman was a Mormon missionary to Taiwan, where he learned fluent Mandarin and Taiwanese, so obviously he’s going to be of interest to me (I just found out that Bill Clinton also likes him).  After dropping out of high school to play keys in a band with his friends, he got his GED and went to the University of Pennsylvania where he got a BA in international politics, and he served as staff assistant in the Reagan administration.  Under Bush 1 he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce focused on trade development in east asia and pacific regions, and then US Ambassador to Singapore.  Under Bush 2 he was the Deputy United States Trade rep.  He also worked in Daddy’s business, the Huntsman Corporation, which allows him to laud his business acumen, but it is also a liability, as he is the son of a billionaire (though first generation) and, like any big business, the corporation seemed to have been involved in some shady things at times.  Governor of Utah from 2005-2009, he won reelection with 77.7% of the vote and had approval ratings in the 80s and 90s.  However, this is Utah we are talking about.  Finally, Obama asked him to be US Ambassador to China, the post he resigned in 2011 to run for president.

His time working for Obama will also be an asset and a liability (see his note to Obama), but I think it will be more of an asset.  For one, in a general election, Obama can’t overly attack Huntsman’s competence or integrity, since he, after all, picked him to be his ambassador to an extremely important nation.  Also, the liability of working for Obama is only a big deal for the crazy wing of the Republican party (the 50% of the party who thought Obama was not born in the US) who aren’t going to be excited about his reasonable and calm demeanor in the first place.  He also is happy to answer when asked why he worked for Obama that he “served his country and would choose to do so again.”  He seems entirely unwilling to cater to the Tea Party element and that is why, of all the Republicans, I like him the most (though I’m still not a rabid fan).  In sum, he has substantial executive experience, kicks everyone’s butts at foreign policy (though a desire to distance himself from Obama is what I fear has affected his statements on Libya), wants to be the candidate of reasonableness and respect, and I love that he recently told Iowans that he’s not going to campaign there because he thinks ethanol subsidies don’t make sense.

So that is why I hope he does not get the nomination.  Though I would love to see some respectful and intelligent Huntsman/Obama debates, I don’t think he can beat Obama in 2012, though he or Romney would be the most likely to, and I don’t want the Republicans to nominate another moderate like John Mccain and lose.  Then the crazies in the Republican party will gain even more legitimacy in their narrative that we need even more ideologically entrenched politicos.

Instead, we need their standard bearer to win.  So, I declare, go Michele Bachman!  If she gets the nomination she’ll get creamed in the general.  Subsequently, that wing of the party will be demoralized and weakened.  Moreover, she is not articulate enough to create long term party transformation, as Goldwater did in the 1964 election in which he lost spectacularly but articulated a call to conservative principles that have lasted more than a generation.  Realistically, her nomination and loss will advance the American cause more than anything I see on the horizon at the moment (which is not saying as much as it sounds).  The national debate will become a little more thoughtful as the Republicans are forced to get a little less ideological.  Bachman, it seems to me, is just good medicine.  It might make you feel a bit nauseous going down, but ultimately it’s for the best.

Finally, what I am saying depends on Obama being quite likely to win.  Some of you have expressed disagreement.  I invite you to articulate how Obama could lose in 2012.  My two biggest reasons are as follows: I think Americans have gotten more negative in how they express opinions.  Therefore, lower than expected approval numbers do not necessarily translate into higher than expected approval numbers for somebody else.  In other words, everyone gets seen more as a cheap hack.  Our political economy is suffering a period of deflation. : )  Also, though Obama’s approval numbers stay hovering in the high 40s, I suspect (I have no evidence) those who are approving of him are centrist democrats and indpendents.  Those disapproving are mostly conservatives, but plenty of liberal democrats are as well.  In other words, the man is hogging the center, which means the only way for the Republicans to expand would be to beat Obama in the center or grab some liberal Democrats.  They could do the latter by being consistent with a libertarian platform by, for example, legalizing drugs.  That’ll get a few liberal democrats singing, but I don’t think it would work.  So, like always, it’s a fight for the center.  Ultimately however, what will likely tip the scale in the center is the state of the economy, which, though improving slowly, is improving.

In personal news, I’m starting to write again.  I miss Alicia.  Eric is in training.  I am housesitting at a friend’s.  Family will be visiting soon.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Politics

July 3, 2011

My Favorite Republican Hopeful

By Jer Clifton

Now that I am done with my Habitat temp job, it’s time to get down to what’s really important: crudely assessing the Republican presidential field.  I tend to think it’s pretty weak, and, to be honest, a bit embarrassing for Republicans.   Three big heavyweights are sitting out this round: Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie.  I think the main reason is that they realize how little of a chance anyone stands of beating Obama in 2012.  Chris Christie and Marco Rubio are young, and despite what Christie recently said to my old pals on Fox & Friends, they both would make great VPs.  However, let’s look at who’s running.

In general, I think that there are three types of candidates.  For the first, it’s a publicity stunt, a way to sell books, raise your profile, and advance your career (think Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain).

In the second group are those that have very little or no chance of achieving the nomination, but they hope to shape the debate.  Ron Paul is the quintessence of this group.  Gary Johnson joins Paul in his love for most things libertarian, and I tend to like him.  He seems interested in solving problems and is refreshingly thoughtful on policy issues.  For example, in the June 13th CNN debate he proposed a kind of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants which centered around making it easy to achieve work VISAs.  I find it sad that it takes guts to suggest this in the Republican world of absolutist solutions (e.g. send everyone back!).  He’s also a fan of legalizing many types of drugs, which I agree with wholeheartedly.  Newt Gingrich has such high negatives that he really has little chance of being president, but he hopes to shape the discussion and be the Republican ideas man.  This hope betrays an intent that indicates a firm footing in the first group as well, as he hopes to sell more of the 21 books he’s published.  Really, the guy has very little chance, and you better believe that he knows it too.  Finally, Rick Santorum is in this group as well.  He wants to shape the debate by bringing the pet issues of the religious right to the forefront.  The problem is that he cannot distinguish himself as everyone seems on board.  There is no front runner like Rudy Guiliani who is pro-choice.  Nonetheless, I do believe that Santorum thinks Santorum has a shot at winning everything.

The third type of presidential candidate is actually running for president.  So far, only three people populate this group: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Jon Huntsman.  Mitt is the frontrunner I suppose, but these early polls are extremely meaningless.  I think he’s the frontrunner in large part because he is the only one of these three with larger name recognition, a holdover from the last presidential contest.  However, I remember him primarily for conveniently flip-flopping on abortion, viciously attacking John McCain in the primary debates last time around, and spending a shit-ton of money in Iowa and losing to an insurgent, relatively poor, and likable Huckabee.  I am comforted by the fact that even Romney’s supporters don’t really seem to like him, and may easily defect.  These numbers won’t be replaced, because he can’t get much tea party support with his record on health care reform, which is so toxic to the extreme elements in his party.  Tim Pawlenty seems like a serious candidate, but he seems to be continually trying to feign outrage in order to grab some share of the Tea Party.  But he’s not an angry guy, and he’s not really that confrontational, as was shown by how he sidestepped his Obamneycare line at the June 13th debate.  Also, I just disagree with him about most things he says.  So that leaves us with Jon Huntsman, my current fav.  I’ll talk about why in my next post.

6 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Politics

June 13, 2011

Humanity Oozes

By Jer Clifton

It used to sadden me how impersonal everyone is in public.  When we go out we put on this solemn facade, wear sunglasses, and pop in our headphones.  I suppose the alternative is ridiculous, but it can be quite lonely spending this much time commuting amongst so many people yet without another soul in sight.

But, as I ride the subway to work everyday, I’ve gotten better at seeing, and I have come to this firm opinion: if you pay attention, you’ll see humanity oozing out everywhere.  Deception experts call it “leakage.”  I like the idea of our emotional, psychological, humorous, cruel, and kind personalities oozing mucous-like through the cracks in our cool exteriors.  After all, indefinable humanity is metaphorically viscous isn’t it?  Its more like sweat and blood and mud than water or rock.  Undoubtedly poets everywhere agree.

The other day on the subway I was attacked by this humanity and it made me quite happy.  It started with a woman listening to her ipod as she stood next to me as we waited on the platform.  I noticed that she kept subtly starting to dance to her music, and then stopping herself, as if to say “oh yeah, I’m in public.”  I was enjoying it, and then I realized that I was doing the same thing as I listened to JT.  A palpable sense of commonality rushed over me as I experienced a deep feeling of connection to this stranger.  I sensed that we were dancing to the same music, even if it was a different tune.  Sound is incidental.  It’s what the sound evokes that matters.

We got on the train.  I sat facing a man standing up, reading a book, with an untied bow tie hanging from his neck.  As we trundled away, he unexpectedly rocked forward with a vigorously subdued belly laugh.  It only lasted a moment before he stood back up and smoothed his features.

As the train left the downtown area and emerged into the daylight, I saw a storm was coming from the west and chasing us east, engulfing the Atlanta skyline behind us.  As rain drops caught up to our subway car, I was in the middle of listening to “Lily’s Eyes” from the Secret Garden and contemplating how incredibly human we all are–totally messed up, totally beautiful, and totally inept at hiding it.

So pay attention!  See the humanity oozing!  If you look closely (I look from underneath sunglasses to avoid detection), strangers betray that they are not the unfamiliar automatons they seem.  Please take part in my joy!

(Lately I have realized I don’t understand macroeconomics as well as I should and I have gone on a learning binge.  More on that later.  Also, Alicia is in Rwanda now.  She is doing well.)

9 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Random Thoughts

May 18, 2011

Personal Update

By Jer Clifton

(This is what I was talking about but it is too soon in the election cycle.  But yeah, when I saw it I laughed out loud.  1 point for the Democrats.)

Due to the hectic nature of my life at the moment.  I will be hardly posting at all until the end of June when my temp job at Habitat for Humanity Intl. ends.  I’m doing that for 32+ hours a week while keeping my 3 main part-time jobs: personal training four days a week, teaching some guitar lessons, and my church job.  Its been strange being this busy and yet not that stressed.  All of my jobs I can pretty much leave at work.  But, it also means I have no time for blogging.  Rest assured, I am still listening to audiobooks.  Since we talked last I have finished a book on Ayn Rand, I listend to Huckleberry Finn (or the beginning of it), a lecture series on something that I forget at the moment, a book on corporate leadership that someone gave me at Habitat, and I am currently listening to The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.  So thoughts are coming, but there is no outlet.  So I’ll be back up and running come July, that is if I don’t explode before then.

Also, I need to address something I said in one of the subway interviews that seemed very sexist, but I guess I’ll have to do that later.

Also, Alicia is going to Rwanda in 2 weeks.  She’ll be gone 10 weeks!  On monday though a friend is coming to live with me for the summer.  For those who don’t know, he’s a buddy from Taiwan.

Also, the presentation at the National Trust Conference in October is for sure happening.  So I’ll see some of you in Buffalo then I hope.  We will be presenting on a theory of urban development and decline at the block level.

3 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Personal, Uncategorized

May 8, 2011

Birther Brilliance

By Jer Clifton

I just want to mention some of the profound ways that not being born in the United States would have affected the quality of Obama’s presidency.  He clearly would not have been able to truly understand the country or be capable of talented, decisive leadership.

My confidence in this knowledge stems from observing my own inabilities brought on by not being born in the US.   It has rendered me an imbecile in regards to all things American.  For example, I sometimes get the words wrong when saying the pledge of allegiance.  Americans even think that I stutter, when really I am just talking like everyone not born in the United States.

I’ll miss the Birther movement.  I find crusades for meaningless truths amusing (or depressing, depending on my mood).  Who could have better publicized the idea that citizenship jus soli (by the soil) is an idiotic idea in the first place?  I remember in 8th grade Social Studies when I found out that an illegal immigrant can have a kid in the US and that kid is automatically a citizen.  I thought my teacher was joking, but apparently dirt has magical properties, at least in America.

At the same time, there is a myth in the missionary kid world that those like me who were not born in the US can’t be President.  From what I can tell this isn’t true.  I did some research for the sake of Obama and I.  Please, correct me if I am wrong.  Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution says this:

“No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of president.”

Ok.  What is a “natural born citizen”?  In the fourteenth amendment, section 1, it says this:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

That didn’t really help.  Finally, title 8 of the US Code fills in the gaps in section 1401. It says a couple of things but most importantly for our purposes it gives citizenship at birth to:

“a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”

Ok.  This means that I am good to go right?  My mom grew up in Ohio and my Dad in Virginia.  Yay!  I can be president.  What about Obama even if he was born outside the country?  Secion 1401 of title 8 goes on to say that someone is born a citizen if he or she is:

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.”

Shouldn’t this apply to Obama also?  His dad was from Kenya who came to America to study.  His mom was from Kansas where she lived, presumably, more than five years.  What am I missing?

I’ll miss the Birthers.  They were off-base technically (I think Obama would still have been eligible for president), meaningfully (Obama would still have been capable of being president), and factually (Obama was in fact born in the US).   Nonetheless, in March one quarter of all Americans believed Obama was not born in the states, the majority of Republican primary voters believed he was not, and 49% of all Republicans nationwide.  Obama and his advisors must have been wondering when to release the long-form birth certificate. This would have been the best opportunity ever to make your political opponents look dumb.

What do you think?  I think he blew it.  He played his ace prematurely.  If he would have waited, I think he could have painted an abysmal picture of the entire Republican party right before an election (BTW, 83%/12% of Republican birthers viewed Palin favorably compared to 41%/52% of republican non-birthers).  Some Republicans, Karl Rove for instance, did try to discourage this preposterousness, but most leaders, such as John Boehner, did not.  When asked about it on Meet the Press he said, “it’s not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people.”

That’s the sort of inspiring leadership that magic soil is capable of.

3 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Politics

May 4, 2011

Assassination Rocks!

By Jer Clifton

Most of the world is celebrating Osama bin Laden‘s death.  Some, however, are recoiling from that celebration and mourning the loss of life.  Both groups annoy me, but only if both groups are as single dimensional as my single dimensional description of them.

On the one hand, bringing an end to bin Laden’s exploits is a wonderful thing.  He killed lots of people and would kill more.  It also is a good morale booster and makes the West look and feel less incompetent and idiotic (“Seriously?  This guy walked free for almost 10 years after masterminding the single biggest terrorist attack in world history against the most powerful country in the world?”).  I am happy that we have ended this rallying symbol for Islamic fundamentalism.  However, I regret that we could not have had a trial for him as I think that would have been cathartic for society.  Trials are what separates societal civil justice from street gang vigilantism, and, since street gang vigilantism is no doubt a major goal and modus operandi of Islamic terrorist organizations, it’s too bad we couldn’t nab Osama and be rub-it-in-your-face civil to him.  But assassination is better than nothing.

On the other hand, assassination celebrations are weird things.  As a Christian, I believe that bin Laden was loved by Jesus just as much as me, you, or Mother Theresa.  God’s grace is as offensive as shit.  When Jesus died on the cross, he died for bin Laden.  He thought of bin Laden’s despicable actions, but also how beautiful he was as a human being and how passionately he would pursue his beliefs.  Yes, Osama had good qualities.  He will join the ranks of amazing people who did bad things like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Genghis Kahn, Napoleon, etc.  All these men had incredible talents that are admirable.  Even douche-bags of less grandeur, the local annoying jerk say, has admirable qualities.  He or she has a mother.  He or she is beautiful.

However, I barely have time to mourn for those who have not killed thousands of people indiscriminately out of some crazy religious calling.  I barely have time to mourn child hunger, the African Aids epidemic, or my friend’s problems with depression.  In fact, the only reason that I can see to single out bin Laden’s death as something to mourn is because other people are celebrating it.  In other words, it’s a stellar opportunity to act morally superior.

Finally, as many of you know, I am not a fan of punishment or anyone, especially Christians, who want to deal it out.  Justice is God’s to do, and he does it in the afterlife I’m pretty sure if at all (note “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” and Christ’s parable about the workers in the field).  So, I see Osama’s death as a means to an end and not an end itself.

So, I think our appropriate response to Osama’s death is celebration with a moment or two to pause and say, “Ok, assassination is not ideal.  Ok, God loved bin Laden just as much as he loves me.  Ok, I like his death’s good effects more than just the fact of his death.”  Then we drink a beer (or two), come up with a few cheesy movie lines to use as toasts (e.g. “Hijack this!” and “To the liberation of bearded men everywhere”), and wake up the next day and go about our business in arresting the suffering of others and the depravity of ourselves.

…in other news, Donald Trump called Seth Meyers a stutterer in what appeared to be a somewhat derogatory way.  Of course, I have an opinion, as I am deeply concerned with what Donald Trump thinks of me.

10 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ethics, Middle Eastern History/Politics, Politics, Theology, War

May 1, 2011

Aristotle Makes Me Sleepy

By Jer Clifton

When I studied him in college, I did not like him very much.  He always struck me as pretty boring, and, with plenty of exceptions, his assertions seemed obviously true, strongly defensible, and not particularly imaginative.  But of course!  The man was a biologist at heart.  He liked to classify, to arrange, and he was imminently a fan of common sense and addressing problems which were practical and that would satisfy the majority of people.  I resonate with the latter, but the former makes me queasy with boredom.

(I just finished  “The Ethics of Aristotle,” a series of 12 lectures by Joseph Koterski of Fordham.  I have more substantive thoughts on the Nicomachean Ethics, but I work all the time now and don’t have any time to write.  Boo!)

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in philosophy

April 28, 2011

Berserk

By Jer Clifton

Please gauge your initial reaction to this fact I’m about to tell you.  Ready?  Here it goes:

Last year Alicia and I bought a 26′ sailboat without knowing how to sail or having ever sailed.

I’ve observed a spectrum of responses.  On one extreme, people think that what we did was irresponsible, dangerous, selfish, and short-sighted.  In the other direction, people see what we did as a profound, beautiful, carpe-diem statement about adventure, loving life, and living freely.  Most fall somewhere in between, or rather, like me, somewhere in both extremes.  But while I think that there is a compelling case to be made about my general idiocy, I see buying that boat as one of my proudest moments.  When I think about that decision, I exhort myself to maintain that part of me.  I yearn to be that type of guy.

However, I just finished this book by David Mercy, Berserk: My Voyage to the Antarctica in a Twenty-Seven-Foot Sailboat, and, though I enjoyed the writing, I found them stupid, irresponsible, and selfish.  The Captain had just sailed single handedly down to Argentina from Norway at the age of 19 in a boat he named Berserk because everyone thought he was nuts.  Then two men, author included, who had never sailed before in their lives (they seemed to never have learned even how to tack) join him for a trip to Antarctica, across the worst seas in the world, far away from help, without a working engine, proper clothing, or knowing each other remotely well.  They go through major storms, mutiny, and extreme physical discomfort; near death experiences are the norm.

I want to go berserk, but not that berserk.  How about you?  How berserk is, ethically speaking, optimally berserk for you?  It seems to me that if you do not know, it is not even possible for you to have a happy life.

None of us want to go through life always being the responsible adult or always the risk-taking adventurer.  So, while the moderate middle way is different for all of us, it is also the same in that it is always a middle way.  None of us want to give up on adventure entirely or responsibility entirely.  In this at least we can relate to each other’s decisions, for we share the value that caused the decision, if not the same valuation of that value.

One way we each gauge how berserk is berserk enough is by looking at the people we love.  One of the reasons I thought the sailors in Beserk were selfish was because they did not fully consider the ramifications of their own possible deaths.  What about their family and friends?  We cannot let our parents, or even our spouse, for example, rule dictatorially over what constitutes our middle way.  But if we care at all about family and friends, we better be willing to compromise.  Hopefully that compromise will fall somewhere close enough to the middle way we might make in a vacuum, close enough so that we can still be happy.  If not, you’re screwed.  You cannot choose yourself over family and friends and still be happy, and vice-versa.

Your family and friends, however, can do much to allow you to be happy.  We could all do each other a favor.  Amongst our families and amongst our friends, we should not be so quick to judge each others’ morals for falling in different places along the spectrum.  Alan the aligator-farmer might be more reckless than you, or less reckless, but if Alan is living as recklessly as what he sees as exactly right, we can only applaud him for it, and of course, if we want to change his behavior, talk.

Of course, for some, confronting a loved one about how they live is just too berserk.  If so, let me break my own rule and judge you: you need to live more dangerously.  As for me, I love adventuresome confrontation, but that’s a topic of another post.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ethics, Random Thoughts