Hashemian Blog Web Tools, Financial Markets, Technology Monday, May 25, 2009 The Morality Argument  For centuries religion has used various natural events and objects as proof of god. The Sun, the rain, storms, plants, and the stars have been essential tools in justifying the existence of god. But as science has progressed and has been able to provide answers for many tangible matters, religion has shifted its argument to the metaphysical, mainly the question of morality. The crux of the argument is that without an originator, morality could not have come to existence. In other words there is a supernatural force that guides us towards being moral and ethical, and that force is god. Indeed science is currently impotent to link morality with molecules and atoms, but one can argue that morality is the result of accumulated human experiences and a need for perfection. Centuries of human development has taught people that societies can better function based on certain rules and one can sum up such rules as morality. If god is responsible for morality, why would he dictate such behavior only in the last few millennium? And why is it that the rules of morality differ so much is various societies today? Many indigenous people around the world walk around with no clothes on. Polygamy is still widely practiced around the world. Stoning and severing limbs or heads happens in many places for even minor offences. Some consider these immoral, while others do not. And if god is the origin for everything, shouldn't he be considered as the originator of immorality as well? Isn't he the creator of Satan after all? Isn't god directly responsible for death and destruction and natural disasters and famine and disease? It seems hard to believe that without god moral people would suddenly turn into rampaging criminals, that they would abruptly turn into thieves, rapists, and murderers. I think most of us try to be good because generations of built-up experiences have taught us that civility gives much more favorable returns than chaos and anarchy. If morality is pre-programmed by a supreme being with no alternatives, then what value can be placed on forced virtue? And what good is morality if only practiced out of fear? To quote Albert Einstein, "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." god,religion,morality Labels: religion, social <The Morality Argument> // posted by rh 0 comments Thursday, May 14, 2009 Portland-Vancouver Interstate Bridge  A few weeks ago I was in Portland, Oregon visiting my uncle and I found one of greatest urban locations for running, the I-5 bridge connecting Portland to Vancouver, WA. The weather was the usual overcast and drizzly but the run was nothing short of exhilarating. The bridge spanning the Columbia river is actually two adjacent bridges, 3 lanes each with sidewalks on both. There was no way I could miss this opportunity and in the morning I was out running from Portland to Vancouver. Half-way above the river is where Oregon ends and Washington state begins. The scenery is spectacular. After crossing the span, I hung a right and continued between the river on the right and the railroad tracks on the left. This is rather the industrial section of Vancouver. I almost lost track of distance and time as I continued farther away from the city. By the time I turned around I had already covered about 4 miles. Happily I was rewarded with the bridge-crossing once again on my return trip. With cars zooming by on one side and the wide body of water flowing underneath, it almost feels like the whipping wet wind could lift you up and hurl you into the river and that certainly makes the run even more exciting. Being still high on the first run, I went for another one the next morning. This time, after crossing the bridge, I turned left and that got me into the center of Vancouver. This is a smaller city than Portland and has a nice small town feel to it. Judging by the traffic pattern, I got the feeling that most residents commute to Portland for their day jobs. If you are ever in the Portland area, give the I-5 bridge a try, running, walking, strolling, whatever. portland, oregon,vancouver, washington,oregon,washington,running Labels: running <Portland-Vancouver Interstate Bridge> // posted by rh 0 comments Sunday, May 03, 2009 The Innocent Investor  A while back I was reading about Bernie Madoff's adventures (fascinating story) and the smooth way he operated his giant Ponzi machine. The interesting part of the story was about how some of the damages will be recovered from other investors who were ostensibly lucky enough to withdraw their investments before the house of cards came crashing down. I suppose if I had lost substantial assets with Madoff, I would want as much money recovered as possible, even if that meant forcing the early investors to forfeit their gains. While it may be true that those investors profited from ill-gotten gains, this presents one with an ethical and moral dilemma. Suppose you were just an innocent investor in a seemingly legitimate plan and you had decided to take your profits and walk away. Why would you be responsible for future losses if the investment suddenly collapses? You had committed no crime here. You had followed the rules and had bought and sold the investments in good faith. You had taken the same risk as the others, but had the fortune of better timing. This scenario plays out in the market all the time. Take the recent drop in the stock market. Many investors lost substantial amounts when their shares suddenly plummeted in value and they were forced to sell at ridiculously low prices. Then others stepped in and picked up those shares on the cheap and by now some of them have tripled or quadrupled their initial investments in a very short run. If they decide to sell their shares today and walk away with handsome profits, would they need to worry that the early sellers may come back and try to take away their profits? And if so, how much would they need to forfeit? The early sellers may argue that abnormal conditions had caused the shares to plunge to artificially low levels and the current owners had profited from the panic and despair that had gripped the market. You may argue that in this case no fraud had taken place, but those "toxic assets" that led to the violent volatility weren't exactly proper either. I have no problem with going after the swindlers and their cohorts, but for those who took the same risks as others and profited fair and square, there shouldn't be any negative consequences. Why go after the early investors instead of the regulators who were asleep while the fraud was being perpetrated? If every legitimate gain in the market is at the risk of being taken away, what incentive is there for people to invest in anything? madoff,stock market,ponzi schemes Labels: financial <The Innocent Investor> // posted by rh 0 comments

Links Technorati Profile TMCnet.com ARCHIVES 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009

هاشمیان.com

 Home

 Blog

 Web Tools
Usage

 News

 Articles

 FAQ

 About

 Contact

 Financial Markets Book
Read Complete Book

Search Amazon: