This brings me to the question that has been thrown in my face in the past.  This question is “What makes your morality, to be moral for me?”  They context of the question is that since my morals are based on the Bible, then my morality is irrelevant to them since they do not believe in God.  Essentially saying that morality is relative to your standards or belief system.  These people deny my belief that something is right or wrong because I use the Bible as a gauge, or measuring stick.  If this is true then I can just as easily say to them, what makes what they say right?  You can see the paradox that develops with this argument.  To think that morality is relative is self defeating because to to believe this, the person must believe that morality is absolutely relative.  Since in relative morality asserts there are no absolutes, then the argument is self defeating.

There have been many times that I have heard these people like Leo Laporte claim they do not believe in God.  If they do not believe in God, then the Bible that speaks of HIM, is just a myth.  If this is true then a morality that is based on a Biblical view must be a myth as well.  This leads me to ask by what morality to they make this judgment on Mark Zuckerberg.  How can he be amoral if there is no standard by which to measure right and wrong?  I single out Leo Laporte probably unfairly only because he is the single voice of the “This Week in Tech” podcast network.  The reality is that the vast majority of those in the technology broadcast movement also do not believe in God so they do not have the luxury of having the Bible as a standard of right and wrong.  They typically go farther then just not believing in God by speaking against religion as a whole, virtually discounting all religions.  If there are no  immovable standards by which they measure morality then how do they make this claim about Zuckerberg?

I ask by what standard does one measure right and wrong if it is not measured against a religious standard?  This question is usually answered in essence saying that it is wrong to cause harm to others.  Who defines harm?  Who defines what is acceptable in society?  If a person does not use a religious standard that is immovable then a person’s morality is subject to change with the society.  This seems innocent and acceptable if it is looked at independent of any situations.  The problem with having a relative moral stand is that causing no harm can be redefined.  For example, the German government in the early 1940’s believed they were helping society by removing Jews from society.  They managed to convince themselves into believing that Jews were less than human and therefore their “cause no harm” belief did not apply.  These Jews were not considered people that deserved to be protected.  Since the majority of people in that country during that era thought that way, then one could say that it was moral to kill Jews.  It is dangerous to have a relative moral stand in my opinion.

If people could be convinced that one group of people are are less human than others in one society then it can happen again.  I have heard people speak that education is the answer.  They say that educating people is the answer to all the woes of the world.  This seems reasonable on the surface but then that pesky relative morality comes back in.  Education as a general term is usually seen as a good thing but more and more often it can be manipulated.  Education can and does get used as a tool to spread a belief system.  A simple omission of relevant information, and the use of rhetoric can change the meaning of things.  For example, the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The original intent was to eliminate religious coercion while at the same time prevent the restriction of free religious expression.  Somehow over time, the education system of the United States has managed to convince people that any expression of  of religious speech by anyone associated in the government on any level is strictly prohibited.  In addition to this, the education system has managed to convince many that there are selected groups of people that deserve preferential treatment and cannot be spoken of negatively in any way.

Again, I ask by what standard to these people teach us what is right and wrong?  By their own measure, they have no moral standing to tell me what is right just as I do not have a standing to tell them.  I for one believe in the Bible and so I do have a measuring stick by which I measure right and wrong.  My standard often conflicts with theirs.  I think it is often less honest to impose a moral standard on others when they do not have an immovable standard.  This is because the motive is often self promoting and that is why I question all this Facebook anger.  When a person posts on the Internet, they are giving their personal information on a public platform.  They have to know this and if they don’t then they should be more careful where they post their information.    This notion that Mark Zuckerberg is amoral as stated by one that does not  have an absolute morality makes me laugh.  In my opinion, anyone that does not believe in an absolute right and wrong seems hypocritical to claim someone is amoral.

The more I listened to this podcast while I was mowing the lawn, the more incensed I became.  I kept trying to make mental notes to myself so that I would remember some quotes.  I did not mention most of them on here because this post would go on forever.  I was struck that a podcast labeled “This Week in Google” spent more time talking about Facebook than Google.  I think I have made my point that I do not agree with many things they say while still listening to them.  The reason I do this is because one of my hobbies is being a technology enthusiast.  Since in our country most of these types of industries come from one metropolitan, I follow these individuals.  Honestly, I do not think it is a good idea to be in lockstep beliefs with any one person anyway.  It is perfectly acceptable to take in many opinions to shape one’s own opinion.  In the end though, my disclaimer is that I will use the Bible to measure whether or not I believe it.  Thanks for stopping by and reading my opinions.  I realize that not everyone agrees with them but hey!  We all have them

In addition to all this was that we were running the Internet Radio Linking Project (IRLP) streaming audio on our Linux computer. With all this going on simultaneously we maintained a three way conversation for more than an hour with out a single choppy moment in the video and audio. It was pretty impressive and I am convinced this will be a keeper. The audio quality was every bit as good as Skype and that is saying something. This ooVoo also had chat and file sending capability built in. I have decided that I will keep this program though I am sure it will be hard to get people to try it. There have been so many instant messaging programs available that it is difficult to get people to try out new programs. I even had a difficult time trying to get people to try Skype and you know how good that is. The laptop has a camera built in while my desktop has a Microsoft LifeCam VX-6000 that cost me $39.99 at Best Buy.

I heard on TWiT that the ooVoo logo is supposed to represent two sets of eyes connected by the “V” representing video. It is a cute way to symbolize the video communications. If you have not tried this program lately you would be surprised at the quality of service and it is free. You have nothing to lose when the program is free. If you do not like it you can always open the Windows control panel and run the Add/Remove programs function. I know I am always anxious to try new things but I can get tell you that this is an amazing program. Give it a try.

As many of you know, I am a big fan of Leo Laporte and his podcast This Week in Tech, or TWiT.  As with most podcasts, this one is not only in audio but also streams video via twitlive.tv.  If you are not familiar with this program or who Leo is, I have to give you a little history.  In the early 2000′s and late 1990′s there was a satellite television channel that was called ZDTV that later became TechTV.  This channel was very popular among computer enthusiasts like myself.  This channel had several people that were on various programs and Leo Laporte was one of them.  Some of these shows were Call For Help, The Screen Savers, and Silicon Spin among others.  When TechTV was taken over by G4, a gaming company, they shut down TechTV and all its programming.  Many were devastated to lose the computer programs and were left with a void.  Leo and many other personalities from TechTV joined together and put together a podcast called Revenge of the Screen Savers.  I heard that G4 told them they were not allowed to use the name because they had the rights to The Screen Savers name.  Since many of the TechTV’s personalities are from the same location, they often do there podcasts via Skype.  After several renditions, Leo eventually settled on TWiT and that became the main podcast on the website.  Later, he and other former TechTV personalities put together other podcasts that are on the same page.

Now TWiT has nearly a quarter of a million listeners to the podcast each week.  Leo Laporte has enjoyed a tremendous success with radio shows such as The Tech Guy that syndicates nation wide on weekends.  With all the success of TWiT, Geoff Smith put together the video above.  It is a very good representation of the podcast.  I ran across it and thought it would be worth posting on my blog.  Although TWiT is supposed to be a technology related podcast, they often discuss politics with a liberal slant.  If that does not bother you, it is likely you will love listening to the podcast.  If you have never listened to it, go to http://www.twit.tv to listen or you can catch them on video during the recording on Sunday afternoons at http://www.twitlive.tv.  I think you will enjoy listening to them.