Evangelical Agnosticism

My Big Shot Father-in-Law

2010-01-05T12:18:00.003-05:00

For some reason it's easy for me to forget this, but my father-in-law, Baldemar Velasquez, is kind of a big shot. Take last week for instance. He's getting the keys to the city of Toledo. My wife and I didn't even go to the banquet. It's sometimes just too much. It's one thing after another with this guy. He's either receiving a MacArthur Fellowship or he's receiving an honorary doctorate. Here he is testifying before a House sub committee. Here's an article from him at the Huffington Post.

He's always in the news as well. I can't even keep up with all the stories. For instance here's a fun little thing for him. The Toledo Blade had various Toledoans singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" that was on the news. If it were me I'd think I was famous but it's standard for Baldemar. With regards to his work he's often getting a lot of press. Like a year and a half ago when he went and worked the tobacco fields in North Carolina. I link to just the one story, but there were many.

What he does is he is a farm labor organizer. He attempts to acquire better working conditions and pay for those workers that many of us forget about. These are the migrant workers. He knows a lot about them because he was one. After school as a kid he'd watch his friends run off to play while he and his brothers and sisters would head to the fields and pick row after row in the sweltering heat. It's really a life I can't identify with in all honesty, especially as I consider the life I'm providing for my own kids. But the fact is many people still do live that life today. Well, I guess that's obvious.

Now, I've long been liberterian leaning, which means I find myself sort of objecting to unions. But I'm starting to drift away from that. Not because I love unions and the frequent abuses that go along with them, but because I'm realizing that Adam Smith was right (see paragraph that begins "In the progress of the division of labor". Division of labor taken to it's extreme may improve GDP, but it will also destroy those that are on the lower rungs.

Just as an example, consider the following scenario. Suppose a certain action increases the total GDP by 1%. But that action means that the bottom 90% of wage earners see their real earnings decline. Suppose they experience greater proportional declines the poorer they are. And suppose the top 10% see their real wages increase dramatically. And suddenly vastly more members of the population now finds themselves on the brink of starvation while someone sitting on $50 million now finds themselves sitting on $100 million? Is the greater efficiency worth it? I think this is actually what is happening, sometimes on smaller scales, in various parts of the world. Perhaps unions introduce an inefficiency, but I'm coming to think that they are important in correcting some of the absurd imbalances.

If you think the same way and are looking for a good union to support, consider FLOC. Believe me, I understand that sometimes unions suffer from abuse. Sometimes people are overpayed, the president is getting kick backs, etc. Not in the case. Baldemar Velasquez may be a big shot, but he is also a man of extremely modest means. Likewise his staff definitely is not getting rich doing the work they do. Despite this they are finding themselves in the red and really need help doing their important work.

For me it's an easy decision. I think it is important to give charitably. I used to give a lot to church. Now that I don't do that I can give money to organizations that in my mind do more. And like church this one is tax deductible. So if you're like me and you know it's important to be charitable FLOC may work for you. Or if you still like to give to church but are looking for a way to diversify your giving instead of giving a big wad of cash for these flipping church building funds, here's an option.

Checks can be made to the Campaign for Migrant Worker Justice or CMWJ. Send to the following address:

1221 Broadway
Toledo, OH 43609

The Power of Photographs - Cute Afghan Girl

2010-01-04T05:27:00.004-05:00

A bomb dropped by coalition forces killed the parents and several siblings of 11-year-old Grana from Kandahar. She had her right leg and left hand amputated – she now uses two different crutches.

Source

Christians Love Climate Gate

2009-12-31T12:01:00.002-05:00

Why is it that Christians are a disproportionately high number of global warming skeptics? The apologetic minded Christians love this hole email conspiracy thing. They love it at Triablogue. They love it at Uncommon Descent. They love it at Evolution News and Views. A friend asked me recently why that would be. Why does it seem that the people that latch on to any type of global warming denial evidence are always Christians?

I believe it is because Christians trust Jesus to take care of everything and expect him to come again and fix all problems. So why sacrifice now and reduce carbon emissions when the Lord will come again soon and none of this will matter? Secularists on the other hand think that if we destroy our planet we really will be screwed. No magic man will come to save us.

If you're a Christian that thinks that the email scandal reveals some sort of massive conspiracy and cover up to get politicians to run your lives, depriving you of Hummer's, etc, watch the video below. Then maybe ask yourself why your conservative sources are always leading you astray. I'm coming to learn that if it's coming out or Rush Limbaugh's mouth and it's remotely debatable it's probably false. Learn that lesson or continue to lose debates with informed people. Or worse.

When Stumped Call Names

2009-12-29T11:26:00.002-05:00

Here's a clip where Ron Paul considers the motivations of the terrorist action in Detroit recently. It's pretty hard to deny as far as I'm concerned. He tells us what motivated him. U.S. bombings in Yemen which killed innocent people. This is not that hard. It's an obvious truth, but a truth that kind of can't be acknowledged anyway according to present orthodoxy. So in the linked clip after Ron Paul makes this obvious point that needs to be denied despite the transparent truth of it, Ben Stein is asked to reply. Notice the long pause. He's stumped. How to deny this obvious truth which can't be acknowledged. In the end he resorts to name calling. Paul is using an "anti-Semitic" argument. Pathetic, but what else can you do?

Thoughts on Free Markets

2009-12-28T17:51:00.001-05:00

What I like about having a blog is that I can simply capture my thoughts, along with links that form the basis of my thinking at the time. It allows me to think out loud and perhaps get some feedback in case my views are off base.

With that in mind I want to say a few things about free markets and capitalism. Maybe later I'll think I was completely wrong, but I just want to capture my thinking anyway.

I've always fancied myself as a liberterian, but lately I'm having some misgivings about some of it and wondering if government regulation sometimes isn't as awful as is often portrayed. I know I've lambasted government generally, arguing that it's the root cause of major problems in the world, and I still think that's true, but lately I'm wondering if that's more due to the fact that the public is in a major way isolated from government and government itself is more under the control of private interests. What this would imply is that government itself is not inherently as villainous as is sometimes thought and in fact can be a means of correcting gross imbalances and dangerous actions that can come about in free markets.

Here's a good area where the government should get involved. Bum Fights. These kids apparently offer homeless people something like $50 to beat each other senseless. The first to go unconscious loses. A true liberterian would have to say there's nothing wrong with it. These are free people that own their own bodies and if they decide it's worth it to them why shouldn't they be allowed to chose?

Because it's awful and harmful to them even if they're not smart enough to realize it. Like any liberterian I don't want a government nanny state. But I think in this case the liberals have a point. Maybe the government should be used to protect people from themselves.

We do this for children. An adult can choose to go to school or not, but a child can easily be convinced that he doesn't need school if, for instance, his parents decide they don't want to make the effort to see that he goes to school. This is why have have laws that mandate that kids have to go to school. These homeless people are like children in the sense that for whatever reason they don't have the mental faculties needed to make wise choices and I think it is right for the government to step in.

Maybe these are easy cases, but let's get into something a little more blurry. Take the UFC. It's almost like a perfect example of the famous the Pyramid of Capitalism caricature. Fat cats at the top making millions while dedicated fighters slave away beating their bodies for pennies.

Take Karo Parisyan. This guy is an amazing fighter. Not a champ, but championship caliber. He's a huge draw. And yet he's having panic attacks that result from financial problems. He's trying to simply provide for his family. He's a superstar athlete that has put millions in the pockets of the owners, but he's just scraping by. Or take Hermes Franca. He got a title shot against Sean Sherk but suffered an injury in training. He took steroids to help himself recover and avoid canceling the fight because he just couldn't afford it. He needed the fight to put food on the table. See his statement here. He made $14K in that fight, but had to forfeit $2500 in penalties due to his positive test for steroids. His earnings are listed here. His opponent, the champ, Sean Sherk, made a whopping $25K.

Take Anthony Johnson. He basically had his eye gouged out and managed to earn $9K for it. This guy is not a poser. He's a serious, top tier fighter. Anybody in the UFC is tougher than anyone that most of us have met and Johnson is among the best of these. He made $17K in his recent bout, taking multiple gouges to the eye once again and basically lost probably in large part because of these possibly intentional gouges. I'm sorry, but $17K and you're among the best in the world, getting destroyed both in the gym and in the ring. And you can only do this a few times a year. Meanwhile the President and owners are making millions sitting behind their comfortable desks, destroying all competing fight organizations ensuring that there is no competition available to drive up fighter's salaries.

But then these are grown men. These are people that are competent to make their own choices. These are not children.

Well, aren't they? Aren't we all in a sense? Here's what I'm thinking. We protect children because they can be so easily manipulated into making choices that are not in their own best interest? Is that not also true of adults?

The marketing industry is huge multi-billion dollar industry that has one goal. Convince people of their need to purchase things or take actions that are for the benefit of the corporations that finance them. Do you think you can stand up to that? Do you think you are not motivated by that to buy crap that you don't really even want and certainly don't need? Are you smarter than they are?

Marketing techniques are designed not just to persuade you of your need to purchase a product but also to do so in a way that leads you to believe that you came to that conclusion independent of their influence. It's an extremely sophisticated and almost frightening thing. Watch in this video as master illusionist Derren Brown uses subliminal marketing techniques to cause two marketing experts to come up with an advertising campaign for a new product. What's amazing is that the experts imagine themselves to be coming up with ideas independently when in reality they've been manipulated to do what they do.

So how does this play out in the UFC? In Season 1 of the Ultimate Fighter some fighters express concern about the fact that they aren't paid to fight at all. They can go out and suffer serious injury and have absolutely nothing to show for it. This prompts the President of the UFC to come in and give a supposedly rousing and impressive speech, which is now referred to as the "Do You Want to be an Effing Fighter" speech. This speech is kind of embarrassing to watch as White tries to act like a tough guy and the fighters basically get no answers, but it's played up on the show like it's some sort of impressive thing. The UFC would go on to make a show about the 25 Tuffest Moments of The Ultimate Fighter. White is so impressed with himself that he saw to it that his very speech clocked in at #2. See here. The marketing message is this. Sacrifice your bodies for our business. Forget about the fact that you may end up permanently damaged and have nothing to show for it. This creates big pressure to sacrifice, and these fighters do, while the UFC rakes in the cash and the fighters for the most part leave with nothing but broken bodies. Except for the select few champions, who can make decent money at the top.

Some have speculated that former UFC champion Evan Tanner committed suicide. Past his prime and with little to show for his efforts that helped make the UFC as profitable as it is John Koppenhaver wonders if in fact this motivated behavior in Tanner that lead to his own death. That could be completely false. I have no idea. But it is the shabby treatment that fighters receive that prompts this kind of speculation. Koppenhaver says the UFC cut him due to these comments.

Free markets are great if informed people are making decisions that are in their own best interest without subliminal outside influence. Also if their choices are not being reduced through manipulation and regulation (for instance if the UFC is destroying competition through underhanded ways, which reduces a fighters options). But is this the world we live in?

And I have been wondering lately if what is maybe a little more obvious with the UFC isn't also true in other sectors of the economy where perhaps it isn't quite as obvious.

Take me as an example. I'm a mechanical engineer. When I was growing up engineers were rich people. Today it's considered pretty much middle class. But look at the gains in productivity that have been made? Today a mechanical engineer has wonderful tools available that have dramatically increased his productivity. I design with solid modeling tools. I analyze vibration and structural performance with finite element analysis. I perform thermal simulations using computational fluid dynamics. I correct potential problems before the parts are ever built. All with tools unavailable to my predecessors. I do it all and do it quickly. I can do three to four times the amount of work an engineer did in 1980. How is it that mechanical engineers have gone from being upper middle class to merely middle class? If markets are free wouldn't we expect gains in wages along with the gains in productivity? But this is not what we are seeing. We're seeing wages flat while productivity rises, and this trend seems to have begun around 1980.

So I'm having a mild shift in my thinking on wealth redistribution. People are entitled to the fruits of their own labor. But when that labor involves manipulating others to sacrifice for you in moves that are not in their own best interest, or when that labor involves bribing the government into passing laws that funnel money from the poor to the rich (see the health insurance industry and the recent changes to health care laws) then the consequence is redistribution of wealth already. It's wealth from the poor to the rich. So when there is some talk of reversing that to some degree I'm wondering if that's really so bad.

And I could be totally wrong here. This is thinking out loud.

Great Source for Biblical Diagrams

2009-12-21T17:15:00.002-05:00

Here's a great source for biblical diagrams/timelines, etc for those that are interested.

Why Did Jesus Descend to Hell?

2009-12-20T08:26:00.004-05:00

Some skeptics claim that the death of Jesus is not sufficient to pay the enormous price of the sins of all of humanity. After all he was only dead three days and then came back to life. What kind of punishment is that? It's pretty small in a sense. Doesn't that simply grant someone else a three day reprieve from death?

The apologist will respond and say that the three days is not the issue. It was the act of dying that redeemed mankind.

I could buy off on that as an evangelical, but then why would Jesus go to Sheol for a few days? Why not just rise and be done with it? Well apparently he had to go preach to those that had already died. Seems kind of odd. God can do whatever he wants, right? It's not like he has to play games to get himself into Sheol and communicate with the dead right? Yet it sort of seems like God can't get through to Sheol without dying like a human in kind of a Trojan Horse move.

God has his ways I guess. If that's the way he wants to do it then what can you say?

On the other hand let's consider this through a different paradigm. Let's just suppose that C.S. Lewis kind of has the right idea in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. God is sort of stuck with these weird rules and he has to trick his opponents into making mistakes. Here's a way to look at it. And I'm not arguing for it. I'm just saying consider this paradigm and see how it illuminates early Christian texts.

Let's suppose that the goal is to defeat death. Death resides in hell. But who goes to hell? Only dead people. So how can God make his way into hell? He has to take the Christ and give him a human form and likeness. The Christ is not human. He only has a human likeness. But if God can trick the demons into thinking that the Christ is human maybe they'll kill him, which will translate him into hell where he can basically plunder hell and crush death. How do some early Christian texts look in light of this paradigm?

Who does Paul think is responsible for the death of Jesus. Is it the Romans? When did Jesus die for Paul? Was it a few years back in Palestine? Or was it before the creation of the world? Was Jesus fleshly or is flesh inherently sinful and corruptible? I'll look at these in subsequent posts, but for now consider how the above paradigm makes sense of the following texts. Two are from The Ascension of Isaiah, which is an early Christian text, and one is from I Corinthians.

Chapter 9

13The Lord will indeed descend into the world in the last days, (he) who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. 14And the god of that world will stretch out [his hand against the Son], and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. 15And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is. 16And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day and will remain in that world for five hundred and forty-five days. 17And then many of the righteous will ascend with him, whose spirits do not receive (their) robes until the Lord Christ ascends and they ascend with him.

Chapter 10

8"Go out and descend through all the heavens. You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol, but you shall not go as far as Perdition. 9And you shall make your likeness like that of all who (are) in the five heavens, 10and you shall take care to make your form like that of the angels of the firmament and also (like that) of the angels who (are) in Sheol. 11And none of the angels of that world shall know that you (are) Lord with me of the seven heavens and of their angels. And they shall not know that you (are) with me

I Corinthians 2

⁶We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. ⁷No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. ⁸None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The "Coming" of Jesus

2009-12-18T14:02:00.002-05:00

As mentioned in my previous post, if Jesus was a historical person then we would expect the authors of the epistles to refer to the future appearance of Jesus as a return, a second coming, or a re-appearance. If however Jesus was regarded by these authors as a person that didn't walk the earth as a real physical human we would expect them to refer to the future appearance as a "coming", and "appearance", or perhaps a "revealing". Remember that you can't "reveal" things twice. The word "revelation" connotes something that is understood for the first time.

In light of this, consider the following biblical texts. Did these writers regard the coming appearance of Jesus as something that was about to happen for the first time or as something that would be understood to be a return of Jesus?

1 Thessalonians 2:19

19For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?

1 Thessalonians 3:13

13so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.

James 5:7

7Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.

James 5:8

8You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.

2 Thessalonians 1:10

10when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-2

1Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,

2that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

2 Thessalonians 2:8

8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

Hebrews 10:37

37FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.

Revelation 1:4

4John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,

Revelation 2:16

16'Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.

Revelation 2:25

25'Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come.

Revelation 3:3

3'So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you.

Revelation 22:20

20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen Come, Lord Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

10and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.

Philippians 1:6

6For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

Philippians 1:10

10so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;

1 John 2:28

28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

Colossians 3:4

4When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

1 Peter 5:4

4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

1 Timothy 6:14-16

14that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

2 Timothy 4:1

1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:

Titus 2:13

13looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

1 Peter 4:13

13but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.

1 Peter 5:1

1Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,

2 Thessalonians 1:7

7and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,

2 Thessalonians 2:6

6And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

1 Peter 1:13

13Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:7

7so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,

All of this is compilation of work done by Truthsurge.

TruthSurge on Jesus as Myth

2009-12-16T21:56:00.002-05:00

There's a great series of youtube videos put out by someone that calls themselves "TruthSurge" that's really great. The first is here. Nothing flashy. Just a straightforward case for why the data makes more sense on the mythical paradigm.

His approach is the right one. The question is not about which view can be conclusively proved. Neither can. The question is about which view makes better sense of the data.

Consider for instance his initial point. If the earliest biblical writers (reflected in the epistles) did not believe Jesus was a historical person then we would expect them to talk about his "second" coming as if it were just his first appearance. So it would be a "coming" an "appearance" a "revealing" etc. On the other hand if Jesus was a historical person we would expect the writers to talk about a "return" or a "second coming", etc. So what do we find in the earliest texts? 41 instances that refer to the coming as if it were a first time event, one (at Hebrews) that on the surface might appear to be referring to a return (though of course the mythicist case argues that it doesn't mean that). Assuming that Hebrews is referring to a second coming though, which view makes the best sense of the majority of the data?

Or consider the following. If the earliest writers believed Jesus was not a historical person that died a couple of decades before they wrote you would expect them to not place his death in Palestine just a few years back. It would make perfect sense for instance if they thought he died before the creation of the world. On the other hand if they thought Jesus was a historical person they wouldn't think he was the first to be raised from the dead. Lazarus and others preceded him, though they probably died later. What do the texts indicate that the writers believed?

I Cor 15

²⁰But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. ²²For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. ²³But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

1Clem 24:1

Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

Colossians 1

¹⁸He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Note the reasoning here. Christ had to be the first raised from the dead in order for him to have pre-eminence in all things. One way in which he is in the first place is in that he's the first to be raised from the dead.

Hebrews 9

²⁵Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. ²⁶Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world.

This is quite surprising. Why would Christ have to suffer continually since the creation of the world unless he was in fact first sacrificed at the beginning of creation?

Again, the historicist can force these texts within their own paradigm but the question is which view makes the best sense of all of the data with the least amount of forcing? In my view it's the mythicists case.

Richard Carrier on the Historicity of Jesus

2009-12-12T13:06:00.006-05:00

Richard Carrier has been doing extensive research on the historicity of Jesus. Generally he seems to reluctantly but tentatively lean in favor of the supposedly "extremist, wacky, clownish" view that perhaps Jesus wasn't a historical figure at all. I'm very interested to read the results of his research. For now, via AIG Busted, you can watch a talk he gave on the subject via youtube starting here and in 6 additional segments. I'm just now starting to listen. He mentions an anonymous psychologist friend that had this to say about the information Paul provides regarding the historicity of Jesus:

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a 20 page letter passionately wanting to share his excitement about a new teacher. This letter has only one topic; your friend's new teacher. Yet by the end of his letter, after all 20 pages of it, you still don't know one thing about his teacher. Paul presents the central figure of his theology in just this way. For those of us not lost in delusional worlds it might seem impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling even one story or parable or fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of Jesus. But Paul's lack of interest in or even curiousity about the life of this Jesus does fit a characteristic pattern of paranoid delusions.

On a totally unrelated note I want to mention one thing that I've always paid attention to. Swearing. I have a theory. Some people got it. Some don't. These guys can swear. So can this guy (yes, the link is right. Give it 20 seconds. Listen a couple of times to fully appreciate). Others sound totally unnatural. I was raised in a very evangelical family and never developed my swearing capacity. Now as an adult that doesn't feel like there's a huge moral problem with it I still find that it's difficult for me to do it without sounding like a nerd. Seems to me Richard has the same problem. He seems to swear occasionally perhaps to elicit laughter but to me it's seems unnatural for him.

Anyway, he's done some great work and I've learned a lot from him.

100K people to fight 100 people

2009-12-11T08:36:00.002-05:00

Jon Stewart interviews Dan Rather here and asks how many Al Qaeda are left in Afghanistan, since this is kind of why we went there in the first place, right? You know how many? 100 freaking people. This is why Obama has ordered another one of his troop surges? 60,000 troops isn't enough? We need more like 100,000, not to mention the already 100,000 contractors?

I suppose the aims have change. But what are they? Replacing the Taliban? Why? Next they'll tell us this is about the danger of communism.

Read Kent Hovind's Doctoral Dissertation

2009-12-09T17:28:00.001-05:00

It's available at Wikileaks. Read an informed critical review here.

Callous Disregard for Elementary Moral Principles

2009-12-08T14:40:00.004-05:00

Here's something that bothers me a lot. There are a lot of atrocities that go on in the world, but this one strikes me for some reason. Part of it I think is just the realization that I was so oblivious to it while it was occurring and supported the aggressive U.S. foreign policies at the time, genuinely believing they were for the betterment of the world.

I was an ignorant fool though, not really engaged in the issues. Had I been I would think that the obvious truth of Article 50 of the Hague Convention and Regulations of 1907 (No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise shall be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly or severally responsible) would have mattered to me. Why didn't others see it? How can someone like Bill Clinton defend these murderous sanctions?

The sanctions in Iraq killed at least hundreds of thousands of people, if not over a million. The people were deprived of medicines, water pumps needed to grow crops, chemicals needed to make water potable. What had brought this on? Saddam had invaded Kuwait and was thus a danger. He had killed 1000 people in Kuwait according to the British Foreign Office (Saddam Hussein - Crimes and Human Rights Abuses, London, November 2000, p. 22 quoted via Hans Von Sponek "A Different Kind of War - The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq.") That's pretty bad. But how does it justify killing a million people with sanctions and another million with a subsequent invasion in 2003 when the population had nothing to do with it and couldn't prevent it?

Contrast the 1000 dead in Kuwait with another invasion that happened 8 months earlier. In this case it was the United States invading Panama. There is dispute about the numbers killed apparently, with the U.S. government claiming a mere 200 civilians were killed verses multiple human rights organizations that claim that it was several thousand. If you watch the academy award winning documentary The Panama Deception and take a look at the blocks and blocks of flattened homes, random corpses, and evidence that media was entirely restricted, and in the case of one journalist even executed, it's hard to find the U.S. claims to be believable, but regardless it was an atrocity of at least a similar order of magnitude as that of Saddam Hussein.

So would it be right to respond to this invasion by starving the American people? Is it right to deprive the American people of water pumps needed to grow crops and medicine for fear that they have potential dual uses? Should the American population suffer until the American government disarms? These are questions that people just don't seem to ask. Yet they are fair questions for those that adhere to elementary moral principles, such as the belief that we should demand that we are held to the same standards we require of others.

Random Stuff

2009-12-05T17:21:00.005-05:00

I find this Twilight and New Moon movie series to be annoying. God agrees. See here and here.

A great clip from Sam Harris here. His final line was the kicker. "We have Sathya Sai Baba's miracles stories attested to by thousands upon thousands of living eyewitnesses and they don't even merit an hour on cable television, and yet you put a few miracle stories in an ancient book and half the people on earth think it a legitamate project to organize their lives around them. Does anyone else see a problem with that?"

Apparently a mother nearly let her children starve as she waited for God to provide food. See here.

Here's a fun article on what it's like to be an atheist from the very beginning of your life. I find it hard to relate honestly, but what he says makes a lot of sense.

Audio of the recent Intelligent Design/Evolution debate can be found here.

William Lane Craig debated Francisco Ayala. Once again Apologetics 315 has the audio. Craig technically scores a victory, but to do it he basically grants (at least for the sake of argument) common descent of all living things and that they eye is not irreducibly complex and can come about by natural processes. For Craig it's about whether the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection can account for everything. So Craig improves his own win/loss record while Biblically based Christianity suffers another defeat. When you're conceding that humans and chimps share a common ancestor you're giving away the evangelical farm.

Sounds Like the Evolution Debate Was Entertaining

2009-12-02T09:30:00.002-05:00

I haven't heard the audio yet, but last night Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero debated ID advocates Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg. Prothero has written the best book I'm aware of laying out the evidence for evolution. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Coyne's book is good but Prothero's book has more detail.

Here's Prothero's account of the events and here is an account from a fan of the ID'ers. Sounds like Prothero is getting under their skin. I bet I'll like what I hear from him when the audio becomes available.

Obama Change Watch

2009-12-01T21:18:00.006-05:00

Nice try, Michael Moore, but it looks like more war has won today. Many more dead Afghans on the horizon. I remain hopeful though that this can be changed eventually.

When US Foreign Policy Makes No Sense

2009-11-30T18:26:00.002-05:00

Just wondering aloud here. Some of our government's policies on the surface make absolutely no sense. I know several right wing war mongers that will defend the invasion of Iraq, but even they can't understand why we're fighting in Afghanistan. I've wondered as well.

But it's not just Afghanistan. Consider the hostility and punishment directed towards Cuba even with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The hostility has only been intensified since the fall.

Everybody knows that the war on drugs has been a complete failure. A Rand report study compared the cost effectiveness of 4 methods of dealing with drugs. These were 1-source country control, 2-prohibition, 3-domestic enforcement, and 4-prevention and treatment. Prevention and treatment was FAR superior (which is also proved by the recent decriminalization in Portugal, see here), yet the vast bulk of the money in fact is spent on the very least effective technique; source country control (i.e. bombing Colombian peasants). More people die from tobacco than cocaine, yet we're not bombing North Carolina. What's going on here? It makes no sense. Or does it?

It only makes no sense if we assume that the stated reasons are the real reasons. What if the war on Colombia is more about clearing the land for agri-business or mining interests in this resource rich country? What if the aggression against Cuba was never about fear of the Soviets, but once again about installing governments that do as they are told by Washington, and the very act of defiance had to be squelched to prevent others from following a similar course? And the best way to overthrow a government you disapprove of is to portray them as a threat to the American people. Though that's no longer tenable the aggression towards Cuba remains and is kind of not discussed.

Tomorrow Obama will let us know if he'll be sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Michael Moore pleads with him not to. I wish Michael all the success in the world. And it might work. Politicians know more and more these days that popular resistance is a big problem for their imperial ambitions. But why would Obama even consider expanding a purposeless war? Well, maybe it isn't purposeless. Maybe there's a lot of money to be made piping oil out of the Caspian Sea, through Afghanistan and Pakistan and out to the Indian Ocean (bypassing Iran). Is that what's going on? I really don't know. But when our wars appear to make no sense I tend to think that there must be a way in which they do make sense. Obama has pressure from some people that stand to make a lot of money, and he must balance that against popular resistance. Tomorrow we will find out which way he goes.

Why Would Humans Evolve the Capacity for Tickling?

2009-11-25T11:28:00.002-05:00

What's great about the Theory of Evolution is it provides us a paradigm with which we can really explore the features of living organisms. The old "Godidit" hypothesis always works, but it's not very satisfying intellectually. It's pretty much a dead end.

So why would humans develop the capacity for tickling? This is just a recent curiosity of mine. A little google research provides some interesting insight. The theory is that laughter creates social cohesion, indicating to other members of the species that you aren't there for threatening purposes, improving social bonds, etc. Apparently tickling is a mere extension of that.

This may be true and it may be false. Searching google I find that creationists like to mock such explanations. In truth they are speculative. But they do conform to an overall paradigm that we know is true and they offer testable features. What do the creationists offer? Nothing but the untestable and unfalsifiable assertion that God is responsible complex things. There's not so much to mock on that view because there's basically almost nothing there to mock.

Barack Obama on Religion

2009-11-22T18:51:00.002-05:00

Some interesting tidbits via Common Sense Atheism and his commenter Scott, apparently his mother was practically an atheist, as was his father when he met her. Below is some mildly interesting commentary from Obama that is unlikely to please evangelicals. Not that they liked him anyway. Is Obama an atheist as well?

By the way I think the youtube heading "Obama Attacks Religion" is a little overstated. It's basically general criticism of those that want to govern as if the Scriptures were inerrant.

American Priorities

2009-11-17T19:55:00.002-05:00

Remember about a year ago how Israel started bombing a bunch of civilians trapped in a tiny cage and the initial pretexts evaporated?. You might remember how they admitted to using chemical warfare on these trapped civilians.

Now there's a report on the war crimes in the conflict called the Goldstone Report. I really don't know much about it except to say that it does accuse Israel of war crimes and does call for an investigation. Also it's been endorsed by the U.N. despite U.S. opposition.

Maybe these are complex issues. Maybe reasonable people can think differently. Would you expect the U.S. House of Representatives to go out of their way to overwhelmingly condemn the report? It seems strange to me that our country is so concerned about working on behalf of a foreign country. Should we be expending so much capital on them? Don't we have our own problems?

More on Christian Suicide Terrorists

2009-11-14T20:12:00.003-05:00

An excerpt from Pape's Dying to Win with regards to suicide terrorists from Lebanon, where there exists a significant Christian population:

New information about the identity of the suicide attackers presents a fresh picture that casts the role of Islamic fundamentalism in a new light. I spent a year leading a team of researchers who collected detailed evidence on the ideological and other demographic characteristics of suicide terrorists. The results show that at least thirty of the forty-one attackers do not fit the description of Islamic fundamentalism. Twenty-seven were communists or socialists with no commitment to religious extremism; three were Christians. Only eight suicide attackers were affiliated with Islamic fundamentalism; the ideological affiliation of three cannot be identified. Moreover, although Iran did provide money and other support to the Lebanese resistance fighters, the rise of Hezbollah and large popluar support for the movement were directly caused by a clear external event, Israel's massive occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982. Further, although religion was a recruiting tool, examination of the logic of martyrdom articulated by Hezbollah and other Lebanese political leaders overwhelmingly justified suicide terrorists acts, commonly called "self-martyr" operations, as an extreme measure necessary to end foreign occupation of the homeland, while explicitly ruling out such acts as an end in themselves or for other, even religious, goals.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I argue that religious difference-not Islam-played the key enabling role in causing suicide terrorism in Lebanon. Although foreign occupation created the necessary basis for armed resistance, the religious schism between the occupiers' societies and the occupied society enabled resistance leaders to inflame nationalist sentiments to the point that the occupied community supoprted and glorified suicide terrorism. Fear of a religiously motivated occupier, more than anything in Islam, encouraged a significant level of community support for extreme self-sacrifice to end the occupation. (p129-130)

Alan Dershowitz is Pissing Me Off

2009-11-14T09:46:00.002-05:00

I became interested in the Israel/Palestine conflict and while earlier in my life I was reading more pro-Zionist sources recently I've been reading more from the other side of the conflict. For instance I read a couple of books by Norman Finkelstein. In one of Finkelstein's books, Beyond Chutzpah, he lays out a detailed case for why Alan Dershowitz book, The Case for Israel, is a blatant hoax, and further it's a plagiaristic work of a prior book widely regarded as an earlier blatant hoax, Joan Peter's book From Time Immemorial.

Finklestein's case looks pretty strong to me. The detailed documentation of plagiarism is devastating. But the outright fabrication is also clearly documented.

But I wanted to give Dershowitz a chance to respond and I had heard him say he responded in a recent book called The Case for Peace. So I got a hold of the audio version and I listened to his response to Finkelstein's book, which I have just read. Dershowitz starts by quoting Noam Chomsky as follows. And be aware that I'm listening to the audio book, so I'm not sure on punctuation, capitalization, etc.

"The Jews do not merit a 'second homeland' because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish run population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life."

I'm no Noam Chomsky expert, but I've heard him make this statement. What he said was in response to the claim that Palestinians don't need a homeland because they are nothing but Jordanians. He says that argument is just as absurd as the claim that Jews don't need a homeland because they already have New York. He rejects that argument as absurd and as far as I know has long been on record in support of a two state solution. Dershowitz has taken that statement, which was intended to express what Chomsky thought was an absurd notion, and he's made it such that this is in fact Chomsky's view.

Is this sloppiness or deception? Read Beyond Chutzpah and you'll see that Dershowitz engages in both. As Finkelstein emphasized when he debated Dershowitz on Democracy Now (which is quite fun to watch), this guy is the Felix Frankfurter Chair at Harvard Law School. To see such sloppiness and error is pretty surprising.

Obama Change Watch

2009-11-13T12:31:00.002-05:00

I've outlined a few of the items that show that Obama represents nothing but the status quo as far as peace. See here and here and here for examples. I just stumbled across another item that is interesting.

The old Obama was highly critical of Bush's use of "signing statements." These were basically declarations Bush would issue when he signed legislation indicating those parts of the law he believed he could ignore. Pretty rough stuff, right?

Well, that was the old Obama. The new Obama sees things differently and is now issuing the same kind of signing statements of his own. See here.

Really though this wasn't unforeseeable. His voting record belied the implications of his rhetoric. Even smart people didn't get it. I wonder if they would get it now?

Bob Dutko Fears Muslims

2009-11-13T06:36:00.003-05:00

Bob now says that when he meets a Muslim he can't help but feel suspicious, since there is so much support for terrorism among Muslims. Is he justified in thinking this way? This is the question he put to callers. All of his callers think so (meaning he's whipping up the fear, and probably resulting violence, which seems to be his goal). I think differently of course, and I told him why.

I didn't say all that I had wished to say, so I sent him a quick email with a couple of additional points, which I reproduce below.

Your fear mongering of Muslims is quite sad. U.S. foreign policy has lead to the death of millions of Muslims over the last 30 years. The starvation campaign in Iraq. Pushing Saddam into a war with Iran, wherein we supplied him the weaponry and logistics support. Maybe a million dead Iraqi's since 2003. Just like the Germans feared the Jews, in the same way you attempt to whip up support for more violence against Muslims by engendering more fear.

Your argument is that polls show that Muslims support terrorists groups. Well, so do Christians. Leaving aside your support for the Nicaraguan Contras, who killed 40,000 civilians or so and all of your other support for U.S. terrorism, look at Lebanon, where Christian suicide terrorists have emerged to expel occupying forces. This poll shows that 80% of Christians supported Hezbollah, the group that pioneered suicide bombing in the 80's.

So now it is time for you to ignore the facts Bob, and spread the fear. You're like the prophets of Ahab, telling the King exactly what he wanted to hear. I suppose Elijah was "hating Israel" when he criticized Ahab's behavior.

Meet a Christian Suicide Terrorist

2009-11-09T04:39:00.003-05:00

To the left is Norma Hassan. She was a Christian school teacher from Lebanon. She blew herself up as part of an effort to expel Israeli occupation forces from southern Lebanon. She brought 7 people down with her.

But isn't this all about 72 virgins? Isn't it about jihad? Isn't it because Islam is a violent religion? Isn't it because these people hate freedom and democracy?

To me anybody that can think there way out of a paper bag should be able to figure out the motivations of suicide terrorists. They say it repeatedly. Their actions are very consistent with their statements. And now Robert Pape has shown based on evaluations of the terrorist's profiles what the motivations are and are not. It's not about religion. It's not about poverty. It's not about lack of education. It's not about jealousy of prosperity or about fear of western values. This is about weak parties living in a homeland that they regard as occupied by an outside force.

Consider some of the facts that many regard as so paradoxical. Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. But they were our allies. Most were Sunni Muslims, not more radical Shia Muslims. Mohammad Atta was well educated and from a wealthy family. What kind of sense does this make? It makes perfect sense if you ready Robert Pape. There were U.S. troops present in Saudi Arabia at the time, and Atta and others regard that as an occupying force.

If you do read Pape you might assume he'd come to leftist conclusions. It was pretty staggering though for me to read his final thoughts. What to do to resolve the problem? Our military presence in the Middle East is the chief motor for Arab antagonism towards us. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam feel the same way towards the Sri Lankan military. Hamas and Hezbollah feel the same way toward Israel. Should we just leave and wash our hands of the region?

That's not really an option for Pape. Why? Well we need their oil. His solution is to pull out as much as possible, but be ready to pounce if necessary. Basically these natives are sitting on our oil, so we have to do what's necessary to protect our property, but don't overdo it and aggravate them. It's kind of an outright commitment to empire as I read it.