Michael Paine

"Customs camps"

2006-02-07T12:37:00.000-06:00

Customs `camps' cause for concern

Hmm... I can see it now...

"Bill, we need somewhere to put these people. We need to concentrate them into one location, preferably into some kind of easily buildable camp. A camp where we can concentrate them... yes, what should we call these? How about 'happy fun time facilities'?"

Yet another chemical plant explosion

2006-02-01T21:56:00.000-06:00

The first of the year to my knowledge....

Two critical following N.C. chemical plant explosion

And who said "going postal" was a thing of the past? This is America! We're all about retro

Vacation is over

2006-01-30T11:37:00.000-06:00

Well, I'm back from my extended vacation, and the world looks as crazed as ever.

The large-scale support of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections was yet another opportunity for hypocracy by world leaders.

Rice Says Allies Oppose Aid to Hamas Gov't

"Everybody is saying exactly the same thing," Rice said amid
meetings with other diplomats on Hamas' startling election victory last week and
its impact on Middle East peacemaking efforts. "There has got to be a peaceful
road ahead. ... You cannot be on one hand dedicated to peace and on the other
dedicated to violence. Those two things are irreconcilable."

Of course, this statement isn't ironic in any sense of the word. Am I the only one who finds it funny that someone representing a country that rutinely commits overt and covert acts of aggression against other countries is so concerned with Hamas' commitment to peace? Or, perhaps she's saying that, in consequence, the United States is not dedicated to peace, and therefore Hamas can go ahead and do whatever it wants?

But who knows, I get confused easily.

An interesting revelation

2005-12-12T14:08:00.000-06:00

It looks like my suspicions reguarding the UN report on Syra's involvement in the Hariri probe may have been more or less correct...

The Syrian Gambit Unravels

Middle East Hopscotch

2005-12-11T07:29:00.000-06:00

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

Everyone seems certain another war in the middle east is coming soon, but speculation shifts daily from Syria to Iran and back again. It would almost make a kind of twisted logic if the plan all along was for the United States to attack Syria, one of Israel's neighbors, and for Israel to attack Iran, which borders our troops in Iraq. That way, according to this logic, Israel wouldn't face a war on its border where Israeli troops would be pinned down, and they could free up US airpower for use in Syria by striking Iran for us. Of course, this is all pure insanity.

No one in their right mind could any longer deny the holy war being waged by the fundimentalists in Washington, Tel Aviv, and the mountains of Afghanistan. The common people caught in the middle are only now awakening to the obvious. Soon the entire middle east will be a battlefield, and the apocalyptic visions of the "holy book thumpers" will be realized. After that, who knows what will happen.

But, my friends, I do believe it's in our power to stop this. We can still vote people out of office. We can still protest. But do I believe that the American people have the will to act? No. I would be very surprised if our current course reversed itself in the near future. Call me cynical if you want.

Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President

An illuminating glipse of the war

2005-11-29T19:43:00.000-06:00

The View from the Front Lines

"Since July, 1 in 3 platoon members has been killed or hurt. "All of my squad leaders and section leaders have been wounded," says the platoon leader, 2nd Lieut. Joe Walker, a South Carolinian who volunteered to fight after 9/11. "For a while, our unit was fighting at less than 70%, and we're still below 60% on our vehicles--so many Bradleys have been blown up."

For weeks the 2-69, an entire armored battalion, was cut off from other American forces. The roads in and out of its base were saturated with improvised explosive devices, says Captain Chas Cannon. At one stage, there were 100 explosions a week. "You expected to get hit ... possibly several times," says Cannon. The roads were closed; some food was rationed. But with aggressive combat operations, sniper assaults and the building of precarious outposts, the 2-69 has regained control of the city's main artery, "Route Michigan," the troops' lifeline. "

More bad news

2005-11-25T18:28:00.000-06:00

War's strain wearing on Army troops, tools

""The future of our military is at risk," Murtha said. "Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards.""

"The war in Iraq is taking the biggest toll on military equipment since the Vietnam War, after which the Pentagon retooled its arsenal during the massive military buildup of the 1980s. Fixing and replacing Army equipment alone could run from $60 billion to $100 billion, according to retired general Paul Kern, a senior consultant to the Cohen Group and the just-retired head of Army Materiel Command. The total cost for wear-and-tear on U.S. equipment is unclear because it is not known how long American troops will be needed in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said last week that the United States went into Iraq with too few troops and doesn't have sufficient forces to maintain current levels. "We are grinding down our force structure to the point where we have no force structure," Hagel said."

A bleak assessment part 2

2005-11-12T21:36:00.000-06:00

Mounting evidence backs my opinion that the war in Iraq is eroding our military capabilities and leaving the United States vaunerable to attack...

U.S. 'can't maintain Iraq troop levels'

Do as we say, not as we do

2005-11-08T20:40:00.000-06:00

US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

We do not torture: Bush

What is a lie? According to the correspondence theory of truth, a lie would be a statement about a thing that does not accurately correspond to that thing in reality, deliberately meant to decieve the listener.

Does President Bush's statement: "Anything we do to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture." correspond to reality?

When he says "we do not torture," what does torture mean? According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, torture is "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion: An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain: Excruciating physical or mental pain."

According to the US army's own admission, this has occured. (And if "we" ~read: our soldiers in Iraq~ do everything within the law, why are these Rangers being prosicuted?)

If the common lay person can do a quick search on the Internet and discover overwhelming evidence of the abuse of prisoners by US armed forces, much of which comes from the US Department of Defense itself, surely the President of the United States can too. So, it's hard for me to believe that President Bush is ignorant of these acts of torture by our armed forces.

This leads me to conclude that either Bush is completely blind and deaf, or his statement "We do not torture" was designed to delibretly decieve the listener into thinking something contrary to reality.

In point of fact, President Bush is a liar, ie. someone who lies. Where's the impeachment trial for that?

Britain's former ambassador to the US speaks

2005-11-07T12:54:00.000-06:00

A political war that backfired

So what, two-and-a-half years after the invasion, do the president
and prime minister have to do now? "I think the US and ourselves are on the
horns of an absolutely impossible dilemma," he says. He opposes an early pullout
of US and British troops. Abandoning the task of rebuilding the country would
leave "the relatives of at least 2,000 American servicemen and 98 British
servicemen with a legitimate question about what they died for".

But he accepts that the task of rebuilding may now be impossible.
"There is no doubt that the presence of American and British troops to a degree
motivates the insurgency. So this is agonising for Bush and I think it is
agonising for Blair, all of us really." He also dismisses the prime minister's
claim that the war has not exposed Britain to terrorist attacks. "There is
plenty of evidence around at the moment that home-grown terrorism was partly
radicalised and fuelled by what is going on in Iraq," he says. "There is no way
we can credibly get up and say it has nothing to do with it. Don't tell me that
being in Iraq has got nothing to do with it. Of course, it does. The issue is it
is part of the price we have to pay and should be paying for the removal of
Saddam Hussein and at the moment the jury is out."

The Logic of the Iraq War, part 2

2005-11-02T13:14:00.000-06:00

Some argued that even if Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction wasn't certain, the possibility was enough to justify an invasion. In a sense, they were arguing that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, implying, by default, that they might not. In other words: either Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or it doesn't. In logic, we translate this as (P v ~P) This is known as a tautology, because it's a statement that is always true. When we plug this into our argument, like so:

1. (P->Q)
2. (P v ~P)
------------
3. Q

the argument comes out invalid. Why? Because premise #2 has given us no useful information. A person could use this invalid argument to justify the invasion of any country, because (P v ~P) will always be true for any given situation. Either Sweden has weapons of mass destruction, or it doesn't, for example. It's certainly possible for any country to have weapons of mass destruction, but does that justify invading them?

A person might then argue that Iraq has a history of using weapons of mass destruction aggressively (much like France and Germany in WW1, Britain in 1920 against the Kurds, and the United States in WW2) So, let's add a third premise to our argument.

1. If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then the United States should invade Iraq.
2. Either Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or it doesn't.
3. Iraq has a history of using weapons of mass destruction aggressively.
---------------------------------
4. The United States should invade Iraq.

or, in logical notation

1. (P->Q)
2. (P v ~P)
3. S
----------
4. Q

After constructing our truth table, we see that this argument is also invalid. It seems that premise #3, our new premise, has no effect on the outcome of the validity or truth value of our argument. This is because premise #2 weakens the argument to the point that it would cause any variations to fail our test of validity. It is simply a logical mistake to make one of the foundations of our conclusion based on the possibility of the existence of something, no matter how accustomed we are to hearing it.

Furthermore, premise #3, although it may sound connected in natural English, doesn't have any logical connection to our conclusion. We could have plugged any new sentence phrase into our argument and gotten the same result, like "3. Iraqi men have beards" or "3. Iraqi art is nice." Any of those sentences requires the creation of a new sentence letter, but have no bearing on the outcome of our test for validity. On the surface, this seems silly. Why shouldn't Iraq's past use of weapons of mass destruction have any bearing on our present situation? The explination in logical notation is simple.

Premise #3 has no bearing on the present argument because it is unrelated to any other premises or the conclusion. If, on the other hand, premise #1 was reworded to say "If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and a history of using weapons of mass destruction agressively, then the United States should invade Iraq," or ((P^S)-> Q) in notation, premise #3 becomes important to the argument, but still wouldn't cause the argument to become valid, because of our tautology.

The Logic of the Iraq War, part 1

2005-11-01T19:29:00.000-06:00

Before the United States invaded Iraq, the White House made the following argument, cleaned up for ease of logical translation:

If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then the US should invade Iraq. Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the US should invade Iraq.

Putting that in logical notation, we see the following conditional argument:

1. (P->Q)
2. P
----------
3. Q

And, using a truth table (a universally accepted test of validity) we see that the argument is clearly valid, meaning that every time both of the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. There is no case where both of the premises are true but the conclusion is false. That would be a validity counter example, and mean that the argument is invalid. So, there is no way we can attack the validity of the argument above, if both of the premises are true.

But what we can do is attack the premises, by denying their truthhood. Suppose we say that the second premise is not in fact true, and claim the opposite. As follows: If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then the US should invade Iraq. Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the US should invade Iraq.

1. (P->Q)
2. ~P
----------
3. Q

Here, in our truth table, we can see that there is an instance where both the premises are true and the conclusion false; giving us the validity counter example to show that argument is invalid. Of course, the argument above should sound invalid to any reasonable person. Never the less, the case could be made that the knowledge about the truth and falsehood of premise #2 was lacking before the US invaded Iraq. In that instance, premise #2 could be again considered true, and this time we could attack premise #1. Suppose we denied that the US should invade Iraq if they had weapons of mass destruction, as a pacifist, non-interventionalist, or just someone opposed to the idea would, while keeping the same conclusion as before.

It is not the case that if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then the US should invade Iraq. Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the US should invade Iraq.

1. ~(P->Q)
2. P
----------
3. Q

This argument also produces a validity counterexample, making it an invalid argument. Even without symbolic logic and truth tables, the two arguments above should seem instinctively wrong. But not all arguments for the invasion of Iraq have been that simple. With the revelation that Iraq did not in fact have the alleged weapons of mass destruction, new justifications for the invasion have arisen.

Next: Part 2- Possible Weapons of Mass Destruction and more complex arguments

It took a disaster to finally get it

2005-10-26T09:55:00.000-05:00

"This is incredible. I just cannot believe it," said Sanchez, 47. "I've seen this before. Miami officials said they are prepared, but they are not. Everything is a lie. We got all this technology. We've gone to the moon, but they [officials] cannot have their little act together."

In Wilma's wake, relief falls short, tempers shorter

The obsequious US media and Manufacturing a new war

2005-10-22T16:13:00.000-05:00

The obsequious US media

It's great that our media focuses on the "elections" in Iraq, while padding them with stories like these:

U.S. Troops Maintain High Morale in Iraq
U.S. Forces Kill 20 Insurgents in Iraq

Meanwhile the US military was able to suppress information surrounding the deaths of 4 US contractors in Iraq for a month until the British Daily Telegraph broke this story:

US troops fighting losing battle for Sunni triangle

At least the Washington Post had the decency to report this:

Hughes Misreports Iraqi History

Maybe there's some hope, but I doubt it.

Manufacturing a new war

The UN report on the Hariri investigation has come out and is available here. This report has some strange conclusions. Amung them was this list of "key UN findings" by the BBC:

1. (the) Assassins had considerable resources and capabilities
2. Evidence suggests both Syria and Lebanon were involved
3. Crime was prepared over several months
4. Hariri's movements and itineraries were monitored
5. Highly unlikely Syrian or Lebanese intelligence were not aware of assassination plot

On the surface, you might be inclined to think, as US officials would like you to, that the report is a damning inditement against Syrian involvement in the plot to kill Rafik Hariri. Going back in time a bit... If you recall, Ahmad Abu Adas, speaking on behalf of a group called "Victory and Jihad" claimed responsibility and said they assassinated Hariri for his close ties to the Saudi Government. However, Lebenese opposition groups and US officials were quick to ignore these facts and point the finger at Syria.

Basically, the report concludes that because the crime had to be prepared over several months, Ahmad Abu Adas and his group remain elusive, and Syrian and Lebanese intelligence agents should have known about the group's activities, Syrian and Lebanese intelligence agents must have been behind the bombing.

That's very much like saying that the US government was behind the Oklahoma City bombing because the FBI couldn't have been unaware of such a complex plot. (I think someone has said that)

Let me pose a few of my own conclusions.

It is possible for an individual, or small group of individuals, to create their own 'terror' group and commit organized attacks. Often, these are the groups that are the most elusive. Take the Symbionese Liberation Army and Theodore Kaczynski's "Freedom Club" for example.
It is possible for a country's agents to know nothing of the activities of private individuals, escpecially those who take deliberate measures not to be noticed.
It is possible, even more likely, for an individual of "limited intelligence" (as Ahmad Abu Adas was described in the report) to use violence to take revenge on a percieved enemy.

If anything, I'd say the report's conclusions about Syria's involvement are very, very shaky. It seems to grasp at straws and make unreasonable conclusions from scarce evidence, conclusions that point towards what they seem to want to believe. (the report directly links the assassination with Syria's involvement in Lebanon by talking about them side by side. It's not hard to see the bias here)

It seems very fishy indeed. I expected a little more from the UN.

A bleak assessment

2005-10-18T11:09:00.000-05:00

We're past 15,000 wounded in Iraq now (although about half of those have returned to duty). From what I've been told many of those would be dead if it weren't for our current medical technology. That makes the total casualties (including injured in accidents) around 22,000. Add to that the number of soldiers evacuated because of disease and you get around 33,000. The average number of soldiers in a US division is roughly 15,000 men (12-20,000 per division). That means that at least 2 full divisions worth of troops have been incapacitated in some way. That's not including those who are mentally scarred and are unable to effectively perform their role as soldiers.

In other news... Iraq Insurgents Seize Korean Aid Worth US$3.5 Million

Based on these numbers, the fact that the insugency doesn't seem to be going away any time soon, reports like this one, a recent assessment by the Committee on Armed Services, and the insistance by our leaders that we don't need any more troops in Iraq, I predict the near total erosion of our army in the Persian Gulf in the coming years, which will be accelerated if we have to fight some other country (Iran, Syria, etc)

This should not be surprising. It's a well established fact that the longer an army is at war, escpecially a "professional army", the more disorganized it becomes, if the long haul isn't well planned for. We see this time and again throughout history. (the disintegration of German army structure on the eastern front in WW2, for instance) In Iraq, it seems like there's a prevailing sense of a fantasy-land mentality.

Marine units found to lack equipment

The fact is, we only have so much equipment, and so much money to replace that equipment. Sure, we could always rush more troops to the front as fast as women back home can crank them out, but remember that this is not 1940, nor 1965. Our modern equipment is extremely expensive to produce. ($8 billion to rectify wear and tear alone, according to the report above) Where is all this money coming from? Also, that report doesn't assume the cost of a prolonged conflict. Those unpaid bills will continue to climb as long as the war continues, and the numbers on that graph to the right will continue to go down.

How long can that last with the White House ignoring reality and continuing to believe that everything is just fine, thus making no effort to rectify the situation?

Iraq War Myths, realities, and peace protest

2005-10-13T12:18:00.000-05:00

Good News, or Urban Legends?

CIA says Bush ignored prewar forecasts

I'm really getting tired of the news lately, and I feel like I'm beating the Iraq War horse to death, literally. Luckily, it's not in vain. More and more Americans are waking up to the reality of the hell they elected themselves into, and Bush's poll numbers are lower than ever. But poll numbers don't mean jack, escpecially when they can be taken from anywhere in the country the pollster wants and usually only contain around 1,000 participants.

What matters is action. The massive protest in Washington last month was a start, but "sitting for peace" won't bring about the end of a disasterous and misguided war. A letter was recently intercepted from the Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan to the Al Qaeda leadership in Iraq (if you believe it's authenticity). In it they talked about getting ready for any possible US withdrawl, and their plans afterwards, which included taking their war to other, secular Islamic countries.

I really hope it's not Bush created propiganda, because this letter, rather than providing a reason why we should "stay the course" in Iraq, only shows how the Iraq war put Al Qaeda one step closer to their goal. The pitifully small terrorist camp nestled in Kurdish Iraq before the start of the war was nothing compared to the number and organizational level of the "terrorists" now. Saddam would have never allowed such a base to exist in Iraq and threaten his rule, but without him, and with a weak puppet government, Al Qaeda can pretty much do whatever it wants, aside from having to dodge the occasional US offensive.

How did that relate to my earlier sentence about the need for action? Well, look what your "sitting for peace" allowed to happen. Did the peacenicks at the beginning really think they could stop the war from happening with paper mache puppets and peace drums? Because the peace movement lacks the courage to take their message to the streets with force behind it-- whether it be radio addresses, TV ads, civil disruption, voting in massive numbers, or whatever-- they allowed Bush to blunder into the Iraq War and make Al Qaeda more powerful than ever.

Way to go, guys. Yelling in your designated protest areas really did something...

Update: 5:49pm----

U.S. Accused of Making Up al-Qaida Letter

2005-10-11T14:17:00.000-05:00

Reading Hellenistic philosophy is like getting a booster shot of virile love for life. Where are people like that today? Why is anyone who siezes life and makes no apologies reviled by the masses? Why are men afraid to become great? "Everyone is equal before God" ---> that is the statment that killed giants.

More on this later...

Live from the war zone

2005-10-05T13:15:00.000-05:00

http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_external.php?article=104658&list=/home.php&

The above is a video recorded by Al Qaida "in the land of the two rivers" of a Bradly Fighting Vehicle being hit by some kind of projectile (looked too big to be an RPG round?) Something you won't find on FOX news.

Also, the US is up to 1,942 dead- 14,902 wounded - and over 5,542 have been injured in accidents.

Over 3,300 US-trained Iraqi police/military have also been killed (2,000 of those this year alone). An estimated 25,323 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the conflict.

To the right is a map from globalsecurity.org of areas in Iraq with heavy insurgent activity.

As you probably know, an offensive is underway in Western Iraq- "Operation River Gate", where Al Qaida recently siezed 5 towns along the Syrian border.

U.S. Tries to Take Towns From Insurgents

As before, the Mujihadeen seem to be able to slip from the US' fingertips, despite the high insurgent casualty count released by the Department of Defense.

"As with the earlier U.S. offensive — code named Iron Fist — it appeared many fighters may have slipped away beforehand."

Here is a good inside look at what's going on ->

Reporter gets inside look at insurgency

I wonder how much longer this cat and mouse game can go on

The drugs made me do it

2005-10-03T12:44:00.000-05:00

It's funny how we often blame inanimate objects for our problems, as though they somehow consciously willed problems upon us. "Guns don't kill people, I do" --- a famous statement, but one that holds true in a lot of situations.

An object, like a drug, has no intentional being. It is made of chemicals and causes specific chemical reactions in a user's body. It cannot "make" someone do something, as common language would describe it. "I hit that girl on the bike because I was high." "I slept with her because I was drunk." But my friend, the marijuana plant did not make you smoke it, nor did it compel you to get behind the wheel of the car.

These are decisions that we as human beings make. It's only after the negative consequences that we look around for something to deflect blame onto. Yes it's true that drugs--- all drugs--- impair or change our thought processes, but who was the one who decided to use them in the first place? Because of that, you have no one to blame but yourself.

If there was a situation where someone beat you over the head, tied you up, and injected heroine into you against your will, which then led to your lapse of judgment, maybe the case could be made that you had no control over your actions. But it still wouldn't be the drugs that compelled you- it would certainly be the one who forced them on you and goaded your drugged mind into actions you wouldn't have otherwise taken.

The whole logic behind the banning of drugs then is flawed, if not revealing of the root causes of the problem. Because either drugs are banned because they "make" people commit actions they wouldn't normally commit, or they're banned to keep them out of the hands of those that have no self control, implying that the government has no faith in the people that they can control their own actions. To legalize certain drugs would be giving people freedom to choose something that others find objectionable. Most, if not all, governments are afraid of that.

My friends, it was not the food that made you fat, nor the drugs that made you act a certain way. It was weakness, the inability to control your own actions that caused the negative consequences. But who today wants to hear such a thing?

The absurdity of freedom means that we must allow people to do things that others find objectionable, including the freedom to choose negative actions. But with this freedom comes an acknowledgment of personal responsibility. You were free to choose what you chose, no one compelled you, certainly not some inanimate object.

"I was only following orders" cannot be an excuse here. For who's orders were you following, the drugs? I have yet to see a drug that can talk, think, and break the will of a person. Those, my friends, are things we do to each other and ourselves only.

The Easy Path

2005-09-27T10:18:00.000-05:00

"...the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. "
– George W. Bush

Bush eyes bigger military role in disasters

One of the most amazing things in the world is to see United States citizens in a crisis. Never have I seen people who talk so highly of freedom be so ready to give it up at a moment's notice whenever things get tough. The question is: what took us so long?

Everyone has known since the beginning of time that the less freedoms a society has, the safer it is. Modern facist governments experienced very little crime or unemployment, their economies boomed, the trains ran on time, and things seemed to get done in record time. Most educated people are aware of the fact that things just worked better in pre-war National Socialist Germany.

Want to eliminate all crime? Just monitor everything your citizens do! Put cameras up everywhere, put a cop on every street corner, have a network of citizen spies, force the poor to work in labor camps. It's easy! Countries have been doing it for centuries.

Want to get things done in a jiffy? Just have the military do it! They work for however many hours you want them to, follow orders without question, and have the added bonus of increasing order in whatever area they occupy... er... help out with. (unless, of course, someone with weapons wants them gone (in case you were thinking of Iraq as a counter-example))

Basically, it comes down to what you want in life. Do you want to always be protected from every danger in life? Then facism is for you! It doesn't have to be a dirty word, broadcasters on FOX news advocate it daily, they just don't call it that.

Do you want freedom? Then you have to be ready to fend for yourself. Does that scare you? Then you don't know what real freedom means. Oh sure, you were told what freedom means, freedom is whatever we live with at the present, right? Oh my friend, you have a lot to learn.

Not to be cliche, but the choice is yours. Do you want the government to run every aspect of your life, save you from disasters, crime, and poverty? Do you want to eliminate inefficiency? Have a strong military? Do you want a strong leader who will take responsibility and the burden of decisionmaking away from you? Do you want to be guaranteed a job?

Or, do you want to decide your own life, take risks, have personal responsibility for your own safety, face the risk of failure, put up with a stumbling beurocracy, have to make important decisions on a daily basis, tolerate poverty, and/or a weaker, conscription based military?

Man, that last option seems harder, doesn't it? It would be so much easier to choose the first.

Exactly. That's why it's the one everyone is choosing without even realizing it.

The "Argument" for Faith

2005-09-22T11:31:00.000-05:00

Those with religious beliefs, reluctant to give up their own despite contrary and logical evidence, and more often than not eager to convince others to believe, often using arguments like the following to convince people to follow some religion (whatever it may be):

"If you aren't religious, then you have no morals (or are not required to act ethically)"
"Either you believe in a religion, or you are prone to commit evil."
"Either you believe in a religion, or you have no sense of right or wrong."
"Without religion, there would be no reason to follow rules."

These are all examples of the False Dilemma fallacy, where two options are presented when in fact there are more than two options.

Truthfully, there are more than enough reasons to behave ethically without the threat of damnnation hanging over your head. A group of people simply getting together and creating a legal code of proper behavior, for example. Or, if you think man-made laws are not a deturent (as though spiritual ones were) you could try pragmatism, which actually should sound familiar to you: "Treat others how you would want to be treated." No personal savior or God needed. Of course, a counter argument to that one would be what if someone liked being hurt, and hurt others without their consent. But that's why we have a legal code of conduct.

Why should our moral behavior be regulated in some otherworldly realm? Why isn't it good enough just to have our earthly laws? Could there be some other motivation there for this spiritual realm? My magic 8 ball points to most likely.

With a personal savior no one has to accept the consequences of their actions. "Jesus died for our sins" you say, so you don't have to feel guilty when sins are committed because all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and everything is ok again. But for people who don't follow this, you accept nothing more than their total damnation, as though it was revenge you wanted against those who refuse to do the same as you.

And revenge is what you want, against those who slip through the human justice system, or those who you feel have wronged you. It's nice to believe that those who aren't punnished for wrongful actions in this life will be in the next. How unfair it would be if they would just die and "get away with it"! Of course, there's no need to reform our justice system at all, because anyone who slipped though the cracks would be damned to hell anyway, right?

Religion provides a comfortable place to be. On one hand, your enemies are all punished, and on the other, you're forgiven for all your own transgressions! If only we could invent some system like that here in our human realm...

It's clear that justice is not the motivation behind these arguments for faith, but revenge, personal absolution, and fear. After all, are not the arguments above designed to make the other person afraid? Afraid that there are no other options than faith or chaos and damnation? But the knowledgable person must know that there is a third way, a way out of this dualistic thinking. There are the rules and laws of human kind, which for any rational adult should be enough to deturmine just action.

Why I'm not a Pacifist

2005-09-19T12:58:00.000-05:00

Pacifism, the opposition to the use of force in most, or all situations, even in opposition to force acted upon the pacifist, is something that I cannot agree with not only on the grounds that such a philosophy isn't practical, but also that it isn't desirable.

Although, in the words of an unknown: "to hate war should not be called pacifism." The pacifist allows his or her enemy to come into their home and destroy whatever they want, and kill or brutalize whoever they want- on principal. The warrior prepares for the defense of their home in case an enemy should attack him or her, although he or she hopes to never have to use the defenses. Who hates war more? Maybe we'll never know, but at least the warrior has a fighting chance.

Let me tell you something else: right now in this country there are survivalists preparing for a disaster by stockpiling weapons and no food. Think about that. Do they not intend to just take whatever they need from others? How would you defend yourself against them? Since every living thing has the right to survive, do those living things not also have the right to defend themselves against those who threaten their survival?

Bears have claws, birds have beaks and talons, deers have antlers, cows have horns. But would you rather live as the farm cow, whose horns have been removed? It was the removal of their defense (as well as their lack of intelligence) that led cows into their current slavery. How quickly would we become slaves if we surrendered our defenses? I'm afraid fairly quickly.

That is why any right to defense has been continually stripped away by those who wish to dominate over a group of people. The first thing they do is remove the defeated people's only means of defense. We have seen this in Iraq, where the insurgeants are put on trial if they are caught, as though their resistance was not just wrong from our point of view, but illegal. Implying that people under occupation by a foreign country (us in this case) do not have the legal right to defend themselves. They have been neutered, made "safe" for use and abuse by others.

The pacifist welcomes this. They gladly surrender their only means of defense for a "safe" society. But my friends, there is no such place! You say the presence of weapons make the world unsafe, I say your lack of preperation has made you unsafe. Whether you like it or not, there will always be those out there, human or otherwise, that want some bennifit at your expense, and they're going to take it with or without your consent. By giving up the will to fight, you are only making their task that much easier.

Suppose all of humanity had been disarmed, and made the most gentle sheep. Who would protect you from the preditors of nature? It was only 150 years ago when packs of wolves made our prairies unsafe for travel at night. If you were attacked, would you throw rocks at the animals? But that would be cruel! That would be against your principles. However, your family being mauled apparently isn't.

You say my analogy is absurd? I say that your philosophy is absurd, and deserves just such an analogy. Even if we melted down all the guns, people would use knives. Even if we got ride of those, they would use rocks. There simply will never be an end to war.

Nor would that end be desireable: for with war comes invention, sometimes bad, but sometimes good. Limited wars envigorate the economy, keep the population in check, expand contact across the globe (only through conquest was Alexander able to bring the East and West togther- something that hadn't been achieve by any other means) War also is one of the things that give humans meaning and a goal. It challenges us to push our physical and mental limits. It is the exorsize of healthy societies.

Of course, war is also terribly destructive, and it brings out the extremes in humanity. But like fire revives a forest, occasionally we need something to cleanse the old and obsolete from our cultures. You say this is cruel, but it is not cruel, it is nature. It is the survival of the fittest.

But let's talk about limited wars, because that's where the middle ground must be. We saw what can be done when total wars oblitorate entire countries, bleed the life of cultures, and break the minds of men with its horrors. That's why I advocate, along with some moderate pacifists, coming back from the brink of modern warfare, and practicing a more useful form of warfare, a kind that has many bennifits for societies as a whole.

But that's something for another time. My position is clear: there will never be a time when there will never be armed conflict, nor would that time even be benificial (but only lead to stagnation and decay), and the position that we shouldn't defend, or prepare to defend ourselves is simply absurd, given all the dangers in the world.

What is your favorate amendment?

2005-09-15T14:34:00.000-05:00

I attended a panel discussion at a Midwestern university yesterday, the topic being the Patriot Act and constitutionality. On the panel were student leaders of various political groups. 2 on the right, and 2 on the left. The first question asked was "which amendment do you think is the most important". Across the board, each person answered "the first." This reply surprised me, although it probably shouldn't have. After all, the first amendment does come first, implying its great importance, and free speech seems to be the topic of the day. If I was on the panel, my answer would be simple:

The second.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Simply put, it is the second that safeguards all the others. Over the course of decades, we have seen our rights meticulously stripped away, but how fast would those rights have dissapeared if the government had no reason to fear retribution? Because of the militias, because of the millions of guns possessed by freedom-loving Americans, any abrupt and blatant dissolution of rights would be immediately resisted with force. We saw that in the Civil War, and I have no doubt such a thing would happen again if a large portion of our population felt their rights were being infringed upon. So, I believe that the second amendment is the only thing keeping us from the grip of an overt dictitorial regime.

That doesn't mean, however, that such a regime does not operate behind closed doors, or that more and more power is being centralized in the government beaurocracy. This is happening, but mostly out of the public eye.

I think this is what those who would want to ban and regulate guns don't understand. Guns are the only thing keeping us "free" (or at least in a state of restricted freedom). To give up that right would mean almost certain enslavement, and why not? We would no longer have any way to resist such a thing. Abolishing the second amendment would be the final straw, the thing that takes us over the brink. Once the population is disarmed, who would be able to resist? A hippie chaining himself or herself to a building? A laughable scenerio.

(For those of you who would like to believe the myth that the revolutions in the 1960s were peaceful, I would suggest reading a little history, or just asking your parents.) Martin Luther King alone did not force change. Your "peaceful" 1960s revolutions included: Black Panther Party, Weathermen, 1968 Democratic National Convention, 12th Street Riot, Kent State shootings, etc.

Simply put, I believe that the second amendment is by far the most important, in that it safeguards the others from abolishment.

The Future is Now

2005-09-14T10:12:00.000-05:00

Dutch to Open Electronic Files on Children

Beginning Jan. 1, 2007, all citizens will be tracked from cradle
to grave in a single database — including health, education, family and police
records — the health ministry said Tuesday.
As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file. But organizations can raise "red flags" in the dossier to caution other agencies about problems, ministry spokesman Jan Brouwer said.

The seduction of power

I can't explain how incredibly worried that makes me, and to what lengths we should go to resist any such measures here at home. Unfortunately, "free speech" is just a catchphrase, so I'll refrain from stating the full extent of my opinion here. But I will say a few things.

Notice the line: "As a privacy safeguard,". My friends, privacy safeguard-- in a database that tracks you from birth? I'm afraid any "privacy safeguard" has long since failed.

I'm afraid that there are those without levers of power who would readily throw themselves at this kind of frightening abuse of power, and eat up everything those with power say is "necessary" to help and protect them.

But let me give you this example.

Suppose your neighbor suddenly demanded that he know everything about you, that he should be able to keep track of your children from birth, for their "saftey". Would you let him? Suppose this neighbor owned a tank, and was appointed by someone that you didn't vote for, but two other people did. Would you feel compelled to put your life and your children's lives in his hands then?

What right do a hundred people who want tyrrany have to vote on behalf of the ten who do not?

What happens if you don't want your children in this database? Will you be thrown in jail? Will you be considered a "bad" parent and have your children taken away?

Only in the insanity that prevails today could this article be written without "raising red flags" of the media, and anyone who still actually believes in freedom. *shakes head* This calls for such stronger language of condemnation. But who today has the courage for those words?

teen pregnancy

2005-09-02T14:22:00.000-05:00

Ohio High School Has 64 Pregnant Students

Am I the only one who doesn't think this is what we should be worrying about right now? Call me unconventional, but I still don't see what the big crisis is. So they get pregnant at 18, etc. It's society's fault that we can't accommodate the phenomenon of pregnancy outside of our stringent social constructs. Maybe it would help if we stopped treating it as a disease. They (the mothers and the babies) are human beings that deserve to be treated like human beings, not like statistics or unwanted garbage.

"This has gotten to horrible proportions. I wish I knew the answer to why it's happening," principal Kim Redmond told the city's daily newspaper The Repository.

Well Mrs Redmond, when two people feel some kind of attraction to each other, and hormones block the rational portion of their brains, they often act out that attraction according to their biological instincts, which sometimes results in the fertilization of the female egg, which then has a chance to develop into an embryo. For more information on how babies get made, please see any 5th or 6th grade sex education manual.

I didn't realize that they allowed special education students to advance to the level of school principal.