Standing Out in the Cold

EffectiveUI Frisbee

2007-09-24T23:59:00.000-06:00

If you consider how many hours they actually work -- for us -- how much do they make per hour?

2007-04-19T09:31:00.000-06:00

This is priceless. But don't get me wrong, this isn't about Democrats or Republicans -- I am confident that most people on both sides of the aisle are the exact same. What this is about is how horrific our lawmakers are these days. This goes right alongside the "Series of Tubes" speech -- by a Republican -- for direct examples of politicians vehemently supporting legislation that potentially has a profound effect on our lives without understanding some of the basic concepts concerning what is to be regulated in said legislation. With all the money we pay our politicians to represent us, you think they could afford to spend at least a few minutes learning the basics of whatever legislation they're going to talk about. Which happens to be one of the most important parts of their job. This is especially appalling when they spend so much time working for their own interests -- like getting re-elected. What are we paying them for if not to even understand the laws they are making? I'm afraid that nothing will change until the average voter pays more attention to these sorts of things and votes accordingly. If politicians' chances of getting re-elected had more to do with their job performance than speaking engagements and television commercials then maybe they would accomplish something that would make them worthy of the dignitary status they enjoy at aforementioned engagements.

Stupid Polls

2007-04-17T08:58:00.000-06:00

There is a headline on Google news today that states "Majority Expect US Will 'Lose' in Iraq." This seems like a fairly useless piece of information to me. The majority of Americans are not military strategists. Nor do they have any qualifications that would give their judgement on the situation in Iraq any merit. In fact, the majority of Americans are uninformed and apathetic and form their opinions only on what they hear on the morning/evening news or see in newspaper headlines. So, an equal but easier and cheaper to measure statistic would be, "Majority of News Stories Indicate US Will 'Lose' in Iraq."

The Iraq statistic has at least some meaning since public opinion actually matters in a country's decision and willingness to wage and continue war. I saw a laughable statistic the other day, I don't remember the exact headline but it said that the majority of Americans believed that politics played at least some role in the attorney firing "scandal." The majority of Americans have very little facts about said affair and even less knowledge about what is acceptable or scandalous therein. Again, the story may as well have read "Majority of News Stories Implicate Inappropriate Politics in Attorney Firings."

I've talked about this before, but it still baffles me. What is it about statistics that we, as a country, find so interesting? Is it that they're easily digested and have an air of legitimacy because they require some research and math to create? Or is it just the news agencies finding a cheap way to scare up a story when they don't have one? And do the news agencies not see the irony in polling people about opinions mostly formed based on the stories published by the very same news agencies? Or are they secretly mocking the American people? Or are they geniuses and killing two birds with one stone by polling to see how effective their stories are and then playing the findings off as a relevant statistic to make another story?

Lots of Money

2007-04-02T13:13:00.000-06:00

Whoa, am I posting again? I guess so.

I just have a quick question: what would happen if a presidential candidate donated their tens of millions of dollars to feeding hungry children, or curing AIDS, or developing alternative fuel sources even, rather than spending it on campainging? Do you think that the American people, and probably more importantly the media, would laud such an act of generosity enough to make it anywhere near as powerful as traditional campaigning? Or would it just spell the end of their hopes in this whoever-spends-the-most-money-wins political system we have today? It just seems like a really poor way to spend so much money. If the American people could elect a president without so much hype it seems like we'd have a lot more money to spend on a lot better things.

Congressmen as Presidential Candidates

2007-01-16T11:00:00.000-07:00

Get off my back, I'm busy these days.

In the history of the U.S. 15 senators have become president. Only two -- Harding and Truman -- moved straight from the senate to the White House. And JFK is the only other to do it with less than 2 years between. Here's the link. So, its unusual for a senator to become president and the odds of a sitting senator becoming president are extremely low. 1 in 24.5, to be exact. That's pretty bad odds. There have been 17 presidents who were members of the House of Representatives. Most of those were senators or governors after being representatives, before becoming president. Only one, Garfield, went straight from the House to the White House. So why do congressmen keep getting nominations in presidential elections? Kerry, of course, is still a senator. Dole was a senator when he was nominated. Kucinich was and still is a member of the House. In the upcoming elections some of the big names being mentioned are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain -- all are sitting senators. In honor of google allowing me to do so, I've compiled a spreadsheet of presidents and offices they've held -- only considering senator, representative, governor, and mayor -- here. Here are some interesting facts:

No mayor has become president without being a governor -- this means odds are completely against Rudi, in this statistic, as much as I like him.
4 presidents held only the office of representative
6 presidents held none of these offices
3 presidents have held only the office of senator
9 presidents were only senators or were senator and representative
20 presidents were governors -- counting governor of territories/possessions. 17 otherwise
11 presidents only held the office of governor or governor and mayor
Andrew Johnson is the only president to hold all four offices

So, it would seem that the best way to be president is to be a governor. It is historically impossible to become president only holding the office of mayor (or not being a white man, but that's tangential, I suppose) (Rudi Giulianni). The least likely candidate that still has a shot is only a senator (John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama). It is only slightly more likely that someone who was only a representative can become a president (sorry, Dennis). It is more likely that someone who has held none of these offices would become president as someone who is just a representative or senator, and as likely as someone who was both (John McCain). It is almost impossible for a sitting congressman to become president (Hillary, Barack, McCain, Kucinich). So, given these facts why do parties continue to nominate sitting congressmen? I guess eventually you beat the odds. However, as I mentioned earlier no one who is not a white man has won the president. The big names right now on the Dem side besides Edwards are not only sitting senators, but one is not a man and one is not white (I'll let you sort out which is which), that ought to sound some alarms at Dem headquarters -- trying to beat the odds in one category is courageous, trying to beat several statistics is daunting, at best. History is, of course, in the making. However, if I'm trying to win an election for my party I would definitely take the past into account, not just popular opinion. Of course, this is a very limited scope statistic, but I feel it is a fairly relevant one.

So, will I vote for Rudi in the primary? Now I'm not sure... maybe I'll have to throw in with Romney. With this statistic, Edwards is the best candidate that I've mentioned on the Dem side -- do they have any governors talking about running? And I don't see Edwards beating Obama or Clinton. I guess it will be an interesting race, and its still early, so maybe we'll see a governor appear for the Dems later on, a-la Bill Clinton.

I Still Hate Large Media Outlets

2006-12-21T11:18:00.000-07:00

I know we've been over this many times, but I haven't posted in awhile, so I figure this is as good as anything right now. Yesterday I saw a very large number of headlines that all said something like "Bush Defies Commanders, Orders Increase in Army Numbers." I watched the press conference with President Bush yesterday, and while stumbling painfully along as always, he explicitly says (paraphrased) "I'm not going to tell you today what my plan for Iraq is. I haven't made a decision about increased troop levels, but its something I am still considering." To turn that into headlines proclaiming that he has firmly made up his mind -- and "defied" his top commanders -- is silly and misleading. And I hate them for it. I just hate the way the news is distorted to make a more sensational story, as we have discussed before. And this is yet another blatant example. These are the people claiming to deliver the truth and facts to the American people.

SETI

2006-11-16T14:37:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article in Spectrum magazine about the ongoing search for extraterrestrial life. The idea behind most SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) projects is we assume that if there is another intelligent civilization with technology at or beyond our level they might be trying to contact other life (us!) by sending out messages on electromagnetic waves. In the 60's until now these people assumed other civilizations would be using radio waves, and so have been searching radio frequencies with no real success. The article I read says the the search is now moving to optical light, another bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is a more likely communications tool. I feel like I don't even need to mention the hubris involved in believing that other civilizations will be using the same technologies as us, but apparently I do since the SETI people are putting a lot of time and money into it.

So lets put that arrogance aside and assume that alien cultures are using lasers to contact us. These alien cultures don't know that there is life on earth, or they would be trying to contact us much more directly. So, these laser messages are not going to be sent out to the earth constantly. Again assuming the aliens have the same types of technology as us, these beams will be sent out in the direction of different star systems that these aliens think might have life on them, each star system getting a message at a different time. Now, let's assume that they're sending the messages towards earth at all, which is not a trivial assumption, otherwise the whole issue goes away. So, every once in awhile the laser message is pointed towards our star system. What are the odds that at that time we have a clear line of sight to the alien star system? That some other planet or piece of space junk or the moon isn't in the way? Or the sun, even? Then, assuming that the laser actually reaches the earth, what are the odds that it hits a point on the earth were we have a receiver listening? We're talking about light year distances here, so a change of a few fractions of a degree at the sender translates to huge differences in hit location on the earth. Unless we put receivers all over the earth its almost impossible to believe that we will intercept such a message, if you can even believe that a message will hit the earth at all.

But, lets be arrogant again and assume that we do receive a message. Then it will take us years, if not decades, to even recognize that it is a message. But lets assume that some day we receive a message, realize that it is a message, and even pinpoint where in the universe it came from. What now? What was all this about? I guess it proves that there is other intelligent life in the universe -- probably. But to really prove that, or do anything meaningful with it, we have to contact this life and communicate with it.

So, we need to start beaming messages back to them. This is much easier than their task of beaming them to the entire universe because we know exactly where they are. So we can built a laser-message space craft and put it somewhere in space always transmitting right to their planet. Now, this planet will be at least ten light years away. That means that when we received the message it was already ten years old. When we send our message to them it will take 10 years for them to receive it, assuming that they receive it right away. Then, assume that they recognize our message and send one back. That takes another 10 years. So now its been 20 years since we first detected the message, and we get something back.

Now what? What good is this? We have spent billions of dollars and who knows how many hours and we have proved that extra-terrestrial life exists. What does that matter? What can we do with that? We can communicate with this culture, you might say. Not likely any time soon. Assuming they even have the same concept of language as us, its very unlikely their language will be anything we can understand or decipher without a great deal of correspondence. And considering that it takes 20 years for a single round-trip message, its going to be a long while until we can actually have any sort of "meaningful" conversation with such a culture.

Of course, all this assumes that any other intelligent life is benevolent. You can easily imagine some uber-fascist alien race trying to detect intelligent life in the universe in order to subjugate it. So we spend billions of dollars to build a laser-messaging satellite that is really just a homing beacon for some oppressive overlords to find our little planet. Nice move guys. But, a lot of assumptions have been made to this point, so why not continue and assume these guys are nice?

All of this to say that SETI is one of the biggest wastes of time and money I can imagine. Thankfully, the government stopped funding SETI in 1993. It is a project that makes many, many arrogant assumptions to even make itself viable. Then, assuming all of the assumptions are correct all we get out of it, best case, is the knowledge that there is some other intelligent life out there. Worst case, we become enslaved by some much more powerful race. Nice. I say we wait until we have the technology to visit or communicate more quickly with and hopefully stand toe-to-toe militarily with any alien race before we spend the time and money to try to contact them.

Cowards

2006-11-10T08:39:00.000-07:00

The state Legislature of Massachusetts is avoiding a divisive vote through every loophole they can find. In doing so they are hurting the democratic process in their state and in their country. Proponents of homosexual marriage rights have been relying on tactics like this in many parts of the country to allow their goals to be court ordered and deny the people in their districts the right to decide, much to their shame, in my opinion. I cannot accept that it would ever be better to bypass the democratic process to achieve the realization of a goal unless, perhaps, that bypass saves lives. I assume that they believe that once their desired interpretations of laws are on the books for awhile that people will just accept them. This seems unlikely to me. In the event that the general public does not simply start accepting these new rules, having them imposed without due democratic process only hurts your cause in the long run. This is a short-sighted tactic because although it realizes their goals quickly it cannot mean lasting results, nor can it foster any kind of acceptance by the public. If homosexual marriage proponents want homosexual marriage to be accepted by the country it has to be chosen by the country. It will not happen by force.

The Massachusetts legislators that voted for this recess most likely fall in to two camps: homosexual marriage proponents relying on the tactics I mention above, and politicians without the courage to follow the democratic process if it might hurt their political aspirations. Both positions are reprehensible. It is in the state constitution that the people deserve a vote on this issue since they have met the petition requirements. To deny them that vote for any reason is oppressive and wholly inappropriate for any legislative body.

Eliminating Moderate Representation

2006-11-08T20:10:00.000-07:00

I think that Joe Lieberman's resounding victory over Ned Lamont further proves a thesis I have believed for some time now: moderates don't vote in primaries. As I have said before, I believe that the majority of the country is fairly moderate, either left or right. Most people classify themselves as Republicans or Democrats, but few people are far from the middle of the political spectrum. However, politics is shifting further and further from moderate over the last several years, perhaps even decades. The populace remains moderate, but the candidates are increasingly fringe and radical. The best logical explanation for this that I can think of is that the moderates do not take part in candidate selection. Instead the radicals in both parties choose the candidates, selecting like-minded politicians. Then when the time comes for the election most Americans vote straight party line, putting the hard right or left candidate in power because they represent the party the moderate voter has chosen to be part of.

Lieberman was almost an example of this -- one that would have been unprovable had he respected his party's nomination of Lamont. He is viewed by the general public as moderate -- whether he should be or not is irrelevant, that's how he's viewed. The hard left saw him as too far right, and quite a bit too far at that. And they overwhelmingly rejected him in the primary. Had he accepted this we might never have known whether this was representative of most of Democrats in the state. However, Lieberman spurned his party and set off on his own believing, apparently correctly, that the people of Connecticut would favor him over Lamont, even if his party's primary did not. He was right and won easily. The majority of the Democrats in Connecticut did not vote for Lamont, they voted for Lieberman. I believe this is because the majority of Democrats in Connecticut believe themselves to be moderate, and so chose the candidate branded as moderate rather than the one branded as liberal, correctly or not.

I believe that the same scenario would play out across the United States in both parties if moderate candidates had the luxury of a wealth of money and media attention needed to run as independents. Instead most moderates never see general election after a primary defeat. And the result is that the majority of Americans are not accurately or adequately represented by the government. As far as I can tell there is only one way to change this: more people have to vote in the primaries. I don't know how to generate more interest, but we all should do whatever we can to encourage everyone we can to vote in the primaries to promote better representation by our government. That is my wide sweeping and vague charge to everyone in the country. That's all for now, I'll let you know if there's anything else I need you to do later.

Afraid

2006-11-08T08:40:00.000-07:00

I'm afraid about my future after the election last night. Not because Democrats are probably going to control both houses of congress, but because Colorado voted to increase its minimum wage to $6.85. I agree that minimum wage needs to increase, but on a national level. Changing it only at the state level seems disastrous to me. I cannot imagine the rationale behind such a short-sighted decision. Now I have to wait and hope that either the Federal minimum wage requirement quickly is raised to or above $6.85, or that the profit margin is high enough in Colorado that companies feel like its worth sticking it out even though they could be paying their employees less if they moved to a different state. I really hope that this doesn't destroy Colorado's economy, but I really feel like it could. And I doubt there's any chance of the Amendment being repealed in some kind of emergency vote, if there is even a provision for such a thing, now that Democrats hold both state houses and we have a new Democrat governor.

Speaking of the Democrats taking both houses last night, is it just me or were the Republicans of the last six years the worst majority ever? It seems like they still never got anything done, even with a solid majority. Plus the alienated a large chunk of their base, like me, by deciding that they didn't have to appeal to people anymore and sold out to the Evangelical right. Which backfired, since a lot of evangelical groups were talking about not voting to try to teach the Republicans some lesson. I don't know, I feel like they deserved to lose. I didn't vote for any Democrats, but I'm not that upset at their winning. To them I say congratulations, I hope you don't live up to your critics expectations. And please don't make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House. Please.

MS Linux?

2006-11-06T18:28:00.000-07:00

Oh good, now Linux is going to be full of security holes and get viruses.

Israel's Current Dilemma

2006-11-03T15:25:00.000-07:00

The dilemma currently facing Israel that's all over the news is Palestinian gunmen using women, and sometimes children, as human shields. This as been an alleged tactic of such militants for years, but this is the first time, to my knowledge, that they have used this tactic so blatantly. According to this story, women formed a ring around a mosque to protect gunmen inside, believing that Israeli troops would not fire on women (unlike Palestinian suicide bombers who indiscriminately kill women and children). For once these women were wrong and the troops did fire and killed two of them and wounded several others.

This brings up an important ethical question. What is the right thing to do in such a situation? We have women serving in our armed forces, although never as active combatants at this point. But they are members of the military and legal combatants under international law, none the less. At what point do these Palestinian women cease to be civilians and start to be part of the opposing force? When do they become combatants? If "civilian" men were actively seeking to aid opposing troops in this way would they be valid targets? Is it right or good to treat women differently? What is the right way to respond to stop things like this from happening in the future? This is clearly a violation of the Geneva convention, but that doesn't really mean much to unnamed Palestinian guerrilla fighters. I don't think there is an easy answer to this question. It seems to me a moral dilemma, so I'm looking for input. If women, of their own free will, participate in activities to put themselves between Israeli troops and Palestinian gunmen -- not "suspected terrorists" or something like that, but men who are shooting at Israeli troops -- should they be valid targets for the troops? Is there some middle ground, where in this situation shooting the women should be avoided but if some get hit while aiming for the gunmen its okay? Or should they be treated as true civilians and be allowed to create no fire zones for militants to escape through? If so, why? Why should they be allowed to actively participate in paramilitary action without being seen as combatants? Where do we draw the line and what guidelines do we follow in such a situation? What should be the standards for our ethics in this situation?

That Pastor with the Homosexual Scandal

2006-11-03T14:26:00.000-07:00

Yeah, you've seen the headlines, "Pastor Resigns Amid Homosexual Sex Scandal" and the like. You know what I'm talking about. This is yet another example of media sensationalism that we've become so disgustedly accustomed to these days. To read the headlines you would think that he had been found out as a closet homosexual and resigned in shame. That may be the case in the end, but at this point you have one man making allegations and the pastor denying them, and the stepped down during the investigation by his church. That hardly matches the timbre of the headlines. I was just struck by headline after headline misleading people about this story, and felt it worth mention.

However, this version of the story offers some details that I find laughable. In it they report that the pastor "admitted today that he had purchased the illegal drug methamphetamine from a gay escort in Denver, but denied that he ever had sex with the man." They go on, "said he met with Mr. Jones and bought the drug. “I was tempted, I bought it, but I did not use it,” he said today. He said he threw the drug out shortly after buying it. “I never kept it very long because it was wrong,” he said." But in the end of the article is this, "Mr. Haggard said in a lengthy interview with KUSA that he had never used drugs of any kind and that he did not smoke or drink alcohol."

So... who do you know who has never used drugs, doesn't drink, and doesn't even smoke who would be "tempted" by an illegal drug offer enough to buy from some guy he doesn't know? That seems absolutely ridiculous. So, he may or may not have had sex with this man. I wouldn't be surprised either way. But he is clearly lying here. Well, maybe not. Sometimes people commit absolutely uncharacteristic felonies for no reason, I suppose. But it sure seems like there's a lot more to this story. Not that its any of our business or that it really matters to the vast majority of us. I just thought it was completely hilarious that he would admit to buying illegal drugs from a stranger but then try to play it off like it was just some freak accident and he threw them away and never looked back. Seriously, it made me laugh.

UPDATE:
Now Haggard, the pastor in question, apparently now is admitting that he paid for a message from a homosexual prostitute from whom he bought meth. Follow the logic from above with drugs, but instead apply it to messages from a prostitute -- who pays a prostitute for a message, anyway? I don't know why I find this whole situation so entertaining... I guess I'm becoming a typical American.

Where They Come From

2006-10-30T22:50:00.000-07:00

It is my opinion that since at least the 90s, probably long before, the average American knows who they are going to vote for years in advance of any election. It doesn't seem to have too much to do with ideology... in fact, I'm not really sure what it has to do with these days: you have big government Republicans and low tax Democrats, you have pro-war Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, and on and on. It doesn't seem like the people who make up the parties are all that different, which is probably part of the reason why most of the country is so evenly split in most recent elections. Charles has a post in which he discusses the possibility that there are a multitude of people who voted for both Bill Clinton and George W Bush. I guess its possible.

Here I'm going to go off on ideas that I don't have data for. It seems to me, despite Charles's post, that most people know who they are going to vote for well beforehand. So the deciding factor in who gets into office is who's party gets the best turnout. That being said, it seems logical for politicians to spend far more time and money motivating their own party rather than trying to convince undecided voters. I think that recent trends, such as incredibly negative campaign ads designed to show voters what a horrible person a candidate's opponent is, reflect this. The politicians try to prove to people that letting their opponent win will be a horrible thing, rather than trying to convince people that they are the better candidate. Since most people won't be changing their minds, its not worth the effort. You just need to sufficiently scare your party into voting to secure a win. And I think that means that politicians have lost their motivation to present themselves as, and possibly become, the best candidate possible. And I think that this is a horrible thing that is hurting American politics. I'm not sure exactly what the best thing is to do about it... and I'm about to go to bed. So maybe I'll think of something good to do about it later.

Marriage Issue

2006-10-27T07:16:00.000-06:00

I guess this is as a good a time as any to talk about the marriage issue facing the country today. Let me begin by saying that I do not understand the legal rationale for why the government recognizes marriage. To me it seems like an arbitrary set of rules that has long been desired and accepted by the people of this country. I feel that marriage is a religious institution and the government's recognition of it is strange. My dad, a pretty party-line Republican, says that the government recognizes marriage because its the fundamental unit of government, and he believes this is an adequate explanation. I disagree, cynically believing that there are as many destructive marriages as constructive, if not more. However, that may still have been the motivation of those who made the laws. Fine, that works. Others more pragmatically have suggested that supporting child raising is the motivation for the government's recognition of marriage. To this I say that not all married couples are raising children, and some that aren't married are. So it seems that child-raising status ought to be the measure then, not marriage.

One way or the other, I'm not seeing much hard data on why heterosexual marriages deserve recognition by the government and homosexual marriages do not. It seems to me that if those opposed to homosexual marriage are correct and it violates the reason to recognize marriage or its bad for society that it should be a simple matter to prove their point. This is what I require to be convinced: a plain, rational reason why heterosexual marriages deserve recognition by the government and clear evidence that homosexual marriages do not. Saying that heterosexual marriages deserve recognition because they're "right" or because "that's the way its meant to be" are not good reasons. If someone was trying to get me to live with a law that prevented me from getting treatment I felt I deserved those reasons would only incite anger and resentment in me. I believe that our homosexual citizens, as full and equal citizens under the law as well as fellow human beings, deserve better.

All that being said, I will be voting in favor of an amendment in Colorado that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Sound hypocritical? Here is why: I don't believe that the ends justify the means. I am not convinced that I should support government recognition of marriage at all. However, I do not believe that it should ever be right for a judge to change the law by reinterpreting what it means over a technicality when its obvious what the law originally meant. I firmly believe that the marriage laws that are now on the books were made with the idea that marriage would solely belong to one man and one woman. So my vote says this: "The laws we have on the books now are for marriage between a man and a woman. They may not be right, but we need to know exactly where we stand and those are the laws currently. Now that we've established that, we have the freedom and space to have a real conversation about whether these laws are the way they should be or whether they should be further amended, perhaps out of existence."

Opponents of this amendment are trying to take a short-cut to government approved homosexual marriage by exploiting a lack of clarity in the laws. If they are successful then homosexual marriage may become a part of American government without the people ever getting a chance to debate and and discuss why it should or shouldn't be. It will sidestep all the channels that new laws are supposed to go through, and I feel this will be detrimental to society, perhaps homosexuals especially, in the long run. I believe that whenever we clearly know the intent behind a law, that is what should be upheld, not the letter of the law, so to speak. If a law is wrong in intent then the law should be changed through the correct legal process, which is through the legislature. Not by reinterpreting its meaning to something acceptable through the judiciary.

Firefox 2.0

2006-10-24T21:01:00.000-06:00

If you haven't already done so, download and install Firefox 2.0. Besides being faster and more secure it introduces some really nice new features -- most everything from TabMix Plus. My favorite new functionality is the ability to have multiple tabs as my homepage, so whenever Firefox starts I have gmail, google news, and my Baylor email all up. Conveniently, and probably necessarily, Firefox 2.0 will keep most of your old plug ins, so the switch should be nearly seamless. But, best of all, Firefox 2.0 does not suck down obscene amounts of RAM! I would recommend moving to it if that were the only change they made, the rest is bonus in my opinion. Oh, and Firefox 2.0 is ready for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux so no matter what OS you're using you can download and enjoy Firefox 2.0 right now.

Queen

2006-10-24T13:36:00.000-06:00

Its amazing to me how much of good modern music (Radiohead, Muse, Death Cab For Cutie, Jimmy Eat World, Foo Fighters... that sort of thing) you can hear in Queen. It drives my wife crazy that I listen to Queen, and its true that they don't really sound like anything else I listen to -- on the surface. But in their music you can hear so much that wasn't being done by contemporary bands and so much that has been carried over into great music today. I love that about them. I think that it is a testament to their musical prowess. Its always amazing to me to look back at people/groups who were ahead of their time. Radiohead is the same way if you consider their music from the 90's and the way it affects music being made today, like Muse's. I like listening to Queen because I like hearing the foundations of the other music I love today, and its fun music that is unashamed to be ridiculous from time to time -- a distinction that is so uncommon in most music today. Whatever you think about Queen there are a few things I can say with certainty: Freddy Mercury was one of the most flamboyant homosexuals and best rock vocalists ever, and "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a work of genius.

Under God

2006-10-22T22:47:00.000-06:00

I was perusing "The Charter and The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States" when I came across this phrase: "Under God, and for these ends and upon these principles, we do establish and adopt this Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States of America." Now, I'm not a person who really thinks that its that big of a deal that the pledge of allegiance says "under God," but I also wouldn't really care if the phrase were removed. When I found out that the phrase was added in the 1950's to combat Communism I felt that any argument about how it was connected to our founding principles became much weaker, and I pretty much stopped caring. However, many prominent Democrats didn't stop caring. I don't mind that they're upset by it and want it changed, but doesn't it seem logical that if it is an offensive phrase to them they would want it taken out of their party's charter? It just seems odd to me that they're fighting to take it out of a semi-official pledge that most people don't say after they are out of grade school and don't seem to mind at all that its part of the foundational document of their party. I know its different in many respects, but it still strikes me as odd.

A Horrible Idea

2006-10-06T08:21:00.000-06:00

Frank Lasee, a Wisconsin state representative from Green Bay, is advocating allowing teachers to carry guns at school in light of recent school shootings. Before commenting on the utterly lunacy of this proposal, it should be noted that, according to this interview with forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Smith, "we haven’t had that many particular school shootings. I mean, they’re definitely not accelerating." So we're not dealing with something new this year or looking at an increase in numbers. But even if we were, I cannot imagine an American classroom with an armed teacher. Can you imagine reading Shakespeare aloud in high school English while your teacher has a .45 strapped to her hip? I think it might be a bit of a distraction. How could we feel safe going to school or sending our kids to school if our schools are places where teachers need to carry guns? According to the above mentioned article, Pete Pochouski, Director of School safety, Milwaukee Public School said, "statistically, schools are the safest place for children." If that's true then Lasee's recommendation is even more ludacris. Perhaps even more important is the fact that teachers carrying guns, in my opinion, will be largely ineffective and probably more likely to cause harm than good. Can you imagine a teacher shooting at a student? Probably not likely. So maybe its not for stopping crazy students (the cause of most of school shootings) its just for stopping outsiders who come in like in the recent shootings in Bailey and Nickle Mines. I suppose its possible, but if a shooter grabs a student and uses that student as a shield do you think there are many teachers bold enough to take a shot at the aggressor? Most police officers wouldn't take the risk of hitting the student accidentaly, I can't imagine that it would be a good thing if a teacher did. Finally, adding that many firearms to a school environment in the hands of people whose primary concern is not the firearms is a very bad idea. We have had many cases in the past of police officers being shot with their own weapons. If a police officer can have his weapon stolen then I find it highly likely that the same could happen even to the most diligent teacher. So now you are introducing the possibility of arming an aggressor who might otherwise not have access to a firearm. Brilliant. This type of security at schools should be handled the same way it is everywhere else -- by police officers. If we don't have enough police officers to put enough in every school then we need to raise the pay of police officers so that more qualified people will want the job. If there isn't money to pay the police officers then we need to take some from the glut that is being given to mostly useless school bureaucracy. If there still isn't enough money then we need to raise taxes for it. It should be a priority. The safety of our children is one of the most important things for this or any nation. If the solution is having more guns on campuses then we need to do whatever it takes to provide that protection in the form of police officers.

Please, Don't Encourage Them

2006-10-04T15:24:00.000-06:00

I know that people on both sides of the political fence are already talking about this, but I just can't help saying something. This line comes from a campaign ad for Minnesota Democrat Petty Wetterling that I read about here:

"It shocks the conscience. Congressional leaders have admitted to covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the internet to molest children."

I realize that I have very little to say that hasn't already been said, but this particular quote seems incredibly horrible to me. My two problems with it: No one has admitted to covering anything up in regards to the Foley scandal, and Foley, as far as the public knows, never molested anyone. I'm not going to go on a tirade like Dean Barnett or others from the fairly far right about how this shows us something about the nature of Democrats or the left. I am not so partisan to believe that politicians on the right wouldn't do the same type of thing, in the right situation. This doesn't show us anything about the left in particular, in my opinion, but it does show us something about politicians. Its not something new, its just a reinforcement of what we already know. Apparently they will say whatever they believe most benefits them, even when it doesn't involve the facts quite correctly. Furthermore, this tells us something about the American public. Again, its not something new. This shows us once again that the American public, in general, is apathetic. It could not be advantageous for a politician to run an ad like this if the average American paid attention at least to the daily news reports. One doesn't need to dig past the headlines to read the Foley story, and even a cursory read over any coverage will show that at this point in time all we know Foley did is have completely inappropriate conversations over IM and email with teenagers. No molestation. And it doesn't take a whole lot of interest to find that no one is claiming to have covered up anything for him. So, maybe its the Senator's opinion that people covered up for Foley, but claiming that they have admitted so is paramount to slander. Perhaps she has her own definition of molestation that diverges from the normally accepted one, but levelling a molestation charge without any clarification is again disingenuous at best, slander at worst. This is an example of politician opportunism at its worst, and it saddens me and hurts my trust in politicians in general.

On a connected note, it further damages his credibility, with me at least, that Markos Moulitsas links this ad without any mention of its inaccurate accusations. It makes me sad when people, politicians or otherwise, put their party above common decency. It doesn't matter to me if Kos believes that Republicans did cover up for Foley, he still should at least make mention of the fact that the ad goes too far in asserting that they have admitted such. Propogating political campaign lies makes the problem even worse, because now people who read Kos's blog and are somewhat interested, although not interested enough to read the news themselves, will assume that everything in the ad is true because Kos linked it without any cautionary note. It is a politician's responsibility not to lie in their campaign ads or any other time, it ought to be the responsibility of each of us not to propogate such lies when we come across them.

A Moment of Truth?

2006-10-01T09:08:00.000-06:00

What will we, the US, do if it turns out to be true that Pakistan masterminded the Mumbai bombing in India? That would make Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, which, under our current standing doctrine, would make them our enemies. However, there is some truth, although probably not as much as he would like us to believe, in Pakistan's President's words in regards to our "war on terror": "'You'll be brought down to your knees if Pakistan doesn't co-operate with you... Pakistan is the main ally. If we were not to be with you, you won't manage anything. Let that be clear. And if ISI is not with you, you will fail.'" So, what will we do? Will we, once again, allow our political and military needs to trump our stated standards like we did during the cold war when we supported and/or installed "benevolent" dictators? Will we give a free pass to anyone who gives us enough help in whatever we're most interested in at a given time? I don't expect that we will come down hard on Pakistan, and I am sure there won't be an regime toppling by the US there. But what should we do? Is there anything we can do that won't make us hypocrites without severing ties with a seemingly much needed ally in our current conflicts?

Closing

2006-09-29T07:45:00.000-06:00

Today at 11:30AM I am selling my house. I have had this house listed since March 24th -- almost six months to the day. I hate this house, due in no small part to the fact that it has been on the market for 6 months and I've had to pay the mortgage and maintain it during that time. I cannot express how excited I am to go to closing today. I hope I can refrain from dancing on the table.

In somewhat related news, the Dow Jones, and all other American stocks, has been making tremendous gains lately and is close to its historic high. I have no idea what this really means for the economy, but it sounds very promising. Is this another 90s? Probably too soon to tell, I'd bet. But I really don't know anything about economics except that Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of the Nations" about it and John Nash's "original idea" changed the way the world looked at economics. Can anyone with more insight give me some clue as to how significant the stocks' gains and (relatively) low gas prices (down to $2.09 in Waco!) really are?

MSM: An Inside Look

2006-09-26T14:47:00.000-06:00

I have grown out of using the term "liberal media" because I feel that it oversimplifies and is often a defense mechanism used by religious conservatives to discount anything they don't like on TV or in print. It seems like the kind of thing that can't really be discussed rationally anyway. However, Hugh Hewitt had a very interesting conversation with Thomas Edsall who now writes for The New Republic and was the senior political reporter at the Washington Post, where he worked for 25 years, until recently. He also worked at the Baltimore Sun for 14 years. I think everyone would benefit from reading the entire interview with the extremely honest Edsall. Here are some interesting parts:

HH: A proposition. The reason talk radio exploded, followed by Fox News, followed by the center-right blogosphere, is that because folks like you have been the dominant voice in American media for a long time, and you’re a pretty thoroughgoing, Democratic favoring, agenda journalist for the left, and you’ve been the senior political reporter of the Washington Post for a very long time. And people didn’t trust your news product…not you, personally, but the accumulation of you, throughout the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and they got sick and tired of being spoon fed liberal dross, and they went to the radio when an alternative product came along.

TE: To a certain degree, I agree with that.

HH: And so, why do you think it’s wrong, somehow, for people to want to hear news that they don’t consider as biased? I mean, that’s what it is. It’s just unbiased news is what people wanted. That’s why conservatives like me got platforms, and our blogs get read, and our columns get absorbed.

TE: One, I don’t think it’s unbiased.

HH: It’s transparent at least. Everyone has bias. I agree with that. Everyone’s got bias.

TE: It’s transparent. Okay, that I would agree. And I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.

*****************************************

HH: ... given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?

TE: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat.

*****************************************

HH: ...Your newspaper wrote that Evangelicals were ill-educated, and easily led. Remember that one?

TE: That was one of the dumber things that’s been in the paper.

HH: Yeah, but it was in the paper.

TE: It was.

HH: And it got past editors.

TE: The only reason that the reporter who wrote it didn’t get in bigger trouble is that the editor who let it get by was someone of some prominence.

HH: Oh, what was his name?

TE: I’m not going to get into that, but it was someone of some power at the Washington Post, and there was no way they were going to mess with him.

HH: And so, they didn’t really have an early warning system. My guess is, because in the newsroom, and the newsrooms which I have worked, and that’s primarily PBS…

TE: I agree with you on this score, 100%.

HH: It’s very anti-religion, isn’t it?

TE: Well, it…certainly, they would let a quote by that, without, in many cases, without blinking, not recognizing that it was extraordinarily insulting.

E85

2006-09-25T07:02:00.000-06:00

In this month's issue of IEEE's Spectrum magazine (I'm a nerd) in an article entitled "Stricter U.S. Gas Standards Stalled," I read this: "E85 is more expensive than gasoline, it provides inferior fuel efficiency, and it yields little if any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions." The article goes on to quote Reg Modlin, director of environmental and energy planning for DaimlerChryselr Corp., saying, "'there is currently little customer demand' for E85 vehicles." No kidding? People aren't demanding cars that run worse on more expensive fuel that is just as bad for the environment and can't be found at most gas stations? I wholeheartedly agree that we need to find an alternative to gasoline and petroleum products, especially in automobiles. However, it does not appear that E85 is a good solution, and I cannot believe that it has so many proponents. The article quotes people blaming Congress for not passing incentives and forcing infrastructure for the general lack of interest in E85. Usually I agree with anyone saying Congress isn't doing their job. In this case, however, I'm thankful that Congress hasn't stupidly signed away tax dollars to something that doesn't sound like its going to help us much anyway. My solution to the oil issue? Nuclear power, especially fusion. If we spent as much money on that as we do researching other alternative fuels we could probably come up with some pretty good ways to keep it safe. And with nuclear energy the power is so cheap that an electric car becomes economically feasible. That's environmentally and economically friendly.

After Bush?

2006-09-21T09:22:00.000-06:00

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has made a name for himself internationally with his strong anti-US rhetoric and, more visibly, his harsh, off the deep end criticisms of US President Bush. My question is, what will he do after the 2008 elections when Bush isn't the president any more? Defining yourself as the guy who said that George W. Bush is the devil seems like a short-sighted strategy, especially in the late months of 2006. Yes, Mr Chavez, we know you hate President Bush. We understand that you want to stand against the US and believe it is a threat to your country. Is there anything more than that? Are you offering some alternative philosophy or ideology? Do you have some reason that the US is wrong? What will you stand for after the 2008 elections when there is no longer the evil Bush to rely on?

In a Name

2006-09-13T22:55:00.000-06:00

"What's in a name?" questions the now-cliche Shakespeare quote. Not much, as it turns out, for the Emerging Church. Or Emergent Church, or Emergent movement, or simply Emergent -- however you may know it. This movement bears a name that conveys absolutely no meaning about the ideals of the movement. It is by definition an inadequate title, and a completely non-sustainable one. In fact, this title ought not apply to any movement but instead is a category that changes as the times change (the Evangelical Church was once the "emerging" school of thought as well). However, another name for this movement will be hard to come by because the people within the movement are as confused about what it means as the name is ambiguous. We, as a whole, have very little idea what we stand for. We are a group bound together more by name then by creed. Except we know exactly what we are not. We have spent the last decade or so figuring out what it is we don't want to be, what it is that turns us away from less "emerging," more established groups. But this definition by negative cannot go on forever. If this group, this "movement," is going to survive it needs to define itself. If people are going to consider the Emerging Church and consider its merits, they need to know what it is they are considering. If we don't find some way to define ourselves by what we are then I fear what is already beginning to happen will become predominant -- various groups with wildly differing ideas will all claim to be "Emergent" and none will be able to hold a legitimate claim to the title over others. And then the title will lose all meaning what so ever in regards to conveying something useful about the group associated with it.

Tony Jones, the National Coordinator of Emergent, says "Emergent is an amorphous collection of friends who’ve decided to live life together, regardless of our ecclesial affiliations, regardless of our theological commitments. We want to follow Christ in community with one another. In a very messy way, we’re trying to figure out what that means." Sooo, pretty much nothing? I don't want to argue with the National Coordinator of Emergent about what Emergent is, but that description doesn't really convey much information to me. He goes on to say, "But in general, what binds people in Emergent is an eschatological conviction, which is the most everybody in Emergent would rally under the flag of hope. We have hope for the future. We have hope for the Church. We have hope for the kingdom of God to break into the present and transform the present." That's a lot better, and maybe something to work with. However, part of the problem we run in to is that even if this is the definition of Emergent, its not widely enough known to be consistant among groups who claim to be part of the Emerging Church. Furthermore, Jones states "It’s not a denomination... Statements of faith are about drawing boards, which means you have to load your weapons and place soldiers at those borders. You have to check people’s passports when they pass those borders. It becomes an obsession—guarding the borders. That is simply not the ministry of Jesus... For the short duration of time that I have on this planet to do my best to partner with God and build His kingdom, I don’t want to spend it guarding borders." I really do appreciate his ideals and sentiment here. But the problem is that it takes away any meaning of the term. By his definition what does it take to be Emergent? Allowing discussion about opposing opinions in theology as well as politics and culture? So, has Emergent just become a new word for tolerant?

Here is where I think Jones and I diverge and the reason for my desire for more concrete definitions where he feels no need: "Emergent could be very short lived. This whole thing could blow up over politics or theology or broken friendships or whatever. I don’t hold any grand illusions over how long this thing will be around. But as long as it’s around, we’re going to do our best to maintain a relational equilibrium." My vision is not of a short-lived experiment into loving each other. Emergent as the organization that Jones is a part of may well disappear soon. But the Emerging Church is not going to just disappear. All the people who are members of churches that identify themselves this way will still remain. Even if Emergent goes away the Emerging Church will not -- it cannot unless the people who make up this church all die suddenly. And so we must do something that is hard for us: we have to create a definition of what it means to be part of this movement (and maybe we could get a new, more meaningful name?). And that necessarily means drawing some boundaries. It means that there will be people who are part of it and people who aren't. And that is hard for many of us in the Emerging Church. But we're fooling ourselves because this distinction already exists in all of our minds, we're just not ready to voice it for fear that we will become just like everything we are trying to move away from. However, in the spirit that I believe embodies this movement, the purpose of this definition is not to exculde, but to include. Not so that we can identify who is not a part of the group, but so those of us in the group know who we are and what it means to be part of this group. And the definition should reflect that. I'll be writing more about this as I have more ideas. I may try to get input from Tony Jones and David Crowder if either has the time. My express desire is to create a definition to further give life to this movement. Again in the spirit displayed by the movement, I feel this is a conversation that we need to be having in our churches and with those not in our churches and between our churches, and therefore any and all input is not only welcomed but encouraged. Please, tell me what you think whether you love, hate, or don't care at all about the Emerging Church.

Another Route

2006-09-12T14:38:00.000-06:00

Why don't we hear any politicians on either side of the aisle talking about something like this? This guy sounds to me like he knows what he's talking about and he seems qualified to talk about it. His proposal would take a lot of time and money, but it seems worthwhile in the short and long term if it could be pulled off. Is he wrong? Or are there politicians talking about it that I'm not aware of? Or are the politicians more interested in politics, and therefore short-term high return 'plans,' rather than finding a viable long-term solution? I think that the politicians and we the American people need to decide if we are really committed to establishing a democracy in Iraq or if we are more interested in seeing our side "win" the political battle that has been established around Iraq. Do we want to see a military victory in Iraq or a quick withdrawal of troops? Or do we want to see Iraq emerge as a stable democracy in Iraq even if it means committing more time and money and switching approaches completely? Furthermore, if we do decide that we want real progress in Iraq and our politicians aren't going to take us there, what do we do? How do we show our politicians that we want a different solution than either side is offering? And I don't believe that the right answer here is voting for one side or another.

No Guilt by Association

2006-08-28T08:27:00.000-06:00

Although it has been said in various ways by many different people I think it bears repeating: we must be careful and diligent to remind ourselves, others in our country, and the world that although we are in a conflict with "Islamo fascism," or Islamic radicals who want to destroy the West by force, we are not in a conflict with all Muslims. If our enemies can convince the rest of the world that we are against Islam in general then they will have won support, or at least greater disdain for us, from a large percentage of the world's population. Furthermore, the Muslims in the US need to know that they are not outcasts. We also need to remind those in our country who would seek to harm all Muslims, even other citizens, that we are not a people who desire or tolerate hatred or guilt by association and that, as a nation, we are remorseful for times that we have done so in the past. Muslims and those of Middle Eastern heritage may be under greater suspicion than WASPy types, but they are not guilty just because of their faith or family history. Is it fair that they are under greater suspicion? Maybe not. But I can't think of a better system because, without further investigation, you can't tell an "Islamo fascist" from a peaceful Muslim. If there were a group of white supremacists carrying out terrorist attacks and seeking to destroy our culture I hope that us blond haired blue eyed types would be under greater suspicion than those who are not white at all. But because Muslims are under greater suspicion it is easy to understand why they may feel targeted. And therefore we need to make an extra effort to make sure they know that they are not guilty by association and that we do accept them as countrymen or just as other peace-loving humans. If we allow this sizeable majority in our country to feel isolated and targeted simply by their coincidental association with terrorists then it only becomes more likely that they may one day sympathize with our enemies more than us. And, from a less practical standpoint, we should reach out to those who feel persecuted or outcast because it is harmful for them, as humans, to feel that way. We ought to show compassion and acceptance. Not just for the practical purpose of trying to keep them from becoming resentful, but for the pragmatic purpose of embracing everyone who will be embraced and showing love and compassion to the world. If we do not wholehartedly welcome diversity and allow each person to have their own ideology, as long as it doesn't involve killing us or terrorizing us, then we are worse than our enemies.

Sometimes its Obvious

2006-08-26T16:00:00.000-06:00

Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear program. Why do the UN and Europe continue to act surprised? Why do they believe that they can really talk Iran out of it? The President of Iran has quite clearly and frequently stated that he believes his country to be at war with the Western world. Furthermore, he has stated that his goal is to destroy Israel and diminish Western power, especially that of the US, to inferior to that of the "Muslim world," which probably really means Iran. What is it going to take for the West to realize that you can't make a deal with someone whose stated goal is your domination? The UN and Europe have been trying to get Israel to find a diplomatic peace with several groups who have a desire to destroy Israel as one of their purposes for existence. I thought that this stupidity had something to do with their feelings about Israel, but now it appears that perhaps they are genuine. Now they too seek to deal diplomatically with an adversary that says it seeks their destruction. Diplomatic peace means compromise. You cannot compromise with a group that wants to destroy you. If they want something else and are willing to destroy you to get it then you can give them that something else to avoid destruction. But when the goal they set forth is your destruction there is nothing to barter with. I guess maybe Europe believes that there is something else that Iran really wants and that a desire to destroy the West is really born from that other desire. I guess that may be true, but I don't see why they would know what Iran wants more than the President of Iran does. He is saying he wants to destroy the West, and I believe him when he says it. The most I can say for Europe is that at least they aren't hypocrites (on this point, anyway). And while Europe keeps trying to appease Iran, Iran continues to string them along without even a pause in their program.

The Path of Least Resistance

2006-08-12T10:31:00.000-06:00

Michael Yon and probably others have been saying it for awhile, and now it seems that most of our political leaders and generals are jumping on board, too: there is a civil war brewing or under way in Iraq. There are clearly three sides in the war, the Kurds, the Shi'ites, and the Sunnis. These three groups have been at odds since the British lumped them blindly into one country and called it Iraq. Each of these groups has their own culture and belief system and each wants to run their own country with nothing to do with the others. So my questions is, why not let them? Its clear that right now they don't want to exist in a country together, but most of them do want a free independent country (not a dictatorship or theocracy). Why would we see it as a loss to allow them to each have their own country? Right now we have to exert a large amount of military force to try to keep them from ripping each other to shreds -- and we're still not doing that great a job of it. These are three groups that want independence that were forced to be governed together first by colonialism and then by an oppressive dictatorship. Why does it not make sense that part of toppling that dictatorship is to set each of these groups free to govern themselves? It seems to me like we have three choices at this point:

Maintain a vast military presence in Iraq so that the civil war that will be fought will look more like individual acts of aggression by rouge forces. When they eventually learn to get along years, maybe decades from now, then we'll be able to leave.
Maintain current troop levels or decrease them in any amount and watch the country fall into full fledged civil war that either ends in separate countries being made or one or more of the factions being dominated by another.
Set up three separate countries today, maintain our military presence to enforce the borders for some period of time, and call it a victory for everyone.

Now, I know things aren't that simple, but I think that there is going to be conflict between these groups for a long time if they aren't allowed to be autonomous. It seems fully in line with the mission of setting up democracy in the Middle East to allow these groups of people to govern themselves as they wish. Ethnic diversity has "worked" in the U.S. historically because before any significant new ethnic group arrives there is already a stifling majority of nationals who consider themselves "Americans" (meaning citizens of the U.S.). In Iraq you have these three groups trying to coexist with none having a clear majority and all having a different vision. So, let them have three countries. If the unite into one again some day, so much the better. But if we try to keep them as one now, I believe that odds are that they will eventually split anyway. It won't be that much extra government building because each group already has their politicians and some political infrastructure, and at least two of the groups already have trained militaries: the Kurdish militias are probably the best native fighting force in Iraq, and the Shi'ites mostly own the Iraqi Army. In the end I think this is the path we are going to have to go down. Why not go there voluntarily, when we can legitimately claim that it is still victory, rather than waiting for the thousands of lost lives and costly years, in terms of dollars and politics, and what will only look like failure, for the same result? If we make a united Iraq our goal there is no way we can claim victory when it splits, and at this point it looks like an inevitability to me. So it makes sense to split Iraq in terms of lives lost, money spent, and political gain, both at home and internationally.

(Mis)Representation

2006-08-07T22:24:00.000-06:00

It seems to me that the ideal purpose of a politician in a democracy is to represent the people in the piece of the country that they are elected from, whether that be an entire state or a single county or city. That means that whether you are Republican or Democrat, if your district is split 49-51%, your voting should reflect more middle of the road trends. If your district is 90% your party, then you should vote with your party almost all of the time.

But that is not what happens in the US today because we have, as a nation, consistently valued party over people. I'm not sure when it happened, maybe its always been that way. However, this leads to massive misrepresentation, in my opinion. Today if your district is split 49-51% then nearly half of the people in your district are misrepresented because most politicians vote party line on most issues.

Now, the argument for the way a party system like this works is that you vote for the party that most represents your views. Then the party that has the majority of the votes in a district will be the party that most accurately represents the people and therefore maximum representation is achieved. But there are only two parties today, and most people do not fall solidly within a given party on every vote. It is my opinion that most people would vote in a range across the middle of the political spectrum if they could vote on every issue. Instead we mostly get votes polarized on both ends of the spectrum and there is never a middle of the road victory.

The motivation behind electing a candidate and not a party is that a candidate from a given district will know the people of that district and be able to accurately represent them. If a politician is only going to vote party line then there is no reason to have him around at all. We need only to establish the bounds of what a party stands for and the vote for the party that will represent your district. Apparently this was not the intent when our system was created because we do, in fact, vote for candidates.

When a great deal of districts in recent elections have been split by less than 10% but most votes by politicians fall squarely along party lines, accurate representation is not happening. It is my opinion that this was not the intent of those creating the system when it was set up, and it is not the ideal situation. If it were a better system I would be willing to forgo the "founders" intent for one that we have found to be better. However, I do not believe that this misrepresentation is better. Rather I believe that it will be beneficial and right for us to encourage a move within our system so that politicians vote to represent their whole district, not just the small majority who elected them, if that is the case. I'm not sure what practical steps we can take, but I know that one thing that will help is getting more people informed and interested during the primaries, because if more people vote in the primary then a more representative candidate will emerge as a contender in the general election. I'd like to hear any practical ways we can move towards more accurate representation in our government today, or any reasons why we ought not to.

Doubts

2006-08-03T10:16:00.000-06:00

What if this is the truth about the Israeli campaign in Lebanon? Can we really have any idea of knowing who is right and wrong right now? Will we ever know? I've found that on many high profile issues, especially regarding recent military activities, its hard to know what to believe or who to trust. The two sides usually contradict on major points, and both make claims about the other side that are impossible to substantiate but equally impossible to prove false. And both sides have something to gain by lying if what the other says is true. I am left with a lot of "facts" and assertions and no way of knowing who is telling the truth. I suspect that the truth is often somewhere in between the two perspectives.

An Israeli Perspective

2006-08-01T08:34:00.000-06:00

I found this article at jewishworldreview.com that talks about the double edged sword that Hezbollah represents to Israel. The basic point goes like this: Hezbollah attacks Israeli civilians seeking to maximize non-military damage. At the same time they hide their military positions among heavily populated areas so when Israel attacks them they kill civilians. No matter what Israel does it loses, either in its civilian casualties or by inflicting them on Lebanon. The author claims that Israel goes so far as to drop leaflets ahead of their bombing missions to allow civilians time to leave, where Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians. Yet Israel is seen by most of the world as the war criminal. Is this piece propaganda or a repetition of propaganda? Maybe. But it may have some shred of truth in it and it is important to consider amongst some international calls for war crimes charges to be leveled at Israel.

Maybe

2006-07-28T09:32:00.000-06:00

Maybe God feels the same way, more or less, about the person with the cheesey Christian bumper sticker; the person who has a 30 minute "quiet time" every day at 4:30 on the dot; the person who raises their hands and wears a goofy smile while singing in church; the person who refuses to listen to Radiohead and Death Cab For Cutie because they aren't Christian bands; the person who pretends to speak in tongues because they don't understand why they can't but they want to fit in; the person who always ties everything back to "God is in control"; the person who spews Evangelical sound bites but can't quote scripture; the person who believes that the US is the "new Israel"; the person who reads the King James version of the Bible; the person who believes that there are literal treasures and streets of gold in heaven; the person who believes that their dead relatives are in heaven with God and can hear their prayers; the person who uses church as a way to increase their social standing; as he does about me with my bitterness, high-minded theological ideas often based more on what makes sense to me than scripture or meditation, and my self-righteous emergent theology. And maybe that's what this is really all about.

Argentina to China

2006-07-24T12:46:00.000-06:00

Standing out in the hall (not the cold) before class today one of my friends brought up the subject of drilling straight through the center of the Earth and coming out in China. Specifically, he was wondering where you would have to start to end up in China. Being the brilliant, almost-Masters-of-Science Computer scientists that we are, we realized that anywhere in the northern hemisphere would place you in the southern hemisphere on the other side, thus missing China. This did not stop us, being the brilliant almost-blah-blah-blah that we are, from theorizing that perhaps you could tunnel from Cuba and that there is a "Communist connection" between China and Cuba through the middle of the Earth through which citizens of these countries can travel. Not long after this thought, one of the Chinese students came by. We asked him where we would have to start drilling from to end up in China and, without even pausing to think, he replied "Oh, Argentina." We were a little perturbed by how fast he answered, so our interest was piqued. And look what we found. All this time, it was just sitting right below our noses. I figure the travel time is so fast because on the way to the center of the earth you are basically free falling, so you'll go at least terminal velocity, if you're unchecked.

Value Size

2006-07-19T07:13:00.000-06:00

I've noticed that here in Waco "Value Size" has a different meaning than I'm used to. At the local grocery chain, HEB (local to Texas), I've consistently found that the "Value Size" packages are more expensive than buying the same or more of the same product in its regular sized variety. I, and it seems logical, always assumed that the "Value" in "Value Size" implied that there was some monetary benefit to buying things in larger quantities. Based on the fact that these items still exist, I can only conclude that most people do not compare prices when they buy such things and they assume that the addition of "Value" to the description of the item implies some savings to them, never considering that the added value might actually be flowing in the opposite direction on the free market food chain.

Monday Morning

2006-07-17T07:40:00.000-06:00

Michael Yon has a great piece about militant Islam up that I highly recommend. He covers the scope and causes of this scourge and highlights its far-reaching effects around the world.

On a completely separate note, I wish there was an episode of Batman where something about the apocalypse is the theme and Robin, at some point, exclaims: "Holy eschaton, Batman!"

The Israel Situation: My Opinion

2006-07-14T10:16:00.000-06:00

I am not opposed to Israel taking military action in response to attacks against it. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to me that they are using "disproportionate" force. It seems to me that they are responding to an act of aggression just like anyone else would. However, I have reservations about the approach Israel has taken in their response. Everyone who would know seems to say that the roots of these attacks are Syria and Iran, not Lebanon. And while the Lebanese government may not be doing enough to prevent action against Israel, it may not really be causing it. So, if I were Israel I would be clear that the war is not against Lebanon, but against the people wanting to harm Israel that may be in Lebanon. Instead Israel is saying the opposite. And I think that is why the Hezbollah aggressors can say, "'Let the Israelis do whatever they want - no military operation will result in the return of the soldiers.'" It is not their country being attacked by Israel. Theirs are not the homes being destroyed. It would be as if Argentinean terrorists attacked the US through Mexico and in response we bomb Mexico City. It may send the message "you need to keep terrorist out of your country or we consider you to be helping them." Which may be a useful and necessary message. But it is not directly striking at the terrorists because they don't care what happens to Mexico. There may be reasons for Israel to hit Lebanon the way it has. For example, they have bombed the airport and major road ways to prevent the Hezbollah militants from moving the kidnapped Israeli soldiers out of the country. This seems like a good strategy with, hopefully, direct results. However, saying that they are going to "set Lebanon back 20 years" may not be the best strategy. My opinion is that if Israel is intent on stopping the attacks they need to go to the root of the cause and attack Syria, which ultimately will lead to a confrontation with Iran. And a lot of considerations need to be made before doing so, considerations that I do not know enough about to comment on. Like the possibility of Iran and Syria having WMDs. Like Iran's true military strength. Like how real the possibility is that China and Russia might back Iran if they go to war with Israel. I hope that leaders in Israel are thinking about these things and making strategies with the US military and other allies to assure that the situation does not get out of hand. What I worry about is Israel deciding to "set Lebanon back 20 years" because it cannot afford to confront Syria and Iran directly and having Lebanon be the only casualty with the terrorist base remaining largely untouched.

For some other interesting opinions check out Hugh Hewitt's page. He has his opinion as well as links to several others. One particularly interesting (although not eloquent) read is Yoni's blog. Yoni is a veteran of the IDF who is now living in the US. I've heard him on Hugh's radio show several times and he offers an interesting insider view on all things Israeli.

***UPDATE***
This report records Israeli officials speaking in a way that seems much more reasonable to me. Rather than approaching the situation as if they are at war with the nation/government of Lebanon, they now say that they "'want to force the government of Lebanon to take responsibility and that means that they put someone instead of Hezbollah along the border, someone that represents the sovereign state.'"

Cracks Like Spider Webs

2006-07-14T06:55:00.000-06:00

Israel claims that it has concrete evidence that the Lebanese militants that kidnapped two Israeli soldiers have plans to transport them to Iran. The US, according to this report, says that it holds Syria and Iran responsible for the kidnapping since they are the main supporters of Hezbollah. The Iranian government warned that if Israel attacked Syria it would be considered an attack on the "entire Islamic world." Meanwhile, the Lebanese government -- the newest democracy in the Middle East -- claims it had no knowledge that the attacks were going to occur, but Israel is holding them responsible anyway and taking out their valuable and necessary infrastructure. Supposedly Bush is promising the Lebanese government that he will press Israel to show restraint. However, the same headline has been running for a few days, and Israel doesn't seem to be showing much restraint. Here is my synopsis of the situation as seen through the media: some Hezbollah militants that are probably part of Syrian forces that were supposed to have left Lebanon years ago and are supported by Syria and Iran attacked Israel and kidnapped two soldiers. Israel responded with overwhelming force and claims they are going to "send Lebanon back 20 years." However, the "fragile" democratic government in Lebanon did not sanction or know about the attacks before hand. So, Israel is responding with harsh force in a way that will probably topple the government of its only neighboring democracy because some people supported by Iran and Syria attacked from that country. And if Israel actually attacks the nations behind the whole thing it will start a huge war that may spark larger conflicts around the globe.

That may not all be true, but that seems to be the picture that is painted by the news reports. I don't know enough about everything going on to speculate on how accurate those reports are. However, no matter how you look at it, the current situation is leaning towards further escalation, not towards a quick resolution. The short term impact here: higher gas prices. The long term impact: it depends on how far this "war" (as Israel believes it to be) reaches and how long it goes on.

Meanwhile, the world seems to have forgotten that Israel still has troops deployed in Palestine (at least they did last time any one reported on it). Maybe that is Israel's strategy -- to engage in a potentially much more harmful conflict, in international terms, so that the world stops watching what it is doing in Palestine. Israel was receiving a lot of flak internationally about its recent activity there, and now that pressure is gone. So now they are free to accomplish whatever their real goals in Palestine are without having to hear protests from the world every time they kill a civilian. I'm a typical center-right American in a lot of ways, so usually I support Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, I am also a Christian and a decent human being, so I wholeheartedly oppose the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Israel has not shown restraint towards Palestinian civilians at certain times in the past. They seemed to be this time, but maybe that was because of international pressure. Its possible that they are using the Lebanese conflict as a smoke screen to allow them to move decisively and destructively against the Palestinian population in general, and by the time we hear about it, it will be too late to try to stop it. I hope that is not the case, but it is another fear in the current situation.

***Update***
Under the pretense of Israel's sovereignty, the White House says that Bush will ask Israel to minimize "collateral damage" but he "is not going to make military decisions for Israel." This seems like a lame excuse because Bush has not seemed to have a problem trying to make military decisions for nations we oppose. I think that the truth is that Bush will not ask Israel to stop because he doesn't think they should, for whatever reason. Maybe they are good reasons, maybe not. I don't know enough about the situation to say either way. I guess this sounds better diplomatically -- if anyone believes it.

The Ice is Getting Thinner

2006-07-12T08:42:00.000-06:00

Anyone who pays attention to the news already knows that Lebanon based Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, Israel called it an "act of war," and Israel is currently invading Lebanon, ostensibly to get its soldiers back. This, in my mind, is horrible news. Unless Israel leaves quickly, which they claim they won't, I cannot imagine that Syria will not get involved. On one hand this is not a huge added threat to Israel because the Syrian military is not much better than the Lebanese or Palestinian (meaning Israel's army will have no problem defeating them in any open confrontations). However, it means that more and more of the region is getting involved. In the short run it may actually help the war in Iraq because many radical terrorist types will probably go to fight Israel instead of fighting in Iraq. However, if Iraqis perceive the situation to be the US helping Israel fight other Arab and Muslim countries it could cause greater unrest among the groups in Iraq that are already resistant to the new government there. Furthermore, there is the small (I hope) possibility that Saddam really did give Syria most of his WMD's before the invasion, and they might use those against Israel. No matter how weak their military, that remains a very serious threat and an even greater catalyst for escalation.

I really hope that no matter what happens that Jordan doesn't get involved because in the past several years they have increased their ties with the West and the US in particular, and it would be a shame for all that progress to disappear. Also, it would further turn the conflict into an "all the Arab countries against Israel" type of conflict. And this may lead to what should be our worst fears.

And those fears, of course, are that Iran would get involved. If Iran gets involved the situation may turn into an all out war in the region. This would cause most of the rest of the world to get involved in some way. If things follow the pattern they have in recent years, China and Russia would support Iran while the US, UK, Poland, Canada and Australia support Israel and the rest of Europe talks a lot about the war but doesn't do much. This, hopefully, is an unlikely scenario.

So, by quickly reacting to the instigation of Hezbollah militants with an invasion, Israel has, over night, significantly thinned the ice on which the world is walking in the Middle East. The worst case would involve a significant conflict and change in world politics. The best case... I'm not sure what the best case is. I guess the best case would be Israel getting their soldiers back and leaving Lebanon quickly. No matter what happens, the current escalation is certainly a very bad thing with the possibility of far reaching and long lasting effects.

Plugging the Firefox Leak

2006-07-10T09:58:00.000-06:00

You may have noticed that Firefox takes up a lot of RAM. On my laptop, it takes at least 50MB to have even one tab open, and it seems to grow up to 150-190MB when I start opening other tabs. Searching on the web I found this fix that seems to work. I allowed Firefox to have 32MB of memory and it doesn't seem to be exceeding that even when I have several tabs open. And so far it doesn't seem to have slowed down much if at all. If you've been experiencing poor system performance due to Firefox's greediness, try this. Just don't read the comment conversation at the bottom of the linked post -- its pretty painful.

****UPDATE****
Well, Firefox is taking up more than the allotted 32MB now, but its less than before (~60MB) and I do have 4 tabs open. So maybe that 32MB allottment is per tab or something. It makes sense that it grows as you add tabs because it has to hold almost as much information per tab as it would if you opened a new instance of the browser for each. So, I don't know exactly how it works but this fix still seems to be saving me some memory.

Hubcap Gang

2006-07-06T22:37:00.000-06:00

There is a nefarious group afoot in Waco, Texas. At first I thought it was an innocent mistake when I noticed that my front passenger-side hubcap was missing. I thought that maybe the shop had some reason to have it off while replacing my timing belt and changing my oil, but it was the holiday weekend so I had to wait until Wednesday to ask them. But then I started to notice it. Car after car missing only one hubcap. All around Waco I've noticed them. All different makes and models, although it seemed more prevalent on the modest price range sedans, like mine. Suspicion grew and theories ran rampant, but there was still lingering doubt. When I got the call back from the shop, my worst fears were confirmed. The shop knew nothing of a missing hubcap -- I had lost it some time after they were done with my car. And there were all those other missing-one-hubcap cars around. There could be no denying it now, Waco is facing a serious crisis. Apparently some deranged group or individual finds pleasure in collecting single hubcaps from local cars. And I have fallen victim. And I can't help but wonder, when that group or person looks at my hubcap, do they remember me? Do they remember the intimate details of my car? Or am I just another chalk mark on the board, another successful conquest? I suppose these, like many other questions, will never be answered. But I can still hope that somewhere out there someone is loving my hubcap as much as I did, and that one day, in this life or the next, we will meet again.

A Few Quick Questions

2006-07-04T21:40:00.000-06:00

Why doesn't Palestine seem to be afraid of Israel at all? Is it the same reason that North Korea doesn't seem to be afraid of the US at all (or the UN or Japan, etc)? Does it matter that the CIA closed its unit dedicated to searching for Bin Laden? Was it doing any good, or just wasting money? Do we still care much about catching him (relatively speaking)? Can Iran keep stalling forever while continuing with its nuclear program unchecked? Is anyone surprised that the Mexican presidential vote is probably going to a recount? Does any one really care about Lil' Kim getting out of jail? Did anyone really believe the stereotype that fat people are all 'jolly'? And what's with politicians always waving their hands in the air?

One Legged Birds Eat Dead Bugs

2006-06-29T13:34:00.001-06:00

I've had two fairly bizarre experiences over the last few days that had nothing to do with me other than the fact that I observed them.

The first begins with miscommunication. My wife needs a job, so we are applying everywhere we can think of. I have a friend who is a manager at the local Barnes and Noble, so I asked him at church on Sunday if he might be able to help us out. He told me we should come by when he was working the next day between 7am and 3pm. I have a class at 9:40am, so in the interest of getting to class on time and looking eager, we decided to go around 7 (my wife can't drive a standard, so she can't drive my car -- yet). Luckily I set the alarm wrong and we didn't get up until after 7, because my friend forgot to mention that, even though he starts work at 7, the store doesn't open until 9. So we got there around 8:30 and waited. While we were waiting I saw a bird swoop down and peck some kind of a beetle. After it had mortally wounded the bug (legs flew off) it grabbed it in its beak and hopped away. While it was hopping I noticed it appeared to be only on one leg, and I wondered if a one-legged dance was some strange victory dance for this species. Then it turned so its back was to me and I realized that it was hopping on one leg because it, in fact, only had one leg. Or rather it had only one foot and a stump leg that ended around the knee. I saw a one-legged bird eating a beetle. That was weird.

The other incident happened while I was walking to work yesterday. As I passed the business school two 30 or 40 something year old men came out and walked right in front of me. The part of their conversation I overheard went something like this:
Man 1: ...and cut the martyr complex right out.
Man 2: Speaking of church problems, did you hear about the PC USA...
Man 1: oh, did they have their convention already?
Man 2: I think that its just about to start, they're getting ready for it. Anyway, I heard that they started, not mandating, but accepting alternative descriptions of the trinity...
Man 1: < groans >
Man 2: the Parent, the Child, and...
Man 1: oh no
Man 2: yeah! And the Womb!
Man 1: What?
Man 2: Yeah, the Womb for the Holy Ghost!
Man 1: < shakes head as they walk away >

I was waiting for Redhurt's Jesus to come talk to them, but he never showed up (before I walked away from them, anyway). Besides the bizarreness of calling the Holy Spirit the Womb, that exchange was really funny to me because they were so... annoyed and condescending about the whole thing. But given the recentness of Redhurt's post I felt like it was rather ironic.

John Kerry: Still in Denial

2006-06-24T11:11:00.000-06:00

John Kerry proposed a plan to pull US troops out of Iraq. The Senate overwhelmingly rejected his plan -- 86-13. Kerry called it a "dramatic step forward." Now, either he sees his defeat as a step in the right direction, or he has reached a very low point. When getting 13 out of 100 votes is a dramatic step its time to rethink your game plan. That's not even half of the democrats in the Senate. What I see here is Kerry trying not to look like a complete loser after being so completely defeated and, as usual, failing. Perhaps he was also referencing a plan put forth by Senator Levin which was defeated only 60-39. I guess going from 13 to 39 is a pretty dramatic step, but its still not even everyone in his own party. In reference to these two votes, ostensibly, Ted Kennedy said "'Democrats have sent a clear message.'" The only clear message I see here is that the Democrats are in big trouble and unless their leadership comes up with something new they can expect to continue in that trouble for another election cycle.

Zarqawi Killed

2006-06-10T20:01:00.000-06:00

I don't know why this isn't bigger in the news, but apparently a US airstrike killed Abu Musa'ab al-Zarqawi earlier this week. Here are some links:
link 1
link 2
This is huge news. Zarqawi was probably second only to Bin-Laden on the US most wanted terrorists list. He was in charge of al Qaida in Iraq and hopefully his death will mean a quicker victory against that group. There are probably only a dozen or so people in the world whose death would have the potential to change events so greatly as Zarqawi's.

Honeymoon

2006-06-10T17:44:00.000-06:00

I'm on my honeymoon right now, so I probably won't be posting anything real for another week or two.

A Member, Not a Ruler

2006-05-19T14:21:00.000-06:00

A UN panel on torture called for the US to close its Guantanamo Bay detention center and should reform its interrogation process, among other things. I don't know that I totally agree with their conclusion. I think that they are right about many points. For example, I think that it is immoral for the US to "outsource" torture to countries where it is legal. I also think that some interrogation methods we have used, such as sexual humiliation or threatening death, are gray-area at best. I don't know that I would go as far as saying that GITMO should be closed altogether, though. Admittedly I don't have the same information as this panel, and they may be justified in their prescription. However, despite what I or any other Americans think, I believe that the US must take action to comply with the recommendations of this panel. If this panel has made mistakes or overstepped its bounds then the US needs to get the UN to admit such and formally absolve us from the corresponding charge. I think that I share a general disdain for the UN with many Americans. It is an organization rife with corruption and so bogged down by bureaucracy and politics that it rarely accomplishes anything of value. However, we can do nothing to improve the effectiveness and authority of the UN if we do not respect what it says. Furthermore, if we expect other countries (like Iraq under Saddam) to comply with UN directives and respect the body's authority to place requirements and restrictions on any country then we must similarly comply with and respect the UN. The US is clearly a very powerful force militarily, politically, socially, and economically worldwide. As such we have a responsibility, I feel, to use that power to lead other countries to a better future. We should take a leadership role here showing that all countries ought to respect the UN. If the US is willing to comply with the UN it will provide a large impetus for other countries to do the same. Furthermore, it will make us justified in moving against other countries that don't. We cannot use non-compliance with the UN as justification for aggression or political pressure if we don't comply with the UN ourselves. Finally, we ought to do what we can not to stand alone against the world but rather work towards unity and harmony. That is the goal of the UN. If it is broken we should take a leadership role in fixing it. But we need to work from within the system, not as though we are above it. If we comply with this panel it will show the world that the US recognizes the authority of the UN and we are committed to working with other nations to establish lasting peace. If we do not it will show the word that the UN is powerless and that we, the US, believe that we are above its authority and will stand alone unless the other nations of the world agree to do everything on our terms. I think the latter would be a huge mistake.

Better, Stronger, Faster

2006-05-10T13:56:00.000-06:00

I live in Waco. Waco has more churches per capita than anywhere else in the world, so I see a lot of different churches, and many of these churches have signs out front proclaiming all kinds of trite catchphrases. Right now one of them says, "We don't change the message, the message changes you" Now, its a subtle thing, I know. But I think that there is value in examining it. Shouldn't it say, "We don't change the message, the message changes us"? Whether that is what they meant or not, I think that this reveals a true undertone in American Christianity today... maybe all Western Christianity. It is the idea that those of us who are already Christians are done. We prayed a prayer or were baptized or whatever the particular sect uses as its conversion moment, and now we're done. The Message changed us and we are changed, there is nothing more that Christianity has to offer us until death. Now we exist only to get more people to become Christians. It's kind of like a cosmic pyramid scheme. And I believe that this correlates directly to the decline in church population in the US today, especially among young people. In our generation there is very little social pressure to be an active member of any faith. In the recent past, I believe, many people went to church because it was socially unacceptable not to, not because they felt like they benefited from the Christian faith at all. Today that social pressure is gone and the true state of affairs is apparent: people aren't interested in Christianity. And how could they be if this is all there is to it? Furthermore, if this is all there is why should I continue in faith after the conversion moment? Now, the Arminians among us believe that one's salvation is due to an ongoing faith (to put it simply), not some conversion moment. But we are certainly not the majority. If God is not active in our lives after the conversion, if there is no "life more abundant" on this Earth, if there is no continual movement towards Perfection, then churches should be replaced with drive-thrus. We are not machines that just need fixed and once fixed operate correctly. We live in a world full of pain, sorrow, and suffering. We live in a place that offers nothing but despair on its own. And if all God promised was a better life after this one then that would still be more than we deserved. But if He is offering a better life now, a life more abundant today, then isn't that infinitely better? If Christianity can ease the pain of everyday life, bring you closer to God before you die and allow you to begin living the life we long for now then it has real value everyday. And in that case it cannot be a one-dose solution. It must be something that changes you every day. Something that brings you to a God who reaches out and redeems the damned situations we find ourselves in day after day. My final thought is one that is now becoming cliche itself, so here's the sign I'll put on my proverbial church this week: "Jesus commanded that we make disciples, not converts"

To die, or not to die

2006-05-08T15:26:00.000-06:00

Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted of being involved in the 9/11 plot and sentenced to life in prison five days ago. During his trial he frequently spoke out of turn, saying things about how America is evil and he is going to be a martyr and so on. He even plead guilty. Now he wants to change his plea (requires a free membership). He claims that, "he had not trusted the American legal system because he was not assigned a Muslim lawyer, and that his days in solitary confinement had provoked him to fight that system." Furthermore, he claims that "the jurors' decision to spare his life made him look at his situation anew," and now "he would welcome a trial where he could show he was not part of the 9/11 plot" in his own words: "'because I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial even with Americans as jurors.'" I wasn't aware that it was even possible to change your plea after sentencing. In fact, its not. His lawyers, in their filing of his request, "acknowledged that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibit a defendant from withdrawing a guilty plea after he is sentenced" but submitted the request anyway, due to "'their problematic relationship with Moussaoui'" who "confounded" his lawyers with his outbursts and general bizarre behavior during the original trial.

What is interesting to me is that throughout his trial he antagonized the judge and jury claiming that he wanted to be a martyr. The government strongly urged the jurors to give him the death sentence, but instead they gave him life in prison. And now he wants to change his plea. Not when he was faced with death. Although he may be telling the truth and have a newfound faith in the American system, I am skeptical. My belief, or at least a theory that seems plausible to me, is this: he wanted to die. He antagonized the court in order to provoke them so they would hate him and give him the death penalty. Now that they haven't he is faced with decades in isolation in a maximum security prison. He wanted to fly planes into buildings to die as a martyr. When that didn't work he wanted to die at the hands of "infidels" so he could still be a martyr. When instead he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with no more chances at martyrdom, he tried to escape. He doesn't want another trial because he wants to be innocent, he wants another trial so he can get another shot at martyrdom.

I don't think that this conclusion seems remarkable to many, including those involved in his trial. I'm sure he won't get another trial since it is illegal for him to change his plea at this point. But it should make us consider our approach to people like him and the culture he comes from. Our culture values life above almost anything. That is reflected by the fact that Western soldiers from many countries often are taken prisoner in wars and do not fight to the death. We were confounded by the Japanese willingness to die for their country in World War II. This enemy is very similar. An "honorable" death is better than life. These men do not want to kill for their cause, they want to die for it. This makes confronting this threat much more complicated. Military power will not deter them. As the Soviets learned in Afghanistan, it doesn't matter how many you kill, they will not give up. We cannot simply overpower them unless we are going to kill every last one of them. There can be no surrender obtained through military action. We have to win men away from this cause while they are alive. We have to change minds and hearts. I'm not saying that military action should always be out of the question -- it may be that we have to prove that we are strong and willing to fight back before they will respect us at all. But we also have to understand that military action alone will not win this war and we need to have a plan in which military action is just one tactic, not our entire strategy.

Bill Gates: I wish I were better at acting humble

2006-05-05T10:17:00.000-06:00

While studying for finals I came across this article. This article is about how Bill Gates doesn't really want to be the richest man alive. Check this quote out: " Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told an advertising conference in Washington state that he'd prefer not to be the world's richest person.

'I wish I wasn't,' Gates said in the interview broadcast online."

I'm speechless, Bill. He acts like its a disease or something. You wish you weren't? I understand that when you have that much money it feels like an endless supply, but seriously, who does he think he's kidding? If he doesn't want to be the richest man alive he can certainly solve that problem. In fact, I'll help him out. Bill Gates, if you ever read this you have my word that I will gladly accept any sized gift (above $0) that you would like to give me to help remove some of your wealth. If we can get enough people to volunteer then we might be able to lower Gates' bottom line enough to make him the second richest man in the world.

In all seriousness, there are plenty of ways to spend $65 billion. He could pay off some of the national debt, if he wanted. Or pay off the debt for some third world country. Or give even more money to AIDS research. Or nuclear fusion research. Or just start sending big checks randomly (or to me). You get the idea.

I like reading articles like these. It always entertains me to see rich people and celebrities pretending like they'd rather not be, especially when they could easily cure the problem they complain about if they really wanted to. Bill Gates doesn't want to be anything but the richest man alive, or he would be.

NHL Playoffs, Round Two: the Western Conference is Crazy

2006-05-03T21:55:00.000-06:00

So, first I'd like to brag that I correctly chose the winners of six out of eight series. I didn't get the number of games right in many cases, and I didn't make my predictions until after game 3, but whatever. The Flames lost, so not all the Northwest Division teams made it past the first round. However, something even cooler happened: all the top-seeded teams in the Western Conference were eliminated. That's right, numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8 are going on and 1-4 are out. I think that's pretty cool. The Eastern Conference is the exact opposite, all the top seeds are going on and the bottom four are out. So, that probably says something about differences between the two conferences. Here are my second round predictions, but I have to admit that the number of games is mostly a crap shoot.
Western Conference:

Avs beat the Mighty Ducks in 6 games -- the Ducks are good this year; they did force game 7 before beating the Flames after being down 3-2 in the series. However, I think that the matchup favors Colorado in most aspects -- we have a solid defense, a red-hot goalie, and a formidible four-line attack that features a few great scoring lines as well as some grinders. I love the Avs, I'm sure I'm not objective.

Sharks beat the Oilers in 7 games -- The real matchup here will be Roloson vs. Thornton+Cheechoo. My prediction is that in the end the league's leading scorer will crack Dwayne Roloson, talented as he is.

Eastern Conference:

Sabres beat the Senators in 7 games -- this is a really tough one, but I think the Sabres played with a lot more energy and intensity than the Senators last round, in my opinion.

Hurricanes beat the Devils in 6 games -- this is another tough one. But again I'm looking at last round. The Devils steam-rolled the Rangers with little competition. It'll be hard for them to gear up to play the Hurricanes. The Hurricanes, on the other hand, just came from being down 2-0 in the first series. They have some good momentum and intensity built up after that.

Not all the series will probably go as long as I've predicted, but I don't feel good enough about any of my choices to predict a faster finish. I thought that many of the series last round were incredibly exciting and I found the games very entertaining to watch. And I think its only going to get better with these new matchups.

NHL Playoffs

2006-04-28T11:46:00.000-06:00

I love hockey. And I love the Avalanche. I have a big post almost ready about the purpose of church services, but I haven't finished it yet because I'm too absorbed with the NHL playoffs (that's not really true, I'm busy with other things too, but it makes me sound more obsessed).

Anyone who follows hockey will agree, the "new NHL" has been a huge success and this years playoffs are some of the best I've ever seen. Notably, the 7th-seeded teams in both divisions are doing quite well against the 2nd-seeded (the number 7 Avs lead the series 3-0 over the number 2 Stars). Furthermore, Edmonton, the 8th seed, is tied 2-2 with the number 1 Red Wings, and that's only after the Red Wings won last night after being down 2-1. Any playoff series that involves low seeds contending or beating high-seeds is exciting -- especially when its "your" team. I didn't expect the Avalanche to fare well at all against the Stars. The Stars have been phenomenal this year, and the Avs have been... slightly above average. However, the Avs are in the most competitive division in the NHL. In the new NHL each team plays even more intra-divisional games than before. And I think this adds an interesting twist on the playoffs because, as with college football, the team with the best record may not be the best team if they had a weaker "strength of schedule." The fact that three of the eight teams in the Western Conference quaterfinals are from the Northwest Division. Furthermore, two of those teams are underdogs hanging with or dominating the higher seed they are playing.

Its been a very exciting first two weeks of the playoffs for me. Here are my hopes for the first round, although I don't know how realistic they are at this point. Really I just think it would be awesome if all the Northwest Division teams win their first round games, and I want the Red Wings to lose because I hate them, and that way we (the Avalanche... I'm totally on a "we" basis with the Avalanche) don't have to play them next round:

Avalanche beat the Stars in 4 games (sweep 'em, baby!)
Oilers beat the Red Wings in 7 games
Flames beat the Mighty Ducks in 7 games
Sharks beat the Predators in 5 games

I'm not as interested in the Eastern Conference. I don't really like the way they play in the Eastern Conference. Even with the new rules their games seem lethargic and lack an intensity that the Western Conference has. Not all the teams, New Jersey and Buffalo especially don't play this way. But enough of them that the Eastern Conference seems boring to me. If Ottawa wins their conference it will be a very interesting Stanley Cup finals, since Ottawa is generally a more boring team to watch. If New Jersey or Buffalo win, or even the Flyers, then it will be more like a Western Conference series. Here are my predictions for the Eastern Conference:

Senators beat the Lightning in 6 games
Devils beat the Rangers in 4 games
Canadiens beat the Hurricanes in 5 games (not sure at all about this one)
Sabres beat the Flyers in 6 games (maybe 7)

I know this post has nothing to do with what we normally talk about, but I'm way into the NHL playoffs right now but wanted to update my blog so it doesn't idle for another month. So here's something to talk about.

Doctrines of Satan

2006-04-04T21:26:00.000-06:00

I've finally found myself with some free time and nothing better to do. After my long and, in my humble opinion, well deserved hiatus from blogging I'm back, just like I was never gone at all! Seriously, I haven't gotten any better over the course of the last month, and this one is pretty long, in my typical style.

Church doctrines, official or otherwise, that are generally unfounded infuriate me as much as Jacobus Arminius would have infuriated Calvin, had they lived at the same time. One set of doctrines in particular that bother me are those concerning Satan and other demons. The thing that bothers me most is that there is very little revealed about the nature of either in the Bible. Furthermore, many doctrines ignore what actually is in the Bible. Today most Christians, or at least most that I've met, view demons and Satan as supreme evil beings to be reviled and hated and we have some power over them when we encounter them (the amount of power varies by denomination). They also believe that Satan was once called "Lucifer" and was God's most beautiful creation and rebelled against God because he wanted more power. They believe that demons are angels that decided to follow Satan rather than God. And they believe that these creatures live in the same "hell" that they believe non-Christians will inhabit after death. Some even believe that Satan and demons will torment people in this hell. I'll start by presenting, to the best of my knowledge, what the Bible does say, and then I'll point out what the Bible does not:

There is mention of Lucifer, although I do not believe that it has anything to do with Satan. Check out other translations, the word "lucifer" is only translated as a proper name in King James. In fact, the passage as a whole does not seem to imply Satan at all when read in any other translation, in my opinion.
Satan may be able to come into the presence of God, and he might ask God permission to tempt people in certain ways, if Job is a factual account (A similar scene is painted in Zechariah, and Luke).
Satan convinced David to take a census (what?)
Satan tempted Jesus in the desert
Jesus calls Peter Satan one time
When Jesus casts out demons He says He is casting out Satan
Jesus claims that He "saw Satan fall like lightening from Heaven" and that Christians have authority from God over all kinds of demons
Satan enters Judas when he betrays Jesus
Paul talks a lot about Satan being the cause of temptation and the root of evil, and says that people in sin should be "handed over to Satan" for awhile, anyway
Paul claims that Satan stopped him from traveling to Thessalonica
Revelation is full of stuff about Satan that I don't dare to touch, but it seems that he will be destroyed at some point
Jesus agrees to some demons request to send them into pigs. They claim that there is an "appointed time" for Jesus to torment them, and it hasn't come yet. He doesn't hate them as much as Pentecostal do, apparently (since He lets them go into the pigs... unless this is that "appointed time" and that wasn't)
Demons go through hard times when they aren't possessing people, and they go back to people they have possessed sometimes... and apparently they bring a party with them sometimes.

I can't claim that list is comprehensive, but I think it covers a lot of it. Here are some things that the Bible never says, as far as I can tell:

Satan was God's most beautiful creation
Satan was ever good
Demons were once angels
Satan caused demons to be what they are
Satan and the demons live in hell
Satan has any power over people after they die
Satan rebelled against God
Satan or demons can interact with inanimate objects directly
Satan or demons can cause bad things to happen to you, like your car breaking down
Paradise Lost = Biblical truth

However, people still believe all of these things. I think that one of the greatest strengths of the "emerging church" is its propensity to ask "Why do we believe what we believe and should we continue to do so?" And in this case I think that the answer is clear: we have no reason to believe much of what we do about evil spirits, therefore we should not believe it any more. From what I can tell of human and church history we usually make things worse when we make up answers to questions. Odds are that we are wrong about these things and are actually making things worse by believing them.

So What?

2006-03-29T13:04:00.000-07:00

So what if I don't post for a month? I do what I want! Between selling my house, planning my wedding, and working on my Master's I've been pretty busy lately. And I'm still pretty busy. I have some things I'm thinking about blogging about, but I haven't had the motivation to commit a chunk of my now-precious free time to it yet. So, until I do, watch these funny videos:

Fear of Girls (+10 Intelligence, +1 Universal Saving Throws, -1 charisma, and +2 melee attacks if you understand everything they say... "Mercy? You wanted mercy?! I'm chaotic neutral!!!")

Final Fantasy - in your back yard

MySpace

At least I'm good for something, right?

Austria, Oppressor

2006-03-07T14:08:00.000-07:00

Austria continues to amaze me with its lack of respect for the freedom of speech. Last week a British historian, David Irving, was sentenced to three years in jail in Vienna. His crime? Denying the Holocaust publicly. Don't get me wrong, I totally disagree with this guy. I think that the cause he champions is evil and that his beliefs are wrong and motivated by hatred. However, I don't believe he has done anything to deserve jail time. But now, on top of that, Austria has banned him from talking to the press because he continued to profess his disbelief of the Holocaust from jail. Austria has made it clear that it does not value freedom of speech. It has unequivocally made the statement that the government has the right to tell you what to believe, and that you are a criminal if you speak in disagreement. This attitude is the root of oppression of the worst kind, and I am amazed that the rest of the Western world seems unfazed. I'm sure that the subject of Irving's work contributes a great deal to this fact -- no one wants to be seen as siding with a Holocaust denier, nor does anyone want to be portrayed as sympathizing with his cause by speaking on his behalf. However, as people who value freedom it is our responsibility, yes I believe we are obligated, to speak out against oppression, even when it is against someone we deplore. Freedom is necessarily universal or non-existent. People in Nazi Germany were free to say what they wanted as long as it didn't contradict the party line. People in Austria today are free to say what they want as long as it doesn't contradict the government's idea of propriety. Neither of these is true freedom. No government should be allowed to tell its citizens what they must believe, and any government that seeks to silence all who hold beliefs other than their own must be viewed as an enemy of freedom.

Additionally, does Austria not realize that they are going to make a martyr of this man?

Honor Among Militant Islamic Groups?

2006-03-03T12:58:00.000-07:00

This adds an interesting undertone to world politics: Chechen rebels are mad at Hamas for meeting with the Russian government. Apparently the Chechens thought that one militant Islamic group would stand up for another and see theirs as the same cause across the globe. This echoes the Islamic call to fight against the USSR in Afghanistan, as well as the Communist mantra of the late 1800's up to current times. The idea that people with similar ideals fighting in similar circumstances are united in spirit and really part of the same movement is a common sentiment among radicals. And when such is the case it represents a much greater threat to the people standing against the radical movement. Hamas's actions should give the western world a measure of relief because they show that Hamas, at least right now, is only focused on their domestic issues. They are still a militant group that advocates the eradication of Israel and as such should not be viewed in a friendly light. However, they are not ultra-radicals with a mission to spread their violence across the world to exact global change. Of course they may well become such if they are given power and they are able to find success in their domestic concerns. I think that the question now becomes how to keep these groups disconnected, how to make each group concerned only with their local issues, and then how to resolve those local issues so the radicals can melt back into normal citizens. As long as they are able to maintain an "us vs. them" mentality they are a threat to everyone who isn't part of their "us." When groups with different primary objectives but similar ideals group each other into the "us" it makes them much more dangerous, because then they are fighting over issues of ideals and no compromise can be achieved. As long as these groups can be limited to local concerns and be nailed down to voicing real grievances then they can be worked with and their grievances dealt with. When they become part of a global idealistic movement they cannot be reasoned with and therefore have to be opposed at every step with whatever means necessary.

Ridiculous

2006-02-27T14:22:00.000-07:00

Today I saw a girl walking across campus in shorts and a t-shirt and what appeared to be leather grain moon boots with fur coming out the top. In conclusion, I hate fashion.

True Freedom

2006-02-20T13:55:00.000-07:00

In Austria a historian, David Irving, was sentenced to three years in jail for denying the Holocaust happened. I think this is ludicrous. How can a country claim to value freedom when people are jailed for a personal belief? Especially one that is just a dispute of facts. I do not in any way agree with this man or think that what he represents is good or right in any way. However, he is not even saying that something like the Holocaust is permissible, he is simply denying that it ever happened. It is something like a US citizen denying that slavery ever happened, or that the Japanese internment camps ever existed, or that American Indians were forced onto reservations and sometimes slaughtered for no reason. Anyone denying these facts is either ignorant or in denial -- but they are not jailed for it. Furthermore, one could go as far as to laud any of those acts as good and right and not face jail time (although they may be sued in civil court). That is true freedom of speech/press/expression -- we are allowed to believe what ever we want and we are free to share those beliefs in a peaceful manner. How can you claim to be on the side of justice and freedom when you sentence people to jail for their beliefs, however ridiculous or offensive they may be? In the US, acting on inappropriate beliefs (like the belief that incest is okay, for example) can lead to legal ramifications, but simply holding the belief cannot. That is the only way to ensure that the government cannot force people to have a certain religion or set of personal beliefs. That is how we protect the individual from tyranny. By their actions today Austria has aligned herself more with the principles of her disowned son who was the driving force behind the atrocity in question than with those dedicated to freedom who stood against him and his oppressive movement.

See other accounts at Reuters, ABC, FOX News, CNN

Plato on America

2006-02-11T19:15:00.000-07:00

I was reading through some quotes by Plato and found one that I really like:
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

Blowing Stuff Up

2006-02-04T10:30:00.000-07:00

Does this sound familiar? I can't imagine a full scale invasion of Iran -- I can't imagine the cost in money and lives that such an operation would involve. But I have to admit, this parallels almost exactly the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq -- Bush talks to the people of the country in his State of the Union and affirms that we think they are ruled by a corrupt government, a UN watchdog reports the country, the country maintains its right to do what it wants and makes threats... all that's left is blowing stuff up. I guess I wouldn't be that surprised if there were bombings and missile attacks against Iran, but I cannot imagine trying to invade that country. Its several times the size of Iraq and has a better military and most of the "insurgents" in Iraq are probably funded if not supplied from Iran anyway. So... no matter what happens things are probably going to get ugly in Iran pretty soon.

Sharing

2006-02-02T18:25:00.000-07:00

I had the startling, but not shocking, revelation that most of the atoms in my body have probably been part of someone else's body. Not only have things passed through my body that have been part of another human, but the very atoms that make up my body made up someone else's. Its very interesting to me. I began thinking about it because someone mentioned the question of whether people who have been cremated can be resurrected. I find it mostly a silly question, but modestly interesting. However, my new revelation makes that line of thinking utterly ridiculous. If God needs elements of a physical body to resurrect then we are all in trouble. Who gets claim to the atoms that we share? I imagine that few people today have many atoms that they can call their own -- meaning they haven't belonged to another human. And this is another interesting thought to me. We can't really lay claim to the atoms in our bodies because they once were part of someone else's body, and one day they will be part of yet another's. This in turn brings up some interesting thought about the separation of body and soul. I reject the Western dichotomy between the two and believe that they are impossible to separate. So what do I do with this idea that each atom in my body is not unique to me? I think that it affirms that although body and soul cannot be separated, we are still more than the sum of our parts. One does not gain part of another's soul although they main gain part of their body. I'm still not sure exactly how I can now describe the fact that soul and body are one in light of this, although I am sure its possible and that I will be able to one day. I don't think that it has very profound implications for how we live our lives, but it is interesting to think about none the less. At least I find it so.

Post-modernism at a Crossroads

2006-01-30T10:59:00.000-07:00

In my experience there are two types of post-modernists. There are those of us who see it as a cultural shift. We are tired of the constraints of modernism clumsily restricting our lives. I like to sum up this movement in one sentence: we are more interested in what is real than what is "right." We want to live life to the fullest, to be free to pursue truth and beauty. We don't want to be shackled by superstitions or irrational dogmas (or even by the dogma of strict rationalism). We tend to "deconstruct" any pre-held beliefs we hold, consider their merits, and form new beliefs based on the reality we find ourselves in. On a whole I consider it a noble endeavor aimed at liberating us from silly cultural restraints without eliminating restraint altogether. When we deconstruct something we find what is useful in it and replace it with something more appropriate. The idea is not to do away with society or restraint, the idea is to find what is real and subscribe to it rather than what society has termed "right" with no basis.

On the other hand are post-modernists who exactly what we avoid. They seek to use post-modernism as an excuse to eliminate restraint and personal responsibility altogether. In the Church this group of post-modern Christians use that title to reinterpret scripture to whatever suites their desires. They deconstruct anything they don't like and put nothing back in its place. They start with answers and frame the questions accordingly. They do not seek even what is real, just what feels best. They do not pursue truth and beauty, they pursue pleasure. And they are not really revolutionary in any way. People like this have been around in all cultures in all times. They are sometimes called hedonists. But now they have a catchy title of a movement that is still ambiguous enough that they can claim it gives them the right to behave the way they do. They try to sell irresponsibility and short-sightedness as revolutionary progress. In truth they stand against the ideals of the other post-modernists at least as much, and probably more, than the modernists.

My previous two posts about communism and the ensuing discussion prove that when immoral people become famous under the name of an ideal they forever taint that ideal. Because Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin used "communism" any similarly named movement will be associated with them. Post-modernism has the potential to be an amazing movement in restoring vitality to our culture and our world. However, it is still a young movement and is defined in the popular mind by whoever is loudest in proclaiming they hold its views. If a Marx or Lenin picks up Post-modernism and makes their definition the accepted one then we will never be free of their influence and Post-modernism will become a tainted movement. That is why those of us dedicated to the moral ideals of Post-modernism need to work to define the movement on our terms. We must not sit by and watch some ambitious and immoral figure hijack Post-modernism for their own benefit. We must insist that Post-modernism is not really this ugly specter that threatens society and civility. We must take the chances afforded us, like blogs, to spread the best ideals of Post-modernism and combat those who would turn it into an excuse for anarchy and bacchanalism. As a movement we are at a crossroads, and our actions may determine whether history sees Post-modernism as society's redeemer or a scourge on the earth like communism.

Seeing Red Again

2006-01-26T10:45:00.000-07:00

Do you like how I worked a popular song title in as my post's title? That wasn't my original intention, but I think its very clever.

Based on the comments left on my previous post it is time to write this follow-up. Let me begin by defining communism. To do so I start at dictionary.com. Personally I find this definition misleading and inadequate. So I went to wikipedia. The article there is great. I recommend that anyone who thinks they understand communism to read this article. However, my definition of communism is farther still from the dictionary definition, so instead of communism itself, let's focus on the ideals embodied in communism, because that is what I mean when I say communism. For the rest of this post, when I say "communism" I mean "the ideal of communism." The goal of communism is to prevent the exploitation of the common man for profit. The dominant ideal is that of the worth of every man. The communist approach is to believe that every person has the same worth no matter what their social status, and as such should not be seen as a means to an end. Furthermore, communism asserts that each of us should be concerned with the welfare of everyone in our society and see it as our responsibility to help those in need. Communism stresses community. In America we look at Communism as a form of government, specifically one that opposes our own. That is not true, by my definition. In my opinion communism is a social construct, not a form of government. There have been talks and attempts of creating governments that uphold the communist ideal above all else. These have all failed, and I will talk about that later. But that doesn't mean that communism is those governments. Calvin set up a government meant to uphold Christian ideals with horrible results. That doesn't mean that Christianity is a failure, just Calvin's government. As with communism, I don't believe that Christianity should or can be the basis of any government in this life, but that doesn't stop me from being a Christian. Communism is a beneficial ideal around which evil governments have been built.

As I said earlier, we are accustomed in the US to see communism as a form of government. That prevents us from seeing the ways that our society conforms to the communist ideal. I think that our society is very communist in many ways. In fact, I am of the belief that Marx would not have felt that revolution was necessary had he lived in modern day America (on the other hand, modern day America may not look the way it does if Marx and others had not thought revolution was necessary). Here are some ideas that conform to the communist ideal and can largely draw their origins to communist thinkers: public education, minimum wage, child labor laws, overtime pay, payed time off, public transportation, pensions. There are more, of course, and there were non-communists that advocated similar practices. However, I contend that these are all consistent with the communist ideal. Capitalism alone would not stand for most of these institutions. Capitalism looks for the greatest profit. Capitalism alone does not care about individuals. When you add communism to capitalism you end up with a kind of Compassionate Capitalism in which humanity and profit are balanced. You can tip the scale one way or the other, leading to more socialist or more profit-driven societies, but I believe that both ideals are necessary for a functioning society. It is my personal belief that the communist ideals should be enforced by society and the capitalist by the government. And that is what makes me mostly Libertarian, but that is the subject of a previous post.

So this brings me to the much anticipated finale -- why communism cannot work as a formal system. As I stated earlier, the ideal of communism is the importance of each individual in a society. In order to care about the well-being of others one must have compassion towards them. And compassion cannot be dictated. When governments try to dictate compassion they become oppressive and evil. They come up with practices that lead to stagnation and poverty like forced equal distribution of wealth and the abolition of private property. These governments do succeed in eliminating a small private class that exploits the common man, but they replace it with a government that is even more exploitive. They narrow the exploiting class and broaden the group being exploited. They are evil. Trying to enforce compassion, or personal morality at all in my opinion, necessitates that a government have its hand in every aspect of each individual's life. This means that the government has to own all the wealth -- so it can be "correctly" distributed -- as well as observe each individual to make sure he is not violating the moral ideals in his personal life -- giving birth to "secret police" organizations. Furthermore, without the motivation of reward, there is a large class of people that will not put any effort into their work. This leads to a terrible economy in which most people are equal, but equal in misery rather than prosperity. There is no good way to make communism a forced system. It needs to be voluntary and stem from an individual desire to work for the good of society in general rather than themselves alone.

Communism, in my opinion, is an ideal. Like Christianity, it cannot be forced on people without disastrous results. However, past attempts by violent men to force this ideal on people should not lead us to reject it. Furthermore, our society is already heavily influenced by communist thought and conforms to its ideal in many ways. What is left is for us to further conform our own lives to match this ideal to achieve the benefits of a society in which everyone is cared for and each individual considers himself to be less important than the society at large. This leads to a Compassionate Capitalism in which workers and consumers are not exploited by owners and manufacturers in order to glean a greater (and immoral) profit. My intention in writing these posts is to express my belief that communism is not in and of itself evil, but forcing it on others is. Therefore we should not universally reject communism, only attempts to make it a form of government. Additionally, if we attempt to implement communist ideals in our own lives we may be able to change our society for the better and lead others to learn to live for something other than their own gratification and thereby lead more fulfilling lives. My final thought on the subject is that communism and Christianity share many ideals and that a more communist society is more conducive to moral Christianity, and perhaps if our society (not our government!) were more communist less Christians would find it so difficult to live up to the Christian ideals of self-sacrifice and love for those in need.

Seeing Red

2006-01-23T13:40:00.000-07:00

During parts of my sophomore, junior, and senior years in high school I was a communist. I received a lot of different responses from different people, but was almost universally misunderstood. I was not a Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist, or even a Marxist. But there were few people who could consider the idea of communism as separate from any of those. I propose that American history along with the totalitarian governments that call themselves communist have caused most Americans to discard a whole notion of social structure that may be highly beneficial to consider. Let me preface this by saying that I am no longer a communist and do not advocate communism as a good form of government for any nation today -- my next post will detail why I don't think communism can work as a formal system of government. That being said I would like to address the benefits of communism as an ideal simply to combat the overwhelming misunderstanding that I have encountered when talking about communism.

The main ideal of communism is the elimination of need. Although the Soviet Union was evil and Americans were right in labeling it as un-Christian (although I don't know that I would say the American system is "Christian" in any meaningful way, either), there is nothing more Christian than the communist ideal. In fact, one of the only records of a communist society functioning well for more than one generation is that of the early church. The driving force behind ideal communism is the desire to eliminate suffering as much as possible. To do so each individual must consider the needs of every other member in the society to be more important than his own. Then when someone has a need that he can fulfill, he sacrifices his own comfort to provide for their need. This type of communism does not necessitate the elimination of currency or democratic government. Marxism does, Communism in general does not.

Communism became popular in the mid-1800's in Europe because the Industrial Revolution had created a culture of suffering for the masses at the hands of a small minority. Factory owners enacted near slave-labor on their workers with no heed to their health or safety. It was obvious that something needed to change, that a more communist approach to society was necessary. Marxism was one attempt. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and from that point on everyone equated Communism with his particular attempt to implement it in his society. I propose that there is a more general ideal of communism that does not answer many of the "how" questions and therefore is not bad or failed the way Marxism is.

Furthermore, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and all other supposedly "communist" systems that have been made into governments are not communist at all. In fact, they are totalitarian forms of government that are closer to the ideals of Fascism than those of communism. These governments increased the suffering of their people in the name of equality rather than easing it. These governments solidified absolute control over the common man by a very small ruling class. These governments used the name "communism" to cover their true nature and do not reflect in any way the true ideals of communism. Unfortunately, these governments have so polluted the average person's mind that it is difficult for them to separate the ideal of communism from these repressive regimes.

There is more I could say on the subject, but I think this gives a decent overview (especially after this on my last post). In summary, communism is an ideal dedicated to easing the suffering of each member of the society. To this end communism necessitates that every member of the society be willing to sacrifice his excess to eliminate another member's deficit. No country has successfully implemented anything like communism as a formal government and those that claim to are actually totalitarian. Communism is a valuable if unattainable ideal and should not be so quickly dismissed simply because bad people have been associated with it. The ideals of communism are particularly useful today because they combat consumerism, cut-throat capitalism, and ferocious individuality -- all of which are cancers eating away at our society today. As I said earlier, my next post will explain why communism cannot function as a form of government. However, we should still consider its ideals when considering what a good society is and how we can improve ours. If you ever talk to someone that claims to be communist, take time to figure out if what they mean is a wonderful ideal before dismissing them as anti-Americans in league with Satan.

Alive

2006-01-17T21:32:00.000-07:00

I am alive. Every so often, at fairly regular intervals, I breathe in. The oxygen I breathe diffuses across thin capillaries in my lungs. From there it enters my blood stream and is carried to every cell in my body. In each of these billions of cells there is a flurry of activity as they grow, metabolize, and reproduce -- enacting their own rough approximation of our human existence. And it is life. But it also is death because in my life I will only breathe in so many times. Resting I breathe about once per second. Assuming that times of strenuous activity are offset by times of deep rest, if I live to be 90 years old exactly I will breathe approximately 2,838,240,000 times. That's just over 2.8 billion times. Right now I have lived for 21 years, 5 months, 27 days, and somewhere over 12 hours. That means that I have already breathed somewhere near 680,529,600 times. That means I have about 2.2 billion breathes left to take. There goes one. And another one. I'm counting down slowly. Counting to 2.2 billion, and then I won't breathe any more. For every cell that I create, one dies. And it's getting harder and harder to keep that ratio up. It won't be long, if it hasn't started already, that I will lose cells faster than I make them. My body will age and fail and die. In less than 2.2 billion breathes. But for some reason I still tried to get the closest parking spot tonight. My life is running down as I speak and I still worried about how my clothes look before I left the house. And I am completely representative of the human race in general by doing so. Any moment I may breathe my last. 2.2 billion is the upper limit, it could turn out that I only have 700 million breathes in my life. Any moment could be my last. But I still spend hours a day playing video games. I plan for what I am going to do years from now, without really paying attention to what I'm doing now. I complain, I make promises, I procrastinate -- in general I live as though my life is going to last for a very long time to come. And it may. 2.2 billion breaths is a pretty long time. A lot can be accomplished in that time. A lot of life lived. But in the end I certainly will die. There is nothing I can do to change that. But I usually never think of that. We obsess with being alive and staying that way, and we rarely think about the fact that no matter how hard we try it's only a matter of time until we fail. I will die. I've thought for a long time that I'd come to terms with that. In some ways I have. The idea doesn't scare me; I'm not in denial about the fact. But I am in denial about exactly what that means and exactly how fast that time is coming. I live each day as though it doesn't really matter, as though it's just another day in an endless series. I breathe each breath as though I will go on breathing forever. Although my mind has accepted the fact that I will die, my life does not show a comprehension of that reality. I hope that changes before I lose too many breaths. If I only get so many, I want to make each one count. I want to be fully alive in every moment as long as I still have some breaths left in me. I want to live life to the fullest, fully aware that it will end soon. I am aware of the world around me. My senses are rich and vivid. I breathe in. And I exhale.

Revelation of a Cynic

2006-01-15T22:39:00.000-07:00

The opportunity afforded to its citizens by America is not some transcendent dream of freedom. Rather it is control. It is the wealth of time and resources to devote to control. It is the hundred and some years of wealth and time that have already gone to this end.

I have come to realize that no matter who we are, where we are, or what we are doing, our stories are all basically the same pathetic form. We spend our time awake each day moving between filling and fighting desires. We live from meal to meal, dreaming only of what we will next consume. Our relationships are based on satisfaction. Our lives are spent working for more new and better things. Our lives are dictated by pain and avoiding pain. And when you step back and realize the meaninglessness of all of it, the horrible cycle that is our existence, it drives you crazy.

And that’s why control is so appealing. We have been given what we need to ignore the pain. When we are satisfied we can forget that our existence is dictated by the void of what we lack. And in America we have the means to find something new to satisfy when the old fails. As long as we are distracted we can pretend that we are free. We can pretend that we are happy when in reality we’re merely content.

Somewhere inside of us there is a conflict between some transcendent existence and an animal life. And the animal is winning. By ignoring the pain we are losing touch with what it is to be human. Ironically enough it is when the animal within us takes over that we lose appreciation for nature. Because only a transcendent being can appreciate nature – to the animal it represents chaos, a lack of control. Nature threatens to interrupt our satisfaction. Nature threatens to take away the structure and control that we need to forget that our lives are pitiful and meaningless. In our own contrived world we are what is most important. In comparison to nature we find that we are small and insignificant. Something has gone horribly wrong as now we are annoyed by the sounds of nature and soothed by the sounds of machines. We have become a people of comfort and ease. We have become a people of paved roads and empty parking lots.

The American dream may have something to do with freedom and life, but the American reality is a world of transient comfort. It is a world with no roots, moving from place to place, relationship to relationship, never being able to settle on anything for long for fear disturbing the fragile ball of glass, of upsetting the delicate balance that keeps its passenger in stoic comfort while he waits for his turn to die. Few and lucky are those jarred from this catatonic slumber by events still too strong or unpredictable for the American machine to control.

The greatest irony yet is that we are only truly happy when we stop running from our pain and are present with it. We stop fighting the pain, stop filling the void with excuses and shallow relationships and events. Then we have time to think, and feel. And then we know what it really means to be human. The transcendent life is born out of pain. The animal life is consumed with avoiding it. If we could stop being in a hurry all the time maybe we could enjoy the journey instead of rushing through it as fast as we can, annoyed at the lack of technology to bring us instantly to our destination. Maybe if we weren’t so concerned about being comfortable we could learn to appreciate nature. By allowing nature to exist and not dominating it we can finally elevate ourselves above it.

But what then? When we have let go of our control and allowed the pain of existence to reach us and we realize that life as we know it is hollow, where do we go from there? How can we go on living when our eyes have been opened to the nothing that is the world around us? What life is there to live when we are aware that the life we have to live is a pathetic mold? What alternative do we have?

That is where true religion comes in – religion that gives meaning to life rather than covering pain. In a transcendent life there is no fear of a higher being, of God, because we no longer crave control over our lives. We have learned to let go of control, and therefore God is no longer an affront to our mode of existence. And with God introduced, the transcendent life becomes one that is livable. Without God the transcendent life is one of hopeless despair, and in such a situation blissful ignorance is far preferred. With God, however, the transcendent life becomes one of joy and fulfillment because God gives us what we can never have on our own – true love.

I propose that one can never really know love while living the animal life. In this life all we seek is satisfaction and comfort. Love, by contrast, seeks to provide happiness for others, even if it brings pain. The best an animal can hope for is to find satisfaction in knowing that they helped someone else, they can never truly be selfless. They are always working to provide satisfaction and comfort for themselves, even if the actions look the same as love. That is to say that no matter what actions an animal takes the basic reason he takes them is because he feels better after taking them than before. In the transcendent life the concept of joy is introduced. Joy is something that the animal cannot know, because in joy man is brought to a state of well-being that is totally disconnected from his level of pain. That is to say that his actions may only increase his pain but he still gets joy from them, and therefore is better off because of them. And when there can be joy then there can be true love, because now man can be made better without concern to his own pain, but instead with concern about others.

I propose also that even if one is to attain the transcendent life without God then he will not know love. You’re welcome to try if you think you can, but I do not believe that such an action can lead to anything but despair. In time such a transcendent man will again look to his own comfort and return to the world of the animal where he can find distractions that will cover his pain. This is because I believe that joy is something foreign to the human existence and can only come from God. Of course there is no way to prove this scientifically, so I challenge the doubtful to try, personal experience seems to be the only real proof of such a theory.

Finally I propose that few if any human beings can ever become fully transcendent. Even with joy and love we are of our basic nature too selfish to completely give up caring about our own pain. And therefore we are incapable of giving up our selfish task of living for numb comfort. However, I believe that the more transcendent we become the more fulfilling our lives will be. Additionally, God holds out the hope of a life after this in which we will be fully transcendent. I believe that is the true heaven we hope for. The animals mistakenly believe it to merely be a world without pain. I conjecture that more than a world without pain it is a world where we can completely give up looking to our own needs and fully give ourselves to one another. In that way we will find true and complete fulfillment. I can say this with some certainty because this is the example that God has given. Reasonably we assume that God is fully transcendent. His actions show that He lives not to avoid pain, but rather willingly subjects Himself to it for the sake of others, namely the human race. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that when we are like God it will mean that we are fully willing to give ourselves for others, whether or not there is pain. For those who doubt that such a world is the most satisfying I leave this final argument: to be like God is to be perfect and want for nothing. God is fully transcendent. God sacrifices His own comfort for that of others and gives no care to His own pain. Therefore to be perfect and fully transcendent is to give up your own comfort for others and give no care to your own pain. To work to that end is to be a disciple of Jesus and to become more like God. I find it completely reasonable to believe that such an endeavor can only lead to a better life that is more fulfilling. I cannot see how anything else is reasonable.

The Things Money can Buy

2006-01-09T08:10:00.000-07:00

I need to get more facts about this case, but it looks like the US is using its money and military to buy it exemption from international law. According to the article, the US has convinced Jordan to return US citizens accused of war crimes to the US rather than the international court in order to secure continued economic and military support. Now, I'm not a big fan of the UN and generally think they are useless. However, undermining them in this way seems absolutely inexcusable. How can we expect any country to follow international law if we buy our way out of it? It seems like we're doing about the same as Saddam in the oil-for-food scandal. If these people are guilty of war crimes then they need to be held responsible, especially if they were on orders from the US government -- we shouldn't be able to do whatever we want around the world just because we have the largest army and most prolific economy. We should not behave like the "rouge nations." On the other hand, if these people are innocent then why worry about it? If they didn't do anything wrong then it shouldn't matter if they are sent to the international court. Either I'm missing something in this story, which very well may be the case, or the US has way overstepped its bounds. This story makes it look like the US has decided that it is above international law. And based on our actions in Iraq it would then seem like the US wants to impose its own international law making themselves accountable to no one and everyone else accountable to it. If there is not something more to this story then I am deeply disappointed and disturbed. If there is then this is an example of ridiculously skewed and unethical journalism, because they do not present any information in this article to contradict the worst case.

Pat Robertson: Probably Crazy

2006-01-05T15:41:00.000-07:00

Pat Robertson once again says something totally inane. Apparently he suggested that Ariel Sharon's recent health problems are God's way of attacking him because he is "dividing God's land." Through his statement, Robertson has shown a loose grasp of scripture, as he is wont to do these days. It seems as though he has read only small sections of the Old Testament. Maybe he's just senile and has forgotten everything on the right of 1 Kings in the Bible. What Robertson is insinuating is ridiculous and ludicrous. If God were going to kill people who try to divide Israel, wouldn't all the Palestinians be dead by now? Not to mention the leaders of almost every other Middle Eastern country? It seems quite ridiculous that the people who want to take Israel over by force are left alone while the man who tries to save it by peace (at least some times) gets the smiting. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that God punishes people who divide Israel. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Rome, some Middle Eastern countries, and Great Britain have all owned Israel. Although most of the empires that conquered Israel eventually were destroyed, they prospered for at least awhile -- and more than one ruler's reign -- before Israel became independent again. Additionally, the original Israel was split into Israel and Judea from within after the rule of Solomon. And although God was not happy about it, He didn't strike down those who caused the separation just because they caused it. The Bible is clear that God is interested in the people of Israel far more than the land and there is no reason to believe that He would cause Sharon's severe health problems over the proposed separation. If Israel had been one country since its inception and those bent on its division or destruction always thwarted then perhaps Robertson's point would carry more weight. At present it just seems like another outrageous statement by an aging, out of touch old man. And I feel that, unless he gives good reason to do otherwise, that is the view of Robertson we should all adopt (if you hadn't already).

The Dust of Your Rabbi

2006-01-02T11:52:00.000-07:00

If you're looking for Rob Bell's NOOMA video "Dust" in which he talks about the Jewish rabbinical tradition, go here.

In ancient Israel (Jesus' time, and probably awhile before that) every decent rabbi had at least one disciple. Some had a lot more. Jesus had hundreds, but he was probably an exception. From what I understand, to become a rabbi's disciple you had to prove that you were worthy by memorizing most of the scriptures and studying rabbinical writings enough to satisfy the rabbi's questions in a sort of interview. Once you were accepted by a rabbi you followed him around and tried to mimic everything he did and learn to be just like him. There was a sort of blessing at that time that translates (roughly I'm sure) to, "May you be covered by the dust of your rabbi." This was meant to say that you followed your rabbi so closely that you were covered in the dust his sandals kicked up. Basically, you learned what it meant to be a rabbi and a true follower of God by learning to be exactly like your rabbi in every way. You emulated him completely. You literally learned by following his example. And when the rabbi felt like a disciple could correctly mimic him and carry on his semi-unique personal theology (the word for which translates to "yoke," as in "my yoke is easy and my burden is light") that disciple became a rabbi himself.

This contrasts sharply with today's practice of pastors teaching exclusively through sermons. Sometimes these sermons are about theology, sometimes about practical living. Often they are forgotten quickly and no one ever makes sure that anyone pays attention or learns from these sermons. In fact, I bet that most people don't take away anything from most sermons most of the time. Jesus did preach to his disciples sometimes. But he also taught like a rabbi teaches -- by having his disciples follow him around and learn to be like him. There is a reason that rabbis felt it was necessary to teach by example to such an extreme -- if you don't teach someone expressly what to do in every situation you can't know that they are going to do what you think is right in any given situation. However, times have changed and we no longer believe that it is necessary, or even best, for everyone to have the exact same theology and life style as their pastor. But most of us still believe that our pastors should be leaders and teachers -- otherwise they wouldn't even qualify to preach sermons. Some may argue that all Christians are equal under Christ and so no one should be over another. However, the apostle Paul encourages us to find Christians who are more mature and live better than us to emulate, in a similar way, although not necessarily as extreme, as disciples followed their rabbis. Paul does make sure to say that no one should claim to be following him or another leader, but that everyone should follow Jesus. But in that we should follow the example of those who are closer to following Jesus perfectly to help us follow him better.

So, how many pastors today would be comfortable with some members of their congregation following them around, emulating their actions in order to learn the right way to live? How many pastors are confident that the way they interact with other members of the congregation, relatives, and friends is good and healthy? How many feel that they handle responsibility in work, finances, and home life correctly? I think not many. I think that some level of hands-on experiential teaching, rather than abstract preaching, not only helps teach the "disciple" better, but it also holds the teacher to a higher standard. Now, I think there was probably some arrogance among rabbis in Jesus' day that believed they really had everything right. There should be some middle ground, however, where mature Christians can lead by example even through their faults and mistakes. And I believe that doing so would be better for everyone involved. Everyone knows that pastors today are notorious for preaching one thing and living another, and this would help cure that. Furthermore, most church members today suffer from learning nothing at church and trying to figure out everything about life themselves, leading to isolation, bad choices and theology, and churches made up of individuals feeling totally independent from one another. Disciple-type learning would help those issues as well. I'm not advocating going back to the rabbinical method, but maybe even a few hours a week of learning by example would change the face of the Church in America as a whole as well as the lives of individuals for the better almost across the board. So this is a challenge and a plea to anyone in a position to do so -- please take initiative to teach others through your actions rather than just your words. Find them, don't wait for them to find you -- there are few people who wouldn't love some one to take this type of interest in them, but almost none of us will ask for it.

Short

2005-12-23T12:40:00.000-07:00

What if I made a short post for once?

Merry Christmas?

2005-12-21T14:39:00.000-07:00

First of all, I know its been a really long time since I posted anything. I don't feel that its inexcusable, however, since I do this in my free time for fun. At least I have a blog(J. Morgan).

So, there is this whole controversy about saying "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas" going on right now. In fact, its so important that polls are being taken and headlines written. This, of course, begs the question "who cares?" And the obvious answer is given: the average American. But why? If I say "Merry Christmas" to someone who doesn't celebrate Christmas, should they be offended? I celebrate Christmas, but if I have a friend who is Jewish should I say "Merry Christmas" to him because I celebrate Christmas, or "Happy Hanukkah" because he celebrates Hanukkah? And what does he say in return? Either way someone is saying something about something they don't celebrate. Quite a dilemma if this sort of thing bothers you. I don't think most of us really care, though.

I think the real problem is that the media has made it an issue. If the media had no coverage at all and my store said "happy holidays!" I doubt the community would be upset. Conversely, if I said "Merry Christmas" some people might get upset, but not enough to warrant headlines. Its my store, I'll say what I want.

But here is the bottom line: sales clerks can't know what holiday each person celebrates. My solution would be just to say "have a nice day" and avoid the whole problem. But apparently that's not an option. So, they can give a generic "happy holidays" to cover everything. That was good last year, but this year its making people mad. Many evangelical groups are labeling this an "attack on Christmas," which is dumb. Its not an attack on anything, its trying not to tell people to enjoy a holiday they don't celebrate.

On the other hand, the majority of Americans celebrate Christmas. I know this because I celebrate Christmas and I'm normal. Its a valid statistical method ;) Christmas is the traditional holiday at this time of the year, as far as American culture goes. So if you want to maximize your chances of actually saying the right thing you should go with Christmas. If you start saying "Happy Kwanzaa" odds are you're going to be off with most people. And I guess this would upset them.

What is really interesting, in my opinion, is that "Happy Holidays" seems to be the preferred term of people who favor secularization of our culture. Yes, its neutral between every celebration, but it also seems to appease atheists who don't celebrate anything at this time of the year. This is strange to me because, as I'm sure everyone knows, holidays are supposed to be holy days. Atheists don't have any holy days. So telling them to have happy holidays should be just as offensive as telling me to enjoy Ramadan. Which I usually do, even though I don't celebrate anything. Its just a nice time of the year, you know?

Anyway, I think this shows that the whole debate is dumb. Its stupid that its making headlines and probably tells us something about our culture. The purpose of this post is just to put something up on my blog, though, so I'm not going to try to figure out what it tells us now, if ever. So, I hope you enjoy all the holy and non-holy days in between now and when you die. Until then, keep getting mad about stupid things so I can have something to write about on my blog when I don't have any real ideas.

Government Crutches

2005-12-01T09:34:00.000-07:00

Redhurt led beautifully into my next point from the last post. I began by saying that I think that money is the basic unit of liberty in our country today. Barnabas and Jackscolon convinced me that perhaps money does not equal liberty, but I still believe that taking away money equates to taking away liberty, since money is the means by which we can exercise the liberties granted to us. This leads us to the problem of welfare -- is the Robin Hood policy an ethical one? Is it right for the government to take away some of my liberty to give it to others? Is it good or right to force everyone to move towards a more level playing field (note I do not believe we're any where close to level, but things like welfare move us in that direction)? Redhurt made the comment, "it is our responsibility as members of a society that affirms the necessity of liberty for all people to help provide it for those who momentarily are in need." I agree completely with this sentiment. But it leads us into a further avenue of discussion about the government and society in general.

Should the government enforce ethics? I believe that it is morally wrong to have an excess and not share with others that have a need. But is it really the place of the government to force me to be ethical? Furthermore, is a society worth preserving if the majority of its members are immoral and have to forced into morality by a higher power?

I believe there have been societies in which the majority of the people were interested in being responsible for the success of the society. People willingly contributed to society because they cared. I think the US right after the Revolution is an example of such a country. I think Iraq now is another example. When 80-90% of eligible voters actually vote it shows that people are interested in the country. They want their society to flourish and function well. They are willing to work and make personal sacrifices to that end. I believe that if poverty and unemployment were pressing problems in these societies that individuals will take it upon themselves to solve them without massive government intervention. When people are willing to sacrifice to make their societies work the government doesn't have to force morality.

When, on the other hand, you have to coerce people with sayings like "vote or die" and hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising and you still only get 40-50% voter turnout, the majority of the people in your country don't care. They lack a personal interest or investment in the country's function. Is this a society that should be supported and perpetuated? Is it good for the government to pick up the slack when the people fail? I don't think so. My personal belief is that we should work against this type of society and either it should change from within, which I favor, or it will be crushed from the outside. Eventually the majority of people won't voluntarily be responsible for any of the things we should as members of this society. Either the minority who care about the country will end up forcing the people around them to be moral or the minority with power will take over, since the average citizen is too disinterested to stop them. Right now, I believe, we are living in the fat transition time between a healthy society and societal downfall. We are an example of why, in my opinion, great countries that collapse usually do so relatively soon after the height of their material prosperity. People get comfortable and then they stop caring. Once a majority of the country is living well enough that they don't strive to improve their condition and are far enough removed from those who are suffering, the country as a whole becomes apathetic. Then society rots from within until someone pushes it over. We still have time to work to make our society healthy again before that happens -- we can rebuild from within instead of waiting for someone from outside to topple us.

In order to solve this problem we have to identify some of its causes. I already mentioned above that comfort often causes people to become apathetic. However, I don't think a good or ethical solution is to deprive everyone of comfort. That will just cause a cycle of working towards comfort, becoming apathetic, and needing to have comfort taken away again. So that's not a good solution. Instead we should focus on the other half of my above statement -- allowing people to be removed from other's suffering. I contend that many of the government programs currently in place actually aggravate the current situation. Here is my rationale:
I believe that most Americans are generally good people. They don't want others to have to live in poverty and they are even willing to make some sacrifices to help others. But they don't want to give away everything they have, they want to contribute some percentage -- they're not socialists. So they are picky about what they give their time and money to. And when it comes to domestic issues I think that we often say, "I already pay for welfare and other government programs through my taxes. I'm going to give where there is more need, the government will take care of these issues." I don't know about you, but I do this. I give money to foreign relief often, but I almost never give to any domestic foundation. Because the government has programs like welfare we become removed from the situation. We don't understand what needs there are, or the extent of the need. But more importantly, we no longer take responsibility and ownership for these issues. We let the problem fall onto the "government," and eventually we do this so much that we no longer feel any sort of ownership over our own society. In fact, it leads to resentment and frustration. We no longer see the needy as people, but instead they are leeches sucking away our tax money. We feel bitter about the fact that we are forced to pay for certain programs and so we stop contributing at all. We draw in on ourselves and away from the society in general. If we gave voluntarily, on the other hand, then we would take interest in the situation, we would take ownership over the problem, and we would care about being a healthy part of our society. People take interest in what they invest in. I think the problem goes back to FDR and the Depression. Before that time the country had gotten by -- not necessarily as well as it should have -- with voluntary support for the poor. At least for the most part. But the Depression was an extraordinary historical circumstance in which the majority of the people didn't have the means to help anyone else. And in that case we needed the government to step in. I don't know if any of FDR's programs really helped the problem that much, I tend to think WWII had a lot more to do with breaking the recession, but that's irrelevant. The programs in question were necessary for a time but should have been dropped when the extraordinary circumstance was past. And supposedly that was FDR's plan, and I hope he would have stuck to it if he had lived. However, these programs continued and grew to the monsters they are today. Over 50 years our society has let the government separate us more and more from the needs in the country and we have given ownership for the society largely to the government, rather than the people. That's why we have so many people today wanting the government to regulate morality. And it is. And if people don't start taking responsibility for their own actions and taking ownership over our society, the government is going to keep growing until it bursts. And that will either be a complete dissolution of the US, like Rome after 410, or subjugation to an oppressive government. And either way its a bad thing.

So this leaves us with a great deal of questions to discuss. Maybe too many for one post, but here they are, in summary:
1. Is it ever right for the government to regulate ethics?
2. Is a society in which the majority is irresponsible worth maintaining? Is it right and/or good to have the government grow to fill the void of personal responsibility?
3. What causes this lack of responsibility? Can things ever really be different?
4. Is the current state of our society really a problem? If so, how serious of a problem is it?
5. What can we do to change things?

My final synopsis is this: Is it good for us to help out the needy? Yes. Should we be forced to do so by the government? No. If the average person doesn't want to help, what should we do? I don't know. Do people, in general want to help? I think so. Why don't they? Because the last 50 years have driven us so far inward that we have given responsibility to the government. If the government wasn't helping would people start? I hope so. Should the government just drop these programs right now? No, our society needs to heal over time. Dropping everything now would be disastrous. But we need to start working now towards a time when these government programs aren't needed. We need to start teaching people to take responsibility. And the government needs to gradually give our society back to us.

Liberty in America

2005-11-29T17:41:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about it, and I guess I am Libertarian in some core ways, but I think the party is stupid. In the course of thinking about politics and ideology I've come to this conclusion: money is the basic unit of liberty in the US today. Maybe that's more obvious to everyone else than it was to me at the time, but I think its definitely true. Money is what gives you freedom. Its with money that you have the power to create, build, buy, grow, eat, work, contribute to society, etc. There are other ways for all of these things to happen, but they are all precluded by money. Money is the basis by which we can accomplish anything on our own in America today. I know that people have been talking about the "almighty dollar" and things like that for a long time. But this isn't about what motivates us, its about freedom, liberty. Many people find it distasteful to say that money is the basic unit of liberty. They feel like there should be something more ephemeral, something more ideological. But it seems to me that in our capitalist society there is no more basic form of liberty. Some would say that our votes are our most basic form of liberty. But again, I disagree. Our votes let us shape the way that our liberty will be infringed or expanded upon. Take away my vote but give me money (in our society) and I can still accomplish things on my own. Take away my money but give me my vote and I can't do anything but vote. Similarly, some people would say that privacy and personal choice are the basic form of liberty. Again, take away my privacy but leave me money and I can do things. Take away my money and give me privacy and personal choice and I can't accomplish anything. In fact, without money I quickly lose privacy and probably personal choice. Money is the means by which all the liberties we prize are afforded us. And therefore money is the basic form of liberty.

This has given me a somewhat different perspective on things like taxes and welfare. Taxes are the government taking away some of my liberty in order to provide me with services. In return the government protects my liberty from being taken in a greater degree by others. Its a trade off, but obviously its something I'm willing to pay for (otherwise I'd leave. Since I have money I have the liberty to do so). Welfare, on the other hand, is the government taking away some of my liberty so someone else can have their own. This is incredibly altruistic and idealistic. But is it right? Is it the government's place to see that everyone has some degree of liberty, even at the cost of infringing upon another citizen's liberty? My initial response is no, that government programs like welfare are unethical. My money is my liberty. My money affords me the opportunity to give liberty to others by sharing with them. If I am a good and ethical person I should give from my excess to those in need so that we can all enjoy liberty. However, I should not be forced to, nor should I be told how much of my own liberty I must give away.

On further thought, however, I find a line hard to draw. If I should be able to choose whether I give up my liberty for social equality, why can't I choose whether to give up my liberty for the government's protection (taxes). The logical conclusion from my previous line of thinking is that taxes should be voluntary and everyone should buy, whether from the government or elsewhere, whatever protection, social justice, and anything else that they feel is beneficial. Social equality is certainly beneficial. Is it as beneficial as the government's protection of my liberty? If so then I should not mind paying for it. If not then why not? And at what point do we draw the line? I am forced to concede to the tyranny of the majority. The only logical and ethical way to decide what is important enough to be required of people and what should be voluntary is to have everyone vote and go with the majority opinion. I can't think of another way which is viable in practice and not oppressive to the majority by a minority, which seems worse than the opposite. So now we decide by voting what liberty we, as a society, are willing to give up. This gives more power to the vote, which in turn gives even more power to money. Now money has become not only my liberty, but if I can use my money to influence the way others vote (which I obviously can) then my money has become a means by which I affect the liberty of everyone in the country. My money can buy me even more power when applied to the vote.

In summary, money is the basic unit of liberty in America today because it is the means by which we can accomplish anything and the basis for all other liberties. The government's forced taking of my money through taxes is a sacrifice of my liberty to gain some other end. Whether this end is worth the price paid cannot be left to the individual because it is impossible in practice and unfair to let each individual decide what government programs they will pay for. So we bow to the majority's interpretation of cost and benefit. And this gives my money even more power, including the power to manipulates others' liberty. In America today, money is the means whereby liberty is granted.

Libertarian?

2005-11-18T11:48:00.000-07:00

I just took a whole bunch of online political quizzes -- just for fun. Every time I came out as centrist or slightly Libertarian. In one test I was equated to Colin Powell. In another I was in the group with John Kerry and Gandhi. However, in most discussions I am considered a fairly conservative person. So I was surprised by the results. Why the dichotomy? One interesting point is that many of the tests were run/designed by Libertarian websites. Are Libertarians trying to convince people that they are Libertarian to bolster their ranks? Or maybe these quizzes are dumb. Or maybe we just talk about the wrong issues so I always seem conservative. Not that I'm considering a party switch at this point, but what do you think? Am I a Libertarian at heart?

Veiled Threats

2005-11-16T10:20:00.000-07:00

People are mourning a sparrow in the Netherlands today after it was shot for knocking over dominoes during a world-record bid. I am all for the reasonable protection and moral treatment of animals, therefore I can agree with the spokesman for the Dutch animal protection agency, Niels Dorland, when he makes this criticism:

"'Under Dutch law, you need a permit to kill this kind of bird, and a permit can only be granted when there's a danger to public health or a crop... That was not the case. I might add, is it really necessary to kill a bird that knocked over a few dominoes for a game?'"

I agree. Killing the bird was probably a bit excessive in any circumstance. Given the fact that the bird is on the national endangered list it is even more ridiculous, and I would expect that the perpetrators will be fined, as they would for breaking any environmental protection law. I would not expect jail time for this type of crime considering the circumstances -- they were not intentionally hunting an endangered animal -- especially for a first-time offender. Some of the Dutch, however, do not seem to have my sense of proportion. The Endermol production company, which organized the event, "is considering some kind of memorial or mention for the dead bird during the television broadcast Friday," although they defended their actions. That seems a little bit over the top to me. A memorial for a sparrow? I don't know, maybe that's okay, maybe we should value even an animals life more highly than we do. But that's not where it ends. Dorland starts to get a little crazy:
"'I think they were awfully fast to pull out a rifle,' he said. 'If a person started knocking over a few dominoes they wouldn't shoot him would they?'" Apparently Dorland values the life of a sparrow as highly as that of a human. I think that's ridiculous. If you hit and kill a stray dog in your car should you be treated the same as if you hit and killed a person? If you go hunting should you be considered the same as a murderer? Even if you're a hardcore anti-hunting person, is it really the same as killing another human? In addition to Dorland's outrage, "A Dutch website called Geenstijl offered a $1,200 reward for anybody who knocks over the dominoes ahead of time to avenge the bird." I can't imagine living in a world where this would make sense: We need to avenge that sparrow, that poor bird -- you shan't have died in vain, oh sparrow! By Grabthar's hammer... by the Suns of Morvan... you shall be avenged!

But seriously, how can we justify taking animal rights to such an extent? Or rather, how can we justify taking animal rights to such an extent for only certain animals? A bird, apparently, is enough of a lifeform for its death to cause an uproar. But what about a lizard? Can I kill lizards if I want to? What about insects? Can I kill spiders in my house? Mosquitoes? Apparently there are lines somewhere for these people. But how do they determine what's right and what's wrong? What are the criteria along which we draw these lines? And why stop at animals? What about plants? Plants are every bit as alive as animals. You might argue that they can't feel pain and so it's okay to kill them. I bet that sparrow didn't feel any pain when it was shot. I don't know if birds are even capable of feeling pain. You might also argue that plants have no consciousness. What defines consciousness? Plants react to their environments and the outside stimuli that they can interpret. They lack the organs necessary to react to certain stimuli that animals generally can, but they still react to what they can detect. Do we limit our protection of life only to lifeforms that perceive existence in a way similar to ours (assuming that animals can really perceive existence)? And if so, why? Why do we feel like we can draw the line there?

That is, in my opinion, is what is so disingenuous about animal's rights movements -- they draw arbitrary lines about what is right and wrong. They give no criteria -- they don't even tell you the rules. But if you do something they think is wrong they are up in arms. They want you to follow their rules just because they think they are right. In fact, these animal's rights group's beliefs seem to mirror religious beliefs: they have a set of morals taught by teachers to "disciples" and they seek to live according to these morals based on their faith in the system or their teachers. There is not science or even solid logic backing their claims. And now they're trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone else and calling for vengeance against those who don't see the world the same way they do. They are intolerant and want to use the governments of the world to enforce their personal moral beliefs on everyone else. This is ridiculous, and if it were Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism then everyone in favor of freedom would be speaking out against them. They are, at the core, no different. They want what's best for the world -- as we all do. But rather than trying to teach others to appreciate and understand their morals, as those of us who value freedom and personal choice do, they seek to force their beliefs on others through anger, vengeance, and non-secular legislation. What many animal's rights groups are doing is tantamount to imposing religious laws and they should be opposed accordingly. I'm not saying that all of their views should be opposed (though I obviously believe that their rationalization needs questioning). I am not saying that animals should not be treated well. I am not against trying to get people to value all life as well as our environment more. I think that, especially in the US, we all need to value life more. But these are moral values and personal beliefs. They are battles that must be fought in the civil realm through civil discourse. Forcing other people to have your morals, even if they are truly better, is wrong. These group's desire to use the law and revenge to impose moral rule is heinous, and it is a threat to freedom and needs to be stopped. We cannot allow even one group to use these means or we will lose the ability to stop anyone from using them.

We're Not Israel

2005-11-11T10:54:00.000-07:00

Clairification: In case it isn't obvious that I believe such: I think that if Pat Robertson is a decent human being and a Christian that he should retract his ridiculous statement about God abandoning people because of the way they vote and he should apologize. However, I have no illusion that he will do so since saying outrageous, slanderous things about God seems to be his hallmark. God's hallmark, on the other hand, is faithfulness and He will not abandon people who love Him no matter how they vote. God's not so petty -- if He were then I know without a doubt that Pat Robertson would be dead by now (along with the rest of us, I'm sure).

Pat Robertson is saying that God is going to cause disaster to befall people who voted a school board out of office after they advocated teaching "intelligent design." Actually what he said is that by voting against the intelligent design people they "rejected [God] from [their] city" and that if there is a disaster, God will not help them. The idea that God will cause the disaster seems to be only implied. First of all, lets make this clear: Pat Robertson is an idiot. He is an idiot who knows how to inflame idiots and annoy the rest of us. He is an idiot who has a very poor grasp of Biblical theology -- anyone who would advocate assassinating a political leader because he advocates something you hate has missed the whole point of the Biblical story. I think the biggest problem is that Pat Robertson has only read the Old Testament of the Bible. I don't know this for a fact, but I say it because if you take the Old Testament alone and take chunks of it out of context you end up with the kind of theology he espouses. In the Old Testament, God causes calamity to fall on His people when they start following other gods. He smites people who try to oppress His people and stand against Him. There is a constant theme of Deuteronomistic theology -- the idea that when you follow God good things happen and when you go against Him bad things happen. There is one glaring problem with Robertson's interpolation of this theology to America today (all hyper-conservative Evangelicals take note): America is not Israel. God does not have a covenant relationship with America the way He does with Israel. God did not make promises about America to its founders, and He never said that we were His people. He said all of those things about the nation of Israel. The book of Job shows that Deuteronomistic theology does not apply to individuals -- Job had bad things happen to him even though he was a good person and obeyed God. Instead we see that this kind of theology only applies to the nation of Israel, which we are not. So it makes no sense to believe that God is going to make bad things happen to punish us for not voting the way He would want us to.

All this is irrelevant in this case, however, because Intelligent Design is dumb. I don't believe that God wants anyone to teach ID. If God wanted us to teach creation in school He would want us to teach Creation, not some stupid theory backed by made-up science that refuses to name Him as the Designer. In fact, ID is just as bad as evolution when it comes to taking the role of creation away from God, because ID could point to any god or force. So if God thought it was important that public schools teach that He created everything then ID is just as off as evolution. In fact, neither one excludes or includes God. Neither one is more right about God than the other because both are scientific theories, not theologies. Neither says anything at all about God. And so Pat Robertson is now an idiot twice over: once for saying that God would punish people for how they vote and again for saying that God supports ID over evolution.

Let me take this opportunity to point out that hardcore evolution supporters are also idiots (I know, there are a lot of idiots around these days). This whole altercation was begun when some parents and the ACLU sued the Dover school board because "The board ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it. The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and recommended students read a book that explained the theory further." I've already said how stupid I think ID is, so I won't go into that. But it is ridiculous to sue the school board over this. The truth is that evolution is an incomplete theory. It does have holes in it. There are a lot of things still unexplained. That doesn't necessarily mean that evolution is wrong, but it does mean that there is still work to be done. And current high school students are going to be some of the people to do that work, so they should be told about the need for dedicated and interested researchers. Teaching that evolution has holes, since it does, will lead to greater development in the research of human origins because it will spark interest in high school students. Teaching that it is a flawless theory is at least as bad as teaching ID. So in this case there are idiots all around. My suggestion: move out of Dover.

Sony Exploits Users

2005-11-10T09:38:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: You can go here to tell Sony what you think about their unethical and intrusive behavior (thanks, RedHurt).

Sony has taken a page out of the hacker's book and created semi-intrusive software that only affects Windows machines. The hackers, apparently, are happy to let Sony do the hard part for them and are having a hay-day with the access to root directories of Windows installations that Sony's software is affording them. The fact that hackers, and now Sony, target Windows is mostly because it's the most widely used OS -- or at least that's a big part of it. It also has way more security holes (the latest Linux kernel only has 10 security related bugs -- 10! That's crazy. Why aren't we all using Linux? CORRECTION: 10 percent of the bugs in the current kernel are security related. That comes out to about 98.5 bugs -- which is still really good, but not as amazing as 10) and hackers usually have a personal dislike of Microsoft. However, the bottom line is that many of them will target whatever yields the best results, so this is not really Microsoft's fault.

In fact, in this case nothing is Microsoft's fault. This is all Sony's fault. This has to be some violation of privacy, not to mention private property. Sony has basically started packaging a virus with all of their music CDs. This virus gets on to your computer and uses a rootkit (even if they asked for permission this is pretty intrusive) and installs software that won't allow you to play their music on anything other than a Sony player. And it does all this without telling you that its doing anything. Apparently Sony underestimates the average computer user's dislike of authority and exploitation. To protect yourself from this virus there are a few avenues you can take:
1. Burn all the tracks from the Sony CD to a burnable CD on a Mac or some public computer that you don't care about. Don't copy the entire CD, just the music tracks.
2. Disable the autoplay function on your Windows OS. You can Google that to find exact instructions. Alternately you can hold down the "shift" key every time you put in the CD to stop it from autoplaying.
3. Don't use Windows. The virus only installs itself on Windows...

Sophos claims that they will have a tool to remove the virus soon, if you're already infected. I think that Sony has way over stepped the bounds of ethical business operation here. Its a very underhanded, Microsoftesque thing to do, and I don't think that we should stand by and let them do this, otherwise it will become standard practice. If it weren't completely illegal I would say that we should do everything we can to propagate Sony music over peer-to-peer networks so that they can't make any profit ;) (that's a wink, as in wink-wink nudge-nudge). However, there are legal alternatives. First, if you've been infected by Sony's virus and live in California you can join a class action suit against Sony. Furthermore, we can boycott buying Sony music. However, if you must have some you can buy it from iTunes or Napster. The tracks themselves are not infected, just the CDs. Finally you can take one of the steps above to at least make sure that you don't get the virus. It is ridiculous and unethical for companies to install software onto personal computers without the user's permission or understanding. It is also unethical to not provide a removal tool for such software, even if the user agrees to the installation. It is slimy and underhanded -- although easy to get around -- to make people use your player for music they already paid you for. Sony should be punished for their unethical behavior and has lost my business due to their underhanded tactics. I hope that they are not allowed to get away with this intrusive behavior and laws are made to specifically protect us from corporate-sponsored viruses and spyware -- especially if they are installed without our knowledge.

Shifting Markets

2005-11-08T09:07:00.000-07:00

I just read this article that says about a million people switched from Windows to Macs because of the iPod this year. My first response was, "People are really dumb and sheep-like in their consumer trends." But when I started writing my angry, cynical tirade of a post I came up with... almost nothing. My point was going to be that you can't do everything you need to on Macs unless you don't do anything real or are an A/V person, and that smart consumers should take the good parts from every company (you can use iTunes and an iPod in Windows, for example). But then I looked at the desktop of my trusty laptop and asked, "what do I do on a regular basis that I can't do on a Mac? What would a Mac keep me -- arguably in the computer elite as I work on my Master's in computer science -- from doing that I want to do?" And the answer I came up with is : nothing. Right now I'm using Firefox, iTunes, Google Desktop, Google Talk, and internet explorer (for school email). I can use all of those things on a Mac. Later in the day I will probably use JBuilder to work on some Java code, and I often use an SSH client to connect to my school's Linux servers to work on my other programs. I also have an X-11 emulator so I can use emacs ;). Basically I'm a big geek, and still I could do everything I want on a Mac. Furthermore, Macs are prettier, easier to use, and more stable than a Windows environment. The only software that Microsoft has to offer for which Apple has no comparable alternative are the Microsoft Office applications (Mac has some similar things, but they aren't as nice. Probably because Apple hasn't made it one of their main money-making avenues over the last 10-12 years like Microsoft has). But Microsoft makes a Mac version of office, so, using my logic from before, the smart consumer would take the best from every company and get a Mac and buy Microsoft Office. There are still drawbacks to Macs -- they're nearly impossible to upgrade or fix on a hardware level, they're really expensive, you have to work a little to get used to the environment, etc. Of course the sensible alternative to all of this is just to use Linux, but that might be asking too much from the average user.

So what has caused this shift in the market? What could make a computer geek like me say that it actually makes sense to switch to a Mac (other than ingrained hatred for Microsoft found in most of us "computer elites")? One thing -- highspeed Internet access. If you notice, almost every application I use on a daily basis is tied to the web. My Google applications, obviously. Email, blogging, news. I would never use iTunes or JBuilder if they weren't freely and easily available over the web. And of course connecting to Linux servers at school uses the Internet. The rise of the internet and fast access, allowing for quick product dispersal, has shifted the average user away from standalone proprietary applications that they buy and use in an isolated environment to web-based applications that they expect to work no matter where they go and they expect them to work in conjunction with other users no matter what platform they are on. As it stands, the only significant application for Windows that no other platform can offer is gaming. And with the advent of the XBox 360 and PS3 that claim to out perform most computer gaming capabilities (personally I don't think you'll ever make a console FPS as good as one where you can use a mouse and keyboard, but maybe Nintendo's new controller will change that), Windows may be losing it market dominance quickly. Additionally, Microsoft only markets software, not hardware. More and more OSs are becoming freely available due to the open source movement (all Linux distros, Sun's new OS that is supposed to come out soon, etc.). Even if they have to give their OS away for free, Apple will continue to survive because they make cool hardware and gadgets, like the iPod, that no one else can. Microsoft, on the other hand, will see their profits plummet if there is no longer a market for expensive OSs. We may very well be on the verge of a new era in the computing industry where Bill Gates sits his uncreative, non-innovative butt back in a lazy boy and enjoys his billions while the rest of the world moves on to bigger and better things that don't cost $200 a license and aren't full of security holes that bored teenagers can exploit to ruin my life for fun. I might not ever buy a Mac, but I may never buy a Microsoft OS again, either.

Saving the Best for Last

2005-11-05T16:11:00.000-07:00

This is the last paragraph of the sermon Kyle Lake would have preached last Sunday morning. It is likely the last thing he wrote, and definitely one of the best things he ever wrote. Given the fact that he probably wrote this at most a week before he died, its statments about life mean even more than they could otherwise. It couldn't be more perfectly addressed to us who he left behind. No one could have written something better for us to read right now -- and that's really cool and really creepy. We don't have to wonder "what would Kyle want?" because it's right here, and it's beautiful. Anyway, that's already too much from me, this speaks for itself.

Live. And Live Well.
BREATHE. Breathe in and Breathe deeply. Be PRESENT. Do not be past. Do not be future. Be now.
On a crystal clear, breezy 70 degree day, roll down the windows and FEEL the wind against your skin. Feel the warmth of the sun.
If you run, then allow those first few breaths on a cool Autumn day to FREEZE your lungs and do not just be alarmed, be ALIVE.
Get knee-deep in a novel and LOSE track of time.
If you bike, pedal HARD… and if you crash then crash well.
Feel the SATISFACTION of a job well done—a paper well-written, a project thoroughly completed, a play well-performed.
If you must wipe the snot from your 3-year old’s nose, don’t be disgusted if the Kleenex didn’t catch it all… because soon he’ll be wiping his own.
If you’ve recently experienced loss, then GRIEVE. And Grieve well.
At the table with friends and family, LAUGH. If you’re eating and laughing at the same time, then might as well laugh until you puke. And if you eat, then SMELL. The aromas are not impediments to your day. Steak on the grill, coffee beans freshly ground, cookies in the oven. And TASTE. Taste every ounce of flavor. Taste every ounce of friendship. Taste every ounce of Life. Because-it-is-most-definitely-a-Gift.

Redeemed

2005-11-03T08:48:00.000-07:00

On Sunday, October 30th 2005, at age 33 with three children under 6 and a wife, Rev. Jeffrey Kyle Lake was killed in an accident while performing a baptism during the church service at University Baptist Church in Waco, Texas. Kyle has been my pastor for as long as I've been in Waco (working on my 4th year now) and had become a central part of my life here. He was a figure in my existence. Something I thought was fixed, some one who was here when I arrived and I thought would remain after I left. Kyle and I were not extremely close, but I considered him a friend and a leader in my life, and I know that he cared about me -- I know that he cared about everyone at that church, even if he only knew their face and not their name. I learned a lot from Kyle over the years. He echoed my desire for authenticity. He is the first pastor I knew to lead a church in the authentic, honest way that I feel is so necessary. He was a person of passion and love, and he changed my life.

A few years ago I would have believed that God some how "let" this happen because for some reason unknown to me its better this way. But I don't believe that any more. I do not believe that the world is better off without Kyle. I no longer believe that God makes or lets tragedy happen, and Kyle helped me come to what I believe is a more accurate understanding of God and our world through his sermons, our conversations, and his books.

First of all, it is important to believe that this world is not where God wanted us to live. This is not the world that He created for us. In the world He created there would be no tragedy, just as the world He will later create will know no sorrow. If you do not believe that God intended for us to live in a better place then I think that your belief deviates sharply from a central point of the Christian faith in that regard.

God does not "let" bad things happen to us in the way that we usually mean when we say that. The only sense in which you can say God "lets" something happen is to say that He did not actively step in with a miracle to stop it. God did not "let" Kyle get killed any more than He "lets" my pencil fall when I drop it. I just dropped my pencil three times and each time it fell to the ground. I could say that God "let" that happen because He certainly is capable of making my pencil float in the air. That is the only way that we can say that God "let" Kyle die. Kyle was waist deep in water and somehow an electric current was in the water. When that electric current went through his body it caused something to happen that made him die. There is nothing different between that and my dropping the pencil, except how it impacts our lives. Years ago I would have believed that God had some plan for letting Kyle die and that something that would come from it was His plan all along. If someone tried to tell me today that God let Kyle die so that some other good could come I would probably punch them in the face. So don't tell me that unless you want to get punched.

Yes, God could step in and save us from every situation in which we could get hurt. Which would basically be putting us back into the world He originally created. But we would always ruin that world and introduce pain, and He would always have to step in and miraculously save us from ourselves by changing what we intend to do or the reasonable effects of those actions. And that would basically take away free will, I think. Whatever the reason, God doesn't step in to miraculously change the course of events very often.

Originally, God's work in the world was creative. He made the universe and man. And He made them the way He wanted them to be. But then some how man ruined what God had intended (whether the account in Genesis is factual or allegorical the bottom line is that man corrupted what God had made perfect). I believe that the Bible teaches that all of creation was corrupted by man at that point, I don't know if its a debatable point, but its somewhat tangential to my main point, so I'll just pass over it.

Since the world was corrupted, God's work has shifted from creative to redemptive. His major work in the world today is to save us from it. We live in a world that is dominated by pain, anger, greed and hatred. God steps in and redeems the situations in our lives so that they are not all destructive. He redeems us daily by sanctification. When creation helps point us to God rather than ourselves it is redeemed. When a work of art is created or experienced as worship to God rather than man the art is redeemed. God is active in the world to redeem our lives and His creation. He is not, usually, active in preventing us from experiencing pain. Not because it is better for us, but because that is the world that we, by our nature if not our will, have chosen to live in. There may be good things that come from tragedy, but that is because God redeems the tragic situation. God takes something wholly worthless and makes something good out of it. There are good things coming out of the tragedy my church experienced this week -- our community is coming together as a family in a way we haven't in awhile if ever, the church community in Waco is coming together to support us, people who haven't talked in years are rekindling friendships, etc -- but these things are happening because God is redeeming the tragic situation we are in. He did not create the tragic situation so that these things would happen.

I think the reason that our "God let it happen" theology came about is that we are scared to admit that we live in a world where things God doesn't want happen. We want to believe that God is in control of every situation and causes everything. It is true that God is capable of taking control of every situation. It is true that God can save us from disaster and sometimes does. Paul was saved from death at the hands of man and nature on may occasions. However, in the end Paul was beheaded. God saved him miraculously some times and another time He didn't. But none of those times did God make the situation that He saved Paul from. Furthermore, just because God allowed Paul to go through certain things because He could use those situations for good does not mean that every experience that everyone has is because God planned it. God can bring good out of even the most tragic situation, but that does not mean that God causes tragic situations so He can bring about the good. That is the same reasoning that some early Christians used when they said "we should sin more so that God can show more grace." Its ridiculous and illogical. God can make good come from good -- He doesn't need the bad to make good. But when God brings good out of bad we really notice because it is in the bad that we become desperate. I believe that is why it appears that "Pain is God's megaphone to a deaf world" (C.S. Lewis -- maybe paraphrased). Not because God actually causes pain so that He can get our attention, but because in pain God is no longer drowned out by the world around us. In pain God is the only thing offering hope, the only one bringing about good. So in pain God's voice is magnified in our lives, but not because it was never there to begin with, just because we don't listen as well when we're not in pain. Its our fault, not God's, that we only hear Him when we're in pain.

We could sit back and say, "If God is who He claims to be then He could reach me even during good times." I don't know whether or not that's true. Some would say that no matter what God does you will not hear Him in it if you are not focused on doing so. Either way, God is always available if we look and listen for His work around us, even if it takes some work and time sometimes before we can discern Him among what we experience around us. So we cannot fault God for our failure to look for Him, that is only our fault. If we allow God's voice to reach us, if we allow Him to redeem even our good times by letting Him direct them towards Him rather than ourselves, then we will have "life more abundant." God's work in these days is to redeem this fallen world and draw it closer to the creation that He intended. And the more we let that happen the better our lives and our world become. God is at work in our lives and the world around us to redeem us. To save us from despair. To remake something beautiful out of so much garbage. He redeems us over and over again, day by day, situation by situation. There was the great act of Redemption in His sacrifice on the cross, but His redemptive work continues today and is active among us. That is the God I know, that is the God who loves me, that is the God that saves me and brings me to life even though I live in so much death.

Not Reason Alone

2005-10-27T08:52:00.000-06:00

On this post at RedhurtMachine, Drifter made the following comment:

One other thing that gets me doubting is the whole book of Acts and the other "signs" that the apostles speak of. If these kinds of things were possible by believers...why don't these things happen anymore? Why have I never seen or felt the holy spirit come upon the way it is described as coming onto the converts of the early church? Did they mean what they said more than I do? Why doesn't anyone honestly expierence these things anymore? Why don't we ever hear about people being healed miraculously by other people? Why don't we see people coming back to life? If the things that were true then are supposed to be true today...why are things so different?

My response is this:
First of all, I think we need to escape from the Modern mindset that reason defines reality. Reason is a facutly of man, and as such God is not subject to it. Therefore we can never reasonably draw the conclusion that something God is supposed to have done must be untrue soley because it is unreasonable. Ironic, huh? Instead we have to approach all things about God and His nature with the mindset put forth in Isaiah 55:8-9 :

⁸ "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

⁹ "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It is the height of human arrogance to believe that we can understand why God does what He does, or presume to say that He should act a different way than He does.

Furthermore, I don't think that the apparent lack of miracles, assuming that it really is universal and not just in my life and yours, is not unbiblical. Look at the old testament. It is full of people preforming miracles, but they are all years apart. What happened between Elisha and the other major Prophets? What happened between Hosea and Jesus? I'm sure the people then were also saying "Where are all these miracles people are always talking about? How come no one is doing miracles now?" It may be that God only preforms such miracles through people at certain times -- specifically times when they will achieve some end that we cannot understand. It may well be that a time may come again when there are many miracles happening often.

Finally, there are people today that claim that such miracles do still happen. As I'm sure you are, I am always skeptical of these claims. Especially by certain groups. However, it may be that such miracles occur where they are appropriate, according to the mind of God. It may simply be that your life and mine have never intersected those times. There were plenty of people in Israel, as small a country as it is, who never saw one of Jesus' miracles. Yet that doesn't mean they didn't happen. Now we're talking about a global scale. Just because neither you nor I ever comes in contact with a miracle or even someone who has seen one (although, as I said before, I have heard a few first-hand accounts, at least one that is mostly credible) does not imply that they are not happening. That would be a wholly unreasonable conclusion to come to. It is notable to mention that there isn't really a sense in Acts that every Christian was able to preform the miracles, mostly only Apostles. An apostle is, literally, "one who is sent." It is also important to note that The 12 Disciples were not the only apostles. Barnabas and Silas are both specifically called apostles. Apostles are people with the highest "calling" in the church who are specifically sent by God to do some work -- not all who are called to evangelism or missions are necessarily apostles. It would not be unreasonable to believe that only Apostles, as those with the highest calling, are given the gift to preform miracles all over the place. That is just my own conjecture, I have no further reason to believe that than it seems like they account for the majority of the miracles in the new testament and it makes at least a little sense.

All that being said, I think that it is unreasonable to use reason as a measurement of truth when God is involved. God can do things that seem unreasonable, or even are unreasonable. Furthermore, the lack of miracles around you may not be so unreasonable at all. The experience that you and I have had does not warrent the conclusion that the accounts in Acts are false. One final point concerning the fear that the Bible has been significantly altered is that the Dead Sea Scrolls were very close to the current manuscripts we were working with at the time they were found, so any significant changes to the old testament were done before 200BC. I suppose that you could claim that people since then changed the new testament letters and not the old since the old were already canonical, but the fact that they didn't change the old provides at least some hope that they left the new generally in tact -- at least enough that they didn't take the truth out of them.

Magic Numbers

2005-10-25T16:16:00.000-06:00

What is it about the number 2000 that gets people going? Is 2000 deaths in Iraq really more significant than 1999? 1995? I don't think so. I think I have to go along with Dogbert's reasoning for why the world would end in the year 2000, "Its biiiiig, and rooooound" (meaning the number 2000, not the earth). People are generally simple, and therefore like big round numbers to make things easy for us. Of course, 2000 is not that big. We lost more people in one day on D-Day, 2500 to be exact. Now I will grant that D-Day was probably more significant than the Iraq war -- Hitler was definitely a bigger threat than Saddam. But this was on one day. Our casualties in the Iraq war span years. Every time any service man or woman dies we lose a hero and its a tragedy. But losing 2000 people to liberate a country -- and I optimistically think an entire region -- is a small price to pay, historically speaking. I don't want to marginalize our loss or our troops sacrifice, but I do want to impose some sense of proportion. It is my distinct belief that those making the 2000 death mark a big deal would be saying almost identical things if it were the 10000 mark. I believe that they want this to be a big deal, they want a big number, so they are acting like its a huge number even though it is amazingly good considering how long we've been fighting and the resourcefulness of the enemy we're fighting. I agree with Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, this is an artificial "milestone."

In the article linked above Lt. Col. Boylan says this to the media: "I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq... The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."
So what does CNN print as the headline on their front page? Yeah, "Deadly Milestone in Iraq War." Thanks CNN. Thanks a lot guys.

Miers

2005-10-19T12:23:00.000-06:00

For anyone doubting Harriet Miers' fitness as a Supreme Court Justice, check out her credentials. Now, I'm not saying that anyone who has published so many papers that the titles alone span several pages is necessarily a genius. I'm also not saying that someone who has been involved in law their whole life and given honors in many of the positions they have held is always a good nominee. However, I would say that Harriet Miers is both of these things. She has tons of law experience as well as a great deal of non-legal, "real-life" experience that other candidates may lack. Additionally, she has had a front row seat to the GWOT (or whatever its called now) and its affects on the government and individuals involved. No other candidate has. I think that alone pushes her near the top, if not right to it, as many of the important decisions in the decades ahead will be related to terrorism and how we ought to fight it. Understanding how we have fought it before, what is necessary to fight it, and effects of fighting it certain ways is important to make a good decision. She is in a unique position to rule on matters relating to terrorism and our responses. Also, I agree that it seems like a SCOTUS nominee ought to have been a Judge at some point, but that is certainly not a consistent precedent.

Does anyone else think its ironic that this year she was honored with the "Sandra Day O’Connor Award" from the Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism?

On a seperate note, I'm really glad that I wrote that post "Define: Evangelical" about Carman defining the evangelical movement because I get more hits from people searching Google and MSN for "Define Evangelical" or various Carman titles than any other search criteria. Maybe that actually proves my point...

Mikey's Back

2005-10-13T14:34:00.000-06:00

In case there is anyone who reads this blog and not Michael Yon's:
1. What's your deal? Michael Yon is a must read.
2. He's back in Iraq and now he's writing for The Weekly Standard, which, if I had to choose, would be my favorite magazine. I don't really read it much though and I just let my subscription die. But I had a subscription to it once so that makes it on the top of the list since I've never paid for another magazine in my life.

The Things We Know

2005-10-06T06:51:00.000-06:00

Wow, I almost set a record for "Longest Time Without a Blog Entry" -- maybe I should have held out a little longer so I could claim the title. Grad school will do that... at least when you're taking a class from Jeff Donahoo.

I was reading this article today and was somewhat shocked by this argument made by a cancer patient supporting assisted suicide: '"We are terminal and we know when we have a few weeks left. We know when we're unconscious. We know when we're at the end."' You probably see right away what caught my attention: "We know when we're unconscious." You do? Doesn't that defy the definition of unconscious? But maybe she meant the larger 'We', meaning people in general. Or maybe We.

I think this does get right at the heart of the argument against assisted suicide -- we really don't know. There are people who doctors give a few days to live and they live for years. We may know with some certainty a few days before hand, but I don't think we really know any further than that. We might know that its coming, but that's true for all of us. If the idea that you know you're going to die is grounds fro assisted suicide then we're all eligible -- unless you're claiming immortality. And there are those of us who believe that every day alive is precious, and that -- without taking time (because I don't have it) to expound the argument -- is why we're against ever ending a life before it is really over.

I have to go to class -- grad school will do that. But I really do think we've hit on the key disagreement of the assisted suicide debate here.

Hurricanes Cause a Lack of Proportion

2005-09-22T09:09:00.000-06:00

People here in Waco are preparing for the worst as hurricane Rita churns towards Houston. In fact, these people are going to such extremes as stocking many days' supply of food and water as well as hoarding flashlights and batteries, if not evacuating the city altogether. And its all just a big game. In fact, its ridiculous. Originally the path of the hurricane had it projecting Tropical Storm strength winds into Waco -- possibly. Overnight that changed and now we're not expected to get more than heavy rain and thunderstorms. From this I can conclude a few things:

1. Hurricanes cause people to lose all sense of proportion.
2. Pretentious rich people think that disaster and evacuation are fun.
3. Everyone who is not rich and pretetious in Waco (and some who are) either don't have access to the internet or are too ignorant to know how to go to weather.com or the National Weather Service.

Their actions are absolutely unfounded. My classes are cancelled tomorrow because of the hurricane. Now, I'm not going to complain about getting out of class, but the hurricane isn't even expected to make landfall until Saturday. Even yesterday they were saying that it would make landfall late Friday night. Given that it is currently moving about 9MPH, projecting Tropical Storm winds about 175 miles from the center, and that Waco is somewhere around 300 miles from where it is supposed to make landfall, we wouldn't expect to feel any noteworthy effects until late Saturday morning (it would take about 13 hours for the strong winds to reach us). Most classes here end before 3pm -- well before the hurricane would even make landfall. But still people are packing up and heading north (and I hope west, otherwise they're moving straight into the path of the hurricane) or stockpiling goods like its Y2K -- with about the same end result, I'll bet: lots of extra food that sits on the shelf until you move out. Anyway, some people are getting pretty crazy here and I think its crazy that they're getting crazy. But it comes back to my previous point, people who aren't actually going to be harmed think that disasters are fun, so they're pretending that we're at risk. Plus I don't think we can rule out the good old Texas desire to not be left out. "What, you had to evacuate your home in Houston? Oh, yeah, well we're all evacuating here, too. What, did you think that just because you're from a city on the coast directly in the path of the hurricane that somehow you're the only ones that are at risk? Us folks hundreds of miles inland well to the west of the projected path of the storm are suffering too." Or something like that. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and the apocalypse is coming in the form of something named Rita. If that's true I probably won't ever write on this blog again. Otherwise I'll probably keep making fun of Texans -- especially rich pretentious Texans.

On a small tangent, my brother said that he read a meterologist's website claiming that the Russians developed a weather machine and sold it to the Japanese Mafia (is there such a thing?) who are now using it to create not only the hurricanes, but strange clouds in Montana. Those mafia types, they're always sticking it to us! What with those strange clouds and all. They're so spiteful!
It is notable, however, that a good deal of US oil refineries stand to be damaged by these storms (Katrina and Rita) since they are all in coastal areas of Louisiana and Texas (oil refining is pretty much all that Galveston and Texas City do, and they're two of the first cities that are going to be hit by the hurricane. They also get hit by big hurricanes just about every year -- I can't figure out why people still live there). If there were some rational way that hurricanes could be man-made I wouldn't rule out a conspiracy, although I don't think that the Japanese Mafia would be my primary suspects.

Oil Companies Playing Games?

2005-09-20T11:12:00.000-06:00

The recent hike in gas prices has confused me a great deal. Its not that the price went up dramatically after Katrina -- that makes sense. We lost oil production infrastructure and therefore supply was lower without demand changing much. So prices went up. What confuses me is that they're going down now. Not that I mind, it just seems odd to me. I suppose its possible that the production we lost has been regained, but that seems unlikely since there hasn't been enough time for any large-scale repairs and many of the areas ravaged by Katrina are still on watch if not evacuated because of hurricane Rita. So why are prices going down now? It seems to me that there are only three options:
1. The oil companies raised prices based on public perception rather than reality, and there was not much damage done to production infrastructure. Prices went up because the average person believed that production had been hurt so they were willing to pay more.
2. Oil companies are basing prices on predictions of future production, making it more like the stock market than an actual product. They thought there was going to be a shortage in production so they raised prices. The shortage didn't happen and so prices are going back down.
3. The damage was small and in areas that are not threatened by Rita so production did go down significantly but its already been fixed. This seems like the most reasonable explanation except that right after Katrina hit everyone was talking about the extensive damage done to as much as 16% of our oil production infrastructure. Of course, this is pretty important to our country, so maybe we can get a lot fixed in three weeks. I'm really not sure.

So, are the oil companies playing games with prices, or was the damage real but already fixed because we put so much into it because its vital to us? Someone with more information than me, please explain how this all makes sense.

The Impotence of the Modern God

2005-09-14T14:36:00.000-06:00

"God has no hands but our hands" -- I'll get to read those words every day for the next week or so when I drive past St. Matthew Evangelical Lutheran Church in Waco. The sentiment, however, is hardly confined to this one church. In fact, I would contend that many if not most "Evangelical" churches across the country would agree with the above statement. And I don't think that such arrogant and short-sighted theology can be separated from the typical evangelical mindset. This belief that somehow God needs us, that God can't do what he wants to without us, is appealing, but wholly wrong and mislead.

Its not difficult to understand where such a sentiment might originate. Paul, on many occasions, talks about the members of the Church being members of Christ's body. Furthermore, Jesus says that His disciples are like workers that God sends out into the fields to do His work. There are numerous examples of members of the church being exonerated to do work for God -- even the over-used and often misrepresented "great commission." The New Testament especially, although not solely, is full of commands that each of God's followers needs to do God's work. So it is understandable that they believe that we are to be like "God's hands" in the world. Martin Luther says that each Christian is to be like a "little Christ" to everyone he comes in contact with. It is a necessary and obvious conclusion that we, as Christians, are called to do in this world what God is doing.

However, the jump from that to the idea that God can do nothing without us is both illogical and unfounded. Personally, I believe that it is better to have hands than not, especially if there is some work that needs to be done with them -- that it is better to be able to do your work than to need someone else to do it for you. Therefore when Jesus says "I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him," it implies that God can do His own work, because He is greater than us. And therefore, in terms of this analogy, He has "hands" of His own.

Even apart from such inductive reasoning, any study of the Bible will show that God has more than enough means to do His own work. This is the same being who spoke into nothing and thereby created everything. This is a God who caused plagues and natural disasters to fall on any who stood against Him, when He saw fit. He also caused the walls of Jericho to fall, the Flood, and a number of other miracles -- not to mention the immaculate conception.

Some might argue that these were all pre-Jesus's death/Pentecost miracles and since then God has decided not to work in the world but to use us instead. This seems like a wholly stupid and unfounded conclusion to come to on its own, but there are more examples of God working apart from people in the later books of the New Testament. For example, there is the conversion of Paul, the very thing that we claim God needs us most for -- evangelism/conversion -- He does all on His own when He wants to. Furthermore, there is the death of Ananias and his wife -- which I bet is rather embarrassing to the same groups of Christians who believe that God has no hands, because they also tend to believe that God is big and cuddly and doesn't do things like strike people dead anymore. Obviously God still acts on His own behalf, even after Pentecost.

So, now that it has been established that their position is wholly without grounds in the Christian faith, I am interested in the causes and effects of such impotent theology in the modern church. It seems obvious that such theology gives a great degree of power to the individual. God cannot accomplish His desired goals without you. God needs you. I can see how this is appealing -- power is always appealing. However, an especially troubling conclusion is that God doesn't possess the power to affect the changes He desires in the world. That implies that God cannot help you in any way other than spiritual benefits. Furthermore, it means that much of what happens around us is out of His control. God no longer weaves us together in our mother's womb, He no longer causes the sun to rise and set and doesn't keep the cosmos in balance. We live in a system that was set up long ago and now runs out of control. That means that hurricane Katrina was an accident -- God watched in horror as it moved and destroyed lives, powerless to stop it without His hands. The world is out of control, and God can't help us. This theology is right in line with the Diests', believing that miracles are not true and God does not interact with the world in any tangible way. Indeed, in this way of thinking God is no longer omnipotent, but rather impotent. I think that this theology has shaped the way modern Christians think, and it has contributed greatly to their arrogance and their "white man's burden" approach to the world. It also explains their need to separate 'sacred' from 'secular' because the only way to keep yourself safe from the world is to stay away from it. Jesus promise that, "surely [He is] with you always, to the very end of the age" doesn't really offer a lot of comfort.

All that said, are there any more ideas on the causes and effects of such theology? I think that it is so commonly accepted today that we fail to question or examine it often, and I think we will all benefit form understanding where these Christians are coming from and where they are going if nothing changes.

Lazy Journalism

2005-09-05T15:35:00.000-06:00

I hate it when Journalists are too lazy to do fact checking. I hate it even more when they use incorrect assumptions they hold because of laziness to make the main point of their articles. I hate it even more when they state their assumptions as fact and make ignorant readers even more ignorant. This is one such article.

The first sentence begins the ignorance: "John Roberts faces the unsettling task of reigning in strong-willed and experienced colleagues, including two men he beat out for the job of chief justice, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas." The idea that he "beat out" the sitting associate Justices is what really gets me. Later she states, "If confirmed, Roberts would become the junior member of the court, where the average age is 70. In a twist, he would be its administrative captain." And shortly after this, "But he has never attended a conference where the justices debate cases. The weekly meetings are open only to the nine justices. Roberts would run the sessions, and that requires keeping long-winded justices in line." Basically she is making the case that Roberts has a particularly hard job because he is going to be Chief Justice without ever having been an associate. She also tries to make the case that Thomas and Scalia may be upset about not getting the seat themselves. That might be true, but I hardly think it reasonable to say that "Bush picked the 50-year-old appeals court judge on Monday to succeed William H. Rehnquist, passing over conservative Supreme Court justices the president has praised in the past: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas " -- passing over implies that it was at least in some way expected that they would be nominated for elevation. And even more absurd is the idea that, "In turning to Roberts, Bush avoided a nasty and lengthy confirmation fight but he may have miffed the sitting justices." Again, to be "miffed" these Justices would have to have thought they were in line for the job.

And now for the facts that make this article so absurd. I obtained these facts in less than 30 minutes searching the web using Google. In the history of the Supreme Court there have only been 16 Chief Justices. Of those 16 only 5 have ever been associate Justices (you can search through all the chief Justices at this link). One of those was John Rutledge who only served 4 months on a recess appointment before being rejected by the Senate. Additionally, he and Charles E. Hughes were not members of the court when they were appointed chief Justice (Rutledge retired in 1791 and was appointed chief in 1795. Hughes retired in 1916 and was appointed chief in 1930). That leaves only three men who were elevated from sitting associate Justice to chief Justice: Edward D. White (appointed chief in December, 1910), Harlan Fiske Stone (appointed chief in July, 1941), and William H. Rehnquist (appointed chief in September, 1986). Therefore it would be completely unreasonable to believe that president Bush would choose a sitting Justice to become chief. In fact, it would be more remarkable and out of synch with history if he did. The sitting Justices mentioned may indeed feel "miffed," but they have no right to feel such, because there is no history to show that they have been "passed over," but rather Bush has followed suit with most of history by leaving them associates. Further, it would be almost as historically similar to promote a retired associate than a sitting associated. So by that logic every previous associate Justice who is still alive (now I'm being lazy, because I don't know if there are any) should feel just as "passed over" as Thomas and Scalia.

Gina Holland is right -- Roberts does have a difficult task ahead. She is also right that Rehnquist's shoes are going to be tough to fill -- for anyone. However, she has absolutely no reason to insinuate that Roberts is going to have any harder a job than the 11 other chief Justices that were never associate Justices. And by stating such as though it were a fact she is causing already ignorant readers to become even more so. I don't know if Ms Holland is aware of the facts that I have presented, but her article makes absolutely no reference to them. And that is irresponsible journalism. In this case the inaccurate representation/lazy reporting is going to have little or no fallout. However, if this kind of thing is going on with these articles there is no reason to believe that the same practice is not being used for articles with far weightier implications and consequences (like the Time piece about Koran flushing that cost lives). Publications ought to strive to make their journalists produce works that are factually sound and give an accurate picture of the story. Otherwise they are going to quickly be replaced by blogs -- if you can't produce something better than some idiot with internet access why do I care about your article? Why on earth would I pay for it? If they don't have something unique and valuable to offer they will be replaced.

Watch: Reality Slip Away

2005-09-01T15:08:00.000-06:00

"Watch: Death and despair in New Orleans" That quote appears exactly on CNN.com right now. Some would probably classify me as a cynic, but I think that pretty much sums up our culture right there: "Sit back and watch disturbing images of other people suffering. Then go get some McDonald's and watch WWF or Nascar for the rest of the night." Okay, maybe I'm going overboard a little bit. I just saw that line on CNN and I couldn't help my disgust. Its just so insensitive, unfeeling, and inhuman. And we do it all the time. We replace entertainment with real suffering of real people. Maybe we have the decency to shake our heads and say "man, that sucks." But we continue to consume and consume, allowing the media to capitalize on tragedy time after time. The news sites right now are full of pictures of dead people -- as though we need a visual of a body to believe the story. To me its infuriating that the dead are shown so little respect and are used so casually. I don't know where I'm going with this except to say that it disgusts me, and I can't believe that CNN actually let something like that appear on their website.

I just read another video headline -- "'People are dying in front of us'" I couldn't repress the tagline: "And now they can die in front of you, too! Just click this link!" Seriously, though, we're looking at these people like specimen in a glass box. Look, theres some death and destruction. Ooh, and theres some angry and hungry people (also a video on CNN). And people dying in front of me over there. And finally a little dose of despair! This is great! Meanwhile on the other end are not actors or computer programs or dolls, but real people really suffering. While we watch and news crews film. Wonderful.

I might have more to say about this later.

Rational Disconnect

2005-08-30T13:18:00.000-06:00

I just read this comic, Candorville -- which is one that I read most days (I read comics when I'm bored at work) -- in which the author makes the claim through one of the characters that affirmative action "ensur[es] qualified blacks and latinos from bad schools have access to college." That is one of the most bigoted and stupid statements I've ever heard. First of all, I cannot say whether or not this author's views accurately reflect those of all pro-affirmative action parties. Also, I realize that many of the rational left do not advocate affirmative action and realize that it is not a solution at all. Thank you for not drinking the party kool-aid, so to speak.

This author's statement is one of the most racist, bigoted, and ignorant remarks I have ever seen in print other than satire. The obvious question then is, why blacks and latinos? What about the Asians or white kids who live in poor conditions and go to bad schools? Do blacks and latinos have a monopoly on poverty in the United States? I'm not even sure they have a majority. But regardless, there are plenty of poor people in bad schools who are not black or Latino. So do they not matter any more? How racist. Or perhaps its the 'qualified' part that singles out blacks and latinos. Perhaps he feels that other poor kids must not be qualified for college. Again, how racist. And this brings up perhaps the most relevant point: What makes someone 'qualified' for college? Obviously not education, because he's talking about kids from 'bad schools' -- presumably schools that don't educate properly. Not standardized testing either, because we wouldn't "need" affirmative action if the SAT/ACT scores were leveling the playing field. So what, then, other than race, makes one kid more qualified than another to go to school if not education or skill as measured by standard tests? And how in the heck does affirmative action support that, since it only looks at race? And of course, that's the ridiculousness of it all. Affirmative action does not solve any problems except making rich white people not feel bad and appeasing powerful pro-minority groups like the ACLU.

The poverty cycle is a real problem. Its true that poor kids that go to bad schools never have the same opportunity as richer kids because they are denied the education that others can get because of things that are out of their control. The problem is no longer a racial problem, though. Affirmative action was meant to stop schools from only taking white students. That's not a serious problem most places anymore, and even if it is affirmative action still doesn't help the poor kids, it just helps the well-off minorities secure positions at prestigious schools -- the schools are all going to fill their quotas with minorities who went to good schools, not those who went to bad schools. So this thought that affirmative action is helping break the poverty cycle is simply ignorant. Unless you take the stance that all blacks and latinos are poor and go to bad schools (which is also ignorant), you can't seriously believe that universities are choosing the kids from bad schools and helping them escape poverty. As far as I can tell there are three real solutions to this dilemma, and affirmative action is not one of them:
1. Improve public education so that there are no 'bad' schools
2. Increase access to state universities so that any student who attended public school in the state can attend. This necessitates that 1 be applied to said universities for it to mean anything.
3. Require universities to fill quotas from socioeconomic classes rather than races. Its like affirmative action except it looks at wealth rather than race. I don't think this will ever fly.

I hope Darrin Bell reads this post, and maybe he can even enlighten me as to how his reasoning makes any sense at all. But I doubt he will, given his past comics that dismiss bloggers as ignorant hacks that don't deserve to be taken seriously. Mr Bell, if you do read this post I want to thank you for your comic strip, I enjoy reading it. However, I think that your opinion about affirmative action is short sighted and ignores the reality of the situation. In lieu of any response from him, since I am doubting that it will really come, I'm interested in hearing anyone's ideas about the poverty problem and any rational ways to fight or solve it.

Stem Cell Research out of the Grey Area

2005-08-29T11:38:00.000-06:00

Normally I detest the Washington Post for a variety of reasons, but their coverage of the latest advance in stem cell research is extremely interesting. Apparently a Harvard research team has discovered a way to convert ordinary skin cells into stem cells. The implications of this development speak for themselves. Notably, the new method is actually an improvement over previous work with stem cells because the stem cells are now an exact genetic match for the donor -- which is of supreme importance when we're talking about growing replacement organs and such. Before, making an exact genetic match involved turning one's cells into an embryo and then harvesting the cells -- essentially starting to grow a clone and then harvesting its stem cells. This is both very complicated (and therefore expensive) and morally grey, if not reprehensible.

Furthermore, this advancement is a huge victory for science because it takes stem cell research out of the moral ambiguity realm and therefore out of politics -- for the most part. Senator Frist, you really screwed yourself this time. Frist made the mistake of deviating from the President's stand on stem cell research about a month or two ago. If he would have just waited he could have been pro-stem cell research without pissing off the majority of the hard right wing -- pretty much all the "religious right". Anyway, recent polls have shown that Frist doesn't have much of a chance for his presidential ambitions, and I can't say that I mind. The really important thing here though is that stem cell research can now move forward unimpeded and we no longer have to worry about sacrificing innocent lives to work on cures for other at-most-as-innocent-if-not-less lives. And I think that is a very good thing.

Small Update

2005-08-21T08:24:00.000-06:00

I haven't written anything in awhile because I just drove back to Waco for school last week. I've been busy this week getting things in order here and whatnot. Today isn't much of a post, but its something ;)

Michael Yon writes about his frustration with the military's seemingly random classification or release of information. He also states that no matter how classified the military says information is it usually ends up in the hands of the MSM before they give him the go ahead to write about it. And he goes on to explain why this usually leads to the marginalization of stories that should be huge -- especially US successes. He insinuates that its not necessarily the MSM's fault, that they are not intentionally messing up stories. Rather they simply do not have the context to correctly cover the story because they do not have any reporter or journalist involved with the military operations in question in any way. If this is true then the military is, excuse the figure of speech, shooting itself in the foot when it comes to popular support. Yon seems to say that if sources like himself were to disseminate this information first rather than the uninformed MSM then the public would get more of a sense of success from Iraq. That would obviously increase support for the war and military at home, possibly curbing the sharp downward trend in recruitment numbers. So, why is the military doing this? Is it a classic example of ridiculous rules by generals that do more harm than good? Or do they hold out hope every time that someone won't leak this story to the MSM before they're ready for them to? Whatever the reason, I hope that they realize their mistakes quickly. These men aren't stupid -- its hard to get promoted that high and still be stupid. They have to have some reasoning that at least makes senset to them. Whatever it is its not correct, though, and I hope something opens their eyes to that at last. I don't believe that the war is completely going our way all the time. But I do believe that the American people hear a lot about failures and almost never about victories. I used to blame the MSM alone for this -- and in a way its still partially their fault for not having or interviewing anyone who is actually involved. But if the higher ups in the military could change their policies and let more positive information get out to the public I cannot imagine why they won't. Everyone who is actually in Iraq who I have seen quoted says that we are winning this war, but that they enemy is still strong and learning. Thats not at all the impression I get from the MSM. They seem to say that we are getting no where in Iraq fighting some guerillas who are schooling us like those in Vietnam. I hope that the stories from these two sources fall more into agreement in the coming days.

Getting Serious

2005-08-12T11:09:00.000-06:00

Iran has dismissed the IAEA ruling that they should cease uranium enrichment. The current president, not the psycho who was just elected, said that the ruling was "cruel" and the foreign ministry spokesman said "It comes from American pressure... It lacks any legal or logical basis and is unacceptable." Haven't we heard all this before from another crazy dictatorship in the region? And didn't it lead to France and the UN saying we shouldn't act on the resolution past? Can anyone deny that Iran's current defiant stance is not at least in some way related to the failure of the UN to act on its words with regards to Iraq? Our actions and inactions have far reaching consequences.

Furthermore, apparently we have proof that Iranian weapons are being smuggled into Iraq. Whether this is with the aid of the government of Iran or due to a lack of security at its arsenals it is very concerning and unacceptable. I know that Iran is supposed to be 10 years away from producing a viable nuclear weapon. However, it doesn't take that much development to pack a mortar round or artillery shell full of enriched uranium and put it in an IED (I learned from Michael Yon that those are mostly made of motor rounds and artillery shells). It won't cause a nuclear explosion, but it will be a very effective "dirty bomb" spreading deadly radiation for miles. That counts as a WMD, I'm pretty sure. This is not a casual threat, but a very real danger for our people in Iraq and the Iraqis themselves. Furthermore, it wouldn't take much more effort to smuggle this uranium into the US and set off a dirty bomb here. In a population center like NYC this would be catastrophic. The damage to the economy would be far worse than 9/11 because we couldn't resume normal operations in that city for quite some time, even if there was relatively little destruction. When we talk about Iran enriching uranium there are other threats besides a nuclear explosion that take far less time to develop. And they're already arming our enemies and training suicide bombers. We have to remember things like that when we consider how to deal with Iran in the coming days and months.

First Hand

2005-08-10T10:08:00.000-06:00

I highly recommend that everyone read this post -- and every other -- at Michael Yon's blog. He is a journalist with US soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. He regularly goes on missions with these soldiers and writes about his experiences -- good and bad -- on his blog. This is first hand information that you can't get anywhere else. Here are some interesting quotes from today's post, but please read the whole thing at his site:

"During the first phase of this war, many of our troops were riding in unarmored Humvees and other vehicles. Soon they were being torn to pieces. Once the vehicles were up-armored, the enemy was unable to defeat much of that defense. For a time. But today—although armored Humvees are great and can defeat many threats—the latest generations of IEDs can effortlessly swat them away, spreading their parts over city blocks. The enemy has destroyed our most powerful armored tanks with underground bombs that leave craters in the roads large enough to make swimming pools... The attack last week that killed 15 people, including 14 Marines, catapulted this topic to the front pages. A massive explosion completely destroyed their 28-ton armored personnel carrier. Traveling almost as fast as that news was speculation that our armor is insufficient. But the news that never flashed is that no amount of armor can completely protect us. Armor is extremely important, but given time, the enemy will defeat it."

"Flash burns from bombs are deadly. I’ve seen it many times: anything exposed is fried in an instant. Skin and flesh just peel-off. The super-hot flashes also melt contact lenses to eyeballs before people can blink. Years ago, when I was a jumpmaster, I remember sticking my face outside the aircraft to check surroundings, and my eyelids slapped and flopped in the torrent. That was only about hurricane force winds. The blast in an explosion opens the eyelids, fusing the melted contacts to the eyeballs. Smart soldiers don’t wear contacts in combat, but others often do."

"A couple minutes later, we leave the base and begin the drive downtown; passing spots where so many car bombs and IEDs have exploded. Within a few blocks, we are 15 seconds from rolling over a large bomb buried under the road... One of the terrorists does a double take at the lead Stryker, blowing his cover. The call instantly goes out to 'Block left! Lock 'em down! Two pax!'"

"The Bionic Terrorist seems mentally disturbed. He's poxied with panic, his face contorted by abject terror. Clearly, he is deranged, possibly explaining his prodigious running ability. The enemy is known to use and discard mentally-challenged persons. The poor guy probably doesn't even know what language we speak."

"But that wasn't the whole story. In the Yarmuk neighborhood, only terrorists openly carry AK-47s. The lawyers call this Hostile Intent. The soldiers call this Dead Man Walking.

Deuce Four is an overwhelmingly aggressive and effective unit, and they believe the best defense is a dead enemy. They are constantly thinking up innovative, unique, and effective ways to kill or capture the enemy; proactive not reactive. They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse.

The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the "casualties," "abandoning" the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That's when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down."

"For a moment, I nearly ran back out to drag the terrorist behind the Stryker, but then I thought, Nope, he’s a terrorist! If Kurilla gets shot, I’m definitely going to get him. But the terrorist can get shot to pieces and I don't care.

Instead of doing something useful—and I feel marginally guilty about this, but not too much—I start snapping photos as the Commander drags the guy by the collar to get him to the cover of the Stryker. I can't believe Kurilla is still alive after nearly a year of doing this."

"That’s three strikes. Time for the EOD[Army Explosives Ordinance Disposal] guys to pull out and leave. This irritates and angers the soldiers immensely, but I’ve run with EOD guys before, and their work is exceptionally dangerous. The enemy specifically tries to kill them, making it important that EOD be used only when absolutely needed. This EOD team said that if we find the bomb, please call. They drove home."

"She smiled the whole time, as if to say, That’s my boy! The translator heard her say to her son, “Don’t worry. You will be released soon.” She smiled at me.

The most serious terrorists do not fear prison here. Captain Jeff VanAntwerp, who commands Alpha Company, recently told me that Iraqis joke among themselves that they would pay 5,000 Dinar per night to stay at Abu Ghraib prison. It's air conditioned, the showers are good, the food is good, and the water is good. The mother seemed to know this and it curled in contempt behind her smile."

"During lunch, the Chief persisted in his entreaties to LTC Kurilla, saying his police would find all the bombs, break the cell, and give the prisoner back tomorrow at the latest. And they could. The Iraqi Police could break the cell because they can break the man.

Terrorists often target Iraqi police--especially this station--so the Chief was becoming frustrated, and he continued to angle for the opportunity to interrogate the prisoner, suggesting creative ways to circumvent the inconvenient rules, like, "Let him go and we will catch him again." But LTC Kurilla kept reiterating, 'You know I can’t give him to you. I might not agree with all the rules, but I must enforce them.'

'Give him to me, just for the night,' the Chief said. 'You can have him back tomorrow.'

'That I cannot do,' Kurilla replied firmly. 'If your police had been with us when we captured him, you could have him. But these are the rules.'"

"I walked back through the dark and did the radio interview by cell phone. During such interviews, I get the impression that people at home are losing faith in the effort, though we are winning. But at home they cannot see it, and when I said goodbye that time, I sat in the dark."

"It happens that the explosion was an accidental detonation of the large bomb we suspected had been left under the road by Yarmuk Traffic Circle. Apparently the terrorists had gone back to hook it up, but it had detonated, scattering some car parts, but no human parts were found. Our hunch left a crater eight feet in diameter, and took out an entire lane. Three artillery rounds also had been blown from the hole and lay unexploded nearby. Had Kurilla not spotted that nervous double-take seconds before the stripe-shirted terrorist could hit the #7 key, that bomb might have hit us."

"That night, there was an important memorial for Nils Thompson, the soldier who had been killed by a sniper. Soldiers had labored for days, and into the nights, to make a fitting ceremony for young Nils Thompson. Top officers, a General among them, came to the ceremony. Though he'd just turned 19, Thompson already had earned respect from officers and men in the unit. Many quiet tears marked the true pain of the loss. A few soldiers wondered, Do people at home even care?"

"Captain V is one of the most respected officers here. When things go wrong, soldiers love to hear his voice on other end of the radio. They know that things are getting better fast when Captian V is on the way. A couple months ago, I rolled out with his section, and soon we were sleeking on foot down the darkened streets and warrens of Mosul, far away from the Strykers. We got into contact and there was some minor shooting drama, and I ended up separated with only two soldiers. We were alone in Mosul. Guns were hot. There was a sergeant and a young soldier, and the sergeant's radio could not reach out. 'Let's stay here and Captain V will find us,' I suggested. But the sergeant was having none of that sit-tight stuff. He wanted to keep moving, and so we did.

Before long, a Stryker came creeping down a dark road and stopped in front of our latest position in a dark alcove. The ramp dropped and Captain V walked out. 'Hey, guys,' he said. 'How's it going?' Much better, I thought. We re-grouped and continued the mission."

"After midnight, the ramps dropped and we slipped silently into the dark spaces of Mosul. Creeping through stinking alleys, we took cover in darkness, sometimes illuminating briefly under shop lights, then disappearing back into the shadows.

No sound, no sight, just soldiers prowling through the murk of war, bringing worry to men who should be worried. The soldiers found the right house, and silently slipped inside."

Important Questions

2005-08-09T10:43:00.000-06:00

"The International Atomic Energy Agency has indicated its board of governors will ask Iran to rescind its decision to resume its uranium enrichment program." And I'm sure they will. Those Iranians are always doing what they're asked, as long as they're asked nicely. Just like Saddam. Such a nice young man, pity about that whole US invasion thing. He really did have a good heart, he was just misunderstood. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about in Iran, they're very reasonable people there -- why would they want enriched uranium anyway? Its not like they have state sponsored suicide bombing camps and a desire to kill Jews and/or Americans or anything like that. Right?

Alright, enough with the old lady routine. The real question here is how long before someone does something real. The so called 'EU-3' -- France, Britain, and Germany -- did some with their incentives offers. Russia has always been counter productive in this regard, helping Iran further their ambitions. The US is being hounded by the UN and others to 'stay calm'. And the IAEA is trying what no one else thought worth trying -- asking nicely. So... how many days is Iran going to be allowed to continue with uranium enrichment before someone does something that will actually stop them? How long is it going to take for the UN to set a deadline, extend the deadline, pass a resolution saying that military force will be used if the deadline isn't met, ask everyone not to actually use military force after the missed deadline, pass sanctions, make a new deadline, and then give Iran money for oil? Because that's pretty much the scenario I see playing out if everyone waits for the UN. So then the question becomes, how many nuclear weapons can Iran make in the time it takes the UN to do all that? A more important question is how likely is it that a suicide bomber will nuke the UN (not their building in the US, but in Switzerland or Austria or some other country "urging restraint" and hindering progress) rather than the US or Israel? Because if its pretty likely then I say we let the UN take their time and see what inaction really reaps. However, the reality is that the US or Israel will be the prime target, so we have to do something before they hit us. So the final question is, how long do we have to wait until we can bomb Iran's facility without the world branding us warmongers and can we afford to wait that long? I'm afraid the answers are 'too long' and 'no way,' respectively.

In other news, Venezuela is holding a socialist youth camp attracting 15,000 youths from around the world. They have collectively decried the US as the worst evil Imperialist empire ever. Furthermore, the Venezuelan president has assured the world that if the US ever invades his country he will make us "bite the dust." I took a poll of all Americans and collectively we're pretty scared.*

*To poll all Americans I asked myself the question. Since I consider my views to be fairly universal I figured I could then extrapolate that they must be the same for all Americans. From what I understand this is pretty typical polling procedure with good scientific backing. I give myself a margin of error of +/- 3, since I'm just making numbers up randomly.

Jackson Jurors just look stupid

2005-08-08T14:13:00.000-06:00

Two of the jurors on Michael Jackson's much hyped criminal trial this year are speaking out against the acquittal of Jackson. Which is really stupid, considering it was unanimous. One of these now-dissenting jurors, Eleanor Cook, was asked if she was worried about the other jurors getting mad at her for her new public statements. Her reply was truly shocking: "They can be as angry as they want to. They ought to be ashamed. They're the ones that let a pedophile go." No, Eleanor, you're the one who let a pedophile go. You voted to let him go. I cannot believe that we trust justice to someone who acts so ridiculously irresponsible and ignorant. The other juror, Ray Hultman, made a similarly stupid comment saying, "The thing that really got me the most was the fact that people just wouldn't take those blinders off long enough to really look at all the evidence that was there." If this was 'getting to you,' Mr. Hultman, why did you go along with a "not guilty" verdict? The verdict was unanimous, these two people voluntarily voted for Jackson's acquittal. Yet here they are, acting like it was passed despite their best efforts. And they just sound stupid. There are only two possibilities that I see here: either they're lying and they thought that Jackson was innocent all along and now they just want attention. Or they're so lazy that they voted to let a guilty man go so that they could go home sooner, and they're not willing to stand up for their convictions, even to the point of releasing a pedophile back into the public, against peer pressure. Either way it doesn't say much about them or our justice system.

So why would any one behave like this? Yes, that's right, money. It turns out they're both writing books about 'the experience.' This leads to a much more important question: who is going to pay to read a book written by people who sound so stupid? And of course the answer: millions of Americans. I need to do something high-profile so I can write a book and get rich. Apparently its the American way.

Here is my final scary thought: if 'get out the vote' efforts are largely successful then the same people that pay money to read a book by somebody who sounds really stupid about a court case (that they probably followed closely on TV) involving an eccentric, out-of-fashion pop star are the same people who are going to elect the most powerful man or woman on the earth. That scares me.

Unintelligent Debate

2005-08-05T11:48:00.000-06:00

The recently restarted debate over evolution and "intelligent design" is completely and utterly stupid. This whole issue is one that has been fabricated solely for the purpose of pitting the religious (read right-wing) against the non-religious (read left-wing). Even more ridiculous is that the people involved probably know and care a lot more about the evolution of this debate than the evolution of life on earth. These are politicians, not scientists. Most of them probably don't have a clue about the science behind either side, and most of them probably don't care to find out. So why are they in the center of this debate? The answer is simple, as I've stated above -- it's because the debate has nothing to do with the issue and everything to do with politics.

If evolution shakes your faith in God then I'd say you don't have much faith at all. On the other hand, if your world view would change if evolution were officially debunked then perhaps you should rethink your rationale. How life started seems, to me, inconsequential to just about anything today. If evolution is proved true then the religious will claim that God used evolution. If evolution is proved false then the non-religious will claim some other theory. Evolution itself is a non-issue.

And teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom sounds like one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. So that would be, what, a two minute lesson? "And kids, some people believe that there is an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe and life." Great. I'm sure that's really going to open a lot of young eyes. Or are they proposing they teach the largely incomprehensible, and probably wrong, astrophysics and astronomy that the ID people use as rationale? To middle or high school students who are probably failing their math classes? Just so that the religious people can feel like they are in control? Great.

According to this article, "most Americans believe that God created human beings or guided the process of evolution, according to a CBS poll last November. Two-thirds said they wanted creationism taught alongside evolution in schools." I've got an idea for that two thirds of Americans: when your kids are at home -- which is more time than they're in the classroom -- teach them creationism. And while you're at it you should teach them about your religion, because I'm pretty sure that they're not going to teach that in public schools either. The right wing is supposed to be against schools teaching opinions or anything but facts about their subjects. They claim that parents should be responsible for teaching their kids things about religion or political opinions. SO START TEACHING YOUR OWN FREAKING KIDS! Its so hypocritical that the right says evolution shouldn't be taught because there is not enough proof for it and they don't want their kids being indoctrinated by anyone's opinions but their own. So their solution is to try to force schools to teach an inane theory with even less scientific proof than evolution. I am speechless to respond to the stupidity.

Terrorism is Still Evil

2005-08-04T18:23:00.000-06:00

We have to make sure that the world knows that we, as a nation, condemn all terror, not just Islamofacist terror. Jewish terrorists are just as bad as Muslim terrorists. The world has to know that the USA is against all forms of terrorism, and we need to back up our words with actions. When there are Jewish or Christian terrorists we need to hold people responsible the same way we do for Muslim terrorists. Everyone who says that all Muslims are evil and we need to attack their holy sites if any Muslim carries out a terrorist attack in the US needs to consider that the Palestinians could now say the same thing about the Jews with just about as much justification. Meaning you need to realize that you are being ridiculous. We cannot allow our enemies to spread propaganda saying that when Jews carry out terror attacks against Muslims that we are silent, but when Muslims carry out terror attacks against anyone we talk about bombing Mecca. If that is true then we truly are the bigoted, anti-Islam force that they try to paint us as. On the other hand, if we show the world that we are unequivocally against terror no matter what the ideology of the terrorist then it will be another huge step towards convincing moderates around the world that we are pro-freedom and not evil. And that we are working for something positive in Iraq, not for the subjugation or humiliation of Muslims. Its a tragedy that this attack happened and that innocent people died. But it is also a perfect opportunity for the US to show that we are against terrorism the world-over even if it's carried out in the name of our allies against people who sympathize with our enemies.