Category Archives: Uncategorized

Hypothetical Of The Week

In a comment over at Obsidian Wings, 'Katherine' comes up with just about the best counter-hypothetical to the "ticking bomb" justification for torture (ie. would you torture someone to stop a ticking bomb and you knew your victim knew where it was and how to stop it) that I've ever seen.

I'll post the first sentence, and assume you can figure out the rest:

Stipulate that in 2002, Dick Cheney's cardiologist was deeply opposed to the coming invasion of Iraq.

...though you should go read it all.

My biggest problem with the hypothetical ticking bomb scenario is that it's worthless as a guide to tell you what you should do in an arbitrary situation: it is a post-mortem analysis of a situation which was chosen so that it’s easy to reach the conclusion the torture supporter wants you to reach. It's an artificial moral dilemma: you know the past, present and future and you're asked what was the morally-best decision to make in the past. In reality, of course, you can’t see the future so you can’t say “yes, a couple of minutes of torture is justified here because it will save X lives.” In reality, you don’t know what information the suspect has (if any); and you certainly don’t know if he will give it up with X minutes of torture. You might think you know, but unless you can both read minds and tell the future, you actually don’t know.

And here's something I've never seen these ticking-bomb torture-supporters ask: when you’ve secretly and extra-legally (as the US currently does it) tortured the wrong guy to death, even though you were so sure (!) he had the information you thought you knew he had, what happens ? You bet his pain, suffering and life against your gut feeling - and he lost. What does your moral reasoning tell you to do when you’ve brutally killed an innocent man but will not suffer any legal penalties ?

Uh, No

A little over a year ago, Paste went a-trollin' with its list of the 100 Best Living Songwriters. I just found it today...

You can read it for yourself, but, hey, wait, I have a few complaints:

  1. Pink Floyd (#80) vs Fleetwood Mac (#83) is an argument worth having. But claiming that Conor Oberst (#67) is better than both is just goofy.
  2. Jack White (#59) is better than Sting (#62) ? This is about songwriting, right?
  3. I like the Replacements just fine, but no way is Paul Westerberg (#52) a better songwriter than Becker & Fagan (a.k.a. Steely Dan), who don't even appear on the list.
  4. As the only rap group to make the list, (which makes them like the best rap group of all time, I guess) Public Enemy at #50 seems a little out of place.
  5. Sufjan Stevens (#47) doesn't deserve to be anywhere on this list.
  6. Nor does Ryan Adams (#43), who in no possible universe could be a better songwriter than David Byrne (#46), let alone James Brown (#56) or any one of the Fleetwood Mac principles.
  7. I like Beck too, but his position at #36 is puzzling.
  8. Where's Robyn Hitchcock??!

I know, lists like this are generally pointless, but this one seems particularly silly.

For The Discriminating Investor

I use basically one factor to pick mutual funds for my rollover IRA: 10 year return. I look at the big list of mutual funds on eTrade and pick the ones with the best ten year return. Sometimes I look at the Morningstar rating. Sophisticated!

Ah, whatever. Most of my picks have turned out OK for me. Some have done very well, even. But one fund has consistently beaten all others over the past few years: AMAGX / Amana Trust Growth. While the others have struggled through all the big dips of the past few years, it just keeps going. It rocks.

But, it wasn't until last week, thanks to a random eTrade info message, that I learned how the investments within AMAGX are picked:

Amana Mutual Funds Trust is designed to provide investment alternatives that are consistent with Islamic principles. Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not invest in a business that is not permitted by Islamic principles. Some of the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations.

The Funds do not make any investments that pay interest. In accordance with Islamic principles, the Funds shall not purchase bonds, debentures, or other interest paying obligations of indebtedness. the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations.

If I'd known that, I probably would've never bought AMAGX, thinking such a strategy would avoid too many good buys. But, I would've been wrong, because whatever they're doing is clearly working out. I suppose that's a strong point in favor of my simple 10-yr return strategy - focusing on that one number keeps me from introducing my own ridiculous thoughts into these decisions.

More disturbingly, I might have avoided it on principle: I wouldn't want to encourage religious thinking if I could help it - and with thousands of MFs out there, avoiding one is no problem. Maybe there's an atheist fund somewhere! But, that would've been totally out of character for me, since that principle never affects anything else I buy: I happily eat Hebrew National hot dogs and dine at Indian vegetarian and Halal restaurants; I buy stuff from stores that play Rush Limbaugh from behind the counter, and I eat at Cookout which prints Christian messages on its cups. So no, I don't factor religion into my purchases. But I do find it strangely ironic that the best-performing fund in my portfolio does.