El Brucé

Dualism, Deity, and Faith

2012-02-13T21:17:00.001-08:00

Part of my Approaching Atheism series.

After having addressed some tangential theist positions as well as both theist and atheist claims of proof, I'm now going to give my responses to the heart of the more basic theist positions; that there are immutable spiritual phenomena, that there can be a believable defition of God, and whether it is good at all to believe beyond what you can know.

Dualism

Dualism is the position that there are (at minimum) two kinds of phenomena, neither of which derive their causal basis from the other. There's the physical world of matter and energy in space and time, within which all phenomena can be traced chronologically to previous events, and then there's the spiritual world of souls, perhaps conceptual essences, perhaps intermediate spiritual entities of various kinds, typically with God acting as the constant first cause of all of it.

The Dualist position is in contrast with either the Materialist view, in which subjectively demonstrable abstract concepts such as the self and the objects of our minds are treated as emergent properties of matter, most specifically that of the neurological function of our brains; or the Spiritualist view, in which non-material or spiritual phenomena are what actually interact with one another to produce events, and what we can observe in the material world is only a projection or illusion caused by those essential underlying events. The simplest response to the Spiritualist position is that we can and have created predictive theories for the behavior of matter all by itself, without regard to any spiritual events, whereas there are no known testable predictive theories for the behavior of spiritual phenomena, much less why they should translate to a material appearance that itself was predictable.

The trouble with Dualism is that it tries to have it both ways. It admits that spiritual phenomena can interact with material phenomena such as through our senses and will, through miracles, when we are born and when we die, but then it shies away from allowing anything else to cross the border that it maintains between the two kinds of phenomena. But if you've got separate categories of phenomena and admit that there are at least some ways in which each category can interact with the other, then how is such a barrier to be maintained? If there are spiritual phenomena and they do have causal impact on the material world, then we should be able to devise some means of detecting it; if material phenomena can causally impact the spiritual world, then we should be able to devise some means of manipulating it.

Any critical examination of what it would take to maintain such a deliniation must ultimately admit to so many potential violations of it that "Ghostbusters" style technology becomes theoretically inevitable. Spiritually causal phenomena capable of interacting with the material world could be measured and manipulated by materially based technology, once the formal rules governing spiritual phenomena were known. And there's no consistent way (that I can think of, or that I've ever heard of from a Dualist) to devise a law or theory that would prevent the claim of such a barrier from eroding entirely.

But once one admits that the two "kinds" of phenomena are theoretically capable of interacting to a potentially unlimited degree, what's the use of calling them two kinds of phenomena at all? Under such a "Ghostbusters" paradigm, spiritual phenomena would be merely another state of events, little different between the gaseous, liquid and solid states of matter; or between the basic forces of the universe (strong force, weak force, electromagnetism and gravity). Even if presently unsolved, coming up with a theory that unifies these different phenomena is nothing more than a potentially soluble problem. So ultimately, we're left back with only one "kind of stuff." If a phenomenon is real (that is to say if any claim of causal relationship with observable phenomena can be devised and hold up to testing), then both categories of phenomena are all part of only one same universe, and are all ultimately part of one category.

If you create yet another category in which to place the things you'd like to believe in, then the moment that you assert that those things can be causal factors in the real world, or vice versa, then the claim of separation inevitably breaks down, and these become nothing more or less than mere unproven propositions. But if you don't cross the line of separation, then the entire invented category remains completely useless and/or meaningless.

In passing, I'd also like to mention that I prefer the term Monism to Materialism. To call the sole phenomenal category "material" is to suggest that it's something other than "spiritual," which in turn is to suggest that there could be such a thing as spiritual; one might as well state that the universe is right-handed. To characterize the "one kind of stuff" position as merely Monist is simply to suggest that in the end, there are only phenomena, however one chooses to categorize or characterize them.

Deity

"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

- Dr. Neils deGrasse-Tyson

Anything that could be demonstrated could not be God. There's no possible display of power short of destroying the entire universe that could demonstrate that the entity who caused it was the same entity who created and now sustains the universe. If a candidate for deity were any actor within the universe (even the most powerful one), then he could not be not that entity. For any vastly-but-finitely powerful entity, a greater being could yet be imagined; one could still ask of him, "who is your God?" Thus in order to fit the criteria by which God must be defined, He must transcend the universe, rather than be contained by it.

As for miracles, each would represent a mistake that God made in the universe, which He then had to correct. From an omniscient perspective, the universe must be (relatively speaking) deterministic, and therefore all later events could be controlled solely by the virtue of correctly setting the initial conditions. A God who needs to meddle in His universe in order to correct it admits to being something less than perfect.

What we're left with at this point is a God who cannot be demonstrated in the universe, and who takes no action in it. This is the position of more "vague" theist positions, such as deism or pantheism, and is also the concept of God posited by agnosticism.

One of the problems with such a conception of God, it that it's hard to assert that your conception has any contents, makes any positive assertions, or has any properties or characteristics at all. Examining what such a God would mean too easily boils away into either merely "God is everything" or "God is nothing," which is to assert nothing at all (much less anything in which one could claim to believe).

But at the very least, such a God must remain confined to the unknown, to that of which we currently remain ignorant; our ignorance is precisely the space that He can fill, and go no further. This is commonly referred to as the "God of the gaps." But if God precisely fills the space of ignorance, then it is also the case that ignorance is the only thing that gives shape to God; He essentially is defined solely by that which we happen to be ignorant of.

This is the case whether you claim that God can only be asserted with respect to phenomena that do not currently know about but might potentially discover, as well as the claim that God can only be asserted with respect to phenomena that under current scientific paradigms are even theoretically unknowable (such as those below Heisenbergian uncertainty, within singularities or beyond the light-cone of astronomically observable phenomena). Even a God so limited might be threatened by a significant shift in one or more scientific paradigms.

Therefore, to define and place belief in God as such, is to essentially worship ignorance itself (or at least grant great respect to it) because that's all there is that remains in this conception of God. One who has such an attitude towards their own ignorance is much less likely to try to discover more about the world, lest they diminish Him even further. In any case, worship of igorance is hardly something that one could or should call virtuous at all.

Faith

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

- Jean-Paul Sartre

Faith is belief beyond knowledge. To have faith in something is to believe in it not because one has justified knowledge of it, but for some other reason - or preferably, no reason at all. In fact, if one believes something for good logical and evidentiary reasons, then they cannot have faith in it. That's the entire point of faith. That's why it's treated as either a sacred virtue or a miraculous gift.

The above point should seem so obvious to the religious and nonreligious alike that it would seem that it should not even be worth mentioning. And yet still theists seek to argue with reasons, to give evidence, and otherwise provide justified knowledge for their religious positions. But if their positions are so reasonable, then doesn't that mean that they themselves are faithless?

A critical examination of faith as a concept must address why people would adopt it. It certainly can't be for rational reasons, or else it wouldn't be faith. The only reason that could remain (unless I'm going to start throwing around accusations of mental illness) must be through having some strong emotional attachment to an idea, and/or the fear of its contrary.

People adhere to their positions of faith because of many reasons. They fear death, and want its finality refuted, both for themselves and those they've lost. They want to believe that good people (they and others like them) will be rewarded, and that evil people (those they don't like) will be punished. They've had some numinous experiences (moments of intense joy and awe) and want them validated as something more significant than a mere localized neurological effect. They want to live in a universe that comes pre-packaged with purpose and meaning. They want to live in a universe in which justice actually prevails, despite all evidence to the contrary. And they want to believe that somewhere, somehow, all that is unknown is known by somebody, even if it isn't us.

But hope is not knowledge, and it shouldn't be belief. I may hope that I will win the next lottery drawing. But I would be deluded (and might make poor short-term financial decisions) if I chose to believe I that will, based on that hope.

What I think many people of both the atheist and theist persuasion may fail to consider is that one need not "abandon all hope" as a result of withdrawing belief from a proposition based solely on faith. You can still hope that your consciousness will somehow survive your death, without investing emotionally-attached belief in the proposition that it will. You can hope that we're wrong about lots of things. But there's a world of difference between hoping for something, and refusing to admit the situation that is.

As for how atheists deal with these same kinds of hopes and fears, there are a variety of methods.

Many atheists I know have no fear of death, based on the simple observation that there will be no "them" at the time to fear it. This is often expressed as "my situation after I die will be exactly the same as it was before I was born." For others, that isn't enough - the ego balks at conceiving of its own utter dissolution. Another method is to consider things from a greater perspective. Some take comfort in the return of their physical energy to the Earth, to be re-used as future phenomena. Others find comfort in pondering the notion that we are all made from stardust, that the higher elements which comprise our beings came from the nuclear fusion furnaces of distant stars, and on a long enough time frame will ultimately return to them. As for me, I personally enjoy the notion that I will have been a piece of the universe that briefly knew itself. And I hope that this process (of which I am a part) that led to the development of my own complexity will continue, and ever after lead to more and more entities of even greater complexity, self-awareness and more. You might come up with your own ideas.

But the point is that whether or not atheists fear death, we at least confront it head-on. We don't turn away and instead wish for a powerful Father who will make not be real, in order to banish our fear of it. There are very few religious people who don't have moments of even slight doubt - who are completely immune to such fears. In fact, I'd posit that they live in greater fear of death and the unknown than atheists do in the long term, if only because they never actually confront it. Their faith won't allow them to do so.

As for meaning, purpose and justice in the universe, existentialism comes to the clear position that it is our job to create it, both for ourselves and one another. If there is no God to uphold these things by virtue of His very existence, then it falls to us to bring them into existence. This seems to me to be a much better reason to seek a life of purpose, much less to a good person than merely "God commands." Victor Frankl's approach of logotherapy is also based around the notion that participating in the creation of meaning and purpose in our lives is an innate psychological need in humans. We are in a sense, purpose creating engines.

A separate claim regarding faith that must be addressed is the assertion that having it causes one to live a better life than not having it. That whether articles of faith are right or wrong, placing belief in them anyways will have positive benefits in your life. Typically the people making such claims point to former addicts or others who were once engaged in self-destructive behavior, who are no longer and credit their religious conversion with the improvement.

First of all, as an atheist who's doing just fine, I find such a claim to be flatly insulting, if applied across the board. Fuck you very much, as well. But even if we only admit that some people in certain situations can truly be helped by faith at least in the short term (which from a mere observation of statistical possibility I can't deny) then we must also admit that there soem people in certain situations can truly be helped by losing faith, at least in the short term. Which leaves us nowhere regarding a such a claim.

In any case, the claim that believing in something one doesn't know to be true leads to a better life (even to a stastically significant margin between overlapping bell curves) would require some form of (non-anecdotal) evidence in order to be demonstrated. Such has never been presented.

Credulity is no virtue.

Next up: I'll try to construct my own epistemic worldview, from first principles. Without a net.

Disproofs of God

2012-02-08T21:52:00.001-08:00

Part of my Approaching Atheism series.

Previously I approached three proofs of God. Next, I'm going to criticize three lines of reasoning attempting to disprove the existence of God. Why would I want to oppose lines of argument that agree with my overall position? Well, for one thing I enjoy these sorts of theological conjectures, and these are the conclusions I've come to.

But more importantly, many people come to a claimed atheist position due to finding one or more of these areas of argumentation to be compelling. It would be better to know why they are not beforehand, and base one's worldview (either way) on stronger ground. In particular, I suspect (and many theists charge) that at least some claimed atheists are actually misotheists - people who are disgusted with or angry at God due to the problem of evil While some may find it unproblematic to lightly dismiss the concept of God, others may need better reasons than these in order to move past their upbringing and the culture around them. I hope to provide such in future posts.

The Omnipotence Paradox

"Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

This commonly cited question is a simple formulation of the paradoxical nature inherent in positing infinite power. Answer yes, and there is something God cannot do (lift the stone). Answer no, and there is something God cannot do (create a stone He cannot lift). In either case, the notion of an omnipotent God fails.

Thus, God must either not exist, or not be limitless. And a limited entity has no claim to true deity. An entity of finite powers (however great they might be) could only be another participant within the universe, rather than its creator and sustainer. One could still posit a hypothetical being of greater power.

However, the same question could be rephrased to contain the same meaning, while removing God from the paradoxical portion, and placing it all on the other item: "can God create an unliftable stone?" This is more akin to asking, "can God create a squared circle," or any other self-contradictory item you care to name. The question regarding God then becomes, is He unrestricted by logic, or must He conform to it?

One response to this (from George Mavrodes) is that a God who is restricted only to the bounds of what makes is logical doesn't count as "restricted" at all; that this still fulfills a fair working definition of omnipotence. A second response (following C.S. Lewis) is that to discuss self-contradictory items is mere nonsense, and including them in a question renders it meaningless. This is completely coherent with Mavrodes' response, since to assert that that which lies beyond the bounds of logic is meaningless, is also to assert that a logically bounded universe effectively remains unbounded. Everything beyond the boundaries of reason is merely nonsense, and thus they don't count as boundaries at all.

But we still can explore Lewis' response in a little more detail, and perhaps expand upon it. If we posit an omnipotent God, then any questions that contain the auxiliary verb forms "can" or "could" are meaningless. This is because they speak to the possibility of some event; in doing so, they refer to the gap between what one wills to happen and what actually happens. But in reference to an omnipotent God, there can be no such gap. There are only two possible outcomes of the thought-experiment: 1) God lifts the stone, or 2) God does not lift the stone. In either case, the outcome conforms exactly to God's will; there are no other possibilities. That's what omnipotence means: whatever happens, is exactly what God wills to happen. The will of God is identical to the actual outcome of reality, as well as all possible outcomes.

To ask whether God can create a stone He cannot lift is to demand that God both intend and not intend that the stone be lifted. Thus, the only limitation one might claim to the powers of God that He could not do something that He did not will to take place. But this is no limitation; it is in fact a reassertion of the meaning of choice itself. There is only what God does, and what God declines to do. There is no difference between what God "cannot" do and what God chooses not to do; the sets thereof are equivalent. Therefore, for any question worded "can God do X?" It can be re-worded to "does God do X?"

Omniscience vs. Free Will

With or without positing the existence of God, free will is at least somewhat problematic. Regardless of one's a/theist position, everyone has some attachment to the notion of free will. It's required for us to feel that we can take responsibility for our actions (whether praiseworthy or blameworthy), as well as for us to hold one another fully accountable for theirs.

It's generally considered to be the case that if it were even theoretically possible to measure and predict in detail the internal and external causal factors that lead to the choices we make, then we cannot be said to have free will. That is to say, the working definition for most of free will is that it refers to some property of our minds which disallows the possibility of a perspective from which our choices can be accurately determined or predicted. If it were the case that our choices could be precisely predicted, then it would also be the case that our choices were already being precisely controlled by our environment.

From the atheist perspective, free will is only somewhat difficult to maintain. One may propose that some unknowable factor goes into our decision making processes, whether that be some form of dualism, or claim the involvement (to any degree) of quantum indeterminacy in neurological function. Alternately (and the approach that I take) one can rephrase the question from "does free will exist?" to "how free is will?" That is to say, will need not be infinitely free to be characterized as free; so long as one's complexity of mind is sufficient that no perspective that exists can precisely determine its behavior, that's good enough for all relevant purposes. From an epistemic skeptic position, to claim that we don't have free will would require actually determining at least one mind, which no one has been able to do, and which hasn't even been proven to be possible. I maintain that my will can be said to be "free" (i.e. is not determined by some other perspective) until you can provide real evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, once one posits the existence of an omniscient entity such as God, then such a perspective, one which can determine and predict our every choice down to the slightest detail, now exists. Even more troubling, most of those who posit the existence of God also maintain that human free will is necessary to their concept of morality; the theist position places the assertion of free will among the most critically important concepts imaginable, even as it makes it more difficult to defend.

To answer, we can word this question as a special case of the omnipotence paradox: "can God create an entity so complex He cannot determine its choices?" Fortunately, much of the heavy lifting on this type of question has already been done above: we can then reword it to simply, "does God determine our choices?" So long as God refrains from "peeking" within the causal machinery of our minds and predicting our choices and their outcomes, then we can be said to have free will - but only at His constant allowance.

The Problem of Evil

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? – Epicurus

This earliest known formulation of the problem of evil remains one of its most concise wordings - although I'm going to refer to "suffering" hereafter, since "evil" in common usage has specific connotations regarding choice and intent.

If we define God as omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then we are asserting an entity who is capable of eliminating the suffering that happens to us, and who purportedly loves us. A cursory examination of events occurring in the world easily demonstrates that plenty of suffering is presently occurring, such that anyone who purported to love us could not possibly tolerate it. Therefore, at least one of the above properties ascribed to God must fail.

We've already discussed how any entity who is anything less than omnipotent would simply fail to meet the criteria necessary to fit the definition of God. But omnibenevolence, while easier to dismiss on logical grounds (the creator of the universe need not necessarily have any special regard for us), is vastly more problematic on moral and ethical grounds. Being omnipotent, God not only allows, but must the cause of all suffering that exists. Per my response to the ontological argument above, all suffering occurs not despite, but as an expression of, the will of God.

Aside: One of the reasons I wanted to address arguments against God is that I feel that many people who claim atheism in response to the problem of evil actually take the position of misotheism - they may not fully disbelieve in the concept of God, but rather they are merely disgusted with it on moral grounds. This criticism has in fact been levied towards the overall position of atheism (at least in passing) by many theists. Of course, a proper atheist isn't angry at God in the slightest, as that would involve investing emotional energy on a nonexistent being; one might as well be angry with the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. The moral disdain shown by many prominent atheists such as Sam Harris or (more vitriolically) Christopher Hitchens is properly aimed at the concept of God, as well as its adherents. But certainly not at God Himself.

One response to the problem of evil is what's known as the "best of all possible worlds" response, originally formulated by Gottfried Leibniz. In this defense of God, out of the entire set of possible worlds that are logically consistent (and therefore meaningful), this is the one that results in the least amount of suffering. Since Voltaire so thoroughly mocked it in Candide, this argument isn't often elucidated in apologetics, although it is sometimes implied in contemporary pop-Christian parables, such as the footprints in the sand, or did I miss one? In both cases, moral blame of God for evil is responded with by considering how much worse things could have been, i.e. taking into consideration the many worse possible worlds. However, it is so easy as to be entirely trivial to imagine a world that is better than this one, especially given the tools available to an omnipotent entity.

Another (more common) response to the problem of evil (at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition) is that since God grants us free will, any suffering that occurs is a product of our own decisions, either to harm ourselves or one another. Any simple body count of the latest earthquake, tsunami, flood, hurricane or tornado is sufficient to disabuse one of the notion that suffering is a product of human decisions. Certainly much is, and we could (and should) make better decisions, as well as do more to come to the aid of those who suffer, but that's not the same thing as asserting that the universe is constructed in such a way that God can be entirely absolved of responsibility for the suffering that its inhabitants experience, much less that it's constructed. Clearly, it is not.

Thee only possible key to the problem of evil thus lies in a less naive and more thorough examination of what we mean by "omnibenevolence." God cannot be said to love us in either the way we are expected to love Him or the ways in which we love one another. Here, "omni" does not merely mean infinitely more, but must refer to a benevolence of an entirely different nature than what we can mean by any term that relates to our attitude towards one another on Earth.

By this, don't actually mean that they way in which God can claim to be beyond reproach is beyond our possible understanding. God Himself presents this sort of response in Job 38-41, and frankly He just comes off as kind of a dick there:

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

All this to a good and pious man who had just had his entire life demolished and ground in the dirt just so that God could prove a point. Job hadn't even cursed him, just questioned the reasoning for his suffering. "I'm the boss, you don't know, so shut up" is no proper response to a moral indictment from or by anyone.

Following the Book of Job, let's ourselves do a dialogue...

One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

God (to Satan): Where have you come from?

Satan: From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.

God: Have you considered how wonderful it all is? How my subjects enjoy the benefits of my infinite power, in accordance with my great love for them?

Satan: Actually, that's kind of what I wanted to talk to you about. It appears that a great many of them are suffering horribly on a pretty consistent basis.

The LORD then looked down upon that which He had made. He saw the suffering of humankind, saw the many humans praying to Him for mercy, saw their starvation, torture and misery.

God: Yep, that's pretty messed up.

Satan: Well, you're the omnipotent guy here. Just fix it.

God: What do you mean just fix it?

Satan: Just fix it. Eliminate all suffering. You can do that. You're omnipotent.

God: Sure, I'll give it a shot...

The LORD then snapped His mighty fingers, and from that snap a great change went out through the world. Suddenly, every human heart was filled with infinite joy. From that moment, no person on the Earth knew even the faintest bit of suffering, only utter and abject pleasure.

Satan looked down, watching all of the humans on Earth lying on the ground, doing nothing more than twitching and moaning in joy.

Satan: So that's what getting rid of suffering looks like? They're kind of boring now.

God: That's what you get. In order to "elimate all suffering," as you put it, I had to put them all in a state of pure bliss. Now they've got no reason to do anything at all.

Satan: Well, that's no good. None of them are even moving a muscle! They're just laying there soiling themselves and enjoying every moment of it. Frankly, it's pathetic.

God: Yep. Looks like they're all going to die of dehydration within a matter of a few days.

Satan: Ha! I bet none of their doomsayers saw "apocalypse by orgasmic joy" coming.

God: And people tell me I don't have a sense of humor.

Satan: Platypus!

And lo, the LORD and Satan did thereupon share a high five and hearty chuckle, as the final generation of humanity enjoyed its last few hours on Earth.

Beyond simple reflex response, all human action is the product of what the mind deems to improve its state on a scale ranging between transcendent happiness to abject misery. Everything that we do, we do in the hopes that it will either lead to a greater measure of happiness, or at least lead to a state via which we can achieve happiness on a more consistent basis than we do now. Thus, absent some range of subjective desireability between states of existence, human motivation becomes impossible.

It might be the case that we could be programmed via instinct to follow exactly the routines that we do in the world, fulfilling our entire range of behaviors in direct response to instinctually programmed behaviors. But then we could hardly claim to have free will. For any free will system to work (much less for it to be possible for us to be dynamic participants in the universe) instinct can tell us no more than what conditions we dislike, and which we prefer, and then allow us to reason for ourselves how to avoid the former and/or achieve the latter. From this, the entire range of complex human behavior follows.

But this itself suggests a possible solution. If all that's necessary is some range...

Satan: What if you only made them somewhere between very-happy and blissful?

God: How so?

Satan: Well, if all they need is some range of differentiation between their worst possible state and their best possible state in order to get up and do interesting things, why not just make their worst possible state still pretty good? Like, the difference between a great day and an orgasm?

God: Sounds tricky but -

Both: omnipotence!

The LORD then snapped His mighty fingers, and made it so that humanity could only experience a range of situations between very pleasant and perfectly blissful. The people got up and began to go about their business, with great smiles upon their faces.

Satan: Now that's what I'm talking about!

God: We'll see...

A brief time passed. Later on, the LORD and Satan reconvened at lunch in order to review the results of the recent changes.

Satan: Well, it seems that folks are doing alright. Starvation, war and torture are nonexistent. People are managing to get what they need, and help each other get more.

God: That's actually not what my inbox says. Prayers of complaint about the world are pretty much back to the same level they've always been.

Satan: What? How is that possible?

God: Take a look for yourself.

And Lo, the LORD God did reveal to Satan the myriad prayers coming up from the Earth. And therein Satan wept at the stories of lattes served too cold, wifi that wouldn't connect quickly enough, traffic jams, poor service at restaurants, having to stand in line, and a host of mild inconveniences. And yet the abject misery expressed by these supplicants was as heartfelt as it ever had been before.

Satan: What the fuck is wrong with these people?

God: You're not looking at things from their point of view.

Satan: What possible point of view could that be?

God: As bad as it can get is still as bad as it can get. You think this is the first time I've tried this?

The thing about humans is, we amazingly adaptable. Of all the ways in which we are adaptable, our ability to judge situations as good or bad is by far the most retrainable.

Let's say that we set a quantitative scale of misery to joy, with 0 being the most suffering that a human being could experience on Earth, and 100 being the most joy that a human could experience. If we talk to someone at the low range (say a starving African child), who only ever has had experiences between 2 and 8 on this scale, and ask her how she's doing today, she might likely say "pretty good." If we ask of an extremely wealthy male from the United States, born of inherited privilege, who only has ever had experiences that rank between 93 and 99 on our scale, and ask him how he's doing today, he might also say "pretty good."

In no way in this comparison am I attempting to equate the horrors of abject deprivation to the minor troubles of the comfortable. But the nature of human judgement is that it is subjective, judged from within. And from a subjective view, one can only judge their current circumstances on a scale of the lowest that they've personally experienced to the highest. For the impoverished African child, that scale of 2 to 8 becomes their personal 0 to 100. Similarly, for the wealthy U.S. male, their experience of 93 to 99 becomes their personal 0 to 100. This judgement from the lower end has been better explained than here by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. The upper end of the scale has more recently been lampooned in the blog White People Problems.

From an imagined objective perspective, we can proclaim the invalidity of these internal judgements all we like. But the fact remains that everybody judges their situation internally, redefining the lowest of their experiences as miserable and the highest of their experiences as joyful. Thus, even if God set the range to between 99 to 100 as the outer limits of our possible conditions, we would still renumber within that range as 0 to 100 (adding decimals as necessary), and in time go right back to shaking our fists at the sky and complaining that it's all His fault.

It is only we, who must suffer or enjoy the conditions of the world, who judge them as good or evil - not God. From an "omnibenevolent" position outside of experiencing the conditions, but which encompasses them all, He cannot make the same kinds of judgements that we can. Inevitably, no matter how He made the world (provided that it allowed for the conditions required for free will), we would still judge the lowest limit of our experience as absulutely miserable, and the highest limit as absolute bliss. And there is nothing that God could do to change that; for Him to attempt otherwise would be self-contradictory, and therefore meaningless (see my previous ontological argument discussion).

So what could the "benevolent" in "omnibenevolent" mean? Only that God is fond of humanity as a whole. Perhaps He's even rooting for us. In any case, the fact is that we are the leading edge of complexity in the portion of the universe that we know of. And it's hardly an indictment of God to claim that he's a fan. And given our varied and adaptable ability to enjoy and suffer, that's the best that He can be expected to do.

Next up: I argue against dualism, deity and faith themselves.

Proofs of God

2012-02-06T22:55:00.000-08:00

Part of my Approaching Atheism series.

Here, I address some of the historical claims to having proven the existence of God. Although philosophers generally consider these arguments to have been sufficiently answered, many Christian apologists today do no more than to repeat variants of these approaches. In fact, if a Christian apologist is giving a logical-sounding argument, it's likely to be a variation of one of the below approaches.

The Ontological Argument

Claimed proofs of the existence of God that adhere to the ontological argument have been put forward by St. Anselm, Immanual Kant, René Descartes, Mulla Sadra, and even Kurt Gödel.

Per Anselm's original formulation:

Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.

In short, any ontological argument purports to prove the existence of God solely from the definition of God, plus some valid deductive argumentation.

Two points:

Primo: Who are we to say that existence is better than nonexistence? Certainly, as existing being, out opinion on the matter might be biased in this regard. And it's not like there are any nonexistent beings who can be brought forward to argue the other case. This question might seem silly or dismissive, but the ontological argument purports to be a formal argument; as such, any premise which it puts forth should be subject to challenge and consideration.

The most obvious rationlist response would be to point out that it is simply unimaginable that nonexistence could be equal to (much less better than) nonexistence. The fact is, we cannot possibly imagine what it would be like to not exist. Therefore, we can entirely discount nonexistence, and thus firmly claim that existence is better.

But demand of any Zen Buddhist that the Yang is greater or better than the Yin (much less vice-versa), and you will have at most earned yourself a condescending smile. Zen Buddhism, much less a great deal of Eastern culture, is somewhat more democratic regarding the relative merits of existence and nonexistence than the tradition of Western philsophy can admit. In Buddhist dialectic, being and nonbeing are to be considered as complementary; in much of Eastern music, sound and silence play a relatively equal role; in much of Eastern visual art, figure and space do the same. I do not bring this up in order to claim that the belief system of Buddhism is correct (it is not) but rather as data in response to the claim that one could not possibly imagine that nonbeing is equal to being. At present, there are billions of people who could imagine it quite easily. This view challenges point (3) of Anselm's formulation, as described above.

Segundo:

A more significant problem with the ontological argument is that it purports to make real claims about the universe from a set of premises which solely consist of definitions. Ultimately if the argument is valid, (and it is), then the conclusion must consist of no more truth than that which was contained in the premises. However, if the premises were all definitions, then they are all free creations of the mind. And yet from such, they claim to reveal or create a real state of affairs.

As an example, consider the following. I hereby define new word (we can do this whenever we like; terms and their definitions are after all free creations of the mind):

ex·ist·i·corn [ig-zist-i-kawrn]
noun
1. A unicorn that actually, physically exists

Now that I've defined this new term, I can present the following sound and valid argument:

All existicorns are unicorns [definition]
All existicorns actually, physically exist [definition]
Some unicorns actually, physically exist [1, 2; Darapti (AAI-3) syllogism]

From the above, it can be logically concluded that solely by the virtue of having defined existicorns and used them in a formal argument, I have thereby brought one or more unicorns into actual existence! Using similar approaches, I could define anything into or out of existence, or change any state of affairs. I could define myself to be fabulously wealthy and powerful, and if anyone disagreed with these arguments I could redefine my detractors such that they ceased to exist. Clearly, this approach neither creates nor reveals any real state of affairs in any way.

So what went wrong here? We are allowed to define new terms. We are allowed to present definitions as premises in formal argumentation. Provided that the argument is valid per the rules of formal logic, we are required to admit it as sound, and therefore admit its conclusion as true. Aren't we?

The difference is that if all of the premises of an argument consist merely of definitions, then the argument can say nothing about reality; only its own definitions. No matter how the definitions or their properties are rearranged through the deductive argument, the conclusion can do no more than reassert some claim that was embedded in one or more of the premises. And reasserting a claim is not properly argumentation.

Which brings us back to the ontological argument. The assertion of God's existence is presented as being embedded in some property such as "perfection" or "greatness" and then only teased out later. But nevertheless, the argument amounts to nothing more than a reassertion of its premises. And merely asserting what you've alread asserted hardly constitutes deductive proof of anything.

We can generalize this observation into a rule that can be applied to any deductive argument: no proof can result in an intentional premise (aka. semantic meaning or reference to any real state of affairs) if none of its premises have intentionality. This may be considered a special case of the observation made by John Searle, that no quantity or combination of propositions which have only syntactic meaning can result in any proposition which has semantic meaning.

As a side note, such a rule parallels (but is not related to) the problem of ethics, in that no deductive argument can produce a normative (or ethical/moral) statement, if none of its premises include a normative claim. If nothing normative goes into a deductive argument as one or more of its premises, then nothing normative can come out as its conclusion. More broadly, if nothing intentional goes into a deductive argument as one or more of its premises, then nothing intentional can come out as one of its conclusions.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument is at the heart of the current "intelligent design" movement. However, it is not new idea at all. Although I confronted ID in passing previously, that argument had more to do with its applications. Here I address the heart of the argument.

One of the best (and most referenced in contemporary apologetics) descriptions of the teleological argument was given by William Paley in 1802:

[S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

To Paley's analogy, allow me to add a few stipulations:

The ground is made entirely of watch parts, as far as the eye can see.
Some of the watch parts are magnetic, attracting fitting parts to them.
The area constantly suffers a low-level earthquakes, shaking the parts about. This situation has been going on for some billions of years.
Before finding the watch, he finds many almost-watches, some consisting of only a few gears fitted together, others consisting of almost completed watches.
Although it does keep and tell time quite well, the watch that Paley does find can only be described as "messy." It has some parts that are completely redundant, while many of its most critical functions are not. It has many additional parts that do nothing, as well as mechanical functions that serve no useful purpose.
Provided that one working watch existed anywhere on the plain, the odds that he would find it are near-certain (this to model the fact that life once instantiated becomes nigh-ubiquitous via replication).

To pick just one example of organisms. Humans have appendixes and tonsils. We have wisdom teeth, mental insanity, and any number of genetic disorders and predispositions to disease. We urinate from our generative organs, and defecate very closely thereto. Whales have femurs. This suggests design?!? For any simple organism, you could provide a list of its necessary functions to any competent human engineer armed with a CAD program, and they could design a version that improves on nature.

The fact is, life is a sloppy, messy business. For every useful function of any organism, there are any number of completely arbitrary properties that it also has, some of which are wasteful or even detrimental. Design fails to explain any of the properties of life other those that can be deemed positive. Only through an extensive application of confirmation bias can the teleological design approach ignore the rest; but ignoring it is all that it can do. Only the evolutionary approach can explain both the wondrous capabilities of life, and at the same time the sloppy mess that makes it up, at the same time.

In short: the teleological design argument can only explain positive characteristics of life. It cannot explain the many arbitrary or negative characteristics that also exist, all of which are observable. Evolution explains them all, and is therefore the superior theory.

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is as often known as the "first cause" or "prime mover" argument. Aristotle is most credited with elucidating this argument, although he originally did so in order to argue against the notion of a universe bounded in time, with a definite beginning and end. From his perspective, the "first cause" was a form of reductio ad absurdum. Later on, once Christianity had presumed exactly such cosmological bounds, Aristotle's formulation was repurposed in order to support the concept of God Himself.

More recently, this argument has been best formulated by William Lane Craig, following the Kalām cosmological argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Getting to point (1) above involves a very general observation of the second law of thermodynamics. It's easy to imagine striking a single cue ball and sending it into a grouping of ten billiard balls, causing all of them to move about; it's much more difficult to imagine reversing this process, having ten pool players each striking a billiard ball in such a way as to cause them all to move into a triangular grouping and pass all of their energy back into one single cue ball. More commonly referenced is the analogy of dropping an egg into any number of shell pieces, as well as globs and splatters of its contents; one can scoop up the mess and drop it for nigh-infinity, and never achieve an unbroken egg thereby. As a very generalized statement of the second law, one could simply say that causes < effects.

The idea between either the theist first cause position or the big bang is that if ones run time back far enough, eventually one must come to a point where there was only one thing to act as a cause, and there one must stop. Where that one thing came from I refer to as the ex nihilo problem. The notion that fewer causes lead to a greater number of effects, being a simplistic formulation of thermodynamics' second law, could only be applicable within the bounds of the universe; it need not apply to the universe as a whole, only to some bounded portion of its contents. But applying "causes < effects" to the universe in its entirety is exactly what one claims to do when they claim (or more often accuse the other view of claiming) that "something came from nothing."

But in any case, the scientific view is not that the universe came from nothing per point (2) above, nor that it was always there. We simply don't know. We can only speak based on evidence as far back as a few moments following the big bang. Before that, science makes no assertion regarding whether something came from nothing. In fact, to do so would itself violate the law regarding conservation of energy.

Questions regarding how or whether the origin of the universe involves "something from nothing" I refer in to as the ex nihilo problem. What is important to know, is that neither the scientific view nor any variation of the theist or creationist view, has an answer to it. For every "how" that the scientific view has no answer to, the creationist shunts into a "why:"

Scientist: I don't know how X happened.

Creationist: That means God did it.

Scientist: Why did God do it?

Creationist: I don't know.

Shunting the causal question into the memory-hole of "God's mysterious ways" does nothing to answer any of them. At most, it makes the faithful hesitant to attempt an answer, and perhaps more comfortable in ignoring them. But there still remains a 1:1 correspondence between the questions that science can't answer and those that religion can't answer.

Whether God or a singularity, either paradigm does seem to suggest some sort of "first cause" -like entity. In light of this, some (of the more generalized types of) theists suggest that we take the entity pointed at by astrophysics and merely rename it as "God." No harm done in merely changing a name, right? Well, that would be the case except that calling it "God" tends to suggest a number of additional claims: that the first cause has a purpose in expanding, possesses something like intelligence, and something like intent. For none of these claims is any evidence provided. And if one retorts that they never intended to make such claims, then why relabel it "God" at all? To do so is a slight to both reason and faith.

Next up:

I defend the Lord God Almighty against varied attempts to disprove His existence.

Ethics vs. God

2012-02-05T00:59:00.001-08:00

Part of my Approaching Atheism series.

In my previous post I discussed the issues that some specific types of theists have with the findings of science. I this post, I intend to approach the conflict that many more theists have with atheists regarding matters of ethics or morality.

Similarly to the previous discussion, this is at least as more important. Today, gay marriage, womens' rights to their own reproductive decisions, the basis of our system of justice, and whether and whom we should go to war with, are all currently being challenged from the position of religious faith.

More generally, people of faith repeatedly claim that only through God can anyone know what is right or wrong, with the implication that all atheists must run wild in the streets raping and murdering anyone they come across. I intend to address and explain the simple observation that this is not presently occurring.

In the politics of the United States, it has become popular for Christians to claim that the U.S. was intentionally founded to be a "Christian nation." This is so frightening and absurd to deserve some mention here. The founding documents of the United States are practically a crib sheet of concepts, terms, and even whole phrases lifted from enlightenment philosophy. It is unimaginable that they could be more clear in their assertion of a secular state. Yet no matter how clear they are on this point, theists still choose to insist the opposite; that the founders secretly intendend to establish a theocracy while claiming the opposite (as a side note, Turkey also confronts similar issues regarding theist misinterpretation of its otherwise clear founding documents).

The Body Count Game

First of all, in common arguments between atheists and theists, it often comes up that one belief system or another has been used as an excuse to slaugher and subjugate millions of people throughout history. Typically, an atheist will bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition, and later witch trials, and the theist will angrily counter with Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Hitler will be batted back and forth, claimed by neither side.

When one actually sits down to tally who has been killed in the name of what belief system, it doesn't take much to realize that the number of belief systems in contention for the greatest slaughters of humanity might be considerably more broad than a cursory inspection might admit. More significantly, it isn't just religions, but rather any social belief system, which gets to play: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Imperialism, Nationalism, Manifest Destiny, Mercantilism, Capitilism, Communism, and (more recently) Corporatism are all belief systems responsible for the subjugation, torture, and slaughter of six-to-seven figures of innocent people, or perhaps even more.

However, it should be mentioned regarding Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. that even though they may be considered "athiest" in terms of officially having no belief in historical religions, they A) created a kind of religion of their own dogma, which shows no similarity whatsoever to the position of rational skepticism, and B) could no more be associated with rational skeptics any more than one religion could be associated with another. It would hardly be fair of me to add up the total body-count of all religions and assign that to any one of their totals. Similarly, it would hardly be fair to add up the totaly body-count of all regimes which claimed to be "atheist" and assign that to the position or rational skepticism. If I must bear the slaughter of everyone who claimed atheism, then you (whatever your religious position might be) must also bear the slaughter of everyone who has ever claimed theism, of any form, throughout all of history. Back to and including the purported Noahide flood (whether you're a member of one of the religions that reveres Genesis or not).

In any case, what one is left with is the mere impression that dogmatic belief structures of any kind regarding social organization, have led to the wholesale slaughter of all potential dissidents as well as the merely inconvenient. Any attempt to count up a grand total and thus anoint a winner or loser based on the results leaves one feeling like merely another participant in the massive slaughter and oppression of millions throughout history, rather than a judge of it, from any perspective that could claim to be moral.

In the end, this sort of argument is what I call "the body count game." It ultimately proves nothing (except perhaps that all human beings are capable of immense horror), and even merely trying to play it should leave all decent persons (whatever their position) feeling tainted by the association of even trying to tally an account in order to prove a point.

Can we really measure truth by stacking up mountains of corpses and comparing their heights? If we could, should we? According to the rules of this game, the person with the smallest mountains of corpses wins. But at the end of the day, there's still a mountain of corpses created in the name of what you believe, no matter how small it might seem compared to others. Any truly ethical person should want no part of it, and should claim no corpse-mountain merely in order to prove a point.

I say this not because I fear that atheism would lose the contest (I'm confident we'd do fine, given all of history) but rather because it's a disgusting basis for argumentation regarding the comparative merits of belief systems. I have no scripture that tells me so, only my own sense of human decency.

Genesis 3

Approaching the larger question of how ethics could arise in the natural world independently of a God who exists as the constant arbiter of defining good and evil at every moment, it's worth mentioning that even a scriptural account from the Bible itself contains the answer for how it could be that people could have their own independent, inherent moral compass.

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

"Like one of us." Per scripture, our knowledge of good and evil is independent of God; we need not check back with Him to find out what's right or wrong at any given moment, or for any given situation. Even if we take Genesis 3 to be metaphorical or allegorical to some degree, this point is quite clear: at some point, humanity has obtained completely independent and innate knowledge of morality. We need no longer refer to God to know the difference between right and wrong.

Of course, I have not at this point fully given an account for morality beyond scripture, having merely raised a scriptural objection. However, what this point manages to accomplish is to shift the scriptural position from God as a constant arbiter of good and evil, as the eternal source of morality, to magic fruit. And magic fruit is a somewhat easier rhetorical position to argue against. I'd certainly like to hear a theist defend morality from that position alone within the context of a serious theological/philosophical debate.

But in light of Genesis 3, they certainly can't claim from a scriptural basis that God needs to give us laws for us to have morality, that we don't have the innate ability to distinguish good from evil. From either a scriptural or a philosophical basis, we do.

Atheist Ethics

So, let's confront the challenge in a positive way. If not instructed by an almighty being, how can concepts of morality arise in the world?

Well first, there's selfish gene theory. Well before we even consider intelligent life forms, altruism (the basic concept of all ethics) comes into play. One might suffer risk of harm at the organism level in order to promote the survival of relatives, and thus the survival of some of one's genes. So long as the genes themselves perpetuate, evolution is satisfied. Rather than go into detail, I'll merely point (waves finger vaguely) at the massive wealth of research regarding altruism among various animal species.

Next, there's game theory. A statistical analysis of the positive or negative outcome of many interchanges between participants may be set up to model and produce the moral outcome for any number of precepts. Again I'll just point (vaguely waving) to a massive wealth of research showing that statistically speaking, the sorts of behaviors that we view as criminal are detrimental in the long run, and the sorts of behaviors that we view as morally laudable are beneficial in the long run.

"The age of enlightenment was a cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th-centery Erope, that sought to mobilise the power of reason in order to reform society and advance knowledge" - so says Wikipedia. John Locke, Adam Smith, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Thomas Paine, and many others wrote extensively regarding how to derive moral and social remedies from first principles. They developed and applied concepts such as natural rights and social contract, by which human interaction could be judged, with no reference to scripture or to religious precepts at all. In seeking to derive morality from basic philosophical principles, they also set the conceptual stage (and much of the language) for the founding documents of the United States of America, as well as many other nations to follow.

To anyone who doubts the massive wealths of research that I have vaguely waved my finger at in the last three paragraphs, please review my previous post regarding why it is not my job to provide you with a comprehensive education in any major field of study merely to convince you of some specific point. If you are ignorant of it, that doesn't mean I lose; that merely means that you already have.

Fixed vs. Changing Ethics

One of the theist's favorite claims to make regarding a god-centric vs. secular philosophical ethical system is that God's rules regarding morality never change, whereas the secular philosophers' do over time.

If that were presumed, then the theist must come out in favor of the divine right of kingship over democracy. The theist must advocate the social construct of slavery. The theist must come out against the suffrage and equal rights of women. All of these three principles are supported by (or are at the very least considered morally neutral by) scripture.

Also: civilian control of the military, right against self-incrimination, an independent judiciary, checks and balances between independent branches of government, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief and/or conscience, freedom of expression of religion, human rights, civil rights, and (last but not least) due process in search and seizure. The Bible has absolutely nothing to say about any of these principles. Secular enlightenment philosophy has a great deal to say about them. If you believe they are good, then you believe so not because of the Bible, but because of secular ethical arguments to be made regarding them. If you believe that the Bible is the only source of moral truth, then you must deny all of the pillars upon which stable free societies rest in the modern age.

For each of the above points, our morals have changed. We have determined that democracy is good, that slavery is evil, and that women are persons, having intrinsic value as human beings rather than as mere bearers for some sort of ancient hymen-based currency system. If one agrees with any of these precepts, then one cannot have gotten those notions from scripture. To the degree that our concept of morality has changed, in every critical respect, it has changed for the better. And what it changed from is the unalterable law of God.

We discovered these new moral truths over time, starting many centuries after the last word had been penned in the Bible. It is precisely secular thought that has led us to realize these moral truths. Therefore, yes, our morality does change. But by and large, it changes for the better over time, and it certainly has changed to become a vast improvement on what was originally set down in scripture.

If you disagree, then the next time your kid goes out to a kegger, kill him. If your daughter gets raped, sell her to the rapist. Then come back and dare to tell me how moral you are. Or else admit that your personal sense of morality comes not from the Bible, but from your own ability to distinguish good from evil - because the Bible mandates exactly the opposite. Everything that we now know as good or evil in society, was either already obvious (murder, theft, adultery) or has been determined as good or evil well after scripture was last set down (literally everything else).

There are only two possibilities for this state of affairs: 1) ethics is well-grounded in reason, or 2) magic fruit. It just so happens that ethics is indeed well-grounded in reason.

Next Up:

I address the primary historical attempts to prove the existence of God, many variations of which still flourish to this day.

Science vs. God

2012-02-04T21:37:00.000-08:00

Part of my Approaching Atheism series.

For the first in my series of dealing with God-related issues, I'd like to address the apparent conflict (in the minds of some) between scripture and the discoveries of science.

If you're one of the many (in fact, majority) of people who both believe in God and yet do not deny the findings of science, then this discussion is not addressed at you. It's aimed to "clear the field" of anti-science claims so that I can move on to more substantive discussions regarding faith and God. However, you should probably read through it anyways; it's important to know what kinds of claims are being made on the behalf of Christianity, if only so that you can distance yourself from them, and to understand why you do.

This is hardly a minor or unimportant discussion. When all of the current (and most former) contenders for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America state that they disbelieve in evolution, Christian antipathy of science must be treated as an important issue.

The Sunset and the Tide Pool

Let's start with a dialogue.

Christian, a religious person is standing looking to the West at sunset. He sees a glorious spectacle of color in the sky

Christian: Behold such glory, this beauty can only confirm the existence of God!

An atheist of his acquaintance, fond of removing the magic from all things, sidles up to him...

Atheist: You know, what you're seeing is caused by the refraction of light through the lower atmosphere. See, the diffusion of light splits white sunlight through various spectra; and these cloud formations reflect that light back as silver and gold linings. Now the cloud formations themselves are caused by...

Christian: So what? Telling me how the effect was produced in no way inhibits its beauty, nor does it in any way diminsh that the glory of the God who could produce such a thing, by whatever means He chooses to do so. In fact, it only shows how much greater such a God must be, who could create such beauty from the product of His laws of science!

Atheist. Just sayin'... (slinks away)

At another time Christian is beholding the complex interplay of life in its natural state within a rich oceanic tide pool.

Christian: Behold such glory, this beauty can only confirm the existence of God!

The atheist again sidles up...

Atheist: You know, each of these creatures are the product of millions of years of evolution and natural selection. Those that didn't fit here died out, while those that managed to profit from this environment thrived. Including one another, which is why we see symbiosis and food cycles. Over enough generations, that's why we now have the combination of creatures that we see here.

Christian: You are wrong. None of that happened. God made all of these things exactly as you see them now!

Why the discrepancy here? Both the life in the tide pool and the sunset were equally beautiful numinous experiences. If God made everything in the tide pool from scratch, then why not also claim that God plans and creates every evening's sunset from scratch as well? That every evening he gets up and paints a new beautiful sky for us? I know of no creationists who are willing to claim that God paints every evening's sunsets to order. And yet, all of them will maintain that sunsets are beautiful, and furthermore that all beauty comes from God. On the one hand, they are willing to allow intermediate "how" explanations, and on the other they are not.

The only difference there could possibly be is that the Bible happens to contain no chapter or verse claiming that God paints every evening's sunset. If there was such a verse, creationists would be forced to disbelieve any scientific theories regarding optics and atmospheric phenomena as well.

More Than One Theory

"Creation science" as commonly presented, tends to avoid any emphasis on how it believes things came to be, and to a much greater respect focuses on levying cricicisms towards any other explanation of how things came to be. That is, it's less of a positive claim explaining any phenomena, and consists mostly of criticism of scientific claims. This in and of itself should be enough to discount it as a theory. It could be seen as at most an anti-theory, or an extreme and highly selective form of skepticism.

When dealing with the criticisms of creation science, it's important to remember that they aren't only criticizing one theory. They are criticizing (at minimum) four of them:

1. Astrophysics
2. Geologic time
3. Abiogenesis
4. Natural Selection

This distinction is worth mentioning, since any of these four completely distinct areas of inquiry might often refer to some phenomena predating the creationist's claimed age of the universe. For example, the motion of plate tectonics might very well violate Young Earth Creationism (heretofore YEC), even without saying anything about biological speciation. Thus, the kinds of data being gathered that might violate the creationist claim, come from multiple disciplines which have no bearing on or relation to one another.

This is rather a different characterization than the "creation vs. evolution" claim that creationism prefers. Darwin had absolutely nothing to say about the behavior of distant stars, the formation of the continents, or indeed the origin of the first life forms from complex chemical components. He only addressed how species might originate from other species, from within a paradigm that assumed that some species of some form already existed.

The creationists are thust not only fighting Darwin, they're also fighting all of geology, and astrophysics. And their thrust that science cannot (yet) provide evidence for the origin of life in general, still does not discredit Darwin or any of these other fields of endeavor in any way. That is only a statement that abiogenesis currently remains in a nascent form. But it remains a completely different theory than all of the others; its current deficits say nothing about them. And such deficits remain only in the here and now.

Debate is not Education

Whether these sorts of discussions occur in passing, in formal verbal debates, on social networking sites, or elsewhere, a common challenge made by creationists often amounts to something along the lines of "prove the entire fossil record to me. GO!"

Admittedly, this is a monumental task.

It's not monumental because it's a difficult positon to demonstrate. Quite the opposite. It's monumental in that there are vast amounts of evidence; to go over it all (to full skeptical evidentiary satisfaction of the individual being convinced) would be the equivalent of giving the creationist such a thorough education in the field of endeavor being challenged, that he or she should emerge from the debate having earned the equivalent of a college degree in the relevant field of study.

Of course, they know this, and they know that the person defending science does not have enough time or inclination to provide them with a comprehensive education in the field being challenged. So the tactic often takes the form of taking some extremely arcane bit of biological research which has very little data, and saying "if evolution is true, then why is..." and repeating the open question that science is trying to answer, with the implication that if the science-defender can't answer it they must be wrong, because debates (in the creationist's mind) are solely judged on which side is capable of giving a greater number of confident answers to any questions whatsoever.

As a rhetorical debate tactic, this may seem useful, in that the person defending science cannot possibly have enough time within what's alloted, or enough interest within the parameters of the discussion. If the science-defender must provide a full education in order to defend their point, and if they are not inclined to go to that much trouble, then you win the argument... science is wrong! At the very least, taking a position of mere ignorance and demanding a full education in response has the effect of rocking the champion of science back on their heels.

At some point, we must put our foot down and say: we are not responsible for educating you. We can merely point at the mountain of evidence and say, if you do not even understand that it exists, then we cannot take responsibility for your ignorance of it. The internet now exists; go and study the evidence regarding your questions before you ask me for them. Only if you find the answers that have been given insufficient can you claim the right to challenge them. But even a real gap in knowledge does not prove all other knowledge false. Just because you are ignorant, does not mean that I am wrong. You do not get to "win" any debate topic by the sole virtue of not knowing things.

This is very specifically known as the argument from ignorance fallacy . Hint: it's a fallacy.

Irreducible Complexity

The only way to claim that complexity is irreducible amounts to an appeal to imagination. One can say that "I can't imagine how an eyeball could develop." However, for any statement that involves "I can't imagine X," one must consider the possibility that they aren't actually delivering any information about X so much as they are delivering information about the limits of their own imagination.

All claims of irreducability merely amount to assertions of ignorance. They say nothing about the world, and everything about the limitations of their own knowledge regarding it. Even if no one on the planet had the capability of imagining something, that wouldn't disprove its truth or applicability; sub-atomic paricle physics and quantum mechanics have both demonstrated this case rather thoroughly. Again, this is another form of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

By the way, in certain underground and underwater areas there are fish who have no more than spots on their heads where the nerves can detect only a quantifiable measure of the presence of light. Just simple nerve clusters near the surface of some translucent skin patches that tell them only whether it's bright or dark. This lets them know that they should steer away from toxic volcanic fissures, the only possible sources of light in their environments. There's your reducible/reduced eyeball.

Intelligent Design

At some point in recent history, it was decided by creationists that they should not assert creation, and instead assert a more general claim, rebranded as "Intelligent Design." The point of this was twofold

1) to separate themselves from the ridiculousness and easily-countered claims that had been levied under the former brand "creationist," and

2) to insinuate themselves into educational curricula under a more vague term, one which offered even less information, but which retained all of the criticisms of science.

For those who think that Intelligent Design should be taught in our public schools, there are two things they should know;

Primo: "Teach the controversy!" There are more than two possible positions in this controversy. If a science class were forced to teach alternatives to scientific positions, then they would be free to (and I think should) teach not only the Darwinian and Judeo-Christian accounts, but also those given by Sumerian, Cherokee, Norse, Aborigine, Shinto, and Hindu accounts, as well as any others that could be invented at will, such as the Pink Invisible Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His noodly appendage). When Christian fundamentalist parents have their children come home from school to speak of how they learned in class today that Indra cut the horizon, separating the Earth from the sky with his flaming sword, they might think twice about allowing religious creation myths into classroom discussions.

Mind you, the school could not specify which form of possible ID variants the teacher should teach, as that would be a direct violation of "respecting an establishment of religion."

Segundo: Of all of the possible creators that might be posited under the general umbrella "theory" of Intelligent Design, the one that most conforms to Occam's Razor would be Raëlism. This is a UFO cult that believes that extraterrestrials were involved in seeding the Earth with life and guiding its development. As crazy as that might sound, it's considerably more reasonable than positing a supernatural deity to have done so. Therefore, if ID should be taught at all, it should be taught as Raëlism. Again, I put it to Christian parents - is this what you wanted when you voted your support for ID to be taught in your schools?

If any truly objective criteria were imposed on teachers regarding which ID variant (of the many touched on above) were applied, then Raëlism would win, being the form of ID that most conforms to Occam's Razor.

Scientific Conspiracies

Specific complaints about scientists from Young Earth Creationists also leads into a more general distrust of scientists from Christan Conservatives. A Christian might not buy into YEC specifically, but might share with them a vague distrust in lab-coated, probably-goateed, possibly-European scientists, and would be wary of any claim they made that didn't result only and directly in cheaper goods and services.

The most obvious current example of this involves the claim that global warming is happening, that it will lead to catastrophe, and that it is at least in part a product of human activity on planet Earth. Naturally, the religious right (in lockstep with the oil companies as always) has come out as quite certain that not only are the vast majority of scientists wrong about this, but that they are actually being paid to lie about it; that the structure of scientific grants is such that those who support the majority of scientific thought on this matter stand to benefit by supporting it yet further through their findings.

Even the vast majority of atheists and other believers in science are willing to grant the claims of professional scientists without checking their work personally. I certainly have never gone through the entire series of experiments required to support even a single one of the cutting-edge theories of science. And pointing to the fact that I could do so hardly absolves me of my ignorance in not having done so. I admittedly rely on the lab-coated to do those sorts of things for me. So the question of why I should trust them is a fair one.

The thing about the "scientific community" is that it's less of a community than a gladitorial arena. Scientists who merely confirm the discoveries of other scientists receive a relatively neutral reception. On the other hand, scientists who manage to disprove other scientists receive acclaim, awards, and greater career opportunities. They are very much pitted against one another, and thus the notion that they profit by merely confirming one anothers' findings is the exact opposite of the case.

As one example, Albert Einstein achieved fame and glory not only within the scientific world but also within society in general (such that the name "Einstein" has become a synonym for "genius") not because he confirmed the findings of his forebears, but exactly because he overturned them. Einstein presented a comprehensive system of physics that predicted the movement of bodies in space which both explained the constancy of the speed of light, but also at the same time disproved Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion in certain situations.

As another example, Steven Hawking is known to us not because of his compelling personal history of overcoming adversity, but primarily because he overturned an extremely common scientific assumption: that black holes cannot emit anything, that they can only take and not give. He calculated a way by which black holes might emit energy, and that is why even the common layman now knows his name.

At every level of scientific endeavor, scientists have a strong incentive to prove one another wrong, and hope mostly to prove the prevailing scientific belief wrong. To do so is a ticket to fame, glory and immense success. It would be easy to devise a system whereby "great thinkers" gained credit and success for supporting the common belief. But the current scientific community is set up nearly the opposite of that as it is possible to be. To merely conduct an experiment that reiterates the prevailing theory true gains one little - although not nothing. However, to conduct an experiment that overthrows the main thrust of current thinking gains one a great deal.

Given this set-up, it's merely absurd to claim that scientists have anything to gain by supporting, rather than overturning, any prevailing scientific wisdom. In regards to global warming, every scientist who has confirmed it was likely disappointed, before publishing their findings. Thus, we can know that the overwhelming consensus regarding global warming is a product of fact, and not of any incentives by the scientists involved.

Gaps and Knowledge

The tactic of creationists (or ID theorists, or whatever they claim to call themselves) still ultimatily runs up against the problem that it is merely a form of criticism rather than a positive theory in its own right. And mere criticism is not theory.

They point to various current gaps in scientific knowledge, and say "HA! You don't know about X!" And that's true. There are many X's that we don't know about (yet), but our research efforts are directed primarily towards those gaps, as we seek to learn more. But the underlying assumption that they make is that they in fact do know about everything, whereas the patchwork of knowledge developed by science is thus inferior.

But do they? Do creationists (or ID theorists, whatever they choose to call themselves) actually have real knowledge regarding areas where there are gaps in the theories of science?

There is nothing that science does not yet know about that the theist perspective knows. For all of these gaps, their answer is always the same: "God did it." But what does this mean? What information does such a claim provide about the phenomena in question? They certainly can't answer "how." How miracles occur is considered beyond the bounds of consideration. And yet, if God doing things were a real phenomenon, then a science of determining precisely how something went from the Lord's will to real phenomena would be a viable and interesting field of study. So where is it? Between God's decision and reality, what is the exact theo-science of miraculous intervention? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

More significantly, in saying that "God did it," the theist can do no more than turn every "how" that they criticize into a "why." This leads to exactly as many unanswered questions. Why did God do it? To this, the theist answers "mysterious ways" and considers the question sufficiently answered. But it's not. Converting causal questions from "how's" into "why's" and then declaring those "why's" off-limits answers nothing. It does not reduce the number of unanswered questions.

In fact, in the long run it makes us much less likely to be able to answer any of those questions at all. We are much more discinclined to challenge a question of "why" than were are a "how." By shunting all unknowns down the hole of "God's will," theists very much do seek to bring a halt to the advancement of knowledge.

By and large, atheists are comfortable admitting to gaps in current knowledge. When challenged about things they don't know, they reply "I don't know." This is not a concession of any sort regarding which method of gaining knowledge is better. It's better to know nothing than it is to know the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Galileo Wants Another Round

At some point in the last few centuries, the position of religious people addressing science from a scriptural point of view withdrew on one key point: that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than vice-versa.

However from a purely scriptural perspective, there is far more disagreement with Galileo's theory than there is with Darwin. Under Heliocentric theory, neither the sun nor the stars can be said to move (at least not significantly relative to the motion of the Earth). And yet, Genesis is clear that God did make them, and them alone, move. Not us, them. Furthermore, God later stopped the sun in the sky (Josuha 10-12). He clearly did not stop the Earth from turning. Scripture states quite clearly that he stopped the movement of the sun, and that therefore it was the sun that had been moving.

And yet, not even Young Earth Creationists today still seek to discredit the heliocentric model of the solar system. Why not?

In any fair debate, if you concede a point, you must also concede at least some of the argument leading up that that point. If your conclusion is false, and your argument valid, then at least one of your premises must be false. That is, it is not enough to concede your conclusion; you must also concede at least some of the premises to your argument that led to your conclusion, in such a way that explains where you went wrong. To do otherwise would be to deny logic itself. Thus, to use the same premises of argumentation to approach the next point, after having conceded the former, would admit to a either a false concession, or a complete disregard for logical argumentation itself.

But this is exactly what we see when creationists, having let Galileo go by the wayside, renew their attack on Darwin on exactly the same grounds. I say, if they want to be Biblical creationists, let's go back to square one, and cut them no slack. Finish the Galileo discussion. Hammer it out. They must either completely concede heliocentric motion (and in doing so concede all claims derived solely from scriptural authority) or they must once and for all actually win the case for the notion that the Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth. Only then, once this former battle has been thoroughly settled either way, can we begin to pick up the case regarding Darwin, much less geologic time, abiogenesis, the findings of astronomy, and/or the many related theories and findings of science that fall within or without those more general theories.

Next up:

I explain why atheists aren't all murderous, raping monsters.

Approaching Atheism - An Overview

2012-02-04T18:42:00.000-08:00

Recently, I have become somewhat obsessed with studying what is euphemistically referred to as the "New Atheism." This is a movement in the last few years among (mostly academic) thinkers and writers to stand up for their disbelief in God in an uncompromising fashion. In order to get my ideas out of my head so that I can hopefully get back to playing video games in my free time, it has occurred to me that I should perhaps lay out the entirety of my opinions in a public venue. Blogger is a convenient mechanism to do that.

Unfortunately, in outlining what I believe and don't believe, much less why I do or don't believe things, I've discovered that it's not something I could possibly toss off in one post. Therefore, I seem to have committed myself to an entire series of essays. In the future, if challenged I can merely link back to one or more of these rather than repeat myself ad infinitum.

As a personal observation, it seems to me that many atheists today (at least those of the Internet variety) find ourselves in a similar position to Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages, in that we seem to be frequently challenged and demanded to provide the reasons for our worldview in a variety of ad-hoc situations, or according to the arbitrary limitations set by our questioner of the moment. When a theist at a website demands immediate answers to a long list of questions (some of which have simple Googleable answers, whereas some others are not currently well known to science) I'm reminded of the Gentile who demanded of Hillel that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot. It can be no accident that Hillel appended his response with the further admonition "go and learn."

By and large, I'll be addressing Christianity here, at least early on. This is because I live in the U.S.A. where Christians are the main aggressors in public life. However, I'm aware that similar arguments are made by other religions. In skepticism, I therefore move from the more specific to the more general. If explicitly Christian arguments don't apply to you, feel free to skip ahead until you find something that does.

I'll edit this post as needed to include links to each essay once they're posted.

Science vs. God

Although many Christians might claim that they have no conflict with the current findings of science, the sad fact of the matter is that an alarming number of others do. This includes many of our political representatives today. I'll first address the ant-science positions of many Christians, from Young Earth Creationists through those who are generally suspicious of the scientific community. Once they've been cleared from the field, we can discuss deeper matters.

Ethics vs. God

One oft-mentioned claim by the religious is that since God is the only possible arbiter of morality, nobody without a (direct or indirect) belief in God's edicts can possibly be moral in their lives. I'll discuss here the implications of that claim, as well as an interesting scriptural counter-claim, and then address how moral considerations arise as an emergent property of nature.

Proofs of God

I happen to personally enjoy theological conjectures. Here, I'll address the main claimed proofs of God's existence. Although these are presented in their more historical/formal forms, you may recognize more casual restatements of these given in arguments by theists even today.

Disproofs of God

Here I take the position of coming to the Lord Almighty's defense against a great many historical claims of His of disproof.

It is merely insufficient to disbelieve in God either because one is angry at Him, or because one thinks that His existence has been categorically disproven. The result of this chapter up to this point should be at the most, a position of agnosticism.

Dualism, Deity, and Faith

I get more to the heart of the issue, giving my reasons for opposing the general dualist perspective, more robust definitions of God, and the value of having any sort of faith at all.

Constructing a Sound Epistemological Worldview

Finally, I'll go positive, in order to discuss how to know what can be believed, to understand what it means to know something at all, and to what degree we can claim knowledge or belief in any given proposition. Rather than merely a "why I think you're wrong," I'll go out on a limb and present "what I believe (and why)."

This is less a part of the same series rather than a separate thesis in its own right. I append it here in the spirit of fairness; it's one thing to saw off the limb upon which another is sitting, it's quite another to go out on a limb yourself. So, this is my limb. I consider it reasonably saw-proof.

15 Questions for Evolutionists, Answered

2012-01-05T03:43:00.000-08:00

Just for fun, here's my take on this.

1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, "Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell." Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, "we don’t really know how life originated on this planet."

I don't know either. Some tests indicate that subjecting the right sorts of more-complicated molecules to an energy source might create a self-replicating molecule, which would be sufficient to get the party started. But that's just incredibly vague conjecture at this point. Obviously much more scrutiny and experimentation is required to gain more insight on that question.

But just because I admit that I don't know and you claim to be certain that you know, doesn't mean that your explanation wins.

There's plenty that's not known about the religious world-view either; those usually get labeled as "mysteries" and one just shrugs and moves on. But even if we were going to use the number of things not known as evidence against a given paradigm, then the many, many mysterious ways of the Lord must certainly count against the religious world view.

More significantly, there are hundreds of creation myths worldwide that differ from the one provided in Genesis, all of which provide the same kind of faith-based certainty that it does. And there's no objective way whatsoever to determine which of them is more true than any of the others.

A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Can I see the numbers on that claim? What do you estimate the odds to be, what do you estimate the number of atoms to be, and the number of recombinations over time to be? This is clearly an assertion that can be dismissed as having been invented whole-cloth.

2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?

The DNA "code" originated when scientists assigned letters to stand in for the proteins in the chain. Actual DNA has no letters, and is not actually a code. It is a functional machine designed to recombinate with RNA chains to produce proteins and enzymes.

Although the information on this page is not related to the pixels on the screen, if they spelled out a workable computer program and it was run on the computer, what the computer then did would produce the actual "meaning" of the program. This relationship is easier to see with compiled machine code rather than with a higher-level programming language, but it's the same case either way. Its function is not to provide information or communication to a person interpreting "meaning" by reading it, but rather to instruct the machine to perform a detailed set of specific routines.

We speak of DNA as a "code" that contains "information" only as an analogy related to our attempts to determine what it does and how it does it. That doesn't make it either of those things.

3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

Natural selection removes harmful mutations and promotes beneficial ones, where "harmful" and "beneficial" refer to chances of survival relative to a given organism's environment.

What you call "information" would be better termed as "complexity." Complexity is more versatile than simplicity, and therefore survives or thrives in more environments, or environmental changes. Thus, over a longer-term period of chance survival, more complex life forms will gradually win out over simpler competitors.

There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless.

A tiny bit of production of a single protein might be useful by itself in a simpler organism. And then a tiny bit of control for it might become useful. And then a bit more production, then a bit more control, and so forth. It's doubtful that an organism would develop a complete set of protein production genes and only then being developing any protein control genes.

Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible?

The slim odds of helpful mutations as opposed to harmful mutations becomes a multiplicative factor against the likelihood of any single evolutionary advancement within a given generation of a given lineage of a given species. But then we're back to calculating odds-of and comparing them to numbers-of-cases again.

E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

Wikipedia says:

The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution, where two subunits with their own functions have become associated and gained new functionality. This coupling must have occurred early in the evolution of life as evidenced by essentially the same structure and processes of ATP synthase enzymes conserved in all kingdoms of life.

Citation: Rotary DNA motors. C. Doering, B. Ermentrout and G. Oster. Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico 87545, USA.

The thing about these sorts of questions, is that they aren't stumpers. They are quite easily answered with the Google search that you declined to perform.

Regarding kinesin, there's this:

Our analysis indicates that the KCBPs, SpKinC, and a subset of the kinesin-like proteins are all more closely related to one another than they are to any other kinesins, but that either KCBP gained the MyTH4 and talin-like domains or SpKinC lost them.

Yeah, I know. But that's science for ya. Just because you don't understand the answer doesn't mean it's not the answer. I can't be held responsible for your level of ignorance.

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

It isn't "taught as evolution." However, it is a necessary part of the processes involved in evolution.

By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment.

The variation comes from genetic mutation. I thought we already covered that.

E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

By and large, where a trait begins and ends, and how creatures should be classified in zoology based on shared traits has always been a very "grey-area" endeavor. What we think of as clear delineations between the existence or absence of a trait, or between traits that differ, when examined more closely typically belie the notion that there's a clear point at which we can say the trait is there or not. It's through the intervening generations that the gradual development of any trait reveals itself. The fossil record is chock full of such examples.

One might discuss the impossibility of a wolf being the genetic forebear of a chihuaua, even though this has been done by humans during recorded human history. If instead we had found a wolf and a chihauaua in nature, creationists would likely use that as another example of one thing that they believe couldn't have evolved from the other.

The real question becomes, since you admit that variations do exist, where do you draw the partitions between what variations are allowed to nature for any species? How much can a finch's beak change before it must stop lest it become something else, or risk even creating a new species? And what mechanism would prevent further deviation from the original?

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence.

The same way "lucky accidents" created everything else. By having lots and lots of cases, each one with a low chance of producing an improvement. If you bought a billion lottery tickets, it would be unsurprising if you then won the lottery.

Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, "we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

The preceding sentence fragment to that quote was as follows: "We should reject as a matter of principle the substitution of Intelligent Design for the dialog of chance and necessity, but..." How can you not have noticed the first portion of that sentence while quoting only its second half? Why quote only the portion of the sentence that agrees with you? And how does doing so not completely misrepresent Prof. Harold's position?

I'm seriously interested in the answer to that. In researching your question, you must have read the quote in its entirety. And yet you only picked the portion of the sentence that when taken out of context implies a complete lack of understanding under the Darwinian model; when taken in context, it describes the (then) current limitations of understanding under the Darwinian model. What exactly was your thought process when you did that? I just don't understand how one can read fragments of sentences independent of their context. Maybe it's because I wasn't exposed to protestant Christian bible study groups as a kid?

But this question (with full context of the quote) goes back to my answer to question 1: there's still a lot that we don't know. Which is precisely what Prof. Harold was saying, as he has said quite often elsewhere. That still doesn't mean that your explanation is more likely to be correct than mine, based solely on the reasoning that you choose to be more personally certain that it is.

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Scientists look like people who know what they're talking about. So how do you know they don't know what they're talking about? "Judge books by their covers" is not a persuasive basis for any argument.

Richard Dawkins wrote, "biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose." Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable.

The limitations of human imagination and/or aesthetic judgements are considerably less than the limitations of the universe. Just because it's hard for you (or I) to imagine something doesn't mean it isn't the case. As with beauty, design is in the eye of the beholder.

Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

Because naturalistic causation is the most logical causal explanation. There is no either/or there.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

Here's a slide that states it in simple terms.

Again, asking me to Google things for you does not constitute critique.

8. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

At this point, it's well beyond "mere physics and chemistry," as simpler life forms (ameobas, viruses, bacteria, etc) do reproduce asexually. So it only appears above a certain baseline of complexity. We're well into biology before we start talking about the introduction of gender. The building blocks themselves are much more complex at this point than those involved in chemistry of physics.

Sexual differentiation does have some costs, but it also has many advantages involving the division and recombination of genes between organisms. Thus, a successful mutation can be tried out in combination with differnent other genes. Furthermore, a less successful mutation can be prevented from being a total "deal breaker" for the organism, by being split out from more successful ones, or covered up by a more dominant gene paired with it, aka. being recessive. So it both maximizes the potential advantage of mutations and minimizes the potential disadvantage. In short, sexual differentiation maximizes the potential benefits of mutation by dividing it down to the chromosomal level rather than testing it against selection at the organism level. The combinatory survival potential for any given beneficial mutation is increased by an order of magnitude.

The main "cost" involved is that a given organism might fail to find a mate and reproduce; that can cut the progeny for any given generation by up to half. But some organisms failing to reproduce is exactly what's required for natural selection to most effectively occur, so that counts as a benefit to the chance of positive evolution as well.

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence.

They're missing because they are very old, and thus very few have lasted this long. And only very few of those have been located and dug up to date.

Let's say I show you some pair of purportedly related fossils, A and Z, and claim that one is the evolutionary ancestor of the other. You ask "where's the missing link?" So later on, I find missing link M, which appears to fit exactly halfway between the generations of A and Z based on traits and/or genetics. Now you can say "where are the two missing links? The one between A and M, and then the one between M and Z?" If I then produce both of those, now there are four missing links, then eight, and so on... I would have to produce every single generation of every single species that does now or has ever existed, in order for this line of argumentation to be satisfied. This is obviously not It's obviously a claim requiring nigh-infinite regression, and can therefore be discarded out of hand, with proper Hitchensian contempt.

Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.

Yes, paleontologists do often wish that there were more discovered fossils. They're paleontologists. They like having more fossils.

Scientists enjoy gathering new evidence. Believers, not so much.

9. How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, "the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem."

Some species appear to be more stable than others, but that doesn't mean that the others haven't changed. In fact, it means exactly the opposite. The fact that species A hasn't changed in a long time doesn't mean that species B didn't change, any more than the fact that person A smokes means that person B smokes. They're two different things.

It is a "problem" only in the scientific "we should look more closely into this" sense, not in the "uh oh, we have a problem" sense. Scientists view a "problem" as a prime opportunity to find more interesting information; that's what they mean when they use that word.

Perhaps some of these "living fossil" species have some sort of a mechanism specific to that species that prevents or punishes mutation; it would certainly be interesting to find out. Furthermore, if such a mechanism were to be found, that would be even more evidence for evolution in other species because it would imply that such evolution had to be explicitly prevented in order to not take place.

10. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Again, at this stage we are far beyond "blind chemistry" and well into full-blown biology in higher life forms. The very building blocks we have to work with are vastly more complex than those of mere chemistry.

But this question is more for ethical philosophy than for science per se. So you're quite correct in saying that "evolutionists" can't explain it (if by that term you're referring to biologists speaking within their field of professional expertise). Nevertheless, there are still answers.

Game theory interchanges show that in the long run, and particularly in social groups with some degree of memory (as most higher life forms are), it's more beneficial to be at least somewhat altruistic than not, at least a majority of the time. Here's. further. reading.

Just off the top of my head: groups of North American prairie dogs have some who will stand watch for predators while the others are above ground foraging. These sentries will call out when they sense danger, and will even remain above-ground while their fellows evacuate the area. In doing so, they put themselves at risk in order to make sure that the others get to safety. This is altruism, by any functional definition in natural language. Such behavior also ensures that the same genes expressed via sexual/genetic variation in their siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews and children will get passed on even if it means the risk of the sentry's own set of the same genome. This demonstrates an example of how the recombination of sexual differentiation discussed in my response to Question 8 can lead to even greater levels of complexity. In fact, "selfish gene" theory leads to all sorts of ethically-related behaviors that wouldn't come up otherwise, and demonstrates that altruism can be genetically (and therefore evolutionarily) favored even in non-sentient life forms. More here.

If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

First of all, us inventing God is not "evolutionary teaching." Evolution says nothing whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of God. There is in fact considerably less disagreement between the bible and evolution than there is between the bible and the heliocentric model of the solar system - an argument which has apparently been abandoned by religious critics of science (speaking of which, shouldn't you actually win that debate before moving on to Darwin?). You just as well may ask what a Galilean (e.g. a believer in Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system) thinks the meaning of life is.

The majority of those who believe in the existence of God and accept Him as their source for moral guidance and meaning in life also accept evolution as the most reasonable explanation for the presence of current species diversity.

Fortunately I'm not one of those, so I can answer this part. Disclaimer: for the remainder of this answer I'm speaking strictly for myself, and not on behalf of evolution, as this question has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution (see above).

We bring meaning to our own lives. We are in a sense meaning-creating engines, in that we have a strong tendency to see and produce meaning and purpose wherever we can. We don't need a supernatural entity to hand it to us. Jean-Paul Sartre discusses this more thoroughly and eloquently than I in his work "Being and Nothingness." This also contains one of his most famous quotes, "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." Sartre's gloomy use of "condemned" regarding the infinity of personal responsibility isn't shared by most current atheists; by and large, we joyfully accept full responsibity for creating our own purpose in life.

I'd also recommend Victor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" for a rather thoughtful and touching discussion of the wide variety of sources from which people find personal meaning in order to sustain themselves in trying times - religion being one of many possibilities. It also doubles as one of the best Holocaust memoirs this side of Elie Weisel (if you're into that sort of thing).

11. Why is evolutionary 'just-so' story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to 'explain' observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, "Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."

Well, it's difficult to test evolution experimentally in the way he seems to suggest anyways, if only since it requires selection to take place "in the wild" rather than in controlled circumstances. Breeding one species gradually into another in a controlled environment is a trivial task, as the entire history of animal husbandry and agriculture demonstrates.

The observations being explained aren't contrary to evolution at all. However, certain behaviors in species might have one hypothesis floated or another, over time. Just because someone opines one way or the other without ultimately producing a strong theory doesn't mean that the paradigm they're working in is less valid.

I'd toss it back to religion: do you maintain that every person whose theories are claimed to be "biblically sourced" were themselves accurate in their interpretation? David Koresh? Jim Jones? David Duke? If none of them discredit the paradigm of Christianity, then no individual failed theories within the paradigm of evolution discredit that concept as a whole either.

In the example given, both a "seed spreading" and a "good husband/father" strategy have advantages for producing successful offspring, and it may depend on individual circumstance. I think we can both agree that we certainly see both kinds of behaviors taking place among many males even today. There's no reason to think that previous evolutionary generations were all that much less diverse in their own behavior regarding statistical reproductive strategies.

But aside from evolution, just regarding human history, there's been a lot of back-and-forth even in popular consciousness regarding whether prehistoric cavemen were more often barbaric and brutal among one another, or gentle and cooperative. That's that's more of an issue for anthropology than for evolutionary biology, though.

12. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr Skell wrote, "It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers …"

Just because something isn't useful doesn't mean it isn't true.

Also, your quotes seem to be a bit out of date. It's starting to be the case that recognition of evolution is helping medicine in a lot of areas. Yearly flu shots are one example - influenza is highly variable, and tends to avoid destruction from last year's shot, so the shot has to be updated annually in order to remain effective. We didn't used to know that. An understanding of evolution in disease progression has helped medicine to better understand diseases in many cases, prominently HIV and ebola. Here's a journal that provides many more examples. A quote from one such article:

Key developments in evolutionary biology and its insights for medicine include the recognition that contemporary evolutionary change is ubiquitous; the accumulation of data on genomic variation within and between human populations; a growing understanding of coevolutionary relationships between host and pathogen; the emergence of major research programmes into symbioses, particularly in relationship to the gastrointestinal microbiome; and an understanding of how evolutionary principles explain the implications of rapidly changing environments for disease susceptibility and human behaviour. A broader understanding of symptoms of illness such as pain and fever can be developed from an evolutionary perspective and this has clinical implications, such as when to use antipyretics.

Sounds like useful stuff. I'd rather go to a doctor who knew about all that stuff rather than one who just thought I got sick because God dislikes me.

Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.

No, no it doesn't.

As for the citation you provided, its main point seems to be that it's safer to lift a heavy object using your back muscles rather than your legs. I don't know whether that really disagrees with evolution as a concept or not (they claim it does), but I'm dubious enough of their conclusion to be doubly dubious of their claimed means of arriving at it. It's certainly not authoritative in any sense, lacking observed data to back up that theory (and no, the opinion of one person working for a railroad company does not constitute "observed data").

Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

Typically if one is working in experimental biology in a university, they've specialized to the point that they aren't doing paleontology. And I think should be fairly obvious that we can't expect much useful experimental biological research to be produced by grade schools or high schools.

But it certainly isn't harmful to learn about how the world works. In fact, learning about the elegance of evolution has led many students into those fields, which is much of the point of pre-university education. Where you see a sterile empty theory, many others see an amazingly simple process that can lead to potentially infinite variation as life adapts again and again to meet a variety of circumstantial challenges.

In fact, many of those who now believe in God do so primarily because of the elegance and beauty of the theory of evolution. Who but God could have designed such a magnificent scheme, a simple process that gives rise to so much? It's far more "God-like" (in the sense of being beyond human wisdom) for a single process to continually recreate itself into the immense special variation that we now see, than for some ancient wizard to walk around zapping a limited menu of creatures into existence and then calling it a day. (giving props to the deists here)

Regarding the "dogmatic" characterization, it's hardly fair on the one hand to accuse the theory of changing over time, to accuse it of producing a variety of differing opinions, and then to finally label it as "dogmatic." In fact, it smacks of using definable words as mere epithets or cheers instead of going by their rational definitions.

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past.

You can gather evidence, though. The fossil record and carbon dating both count as evidence. It's very much like astronomy in that regard. We can't create quasars or black holes or any other astronomical phenomena in a controlled laboratory testing environment. We can only look at (the past of) those that already exist "in the wild" and develop the most likely theories we can based on the information that we discover. Meanwhile, biologists as well as astronomers continue gathering more information in order to revise their own theories.

As mentioned in my response to point 11, "performing" evolution in laboratory-controlled circumstances is merely doing animal husbandry and/or agriculture. It's quite easy to do, and it happens all the time. Since you demand controlled human-experimental examples of evolution, I hereby submit as evidence modern breeds of cows, chickens, pigs, cats, dogs, horses, donkeys, wheat, corn, rice, bananas and everything else that mankind has bred to be drastically different from what we started with.

Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

Dawkins was either incorrect, or was talking about a particular instance of evolution, such as that in hominids. Evolved differentiation of species in nature has in fact been observed in a number of cases. Here's a list of four clear examples. Here's a contemporary case. Here's another.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

So far we've managed to prevent religionistas from forcing that sort of thing on any science classes. But y'all keep trying.

Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme...”

First of all, the word "religious" was added by you to Popper's quote. He didn't say it. "Metaphysical" is not a synonym for "religious," particularly when discussing the philosophy of science. Secondly, Popper then continues...

...and yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work.

He's actually answering your own question 12! But again, we see you using half a quote to misrepresentative someone's position. I might as well pick and choose words from your list to say "I... believe... in... evolution." If that's how we're going to play this game, then I might as well come out and say that based on the above quote, you believe in evolution. So why are you lying about it?

Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

Ruse certainly does view evolution as a religion, even in context. Nevertheless, he's presenting nothing more than his own personal view of it. It may be the equivalent of a religion for him (as he puts it, "a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality"), but that doesn't mean that's what it is to anyone else, or what it's presented as in schools or by the scientific community at large.

In any case, this sort of thing amounts to an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Just because famous person X said Y doesn't mean I have to agree with them - unless they also marshal actual evidence and logic to convince me. As has been done with evolution itself.

Such a requirement in rational debate is equally demanded of the most famous ivory-tower Nobel prize winner as it is of the under-educated religulous blogger.

Spreading santorum

2011-04-14T01:08:00.000-07:00

Apparently Rick Santorum actually thinks he get to run for President. Unfortunately he has already drawn the ire of Dan Savage. Google Santorum to find out why that's a bad idea.

Gun Rights and Gun Control

2011-01-14T20:47:00.001-08:00

Wingnuts often like to claim that the real purpose for the second amendment is so that we the people will have the potential to overthrow our own government "just in case" it becomes a nightmarish, tyrannical dystopia. But if the reason for the second amendment is that we should be able overthrow the government, then our citizenry would need to have enough weaponry to defeat the U.S. military or there's no point. As Rachel Maddow quite reasonably pointed out, that would include everything up to and including a massive nuclear arsenal.

Mind you, the people pushing this idea should recognize that they're talking about literally doing battle with the U.S. armed forces. Which would be fine, if they weren't also the same ones most often idolizing our servicemembers in the U.S. armed forces. Either our "troops" are your heroes or they're potential enemies that you're willing to kill. They can't be both at the same time, at least not if you're not full-on crazy. Furthermore, if you believe it is important to be able to defeat the U.S. military in battle, then you should support decreases in military spending, rather than wanting to keep it at a high level. If you believe that our military budget should be sacrosanct, then you don't believe that you should be able to defeat them (unless you have a tremendous amount of nukes hidden away somewhere).

Upshot: either you believe in your right to potentially overthrow the U.S. government or you respect our troops and want to keep a strong military budget. You can't have both.

As Trent Franks (R-AZ) said in response to the latest violenct incident, "I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person." Quick question: can you use a gun to shoot somebody else's bullets out of the air? Do modern firearms come with anti-bullet force fields? How do more gunshots make less gunshots? Right-wingers often enjoy saying that if there were more guns there would be less gun violence from criminals and crazies. It seems to me that if someone goes on a spree killing and more people have guns, then more people might get shot, and not just the spree killer. After all, you don't know whether one of the many armed people in your vicinity is unhinged until they unload on the populace. That is unless you try to proactively guess which one of them that might be, in which case you end up going down in history as the unhinged one. "The guy I shot was obviously about to start shooting other people" won't go over very well either a court of law or of public opinion.

As an American citizen myself, I don't want to have to participate in gun violence in order to be protected from gun violence. That is my right. If I have the right to bear arms, then I should also have the implicit right not to have to bear arms. If you want to create a situation where the only way I can defend myself against gun violence is to carry a gun, then you're violating my right not to carry a gun. I pay taxes to pay police to take care of that for me. A world where only the toughest get to survive is the opposite of civilized society. It is in fact a functional definition of barbarism.

In any case, the second amendment is actually quite incredibly clear about its reasoning. In fact, it is literally the only one of our 27 constitutional amendments that gives its own reasoning in its own text: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." So it's remarkable that the only amendment that actally bothers to explain itself ends up so consistently misunderstood in the modern age.

The founding fathers were quite clear on what they meant by the second amendment's reasoning in other aspects as well. Quite simply, the U.S.A. did not at that time have a standing army. According to the second amendment, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Which is to say, they needed a militia to defend the nation, and they reserved the right to regulate it. Back during the founding of the U.S.A, the idea was that we could run any necessary wars on a "bring your own gun" basis. Such a policy, if maintained, certainly would have prevented (or at least mitigated) the kinds of military adventurism around the globe that we've seen since. But this also meant that everybody had to have their own gun to bring. Hence the Militia Act of 1792, which mandated that each adult male must "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges..." (Hellooo, constitutionality of the individual mandate!)

But what they did not foresee was the military-industrial complex that grew out of the aftermath of WWII, creating a standing army with capabilities far beyond those that any citizen "militiaman" could hope to bring to a conflict. For better or worse, the defense of the United States is in the hands of an entity that in no way resembles a rag-tag drummed up militia mustered from their own homes with whatever they happened to have at hand. And certainly not one which could be overthrown by a small-arms insurgency, as most recently demonstrated in Iraq.

In the 1780's, Shay's Rebellion sought to overthrow our new government, in which most if not all of our "founding fathers" were still participating. Did those founding fathers then bow down, give up and let themselves be overthrown? No, they did not. They fought in defense of the government they had created to put the rebellion down violently. Therefore, through their own actions, it is quite clear that they did not support the overthrow of the government that they had worked so hard to establish (which would have been a ridiculous proposition even if they didn't have to prove it to you by shedding blood). Also, being questioned about Shay's rebellion while in France is the source of Jefferson's oft-quoted phrase "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Clearly he wasn't terribly concerned about Shay's rebellion winning, but was willing to maintain that the occasional outbreak of violence was a natural and healthy way to maintain the spirit of democracy. Mind you, he was also defending his own country to the French press when he said it, so it's entirely in the nature of spin to make foundling America's problems look like a good thing rather than a bad thing. And Jefferson's job at that point was to represent America as a politician. The only other interpretation (the one that the right-wingers who quote him must be implying) would be to claim that Jefferson was a Shay supporter, and therefore a traitor to the United States of America.

Next in the 1790's, the Whiskey Rebellion sought to overthrow the new government again, this time over a whiskey excise tax. Again, they were violently put down. By the way, George Washington was still in office at this time. So by now he had put down, count 'em, two armed challenges to the U.S. fledgeling government. Based on these events and the response of our founding fathers to them, it's pretty easy to predict what their opinion would be regarding further armed challenges to the U.S. government. That would be the same government established by the constitution that these "gun nut" revolutionaries pretend to revere so much, and which the people who put down these rebellions actually had a hand in writing.

Now, being of a generally liberal bent, I used to consider the possibility that if we merely banned all guns from private ownership it would lead to a peaceful society. No guns = no gunshots, right? Unlikely. It seems reasonable to consider that the right to bear arms has become an integral part of the American character over the past two centuries. Perhaps this is because I'm from the West, but it just seems to me that an America where you can't own a gun isn't really America, culturally speaking. Guns have been or become such a part of the American cultural fabric for so long that banning them could lead to a "prohibition" situation. It doesn't matter whether your or I like guns, we still have to recognize the fact that a whole lot of people in America like them a lot. Whenever you outlaw something which has such strong demand, you only serve to create a thriving black market for it. This removes any opportunities to regulate it by driving it underground. So if there's any way to allow people to legally have common firearms while also maximizing public safety then we should do everything we can to find it. If we're going to have guns, how should we go about it?

The most obvious analogy that comes to my mind is automobiles. Virtually any adult gets to drive an automobile in any state. It's not framed in the Constitution, but it is a right that we do in fact happen to enjoy. Automobiles are devices which are incredibly dangerous. Anybody in control of an automobile could potentially murder any number of people, should they choose to do so; from pulling into the wrong lane on the highway, through running red lights, to driving on the sidewalk to crashing your car into a house, there are a variety of ways that a creatively murderous individual could use an automobile to instantly execute a significant number of victims.

In this light, the NRA's blanket opposition to any firearms regulations whatsoever is very much like saying that there should be no traffic laws whatsoever.

Handling gun laws the same way that we handle automotive laws makes sense in a variety of ways. Firstly, owners/carryers/users should be licensed. In order to get that license, you should have to pass a specific test demonstrating your knowledge and ability of how to use the tool properly. The tool in question should be registered, and its registration tied to a specific licensed owner. Some sort of insurance should be involved in case an (*ahem*) accident occurs. As far as it goes, this analogy is perfectly reasonable across the board. An person who wants to own and operate a deadly device of any sort should be subject to no fewer rules than these.

At present, many states have some parts of this but not others. There are such things as gun carry licenses, gun registration, etc. But it's spotty, only applying some rules in some places to some types of guns. If cars were handled this way, you might find yourself in a demolition derby or not depending on which city, county or state you were driving through at the time.

A key question that arises is, why would responsible gun owners want to subject themselves to such a system? Put another way, why would they want to be provided with the ability to prove that they're really responsible gun owners, rather than allow themselves to be lumped in with criminals and crazies? Why would they want a system in place that separates them from common criminals, and protects them from being grouped with any criticism of the same? Which creates some distance between their rights and any political discussions regarding how to keep guns out of the hands of psychos? Frankly, such questions answer themselves. The greatest boon to responsible gun owners would be to have exactly such a regulatory system in place that firmly insulates their rights from any response to irresponsible gun violence. To go back to my analogy, traffic accidents don't cause the public to think about taking away everybody's (or anybody's) right to a car. Because there are sufficient rules in place that serve to separate the responsible from the irresponsible, the discussion automatically gravitates to whether and how they are being enforced. Not whether the laws should be changed, and certainly not whether or not people should be allowed to have cars at all.

As a final point: the NRA, which currently opposes even the most reasonable and slight restrictions regarding gun ownership, currently runs the "Eddie Eagle safety program," as well as other gun safety programs for adults. If we did have a national system in place requiring a test for gun licensing, then the NRA are best positioned of all organizations to make quite a bit of money teaching classes to prepare for that test. Mind you, they wouldn't make a huge amount of money from it, but it would be a revenue stream that made them part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Of course, if they're making more money in donations from firearms companies who are in turn making their profit margins through unregulated gun trading funneled to criminal gangs in America as well as Mexican gun cartels, then that would be the only explanation I could think of for why they could still oppose it. I'm not going to go out on a limb and accuse them of that. I'll just patiently await their support of reasonable gun regulation to prove it wrong.

Fighting Words and Crazy People

2011-01-10T20:51:00.001-08:00

So the Jared Loughner thing has everybody up in arms on both sides. The moment that Sheriff Dupnik suggested that bigotry and political calls for violence might have had something to do with the violence that actually occurred, the right wing immediately circled their wagons, got up in arms, and started returning fire. Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Even though Dupnik named no political side, party, movement or person, everybody immediately knew who he was talking about when he said "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous." The fact that the extremist right wing that controls the overall conservative movement immediately took offense at this, obviously amounts to an admission of guilt. They knew he was talking about them - we all did - even though he didn't mention them in any way. That's a pretty telling point by itself.

Of course there have been the usual fringe-right claims that Loughner was a "liberal plant," based primarily on the notion that he has smoked marijuana in the past (as if roughly the same proportion of right-wingers as left-wingers don't smoke pot). Then there have been the attempts at false equivalence, with wingnuts poring through old news items looking for a quote from a Democrat that uses firearms-based rhetoric. They managed to find Obama using the old "knife to a gunfight" phrase back when he was just a candidate. So that makes it even, right? When Beck says that your country is being taken away from you by godless communist socialist nazi czars and turned into a death-panel dictatorship, when tea party protestors march en masse with signage talking about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, and "we came unarmed... this time," when elected Republican officials start talking about "second amendment remedies," all that is equivalent to that one almost-forgotten Obama quote, right? Well, only in wingnut-world where Democrats have to have a perfect score or else it's a tie.

Frankly, as an anti-wingnut avowed liberal, I've been having my fun as well picking apart their arguments. The problem is, there is a valid argument to be made in defense of Beck and Palin, but making the argument for them just grates against me, particularly since Beck, Palin and all of their hordes of drooling redneck followers seem incapable of making it so far, and I'm having a hard time feeling charitable for them. Nevertheless, the truth is the truth. So here goes...

This entire "culture of violence" argument, the notion that we should hold people responsible for a causal connection that goes from an individual to society in general to a perpetrator... well, we've seen that form of argumentation before. When Ice-T got blamed for (potential) violence in Los Angeles, when Marilyn Manson got blamed for Columbine, and when Grand Theft Auto and other video games got blamed for general hooliganism in the modern age, it was the same form of argument. Someone put something out into society, and the resulting societal environment then caused (or might cause) an unbalanced individual to commit violent acts.

The fact is, crazy people are going to do what crazy people are going to do. We can't prevent violence from unbalanced individuals by censoring ourselves and walking on eggshells in case some psychopath might misconstrue what we were talking about and take it too far. That holds just as true for Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as it does for Marilyn Manson and Ice-T. If a dangerously unbalanced individual fixates on whatever you were saying and takes it much farther than you ever intended, that's not your fault. Furthermore, even if you had censored yourself, they would have fixated on something else. If Charles Manson could fixate on the White Album as a call for worldwide race war, or if John Hinckley could fixate on Taxi Driver as a reason to shoot President Reagan, then they could have fixated on anything at all to do anything at all.

Discussions about the state of mental health care in America as a preventive measure for such attacks are certainly reasonable. Discussions about the gridlock surrounding the gun control debate as a preventive measure are reasonable as well. But holding one person responsible for the behavior of another - especially with an entire "cloud" of media culture standing between them - is neither effective nor in the long run philosophically desireable.

It's worth noting that the other examples I gave were art forms, whereas this case is a question of political speech. By its very nature, political speech amounts to advocacy: you're exhorting people to do something, whether it's to go out and vote, volunteer, protest or donate. But the primary reason that we protect artistic speech is to draw an even stronger fence around political speech (there's extensive SCOTUS reasoning on this subject). That is to say, we protect speech in general just in case it turns out to be political. And political speech is exactly what we're talking about here. In American democracy, it's the holy of holies. The one true untouchable right. Probably the last one we've got left.

As a side note, I'd like to say that the ChristoFascist arguments regarding "permissive sexuality" (i.e. not criminalizing gayness) and a "culture of death" (i.e. giving women control of their own bodies) follow the same form of causal argumentation: from person to society to horrible consequence, whether real or imagined. And they're equally bunk. We should not be holding individuals responsible for the state of our culture, regardless of the strength of their platform or pulpit. We should only hold those who act as responsible for their own actions. That right there is the essence of the entire notion of free speech. And autonomy in general.

But here's the crux of the argument that conservatives should be making, and would if any of them had the guts to stand up for themselves: America has a long tradition, over two centuries in fact, of using metaphors and analogies related to combat, war, firearms, fisticuffs and all forms of violence in service of political rhetoric. It's quite simply how we talk about politics - how we always have. And as much as liberals might be "up in arms" about the right's rhetorical approach at the moment, it can be instructive to look at some of the literature coming out of the 1800's between political campaigns, at which point one realizes that this kind of talk is something that's simply embedded in the DNA of participatory oppositional democracy. It might not be pretty, but it is a part of the healthy, spirited, (ugly, messy) debate that makes up a passionate democratic system in action.

This liberal fantasy of us all wearing togas and standing among greek columns in a golden light while we calmly and delicately discuss issues of the day in flowery Socratic logic is something that has simply never happened. It's something that can't exist in the real world. In fact, just that fantasy has been what's been causing the Democratic party to roll over and play dead every time a major policy issue gets put before Congress.

If Beck, Palin, et. al, want to reiterate their (presumed) opposition to any form of gun control or public mental health care, then we should definitely call for their heads... figuratively speaking, of course. Otherwise, let 'em reload or shoot for the whites of our eyes or whatever it is they're currently blathering about. And meanwhile let's circle their rear flank and gut them like the filthsome squealing pigs that they are.

Rhetorically speaking, of course.

The Thing About Julian

2010-12-16T03:17:00.000-08:00

Do I think Julian Assange is a hero? No, not really. He strikes me as being overly self-righteous, with a chip on his shoulder. Do I think Julian Assange is a villain? No, not really. He's just a dude who knows some hackers and may or may not be one. It seems like everyone is forcing themselves into the box of either "he's a bad guy so whatever happens to him is OK," or "he's a hero so I have to take his side and agree with him about everything."

The fact is, he's neither. But nevertheless what's being done to him is simply beyond the pale. This is clearly a conspiracy right out of "The Net" (that old Sandra Bullock movie). And it's all about the timing.

Last time around, when WikiLeaks dumped their Afghanistan files, the media was caught off guard. All they could do was report it. But it's obvious now that someone, somewhere in some halls of power decided that the next time they'd respond to another WikiLeaks dump by instantly going after Assange from all directions. Consider:

PERSON 1: "OK, they've dropped another dump, this time a bunch of U.S. diplomatic cables."

PERSON 2: "Yeah, but it's mostly just high school girl diary stuff. The only interesting things in there have to do with a few bombings in Yemen, and the media doesn't seem to much care about that. They get better ratings reporting the high school girl diary stuff."

PERSON 1: "That doesn't matter. While the media is out there reporting the cables like they're TMZ going after Lindsay Lohan, we need to utterly destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, to send a message. First, find out whoever is hosting their site and force them to drop WikiLeaks from their customer base. Next, do the same to their domain registrar. Then go after PayPal and whatever credit card companies are taking payments for them. Either they all find an excuse to drop WikiLeaks or they get the "burn the witch" treatment next."

PERSON 2: "Done, done and done. That was surprisingly easy. Only took day or two."

PERSON 1: "We're not finished. Now we need to scour the planet and find anything we can get on this guy - unpaid parking tickets, whatever - in any country. He travels a lot, so that should be easy."

PERSON2: "OK... It looks like a couple of women in Sweden were complaining a few years ago that he sort of maybe didn't use condoms with them, or something. That's a misdemeanor called "sex by surprise." No jail time, but there is a fine. There was also initially a rape charge attached, but it was immediately dropped as soon as a prosecutor looked at the evidence: both women have gone on the record as having given full consent to have sex with him."

PERSON 1: "Doesn't matter, he's now officially a sex offender. Call the prosecutor in Sweden and have them put the rape charge back on, then force Interpol to upgrade the case to "Most Wanted Red Alert." While we're at it, call up any bank accounts he has and make them drop him too. While we're at it, have all the news networks stop referring to WikiLeaks sources as 'whistleblowers.' It sounds too positive."

PERSON 2: "Sweden and Interpol are both on board. There's an account in Switzerland, for his legal defense fund of all things. They were only too happy to find a loophole and comply immediately. And NBC and AP have now publicly promised that they'll never refer to WikiLeaks as 'whistleblowers' again."

PERSON 1: "OK then, it looks like all our problems will just go away now."

Listed all together like that, it sounds completely ludicrous that such a thing could happen. And yet, all of these events actually did take place in a matter of just a few days. They could not have been coincidence. It's just not possible. Somebody made some phone calls to create this situation.

To whoever orchestrated all this, what you should consider is - your communications with everyone involved in helping you to go after Assange is itself at risk of being eventually leaked. Doesn't that thought concern you at all? Because, I'm certain that I'm not the only one who's curious to find out who you are and why so many governments and companies are willing to bow to your command.

No, Assange is not a hero; I don't actually care about him. But the fact that so many governmental and corporate institutions are willing to instantly take orders from some unknown source is of extreme concern to me. I've never been much for conspiracy theories before now, but someone here has blatantly overplayed their hand. The sequence of events simply leaves no other reasonable interpretation.

I never checked out WikiLeaks before now. I'll be checking it regularly from now on, thanks to these attempts to destroy it.

Obama 2009 and health care

2010-05-01T23:39:00.001-07:00

I've obviously been away from this blog for a while. As such, this post is mostly hindsight. Yay, hindsight!

Question: Why did Obama do so poorly with health care over the past year?

Answer: Because by and large, he didn't deal with health care over the past year.

Background: Way back in 1993, Bill Clinton decided to deal with health care. So he appointed a working group to put together a plan that would be introduced to Congress, appointing his wife Hillary to lead it. They submitted their completed proposal to Congress, involving all aspect of the plan. As a result, not only did this proposal fail, but it also ushered in a catastrophic extremist Republican takeover of Congress that lasted for the next 13 years.

With this in mind, it was clear that Obama's plan for health care amounted to "hey Congress, come up with your own health care plan and I'll sign whatever you want." This would solve the problem that the Clinton/Clinton plan ran into, which is that egomaniacal Congresspersons were insulted by being handed a plan to rubber-stamp.

Obama was obviously well aware of this problem. Thus, he decided to go way too far in the other direction.

Back in August 2009, the idea of having a public option for health care was polling at 77%. By the time the health care bill finally passed, the popularity of the bill was down to 50.2%. So what happened in between?

What happened is that Obama didn't use his oratorical abilities to support what he wanted in the first place. He tried too hard to stay out of "the fray" and as a result, abdicated any control or influence over the final product.

While Congress was discussing what provisions should be in the final plan, Obama was giving speeches saying that he was for some kind of (vague) health care reform whether or not it included any specific provisions. That is to say, he spend all of 2009 declining to say what specific provisions he wanted in the bill.

While this shifted the burden of the discussion off of the White House and on to Congress, it also abdicated the power of the "bully pulpit." That is, it completely failed to leverage his popularity as President to push for any specific proposals in the bill.

The result? Joe Lieberman pretty much got to define the bill himself. As a result, the final bill that ended up being passed was considered unpopular by the general electorate. Not because it was a national health care bill, but rather because it was a bad one, at least compared to what had been floated previously. The critical point being a Public Option. The Public Option was popular. Then Lieberman got it removed from consideration. After that, the bill polled as unpopular.

It wasn't until Obama's 2010 State Of The Union speech, and his following Republican Caucus Q&A session that he actually started punching back. My guess on the entire thing in retrospect is that Pelosi and Reid had said "you stay out of it, we'll handle everything," and so he tried that. Essentially, the Democrats had shelved their most powerful weapon in one of the most important debates, and as a result struggled through the latter half of 2009 without the support of one of the most eloquent and charismatic Presidents to come along in many decades.

However coming into the SOTU 2010, they had failed to deliver. Things were coming down to the wire. Thus, Obama took over. And the results are like night and day.

All of a sudden, the (weakened) bill passed the Senate. The House passed the Senate version. Obama signed the law. Done deal, dance in the end zone, Democrats win. The only problem is, in all of this they forgot about the original provisions they were trying to pass.

What we have as a health care bill amounts to pretty much nothing that affects the average citizen. Sure, if you were denied for a pre-existing condition, you get to receive health care now, and that's awesome. Bue that doesn't involve the rest of us. The rest of us are being told that our employer-based coverage is going to increase. The rest of us are basically being told that the health insurance industry is going to rape us for everything they can, while they still can.

What they fail to realize is that we, the working poor and middle class, gave up on them a long time ago, even as we have continue to faithfully pay their premiums.

To this day in 2010, I can't afford to visit a doctor. That's just how it is. Nothing has changed for me, or anybody who isn't either incredibly poor or incredibly rich. My employer-provided plan is a joke. I pay through the nose every month, and yet the deductible still hovers over my head like a sword of Damoclese: no reasonable health care expense is worth admitting the problem.

And so I go, my family and I, every month paying for something we can't afford to take advantage of.

That's what America has come to mean to me.

Health Care post for Obama

2008-11-25T20:54:00.000-08:00

Here's how single-payer health care helps people, in terms that "economic conservatives" can understand.

For any given insurance pool, the larger the pool is, the cheaper the cost for coverage is overall. You want to buy insurance from "Bob's health care" that covers 3 other people so far? Didn't think so. If one of those 3 gets big bills, you get hit hard. Ultimately, one single pool of all people in the country would be the cheapest-per-person insurance possible. Therefore, single-payer insurance is the cheapest insurance possible.

Now let's talk about unions. All of the union contract disputes in the last decade have hinged on the increased cost of the health care coverage of those contracts. I dare anybody to find a counter-example ot the previous sentence. Taking the cost of health care out of union negotiations removes most of the cost of those contracts, thus helping the industries involved.

Let's go a little bit larger. Here's an economic-conservative talking point for ya: business should not be burdened with the cost or trouble of managing their employees' health care plans. Ask a small businessman about the HR overhead in just managing such plans, much less paying for them. In fact, there's already an outsource industry regarding merely processing the paperwork for health care for businesses. It's stuff that they shouldn't have to deal with since it's not their core competency. Seriously, forget everything you know, and ask yourself - why do employers have to pay for health care? Why should they have to? Ask any small businessman about health care for their employees and they'll talk your ear off for the next 24 hours at least. Then ask the big 3 automakers. This hits business across the board already. There's no real reason it should have to.

Also, single-payer health care in America wouldn't even be "socialized" to the levels as provided in Canada or England; in our case, private doctors and hospitals would be reimbursed for providing care, rather than being state employees themselves, as they are under European models. In other words, it would still be privatized, thereby still allowing for efficiency incentives.

All we need is a basic/preventive (and emergency) level of health care covered for every citizen. Insurers could still sell "gold-plated" insurance to more affluent citizens.

As it is, the insured already pay for health care for the uninsured. If an uninsured person gets sick, they get sick or get over it until they go to the emergency room. If they go to the emergency room, then the cost runs to hundreds or thousands of times of the cost of having prevented it in the first place. Where does the cost come from for treating these uninsured? Here it gets interesting. Hospitals typically have nondisclosure agreements with drug companies, and cover their revenue to costs in some rather creative ways that are unique to the health care industry. Gave you a $200 Vicadin? How about that $120 blood test? Those are hidden transfer payments, baby. They're covering their emergency room costs by overcharging your insurance.

Normally, the first step would be to create transparency in the relationship between what hospitals charge the insured and the costs of treating the uninsured in their emergency room. But much of that is covered by nondisclosure agreements anyways, and besides is unnecessary. We can skip all of this problem by... single payer health insurance. If the presently uninsured had health care coverage up front, a $80 doctor's visit could prevent a $8,000 emergency room bill.

Unless some Republican is willing to step up and say "let them all die in the streets," and unless every doctor in America is willing to renounce the Hippocratic Oath entirely, then we're not only paying for the "uninsured" already, we're doing it in a way that produces the worst possible outcome: less care for more cost.

Single payer. It's not only the right thing to do, it's the profitable thing to do.

Hostages in Iraq

2007-02-05T10:27:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Senate Democrats and Republicans are fighting back and forth about how to word (or whether to pass) their non-binding resolution saying... something vague. It certainly doesn't say that we should bring the Iraq "war" to an end. It doesn't even say that we should reduce troop levels, or perhaps shift our priorities back to Afghanistan. I think it's supposed to say something about how a troop increase would be vaguely "inconsistent with" something good, with enough subclauses and exceptions to render even that meaningless.

Still, for all of its milquetoast wishy-washiness, Republicans are convinced that it would be bad form for Congress to say anything unpleasant about anything that the Bush administration wants to do. Never mind that Bush, Cheney, and everybody on the White House payroll has stated again and again that they intend to ignore any Congressional resolutions purporting to limit their freedom of action, binding or non-binding; and wouldn't that make for a constitutional crisis of epic proportions!

The strong argument, which even many Democrats have fallen prey to, is that any attempt to limit, cut or otherwise put any kind of restrictions on the free flow of cash from Washington to Baghdad to Cheney's stock portfolio, would be equivalent to leaving our brave soldiers stranded in a foreign land without supplies or equipment. The reason that such a connection seems so plausible to so many reveals the true crisis that we should be talking about: it is clear the Bush & co. would gladly maintain or even increase troop levels in Iraq even if the funding did not exist to support their activities. Everyone, both Republicans and Democrats, know that any "power of the purse" action to curtail Iraqi funding could not be guaranteed to lead to a drawdown. Bush might just as likely leave our soldiers out there, starving and undersupplied, while pointing his bony finger at Congress all the while and blaming them for creating the situation.

In other words, our troops in Iraq are being held hostage.

We are forced to pay, year after year, billions upon billions of dollars to maintain them, "or else." Or else they'll start dying in far greater numbers. Or else they'll be cut off and starving. This administration will never willingly return them to us because they are the best bargaining chip they could hope to have. If our troops came home, the money flow would naturally stop. But as long as they're kept in harm's way, we are forced to keep paying.

This is, of course, all a big construct of big lies. What we in general, and Congress in particular need to realize, is we do have the power to stop him. The very fact that they repeat at every opportunity that we don't is the most telling point: as long as we believe them, they're right. Congress can easily put a stop to this, inject some common sense, and resolve this hostage situation by bringing our soldiers home.

They just have to realize that they have this power and exercise it..

The Rove Doctrine

2007-01-23T13:17:00.000-08:00

In all of the discussion regarding the stupidity of escalating the conflict in Iraq, one thing that seems to be slipping through the cracks, and which would be highly instructive on the idea's merits, is just where such a plan came from.

It certainly didn't come from the Iraq Study Group.

It most definitely didn't come from the voters in November

Nor did it come from either the old or new Congress.

We also know that it didn't come from Bush's (most recent crop of ex-) generals, whom he famously consulted on his "listening tour" across town.

But if all of the informed parties that Bush went to for advice were against escalating troop levels, then how could he have possibly come to such a decision? As Sherlock Holmes said, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."

Thus, we are left with one option: Karl Rove. The "new strategy for Iraq" is not (as it might appear) actually a new strategy for fighting the conflict in Iraq, but rather a new strategy for fighting the politics of the Iraq issue. This is the only light in which escalation makes any sense, and it has the advantage of being consistent with the behavior of the Bush administration since its inception.

It's consistent with Bush's repeated framing of any issue in terms of what "message" it "sends." It's consistent with formulating governmental policy as whatever is most damaging to your political enemies. This administration habitually equates criticism of such policies as warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, and torture, with refusal to conduct terrorist surveillance. He publicly and repeatedly stated last Fall that voting for Democrats equated to voting for terrorists.

It has been long pointed out that this administration, unlike any to previously occupy the White House, does not "do" policy. Rather, policy decisions are routinely framed as political decisions. What best plays to the base? What's most damaging to the other party? What "sends the right message?" That's the Rove Doctrine, in one phrase.

This is how you get to escalation in spite of every informed opinion on the subject of Iraq: It's not about Iraq at all, and it never was. It's about us.

News Flash for 1/18/07

2007-01-18T12:37:00.001-08:00

WASHINGTON - Senators demanded details Thursday from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about new orders putting the government's domestic spying program under court review — and questioned why it took so long to do so. In response, Gonzales ran like hell out the door and made his escape past suprised Capitol security. He is believed to be still at large.

Children Of Men

2007-01-08T07:55:00.001-08:00

This is the best damn movie I've ever seen. I'll probably revise that hyperbole at some point in the future, but at the moment I just can't think of a movie I've ever seen that I like better. Not even Muppet Treasure Island. It's that good. How do I love this flick? Let me count the ways:

This movie displays what a British fascist state would look like about as well as the original V for Vendetta comic - that is to say, much better than V's movie adaptation.

The last third of the movie shows pretty much what it must be like to live in Baghdad right about now.

Sci-fi premeses allow political situations to be displayed and discussed with an assumption of no political bias. You can actually put all this on the screen without seeming preachy, because even the geopolitics are hypothetical - as opposed to movies such as Syriana or The Constant Gardener, where the geopolitics are real.

Even though it's set 20 years in the future, the presumed technology changes are really quite subtle, and therefore believable. Pretty much they've got flat-screen TV's everywhere for advertising - that's about it.

Clive Owen and Julianne Moore sure can bicker.

Although much of the situational commentary applies to American politics, far more of it applies to English politics more specifically. I like it that more and more movies aren't being made by and about Americans or otherwise dumbed down so that Americans can understand what's going on.

As difficult as it is, every once in a while the technical aspects of the filmmaking are so good (without being all cgi-flashy) that it actually breaks you out of the picture. For example, one sustained handheld shot requires the precise coordination of hundreds of people starting in different areas at precisely coordinated times. Blood spatter gets on the camera lens. Everything works.

There's no big flashy "save the world" ending. All this film does is follow one leg of a journey that hopefully will lead to the literal salvation of humankind - but there's hardly any one point you can point to and say that's the climax where things officially shift towards "happily ever after." In other words, you don't get a movie ending where everything is wrapped up neatly with a bow. It's more like a short-story ending, where you got to see only one slice of the larger situation and that's all you get. You know, like life.

More is Less

2006-12-28T07:40:00.000-08:00

Lately I've been allowing my hankering for political discourse to die down a bit. I have a tendency to wander from interest to interest on a cycle lasting a two to three months on average - hence the gap between my last post and this. However, this won't go away, and it's bringing me back. After going about town "listening" to his own advisers in order to decide how to respond to the election's proof of the unpopularity of his war, Bush has decidered to increase troop levels in Iraq. That's right, increase. Not decrease.

But we've been down that road before:

[credit Lies.com]

That's what a troop increase looks like when you don't know how else to resolve the quagmire.

So how does Bush come by such a ridiculously stupid decision directly in the face of vast national demand to the contrary? Simple. For Dubya, every day is backwards day. Consider:

Immmediately after the Democrat victory, he said that he was willing to cooperate with the left - mere hours before attempting yet again to nominate John Bolton and a slew of rejected judges.

We're winning in Iraq. OK, maybe we're not winning, but we're not losing. And we don't do quagmires.

The White House definitely had conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMD's. (They'd have shown you the conclusive evidence, but it was so important it was classified. Still is.)

Torture? Yes! (But let's redefine that word to mean something else.)

Habeus corpus? No! (Nobody knows what that word means, so we can leave it alone.)

The NSA's wiretap program has oversight. That means it's legal. (Except that it doesn't have judicial oversight, since no warrants are involved. But what's one word - "judicial" - between friends?)

The people of Iraq will greet us as liberators. No? OK, the people of Iran will greet us as liberators.

We're turning the corner. We're turning the corner. We're turning the corner. We're turning the corner.

Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere! Rumsfeld is gone! (This is the "loyalty" president?)

Karl Rove works on policy. (thus proving that politics is policy in this administration). Paul Wolfowitz runs the World Bank. (Since when is he a finance guy? What qualifies him for this?) Nearly all regulatory agencies are run by former special-interest lobbyists of the industries to be regulated. (of which I have already blathered.)

Up is down. Black is white. Right is left. Bad is good. Time after time after time after time, when faced with a clear choice between a sensible option and a horrifically stupid option, Bush does precisely the worst thing imaginable.

This is what the decider does.

We Are Not At War

2006-12-12T10:18:00.000-08:00

Now that England has openly admitted it, I feel a little less alone in speaking the unspeakable out loud:

We are not at war.

It's a hard thing to say. This is the dirty little secret that every American, from the most flag-waving right-winger to the most hand-wringing left-winger, carries around in the deepest chambers of their hearts, afraid to even think it, much less say it out loud. We spend all day in public spaces discussing the ramifications of our current war, how to resolve the war, why we went to war, and so forth. But when we're alone, in the quiet spaces of our mind, that fleeting thought lurks at the corners of our perception: this is not a war after all. And we know it to be true.

But, we think, what about the terrorists? If we don't wage war with them, then won't they get us? Won't they blow us up? The answer to that is, perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps they'll blow us up anyways. But starting wars in other countries won't stop them from doing whatever they plan to do. Starting real wars with real armies and real guns in order to stop those who use espionage methods against us is sort of like trying to kill bacteria with a baseball bat: not only won't it work at all, but you'll probably smash up a lot of your apartment trying.

Terrorists are stopped by police. Terrorists are stopped by intelligence agencies. Terrorists are stopped by the international cooperation that comes from an unwavering commitment to real diplomacy. Read any Tom Clancy or John LeCarre novel if you don't believe me. Nobody ever caught a terrorist by throwing an army at them.

The terrorists want us to think this is a war. In their minds, they are soldiers in a legitimate confrontation. 9/11 was a provocative act. It was specifically intended to provoke us into thinking we were at war. But that doesn't make it so. By buying into their claim that this is a war, by following their lead, we have lent legitimacy to their narrative. We support the story that they sell to their recruits. We prop them up even as we assail them. It doesn't matter how many terrorists we kill when in so doing we breed them at a greater rate. But there's no scoreboard, no number of dead terrorists after which we get to say we won. In order to stop terrorism, we have to stop the flow of terrorists. We have to defeat their narrative that this confrontation is valid. We have to stop fighting them on their own terms, in an arena of their choosing. Because if this is not a war, then they are not soldiers. If this is not a war, then they are nothing more than criminals, mere murderers.

This is not a war.

Congress did not declare war. In fact, it's been so long ago that Congress actually passed a declaration of war, and we've thrown armies into open-ended conflicts so often, that to speak of war hardly makes sense any more. The President declared it to be so, and shouts it to us often. He wants to be a "wartime president." In fact, he desperately needs to be a "wartime president" in order to make any kind of sense out of his own actions. But the Constitution quite explicitly states otherwise. A real war requires a hard, deliberative choice made by us, not by the President, nor by those who would pick a fight with us in order to magnify their own sense of importance. We decide. They don't decide for us. Besides, the President said it himself, long ago: "Major combat operations have ceased."

We are not at war. In fact, we never were.

This truth is the principal source of unease in our gut. It's the shaky feeling of vertigo we get as some part of us becomes aware that this overriding issue, this single framework that rules over every single aspect of our politics today - has no legs. It makes us uneasy when our leaders speak of "victory," when we don't know what "victory" means. What would it look like? Will one of our generals sit down at a table with the grand poobah of all terrorist groups and make him sign a declaration of surrender? Will the CIA prove that the last terrorist has now been caught or killed? If so, how could they prove such a thing? Will there be a tickertape parade and we'll get all our freedoms back?

How do we win a war that doesn't exist?

It's OK, America. We are not at war. Really, it's OK. Everything can be OK. We don't have to fight any more. We can do our best to stop terrorist plots and catch terrorists without having to send our children to fight and die halfway across the world in the wrong country. We can begin to secure our ports and our transportation systems and our water supplies, like we always should have. We can work with other countries instead of against them, to help convince their people that we really don't want to kill them, and to help actually catch anyone who tries to kill us. We don't have to fight anyone. They can't make us. And it's not too late to stop fighing. It's never too late.

We are not at war. This is not a war.

It's just a mistake.

DeLay Invents The Internet

2006-12-11T12:20:00.001-08:00

TomDelay has announced that he's starting a new group, to be called "GAIN" (for "Grassroots, Activist and Information Network). Problems? Oh yeah, he's going to have problems.

Step one on their agenda should definitely be to raise some cash to buy the domain name "gain.org" from the folks who've had it parked for some years now. They'll surely be asking for a pretty penny once they see who's coming after it.

As it is, headquartering your "grassroots" organization's website at tomdelay.com is practically an admission that it's got nothing to do with principles and everything to do with trying to forge a new cult of personality. Step one in convincing recruits that your "movement" is independent of the individual behind it is to NOT NAME ITS WEBSITE AFTER YOU. As it is, any conservatives who might be interested in such an organization, but who may be hesitant about hitching their wagon to Tom DeLay's horse are automatically excluded from this group. It's not like he's just the president of their board of directors or something - the group's website IS HIS PERSONAl HOMEPAGE. How is this "grassroots?"

He's also going to have difficulties with the fact that any online political advocacy group, whether conservative or liberal, could accurately (and thus, legally) describe themselves in a grammatically correct sentence using his group's full name. For example: "MoveOn.org is a grassroots activist and information network." Thus anyone can water down his group's name, and he can't stop them. You can't legally trademark the correct use of the English language.

What's worse is that the site seems to express a confused attempt to capitalize on something that progressives have been doing well for quite a while now, and as such, doesn't seem completely clear how to define its boundaries. Is it the home page for a vote-drive network? A fundraising network? Is it Tom DeLay's personal website? His blog? A conservative blogger site in general? Is it about getting Republicans elected or is it about defining conservative principles? DeLay doesn't seem clear on what the differences are between these kind of sites. He just knows that "online activism" and "the blogosphere" are useful and effective modern political tools, so he wants one for himself: "Welcome to TomDeLay.com and thank you for visiting my new blog." Ooh look, it's just dripping with cachet!

Another problem is that unless DeLay has had a total personal change of heart, his site is already lying to us. Consider the following blurb: "Conservatives must act on First Principles. We must organize and act to protect the very principles of: order, justice and freedom that are the touchstones of our founding documents. We must act to speed the return of our government to its constitutional roots and we must organize to protect our freedoms from those who wish to deny them to us." Well, I'm all for that. I couldn't agree more. In fact, if I ever believed a word of it, I might even sign up myself.

Nearly all of the ethical and logical problems with the current state of conservative thought can be traced to a disconnect between first principles and present implementation. However, DeLay is himself one of the leading architects of that break. As Speaker of the House during some of the ugliest years that body has ever seen, he personally orchestrated the prevailing Republican policy that power is its own end. Under that policy, the principles of conservativism themselves are nothing more than tools to be cynically used and exploited as means to shore up his own personal power. Traditionally conservative principles have all suffered as a direct result of his tenure in office; not only the aforementioned order, justice and freedom, but also opportunity, liberty, and support for families as the essential atomic unit of American society.

The website is quite correct to say that "The election of 2006 was an example of what happens to a party and a movement when we fail to fight for the principles that brought us together in the first place." I would only add that this is what happens when you allow yourselves to be led by those who would gladly sacrifice those principles for their own sheer personal power. In doing so, DeLay, Gingrich, Hastert and many others (whether in the White House, Congress or the mainstream media) have twisted what at their core were once quite reasonable principles reflecting a cautious approach to American policy into a set of laughably distorted dogmatic "values" which reflect only the ability of the Republican leadership to manipulate a large portion of the electorate by obfuscating the issues. Here's a quick hint: every time a so-called "conservative leader" says we should re-think any of the provisions of the Constitution, that it's somehow patriotic to give up liberty for an illusion of safety, all true conservatives should be the first to shout "treason!" back. Or are you waiting for the Department of Homeland Security to come after your guns before you'll speak up?

But the biggest problem DeLay is going to have is trying to convince anyone that he's an outsider, a populist rabble rouser invading Washington from the farmland. Not that he isn't trying: "Over the course of my political life I have learned many things, one of which is that not all good ideas come from Washington, D.C.. In fact I think that most of the best ideas come from concerned citizens from all over the United States. Unfortunately, many D.C. insiders are simply incapable of looking outside the capital beltway for fresh opinions and new approaches that might otherwise help our nation." Now I want you all to repeat the following to yourself for at least the next ten years, because he's counting on us all forgetting one very important point: the only reason that DeLay is not presently a Washington insider is because he got kicked out for being completely corrupt.

This organization isn't a grassroots effort of any kind. It has nothing to do with conservative principles. It exists solely to lay the groundwork for a future attempt to resurrect DeLay's political career from the ashes of its self-immolation. Someday, when we've become accustomed to a new generation of incumbents and problems, and have allowed ourselves to forget what things were like under his tenure in office, DeLay expects to reappear in a new guise, as the outsider populist, the right-wing blogger and grassroots organizer who is going to bring Washington back to long-forgotten conservative principles. Kind of like Newt Gingrich is attempting to do now, only with a great deal more foresight.

Perhaps the first of these conservative first principles should be to stop allowing themselves to be cynically exploited by self-aggrandizing criminal users like DeLay.

Conservatism deserves better than this.

In Terms They Can Understand

2006-12-08T08:01:00.000-08:00

Recently, there's some hubbub that the recent election's 35-0 skunking of the Republican party is somehow a mandate for "bipartisan, centrist" approaches to the problems that beset our nation. I'll leave it to others to discuss the ridiculousness of that meme. For my part, I'd like to actually explore what it might look like to reach across the national aisle, to translate liberal points into conservative terms. In that regard, I intend to make the case for a progressive approach to public policy, using the kind of pro-business language that Republicans claim to understand.

Many Republican primaries in the relatively recent past have put forth a host of "business conservatives" - those whose battle cry is "let's run this country like a business!" OK, let's. Let's actually take a close look at what sound business practices would look like when applied to America as a whole. Here are a handful of the arguments that could be made.

1. The R.O.I. of human capital

Let's say that your company (America, Inc.) has a significant number of employees (the poor), who, while granted that you're not paying them very much, aren't really getting very much work done - they aren't generating very much wealth for your company. Stockholders aren't happy with slim margins, but you can't fire anybody - "firing" someone from citizenship is nonsensical, and doesn't translate to this analogy. As such, common sense dictates that you should target precisely those employees for development, so that the investment in their earning power will produce enough ROI to widen those margins and improve your corporate profile.

Business language has a tendency to refer to weak points as "opportunities." Underemployment in America is just such an opportunity. There's more room for improvement in the amount of wealth that could be produced by the unemployed and working poor than in any other sector. Your small businesses and entrepeneurs are already doing the best they can (although some targeted assistance in these sectors probably wouldn't hurt). The growth of your large corporations is stagnant merely due to their vast bulk. In fact, our current method of focusing our resources on corporations has indeed left us with an overall economic growth rate widely characterized as "tepid." In order to do better, we need to focus on the "low hanging fruit" (to use another popular business term) which have the most potential for dramatic return on investment.

This isn't merely spending. It's an investment in underutilized human capital. By aggresively targeting those personnel resources which are underperforming, and developing their productivity to sustainable levels. After that, they will on average pay back that investment many times over. The goal should be to develop affluent citizens over time who will be able to simultaneously support the consumer economy and pay a greater return to tax revenues.

The current state of social welfare programs lie somewhere between inadequate support and attempts to merely move the beneficiary "off of welfare" as soon as possible, without regard to where they're moving to.

Confusing the issue, such programs actually count the number of people that they fail to serve as a success rate! It's not uncommon to hear "we've moved X people off of the welfare rolls this year, proving the program a success." To accurately measure the return on that program as an investment, its success should be determined by the actual economic condition of those who have gone through the program, rather than the sheer number of people merely kicked out of it into any job whatsoever. No program should count as success the number of people it refuses to serve.

However, continuing programs have historically failed to improve the real condition of their recipients as well. This is because they give an inadequate amount of blanket "support," keeping those recipients below the poverty line, with no attempt made to foster a permanent increase in their economic status. As a result, they have led to an unbreakable cycle of dependence on meager benefits. Such programs are correctly identified as throwing good money after bad, as they serve neither the best interest of the recipient nor that of the nation; half-measures often produce zero results. In addition, such programs deduct 100% of pre-tax earnings from benefits, and thus actually financially disincentive recipients from working!

An actually effective approach to the underdeveloped human capital problem would not be characterized as a "safety net" but rather as more of a "safety trampoline." A spending level heretofore unprecedented in social welfare programs (i.e. enough to actually do the job) could over time end up costing less than traditional programs, since recipients would only need to stay in the program for a limited time.

Such a program would employ focused, complete expenditures and services targeting specifically those barriers that stand between a given beneficiary and a significantly improved way of life. For example, a benefit package for a given recipient might include not only education expenses, but also targeted assistance with child care, transportation, housing and food assistance during the entire period. Counseling assistance should be integrated into this approach from beginning to end, in order to determine what reasonable package of benefits would best fit for a given recipient's life goals, and to help them stay on track. In addition, only 50% (or some negotiable portion) of pre-tax earnings should be deducted from benefits, in order to create a natural incentive to increase their earning power as they transition out of the program.

2. Effective economic management

One of the philosophical objections to proposals such as that sketched above is that a country which relies upon a thriving free market segment should seek to rely on the free market completely, and avoid any attempts to "meddle" or otherwise manipulate macroeconomic conditions. This philosophy is often based on a dogmatically held view that completely unfettered free markets will somehow naturally resolve all social ills whatsoever, rather than simply create supply to match demand.

However, basing practices on dogma is not necessarily realistic, and therefore constitutes poor business management practice. A historical comparison of economies would serve as data to realistically demonstrate which macroeconomic techniques actually serve our goals.

History demonstrates repeatedly that the inevitable end-product of absolute laissez-faire capitalism closely resembles the common image of the third-world "Banana Republic:" there is a small handful of extremely wealthy individuals, an eroded middle class, and the vast majority of people live in abject poverty, whereas the government consists of little more than its military arm. This scenario has occurred in a great many nations where unfettered capitalism has held sway over a long period, particularly in South America.

Such a situation can hardly be described as thriving capitalism; it would be more aptly described as nothing more than "economic anarchy." And while the handful of rich people in such environments may do well relative to the local median income (which is negligible), it could easily be argued that even those same people would do better operating within an environment with a dynamic and productive majority middle class.

In contrast, the United States itself did not achieve its economic dominance as a world power until the need to recover from the Depression forced it to apply reasonable rules and regulations to encourage sustainable business practices. At the same time, it invested in human and other infrastructure in order to foster an economic climate within which business could thrive. Worldwide, the existence of such rules and programs at a reasonably moderate level consistently coincides with those countries/periods which we count as "prosperous."

The alternative to pure economic chaos is not only absolute totalitarian communism, and to believe so is indicative of extremely childish thinking.

Intelligent and cautious regulation, investment and intervention is necessary to the development of a thriving, sustainable, economic climate. Such an economic climate fosters, rather than inhibits free enterprise.

So let's go back to our analogy. Although it is widely recognized as foolishness for business leaders to attempt to micromanage every aspect of their companies, it would be no less foolish to fail to perform any management at all, to allow the company to run adrift with zero guidance or control over its destiny. But such a situation is precisely analogous to the dogmatic stance of laissez-faire economics.

It is not the business of any one business to manage the economic climate within which they exist. But it is necessary. As such, it is the proper role of government to do so.

3. Globalization as sustainable practice

Many liberals currently decry free trade entirely. However, economic globalization, like technological advancement, is an inevitable worldwide process. As such, merely complaining about its negative consequences fails to produce the kind of discussion which can lead to its intelligent management. However, these issues related to free trade which liberals complain about are in fact not merely questions of justice but are, in the long term, actually self-destructive economic practices.

As mentioned previously, American history has demonstrated that the careful establishment of regulations and economic programs to manage its economy has coincided directly with the rise of America as an economic as well as political superpower. A comparison to disparate societies shows further that precisely such an environment is in fact necessary to allow unlimited economic growth in the long term. Therefore, it should be taken as an alarming development that as free trade expands globally, corporations are using this opportunity to shift production into other regions specifically to avoid those very same regulations and economic programs.

The current model of corporate globalization is little changed from the great mercantile empires of the 18th and 19th centuries. Appearances to the contrary, it is at heart quite a simple process:

Divide a portion of the world into (underdeveloped) producer nations and (developed) consumer nations

Create a flow of resources or goods from the producer nation to the consumer nation

Tap the reverse flow of money from the consumer nation to the producer nation

Use a portion of the proceeds to induce the political bodies in both nations to support the arrangement, including the use of force if necessary

It would not be out of line to characterize such an arrangement as "exploitative." While demonstrably lucrative, such arrangements have been proven time and again to be unsustainable over the long term. For one thing, relying on political bodies or military advantage to sustain a business practice puts control over its support up to chance. For another this typically leads to the long-term destabilization of the producer society once the arrangement finally fails, thus sacrificing the opportunity to maintain alternative economic arrangements. Nearly all of the regions of the world where it is extremely difficult to do business due to political antipathy or instability have become so due to prior use of exactly this sort of "slash and burn" arrangement.

To go back to our analogy of running the country like a business, any business leader who sacrificed significant long-term opportunities in order to "cash in" in the short term would be considered to be doing poorly, and that judgement would be reflected harshly in that company's stock rating. Any company could easily outperform all competitors in a single quarter by selling off all of their assets and laying off all of their employees. But it would be utterly nonsensical to do such a thing. It would in fact, consitute a refusal to do business. Sustainability is a necessary comoponent to any economic enterprise.

The current globalization arrangements sacrifice the opportunity to develop a truly larger pool of consumer markets in addition to mere productive capacity. They seek to maximize their accessible cash flow by maximizing the economic differentiation between producer and consumer nations, not only in terms of monetary power and wages, but also in terms of environmental and worker protections. In addition, good corporate citizenship to promote democracy, human and civil rights is at odds with the policy of supporting the kinds of governments which make the those economic arrangement their first priority. Although engaging in such practices would reduce the short-term cash flow available through free trade arrangements, they would in the long term develop a host of newly developed economic environments which could produce not only resource extraction and goods production, but also thriving services and consumer markets.

Imagine the financial benefit to any company of multiplying its available consumer base by a factor of 100 or more. That's the opportunity that we discard by failing to intelligently manage the process of globalization.

Ideally, each nation should recieve a rating from an independent international body which takes into account that nation's human and civil rights practices, its commitment to democratic institutions, and its legislated protections for such factors as worker conditions, safety, environmental protections and both human and physical infrastrucure development. Trade barriers or tariffs would then be indexed to this rating. This would allow for underdeveloped nations to have a direct economic incentive to improve their profile towards one which fosters a thriving local economic climate, rather than being both economically and politically disincentived to do so.

Again: the Depression and the history of many other nations over many other periods have proven the ultimate failure of economics as exploitation. No business can expect to thrive independently of the health of the economic environment within which it operates. As more and more businesses step into a global environment, it is to their benefit to consider the long-term health of the global economy. In order for globalization to succeed in the long term, we have to manage it in such a way as to develop, rather than exploit, the world. The necessary management techniques to do this have already been demonstrated as effective in developed nations. We refer to these as "rights." All we need do is incrementally export them.

4. Corporations are not the most effective economic entities

At the center of laissez-faire economic dogma is the argument that thriving free markets are produced by incentive, and that therefore all forms of incentive should be maximized. Regulations and infrastructure investment programs admittedly limit incentive to at least some degree. Heretofore, I have only argued for targeted, intelligent restrictions which have been proven to lead to a significant improvement in economic climate.

Although there is certainly a place for large corporations in any viable free market model, the current practice of focusing economic management towards the benefit of corporations is one which inevitably fails to produce the best return for the nation as a whole.

As discussed previously, the bulk of any large company itself prevents it from responding dramatically to policies intended to benefit it, in terms of economic growth or wealth production. The stock of large corporations are called "blue chip" for a reason - they are effectively a large pool of stagnant money, a good place to "park" an investment safely while waiting for a good growth opportunity.

This is because a corporation is not an individual. As such, a corporation's growth does not necessarily equate to incentive for any group of persons.

To illustrate this point more clearly, consider what happens when a corporation is "broken up" into two new entities. Although the capitalization for each is half of that of the whole, the workers within each company face quite the same structure of advancement and pay grade than they had previously - in many cases, better. The stockholders of the corporation also benefit by the split, now holding one share in each of the new entities, which now benefit over the long term from working in a more competitive environment. At no point is the benefit reduced for any individual class of persons when that of the corporation is.

On the one hand, providing tax cuts or other benefits to large corporations or wealthy individuals may produce a noticeable short-term increase in a given economic indicator, such as investment or employment, due to the sheer size of the few entities involved. However, such benefits would produce a much greater return in overall economic growth if they targeted small or enterprise-class businesses or middle class individuals, as those sectors are proven to be much more dynamic in terms of cash flow, productivity, wealth generation and the creation of new markets. They're more nimble, and therefore respond more dramatically to changes.

Incentive, opportunity, and overall macroeconomic R.O.I. are to be found in individual and small-group enterprise. In large corporations, opportunity and potential has largely been exhausted, and the margin of return on investment in that sector is correspondingly minimal.

This point is not intended to demonize corporations, or to characterize them as merely "bad." Merely assigning blame is one of the greatest management blunders known, yet it has been inexplicably integral to public policy discussions for a long time now. Rather, the above point merely intentds to say that government resource allocation intended to benefit the economy is better focused on other sectors than corporate.

Conclusion

The above is a partial list, a starting point. There are surely many other issues that liberals and conservatives seem to disagree on, but when explained in the correct terms are merely a question of effective and intelligent practice. I do believe that for every apparently intransigent issue, there is an approach whereby the ethical thing to do and the effective thing to do agree perfectly. It's usually just a question of analyzing the problem in politically neutral terms.

This just goes to underscore the basic point that all politics is communication. Whether they consider themselves liberal or conservative, all decent people have the same values, all reasonable people work towards the same ends, and all intelligent people can find effective means to achieve them. Therefore, all partisanship and controversy is nothing more than obfuscation coming from those politicians and pundits whose own self interest lies in keeping the rest of us divided from one another, in leading our common interest to fail.

Signal and Noise in the Netocracy

2006-12-04T10:41:00.000-08:00

There's a passing phrase in the recent Al Eisele complaint about the unruliness of internet discourse that bothers me: "I guess being brayed at by jackasses who rant and rave anonymously comes with the territory..." While the statement overall is perfectly apt, I want to discuss that one word, "anonymously."

It's unfair to excoriate netizens for being anonymous. This is a favored point of mainstream media (MSM hereafter) insiders to bring up - that you can look up their phone number if you try hard enough, and that the fact that many bloggers or commenters don't have that personal transparency somehow itself makes their opinions worth discounting for that reason alone. Mr. Eisele's offhand comment insinuates that it is the anonymity afforded by the internet which necessarily leads to the presence of such braying jackasses.

This argument might have merit provided that those same MSM "news media" sources hadn't already completely poisoned the practice of reasoned debate long ago. I see no reason why I should give more credence to a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity than to a KSLibMom or protonx82. It's not like using your real name is any guarantee whatsoever that your opinions will have a shred of merit. In fact, it is people using their real names who long ago started the practice of using fallacy and invective to shroud productive debate in public affairs. Entirely within the MSM world, this has been the case for a long time. Rupert Murdoch's current crusade against common sense in the public interest merely follows in a tradition previously championed by William Randolph Hearst. Limiting public expression to an insular cabal of credentialed contributors beholden to those who control the means of media production is no guarantee that such expression will produce ideas worthy of consideration. Bill O'Reilly would be no less insulting to the intellect of the nation if he wore a mask and called himself "AlwaysRight56." The corrollary of this point is that merely using an internet pseudonym should not be counted as a mark against the substantive content of one's argumentation.

In fact, the opposite may often prove to be the case. When one's name (and therefore credentials) are concealed, then analysis of one's arguments can't be compromised. See Alan B. Sokal and the Social Text Affair for an example of the degree to which a contributor's credentials can spoil the accuracy of editorial analysis and decision making. Also, from the point of view of any online contributor, if the only basis of your reputation is your writing itself, devoid of any "bio" or good name, then you will have an incentive to make your writing better. Those who feel they are known might slack off to rest on prior laurels, whereas those who are ever unknown must re-establish whatever reputation they desire with every word that they type.

Consider also that Mr. Eisele's extremely impressive bio completely fails to prevent him from holding forth exactly the kind of pissy bitch fight with trolls that most experienced netizens had learned long ago to stay well away from. By ignoring the more substantive responses to his previous offering and rather focusing on the replies from trolls, he is inevitably escalating his own discussion towards an event horizon of pure invective. Those of us more familiar with anonymous online discussion long ago learned the argumentative and decision-making techniques necessary to avoid such an eventuality. In contrast, neither Mr. Eisele's work for Walter Mondale, nor his extensive editorial experience on such worthy publications as "The Hill" have left him in the least wise prepared to deal with such a situation. This is a lesson that he's clearly learning the hard way, irrespective of his age and experience in the MSM and public policy worlds.

Mr. Eisele's current predicament exposes some of the difficulties that many MSM insiders are beholden to confront, given that the Internet is currently producing most of the good ideas for the Democratic Party at least. As most MSM "journalists" at present merely write off the new online debate going on all around them with the pithy term "the blogosphere," he should get a certain amount of credit for making any effort to hold an open discussion with the netizenry at all. But to the degree that the media Brahmin choose to engage such unwashed electronic masses directly, they commonly find themselves struggling with how to glean the signal from the noise in this arena, a problem which no amount of classical editorial experience can enlighten - even if you've worked on a "letters to the editor" page for years.

Reputable Journalism was based upon a flimsy unspoken contract that those who presented information in a certain way (e.g. "the news") would conform to certain norms of integrity regarding fact and bias (i.e. "journalism"). That contract has been thoroughly violated by now by those who would replace neutrality with a balance of extremes. One can't trust the word of a talking head with a $200 haircut and a charcoal-gray suit merely because the powers-that-be decided to give him airtime, now that the people in control of that airtime have proven themselves to be partisan hacks. It's far too late to worry about barbarians storming the gate, when the barbarians have been on the inside and running the place for some years now.

But now that the old method of separating Ivory Tower opinion from that of the Screaming Mob is no longer tenable, the question of how best to separate "signal" from "noise" in online debate is becoming increasingly pressing. Some technical approaches may have a certain degree of merit: both DailyKos and TPMCafe use community "rating" systems, in order to identify those contributors who have developed a reputation for worthy argumentation. Such methods at best present a compromise approach between the "Ivory Tower" separation of past eras and the apparent chaos produced by purely anonymous discourse. Nevertheless, "online reputation" schemes themselves risk re-establishing the same problem that classical MSM separation entails: that of creating new "insiders" and limiting the discussion primarily to them. As such, they may ultimately fail due to the risk of being rendered obsolete by newer, more vibrant debates. These are more likely to be produced by those who are focused on the discussion itself rather than on establishing their personal credentials in a new form: the "user rating" as the new resumé.

Whether or not some formal scheme ever pans out for determining one's position in the Netocracy to come, there are a number of techniques that any individual can apply right now which go a long wasy towards helping one participate in more substantive, high-quality discussions and fewer pointless flame wars.

1. Do Not Feed or Tease the Trolls

A "troll" is one who posts commentary designed solely to provoke an impassioned response. As such, it is worth remembering that trolls don't actually care about the issue at hand. In fact, they very well may not believe anything they say. They just want to push your buttons and get you to lower yourself to their level.

Ignore all invective. If something someone typed makes you angry, you should always assume that it was written specifically for that purpose. By allowing them to direct your response through provocation, you also allow them to spoil the quality of your further contributions.

2. Just because someone's mad at you doesn't mean they don't have a point

In supporting point (1) above, bear in mind that someone making a substantive point might also sprinkle inflammatory terms into their response. If you treat them as a mere troll, it makes it look like you fail to understand (or can't beat) their actual point. Blithely ignoring someone's substantive points, no matter how high-minded your reason for it, makes you look like you lack the ability to form a cogent response to them.

This situation is best resolved by engaging only the substantive portion of their reply, responding as if they had never called you a "fuckwit" to begin with. Think of expletives and abuse as a form of punctuation, expressing only the strength of feeling of a given point. Feel free to use it in the same fashion.

3. Remember that Critical Thinking class they made you take?

The Athenian Greeks developed formal logic as the basis of the practice of Philosophy primarily as a response to a similar situation, brought about by their early experiment with Democracy: when all voices are equal, how can one determine whose opinions have the greatest merit?

Dust off that old Phil 101 textbook and use its precepts to construct your posts and to critique those of others.

In Conclusion

The above is by no means a complete list of techniques for getting the most out of digital discourse. It is rather a mere handful of suggestions which represent the bare minimum that should be expected of any online contributor who wishes to be taken seriously in the online arena. Google the term "Netiquette" for any number of more complete and informative treatments than the bare sketch presented above.

However: In any online discussion, these techniques (and others) are no less a necessity for those accustomed to walking the halls of power than for those who never moved out of their parents' basements. No one gets a free pass. Because in the future, it won't matter which Vice-Presidents you worked for, what lofty publications you helmed, or how many years' experience you have put in to the practices of public policy development and responsible journalism. You will be judged today by what you write today, and no amount of experience can protect you from making yourself look like a fool. It is necessary that you make your arguments as air-tight and idiot-proof as possible, and - no less importantly - that you engage your allies and opponents intelligently, without allowing yourself to be sidetracked from the purpose of the debate.

Such requirements weigh no less on the Al Eiseles of the Netocracy than they do on the WolfMan2000's.

Do You Like Apples?

2006-11-28T14:54:00.000-08:00

America is under attack from cowardly terrorists. They are attacking us because they hate freedom. These terrorists use fear and violence in their quest to overthrow the secular governments in their region and seek to replace them with a twisted and extremist version of the dominant religion.

Naturally, I'm talking about Republicans.

For far too long, neocons have been projecting their own secret self-image onto others, and labeling everyone around them as enemies. They continue to insist upon falsities so blatant they could come right out of Alice in Wonderland: warrantless wiretaps "have oversight," we are "winning the war" in Iraq. I would not be suprised at this point to see Dick Cheney on Face The Nation stating categorically that up is down. The world simply has not seen this level of nonsensical babble in public discourse since the height of Soviet Communism.

It's high time that we simply took their insane statements and threw them back in their faces. There's more support for it. Consider the following points:

Republicans are radical extremists

This first point is tricky, because they try to confuse us with this one all the time. Typically, the neocons like to scream that any centrist position is "far-left extremism" and that their position is the "middle." But they have forgotten what real far-left extremism actually looks like. Earth First! and the Animal Liberation Front are examples of extreme leftism. Hillary Clinton is decidedly not. Walter Cronkite and Jim Lehrer are examples of the political middle. Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto are not.

As it stands presently, the Democratic party has been dragged far from its left wing and now stands solidly in the middle; no major Democrat even bothers to try to agitate for actual liberal positions these days (except for perhaps Dennis Kucinich). On the other hand, the Republican party has been held captive by their most extremist elements for a long time now. Compared to them, even Ronald Reagan would count as a "left-wing radical."

Republicans are cowards

They react to danger from a position of fear, rather than one of confidence. A courageous response to 9/11 would have been to take a comprehensive and intelligent analysis of the causes of attacks on the U.S. and then to face those causes directly. Instead, we invaded Iraq, overreaching wildly and inappropriately to the actual threat. A natural response to fear and confusion is to lash out blindly; we have done, and continue to do, just that.

To make this point more clearly, ask yourself: what would a brave leader look like? A brave leader would have calmed the nation, and made the nature of the threat clear and thoroughly understood. A brave leader would have used all the tools at his or her disposal to deal with that threat: not only military retaliation, but also international police cooperation, improved port security, careful intelligence, and diplomatic engagement. Compared to such a creature, Bush is clearly its antithesis: a coward.

Republicans raise taxes

Economics 101: if you spend money, you have to get enough money to pay for it. You can either pay for it now or add some of it towards your debt. Either way, it has to be paid for. And if you add it to your debt, it will cost you more to pay it off than you got. The government gets its income through taxation. So when the government spends lots of money, youre taxes get increased, whether now or at some point in the future with interest.

In 2000, the Republicans inherited a country with a balanced budget, and have since then increased the national debt to 8.6 trillion dollars. That's 8.6 trillion dollars that will have to be paid by us with our taxes. Dividing per capita, the Republicans have raised your lifetime tax burden by $28,666 and counting.

So before you parrot "Democrats raise taxes" you should ask yourself exactly when was the last time that the policies of a Democrat-controlled government led to stagnant economic growth and relatively high taxes? The 1970's? Certainly not the Clinton years. But when was the last time the policies of a Republican-controlled government led to exactly the same situation? Right now!

Republicans are terrorists

Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror (a state of intense fear), especially as a means of coercion." The Republican party has been attempting to coerce us into maintaining their power using a state of intense fear for the past five years. Therefore they are terrorists, as the word is correctly defined.

Now, I'm not one of those who claims that the Bush administration ever knocked down any of our own buildings. But the fact remains that he has knocked down the buildings of another country without provocation. He has killed people in order to support his own power base. Shock and awe.

That's terrorism.

Republicans hate freedom

See warrantless wiretaps, torture, and suspension of habeus corpus, just for starters. The protections of individual rights are viewed as obstacles to a party which lacks the ability to deal with foreign threats without violating our freedoms. Thus, their ineptitude becomes totalitarianism. Such protections as are afforded by individuals against the state in the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions are labeled as "quaint" by those who see us as operating under a "new paradigm."

Such a paradigm, if one asserts that it exists, could only be called "post-American."

Republicans hate Democracy

The "plenary executive" argument is a demonstration of just that. Bush himself has stated that he would prefer to be a dictator. Everyone involved in the Bush administration has at one time or another expressed the feeling that they have the ability to defy other branches of government. Cheney has stated that he intends to refuse the subpeona power of Congress.

And then there's the electronic voting thing, and the gerrymandering, and the voter suppression, and the 2000 election intervention by the Supreme Court, and so on ad nauseum.

Al Qaeda wants you to vote Republican

The Bush administration blunders and overreacts to every provocation, while behaving as a caricature of the "great Satan" enemy that Islamic extremists would have America portray. By doing so, this administration, and the Republicans who consistently support their actions provide material aid and comfort to other extremist terrorist groups who need someone to play "bad guy" for their recruiting efforts.

Seriously, if you were Osama Bin Laden, would you rather have Bush in office mired in Iraq continuously while leaving America undefended in any reasonable way, or someone like John Kerry, who would most likely make intelligent choices right off the bat? Would you rather have someone who refuses to engage in dialogue with the Middle East or someone who might very likely attempt to sway the region towards moderation? So long as Bush stays in office, a large subset of the Islamic world is given a clear example supporting every one of Bin Laden's talking points.

Republicans are in league with the Devil

Most end-time Millenial Christian scenarios involve our secular institutions of power falling under the sway of someone who pretends to be a Christian while at the same time fomenting war, poverty and hatred throughout the world. Bush presents himself as a Christian while at the same time fomenting war, poverty and hatred throughout the world.

Jesus didn't have much to say about abortion or gay marriage; in fact, he said exactly nothing about either of those issues. But he did talk quite a lot about social justice, equating wealth itself with a state of sin, and excoriated the heresy involved in striving to appear publicly pious. He promoted the peaceful resolution of conflict, as well as respect for people of different faiths. Today's Republican party attempts to fool Christians into believing that their own religion is less about the issues Jesus actually spoke about and more about divisive issues of their own making.

As classically defined, the Devil is an entity who attempts to lie to Christians about what their own religion entails so that they will go against its original precepts. Republicans do this. Therefore, they do the Devil's work.

In Conclusion

Now, one might say "I'm a Republican but I don't do those things." You might say that while you decry certain actions or subsets of the Republican party, you still feel that overall they're the good guys. But that's a cop-out. Because the Republican Congress of the last twelve years has repeatedly and consistently appointed the worst among them to positions of leadership. If they get caught, they try to change the rules to keep their lawbreakers in power. The Republican Congress has refused Bush nothing, and has supported him at every turn. They have actively dismantled institutions in charge of investigating executive malfeasance and misappropriation.

Whenever you vote for any Republican, you vote for those who either are, or who themselves support, these radical extremist, cowardly, freedom-hating, tax-and-spend Satanic terrorists. Whenever you call yourselves a Republican, or give your voice to their positions, you lend material aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States of America. The Republican Party itself constitutes a clear and present danger to the security of our nation.

Republicans are evil, as evil is defined.

How do you like them apples?

Half a Billion For Swift Boat and "The Pet Goat"

2006-11-27T11:56:00.001-08:00

With two years still remaining in his term, it seems that George W. Bush already wants his friends to give him $500,000,000.00 for his Presidential library, fully twice what he raised for his own re-election in 2004.

Lest you think such a sum is par for the course, consider that Reagan's library cost a mere $57 million dollars, and that includes storage hangars for both his versions of Air Force 1 and 2, which were decommissioned at the end of his term. The previous high water mark is Clinton's library, which cost $165 million dollars and is designed to look like a giant mobile home jacked up on concrete blocks (I'm not kidding).

This would have been a perfect opportunity to make Clinton look like a spendthrift by comparison, to make his party look good on paper, but W. apparently can't bring himself to do it. Not only does he want to spend half a billion dollars on the thing, but they've already begun evicting people to make room for it. Using eminent domain, no less.

One of the functions of Presidential libraries is to try to make a President's legacy look good after they leave office, but Bush's image is going to need a lot of work. To this end, his plan is explicitly designed to include a new right-wing think tank solely dedicated to figuring out how to continue to advance the neocon agenda after Bush is gone.

I can't imagine that very much of the $500m is going to be spent on books or other documentation, since this most secretive administration in the nation's history is likely to classify nearly everything of interest to scholars and citizens. About the only thing that scholars are likely to be allowed to examine is a single copy of "The Pet Goat" that Bush continued to read on September 11th after the second plane hit. And maybe some White House Christmas cards. The portion of the facility dedicated to making presidential documents available to the public should probably take up about the space of a broom closet.

Other than the function of maintaining public records, many libraries also have a function which gives something back to their community or to the nation. For example, Bush Sr's library endowment includes an entire College of Public Service which is managed by Texas A & M University. Typically the idea seems to be to display exhibits or give back to the nation in such a way as to make a president look good as a side effect. But W. is never that subtle. His plan is not a college, nor a museum, but a think tank of all things. This endowment is designed to see to it that people will remain employed to apologize for this administration's mistakes not only now, but far into the future.

For some time now, I've been looking forward to a future where W. is loathed and held up as an example of what not to do. An inevitable consequence of healing the intensely partisan divide that he created would be for the broad mainstream of both parties to see clearly what he has done to our nation, and hopefully to resolve never to allow ourselves to be so divided and manipulated again. But in order to fulfill their mission, Bush's Presidential Library think tank would have to continue to work to keep the nation as partisan and divided as it can, because the moment that most of America comes together to look at the facts, Bush's "legacy" will go up in a puff of smoke. Therefore, unlike even the most far-right think tanks to date, this one will not have even the most flimsy of other excuses for existing, such as attempting to craft public policy that they think is good for America. They will be openly and completely devoted to keeping partisan hack jobs alive forever, swift-boating our political system for eternity.

In other words, it looks like most of a half a billion dollars is going to be spent through the Presidential Library system, in order to fund yet more right-wing neocon hackery to invent further ways to pervert our national discussion. W. has finally figured out a way to politicize the last remaining institution of American Democracy that was supposed to be above politics.

I, for one, can think of no more fitting tribute for this President.

The Penguin Agenda

2006-11-23T14:27:00.001-08:00

Neil Cavuto of FOX News says that the animated movie "Happy Feet" is offensive to him. Not for the usual reasons that crazy pundits find movies offensive, but because it references man-made ecological challenges that the protagonist penguins must face. Said Cavuto, "I though it was like an animated 'Inconvenient Truth.' I half expected to see an animated version of Al Gore to pop-up."

Tellingly, nowhere in the exchange between Cavuto and Holly McClure (the wingnuts' current pet movie reviewer since Michael Medved moved into full time punditry) does anyone make any claim regarding human activities and the environment. That is, they never even bother to argue that overfishing and garbage dumping aren't a problem. Their point is rather that these facts are somehow partisan, and should therefore not be "foisted" on children.

I just don't know where to start with the crazy. First of all, FOX News has been pulling a partisan bait-and-switch game since they launched, by pretending to be a news channel when they are actually a propaganda machine. But let's be specific about that. According to his bio on their website, Cavuto is "anchor of Your World With Cavuto, the No.1 business news show on cable." Anchor of a news show, it says. About business. Actual news anchors are supposed to commit to the practice of "journalism," a central tenet of which involves the elimination of "bias." I don't want political opinions foisted on me when I sit down to find out what's going on in business news. And I can't imagine what looking for supposed political bias in a children's movie could possibly have to do with either news or business.

Secondly, whether or not penguins and other wildlife are negatively impacted by oil drilling, garbage or overfishing is a question of fact, not opinion. In other words, Cavuto explicitly states that he objects to children being exposed to facts. This itself should be sufficient to discredit him as anyone whose opinion should be listened to for advertising profit.

The conflation of opinion with fact is a longstanding wingnut trick. They like to preface their statements with "I believe," as in "I believe that we are winning the war on terror." If opinions are substituted with facts, then one is free to lie at will. You're not really a deceiving bastard, just a little out of touch with reality!

But regarding animated movies and environmental messages, they have always been intertwined. Remember Bambi? "Man is in the forest!" This admixture isnt' because of a secret Jewi - er, leftist conspiracy running Hollywood, it's simple logic. If a child is going to go watch a movie about anthropomorphic talking animals in the wild, he or she may take an interest about actual animals in the wild. This may lead to information about challenges those animals face, such as predators. The greatest challenges nearly all wild animals face at present are related to human activities. That's just how it is. So if you want to present a reasonably consistent story, you would have your protagonist anthropomorphic animals facing such challenges in the movie.

Besides, there's nothing Cavuto can really do about it. Penguins are well known leftist agitators, and the penguin conspiracy is far too broad at this point for even FOX news to stop. In addition to shilling for Al Gore, penguins promote the gay agenda. Penguins are also used promote open source software, which is clearly a communist utopian movement that harms corporate profits. Not to mention Sparky. So, Mr. Cavuto, as you can see, it's not Hollywood that's out to push the radical leftist agenda.

It's the penguins.

A Modest Proposal for Iraq

2006-11-21T10:59:00.000-08:00

(With thanks and apologies to Jonathan Swift)

It is a sad state of affairs to those who walk through Baghdad or watch the evening news to see the streets of such a great and ancient nation awash in garbage and murder, seemingly without end. The citizenry, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are virtual prisoners in their own homes, subject to unpredictable power outages as well as random searches and seizures by any one of a number of factions. As their youth become inured to such circumstance, they inevitably turn to the insurgency for employment, or else sell themselves to the militias and death squads. These insurgents, militias, and American soldiers each strike at one another whenever they gain the least opportunity, thus sustaining the violence which keeps so many honest Iraqis trapped beneath an unceasing crossfire.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this violence, unpredictable and random as it is, is in the present deplorable state of the country a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of bringing any form of order to Iraq would deserve so well of the public as to get his own cable TV show.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the disaffected youth of Iraq; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the entirety of the present conflict in the Middle East, as well as America's tarnished image upon the world stage.

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for some years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, for example, consist entirely of halfway measures and belated suggestions for which the appropriate time has long since passed. Calls to either increase troop levels or withdraw entirely are likewise too simplistic to retain any real goal of stability. Beggaring all sense, some people currently call for both of these "solutions" at once! Although "outside the box" thinking is most certainly required here, taking simultaneous contradictory actions at once is perhaps a bit too far out.

The key to the problem is that the stability of the government and economy of Iraq cannot be established without infrastructure; and that infrastructure cannot be rebuilt without peace. In turn, without the stability of government and economy which enforces and maintains peace, the various factions involved will continue to require the blood of one or another in order to assuage their sense of purpose and duty.

A straightforward approach begins with the statistics. By looking at the magnitude of the problem itself, we can best see how to mitigate it in service of our ultimate stated goal of bringing order and stability to Iraq.

The number of American soldiers present in Iraq being usually reckoned one hundred forty thousand, of these it is calculated that twenty-eight thousand have died in the forty-five months since our army first set foot upon their soil. By dividing one into the other, I find that on the average, 63 Americans die in Iraq per month, only slightly over 2 per day. In addition, twenty-one and a half thousand Americans have been wounded in the same period. That amounts to 477 per month, or approximately 15 per day.

During this amount of time, the United States has spent an estimated three hundred and forty billion of its dollars directly on this effort, which amounts to seven and a half billion dollars per month, or nearly two hundred and fifty million dollars per day. This figure certainly does not include the much higher sum being siphoned to various contractors hired to repair the infrastructure of Iraq, as their people and equipment sit idle, drawing wages and lease payments while unable to complete their mission due to the random violence which continues in that country.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

A cease-fire between all parties involved in such a confrontation is the only possible first step. However, it could be negotiated provided only that the ends which all of these parties seek are met. The Americans require order and stability. The insurgents and militias require the death of their foes, whether they be one another or American soldiers. All of these ends must be guaranteed in any sustainable cease-fire agreement.

In addition, many Arab nations find that public execution is a most excellent method of keeping the civic peace. It is furthermore commonly known that all Muslims desire the death of Americans, and that this alone may assuage their inevitable bloodlust, which might otherwise lead to terrorist atrocities taking place upon our own shores. To quote our illustrious President, "we fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here."

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that we immediately negotiate a cease-fire with the insurgents and militias, with the contingency that one American soldier shall be offered up each day for public execution in a convenient outdoor square of Baghdad. This step alone will cut our flow of casualties almost exactly by half in one fell swoop (if you will pardon the pun). Furthermore, those Iraqis who desire to witness the death of Americans need only stroll downtown in safety to confirm that their ends have been met before their very eyes, no longer needing to subject themselves to any personal risk of life and limb to do so.

The American to die each day may be chosen by lot, perhaps by employing a system similar to that used to determine draftees during the Vietnam conflict. These soldiers may then be informed of their selection by the quaint but traditional means of being handed a piece of paper containing only a black spot upon it. They will then be removed by Military Police and placed in holding to prepare for the following day's sport.

A variety of common and entertaining methods of execution may be employed in order to maximize the degree of fulfillment which swells the Muslim breast upon witnessing American blood spilt upon their soil. On one day, the American sacrifice may be beheaded, on another stoned. Upon the next, two Americans may be chosen and forced to fight one another to the death, with the survivor earning a discharge home. The mighty power of Democracy may be employed here by polling the populace as to which methods of execution they might prefer to see next. A wide variety of options are available, including drowning by waterboard, asphyxiation brought on by forced stress positions, and the simple but satisfying method of beating one of our own soldiers to death while they are tied to a chair.

Perhaps contests could be held by which a lucky native may be allowed to administer the execution personally. A regular lottery or auction would not only increase the entertainment value of this sport, but also go far towards mitigating the costs of the occupation.

I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, and most urgently, it would greatly lessen the concern weighing upon our politicians today that fluctuations in the level of violence in Iraq might be employed by those enemies in order to influence our own elections at home. This grave worry that our own casualties might be employed to subvert Democracy itself clearly rests heavy upon the furrowed brows of our leaders and pundits, as it forms the body of many of their speeches today. With this solution, the number of American dead in any given month will be fixed at a predictable rate, allowing our political strategists to rest easy knowing that no suprises from abroad might spoil their skillfully crafted calculations.

Secondly, once the American populace becomes accustomed to this procedure, it will no longer be newsworthy at all. Our pundits and news organizations will no longer need to report to us the number of Americans who died in Iraq on a given day, as it will always be exactly one! The mere fulfillment of a predictable policy hardly constitutes news. This will lessen the worry of the average American citizen, since we will no longer need to be presented with the details of this war. As such, we will be free to turn our national attention towards more pressing domestic issues, such as abortion, immigration, flag burning and gay marriage.

Thirdly, since this would be drawn randomly from a selection of all the soldiers stationed in Iraq, one's chances of actually dying there would remain at a tolerably low level at all times, improving morale. Regardless of a given soldier's activities or orders, on any given day they would still have the same less than one-half percent chance of dying! These are excellent odds for the survival of any soldier in wartime, and our troops should be given to appreciate how very, very lucky they are compared with the soldiery of any other war in human history.

Fourthly, by broadcasting the executions towards outlying areas of Iraq, we can pacify those regions as well. This will in turn further facilitate the demand for rebuilding the power grid and communications networks throughout the country. Laying cable TV lines to a given area will be seen as a security priority rather than merely an unneccessary luxury for the native folk.

Fifthly, the general peace in the area will free our contractors to complete their work in rebuilding the basic infrastructure of Iraq. Consistent power may be restored, garbage may be collected, and police trained in relative peace. Most importantly, this will allow our contractors to realize greater profits, by reducing those costs related to security concerns.

Sixthly, by killing only one American soldier per day, no soldiers at all need suffer any wounds or debilitating injuries! This alone will save our Veterans Administration untold billions of dollars over the future lifetime of those soldiers who might have otherwise needlessly burdened our society. It bears mentioning again that this expedient also reduces our casualties fully by half, saving greatly on funeral-related expenses.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. Aftermarket DVD sales of executions could bring further income to the families that our sacrificed soldiers leave behind. Broadcasts to other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iran could bring yet more peace and good will between Arabs and Americans everywhere. Given current world opinion, a broader worldwide market of supplying Americans for execution would certainly be developed as a result, which would bring years of entertainment and pleasure to people of every creed across the globe. Finally, we presently have such a supply of soldiers in Iraq that we could stably sustain the occupation in this manner for over three hundred and eighty years!

A small portion of the proceeds from related lotteries and gambling collected in Iraq, in addition to the vast savings to be realized in contracted work could then be paid to the doomed soldier's family. This sum would certainly be a much higher amount than they could hope to receive from the Department of Defense alone for the sacrifice of their child to the noble goal of expanding freedom throughout the Middle East. In fact, even ten million dollars per American soldier sacrificed would be little more than an afterthought, given the vast opportunities for savings brought about by this plan. Such a sum would surely be a great benefit to that soldier's family, at once raising them to a future life of luxury and plenty. By paying out such amounts we will also purchase further peace at home, as those family members will be less likely to raise protests or otherwise annoy our leaders with unreasonable questions and demands.

I can think of no one objection that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged that the number of American soldiers stationed in Iraq will be thereby much lessened. This I freely own, and it was indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. Moderate politicians in both of our parties claim to desire the reduction of our troop levels there, but only within a cautiously extended time frame, and certainly not with any appearance of defeat. By employing this simple measure, we can actually draw down our forces without suffering the ignominity of retreating from the country! Therefore let no one talk to me of other expedients: of crafting a set of rationally achievable goals and meeting them one by one; of setting a reasonable timetable connecting withdrawal levels to the achievement of those goals, and keeping to it; of reaching out to other regional powers to assist in maintaining the political stability of their neighbor; of employing local and regional workers to assist with the rebuilding effort rather than contracting those jobs to American companies; of learning to view Iraqis, as well as Arabs and Muslims in general as human beings rather than as a problem to be solved. Lastly, of crafting foreign policy in terms of our permanent American principles rather than in terms of passing "American interests," as if we were nothing more than another in the long line of mercantile empires to trample Arab soil in pursuit of mere profit.

Therefore I repeat, let no one talk to me of these and the like expedients, until there is at least some glimpse of hope that there will ever be a hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as for myself, having been wearied out for these last three-and-a-quarter years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal which, as it is wholly new, so it also has something solid and real, of no expense and little trouble, full in our own power, and from which we can incur no danger of either escalated casualties or ignoble retreat. For by converting our casualties into a manageable commodity, we thus bring the most effective hallmarks of American capitalism to bear upon our current problem: ingenuity, control and profit.

After all, I am not so thoroughly bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by others, which shall be found equally entertaining, profitable and effective. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will maturely consider two points. First, as things now stand, how can any politician or party bear the ignominity of going down in history as having either lost or greatly escalated this war? And secondly, how otherwise may we achieve our aims and thus declare "victory" when the work crews required to provide the requisite stability face certain death the moment they set out to work? I desire of those politicians who dislike my overture, and who may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of our slain American soldiers whether they would not think it better that their child had died to meet any concrete goal at all, be it a single completed power transformer or reconstructed sewer line, rather than having died to achieve no purpose whatsoever?

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing the aims of our coalition, providing for stable Democracy in the Middle East, relieving the violence, and giving some pleasure to the humble citizenry of Iraq. I myself have no children who might be sent to Iraq by which I can propose to get a single penny, my only being nine years old, and myself well past draft age.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Impeachment

2006-11-20T14:12:00.001-08:00

Speaker Pelosi says that impeachment is off the table, which has prompted cautious sighs among Republicans who feel that it would somehow be unfair to hold the Bush administration accountable for their actions, as well as cautious resentment among the neo-Internet Democrats who feel that it's far beyond time we started actually fighting using the same down 'n dirty (lack of) rules that our foes have employed since 1994. But it isn't much fun to be in the position of hoping that your party's leaders are lying to you. Fortunately for us all (including the long-term health of the Republican Party), everyone seems to be forgetting a few things.

First of all, this "on/off the table" phrase is incredibly misleading. As it has been most recently employed by Bush to hint that he might like to nuke Iran, one would think that taking something "off the table" must amount to a solemn vow that you would never, ever do it. In reality, it merely means that you don't have the intention of doing it right now. Grown-ups understand that things can be taken off and put back on "the table" as circumstances require. Before even using "the i word," testimony must be brought to Congress.

Secondly, everybody knows that Democrats are "flip floppers." Unlike Republicans, upon getting new information, Democrats actually have the ability to change their minds, utilizing a process known as "thinking." Therefore, for a Democrat, declaring an intention not to impeach at the present time in no way rules out impeachment at a future date. In fact it would be irresponsible of any Congress to merely start a fishing expedition for evidence to support a desired outcome. It would similarly be irresponsible for Pelosi to state that she had such a goal in mind until the appropriate processes were completed first. Take a close look, Republicans - this is what a responsible Congress looks like, in stark contrast to previous Congressional hearings into subjects such as Whitewater and Vince Foster's suicide.

So, out of the vast array of Congressional hearings waiting in the wings, which would be most likely to bear the delicious, juicy fruit of a Presidential impeachment? Let's look at a choice few:

9/11 Commission II

Almost as if they were frightened to complete their duty, the 9/11 commission famously tabled the question regarding whether intelligence had been manipulated to lead us into Iraq and adjourned indefinitely. The resumption of this commission under a Democratic chair to finish its assignment will inevitably uncover how one gets from scads of CIA-collected rumors which their own analysts discounted, to a final CIA summary stating that they know for a fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Numerous other instances have occurred whereas items that the CIA had excised entirely from their reports later turned up in the mouths of our elected leaders.

Unfortunately, this one is going to go down like Iran-Contra. Sure, it's big. In fact, lying to get us into war is the one thing that lefties hate Bush for the most, but it won't stick. The administration will be able to shed a thick ablative shield of flunky scapegoats and then paint themselves as the mere victims of their own incompetent underlings. We'll all know it's a lie, but there won't be any smoking guns here. Still, this should hopefully discredit him to Nixonian levels, as well as root out the politicized bureaucracy installed in our intelligence services in favor of people actually willing to do their jobs.

Secret Prisons

On this, they are going to try to get away with their "law is unclear" game, dancing around on definitions (Does it apply to this foreigner? On that soil?) and employing delay tactics until no one is sure precisely why it's illegal.

Here's why it's illegal: when these occurred, the obligation of the U.S. Government to abide by Habeas Corpus was not a matter of Geneva Conventions or international treaty, but simply of Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which simply states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." As we are not presently in a state of either rebellion or invasion, claims regarding public safety are not relevant. Furthermore, this section of the Constitution notably does not refer to the legal or citizenship "status" of the person held. Habeas Corpus is not a right of citizens but rather a requirement placed upon the behavior of the Executive Branch. There are no other exceptions to this requirement, and no context which could change its meaning.

But wait! What about The Military Commissions Act of 2006? Didn't Bush get permission from the Republican Congress after the fact? Well, setting aside the fact that no Act of Congress can override an Article of the Constitution, the MCA attempts to absolve Bush's actions retroactively. In legal terms, that makes it an Ex Post Facto law. However, this is also explicitly verboten by the very same Article 1, Section 9 of the very same Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Dadburn pesky Founders, they thought of damn near everything. Dadburn pesky Constitution. Bush probably should have read the silly thing before he took an oath to uphold it. Now, whether or not this constitutes a crime per se may be a difficult point of law, but whether or not Bush violated his Oath of Office is quite clear. That oath was to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution told him to uphold Habeas Corpus. He chose to do otherwise, so he broak his oath.

Warrantless Wiretaps

This one is a slam dunk. The Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act which governs this area of law explictly states that wiretaps require a warrant from a court. Bush has publicly stated that he authorized wiretaps without such warrants. There's no wiggle room on this. There are no legal exceptions or loopholes that he could possibly employ to get through or around the requirement for warrants. "Speedy" Gonzales & friends may talk around it all they like, but there's really no legal question on this whatsoever. And it doesn't matter what rhetoric he employs to appeal to the public that he should have been allowed to do what he did. The law is the law. This law is very clear. The President violated this very clear law. Presidents who violate laws get impeached. Period.

And so:

For each of the above points (and others), the pertinent facts will be placed before Congress, on the record. Once that is done, it would be a gross dereliction of duty for them not to impeach.

But even with all of this, until fairly recently I was filled with a vague sense of unease whenever the subject of impeachment came to mind. Not that I wasn't all for the impeachment of Bush, Cheney and whoever they care to cast off in their wake, but somehow I felt just a little bit like a partisan hack to admit it. Call it another form of liberal guilt, if you will. Here's what changed my mind and made it all easier: I merely asked myself "what about the Presidency itself?"

It would be one thing if all of the mean people currently in charge of the country wandered off into retirement and allowed saner heads get back to the business of putting the United States back together. Perhaps it would be better if we just moved on in 2008 and turned our backs on this ugly chapter of American history. After all, I'm a bleeding heart liberal softy ain't I? Give the poor schmucks a break and just put 'em out to pasture.

Unfortunately, that would set a precedent most foul. History would be written that these actions taken by these people went unpunished, leaving open-ended legal questions that a future President might exploit (maybe even a Democrat). We would always know what could happen, and that we did nothing to stop it last time. Thus, it is essential to the future health of the Union that all participants in the malfeasance of this administration be legally smacked so damn hard that it echoes forward throughout history, such that future generations of Chief Executives won't dare even think about trying to place themselves above the law for an instant.

Ultimately, no piece of paper, however venerable, has the power to enforce itself. The Constitution only "works" when the people in charge of executing it actually follow its precepts. This very thin point is all that stands between the United States and pure totalitarianism. When a President simply refuses to do what the Constitution says, the Union is forever imperiled. As such, violation of the Presidential Oath of Office itself must be considered an impeachable offense or else our Constitution may as well be written on toilet paper. This is why impeachment is necessary, completely irrespective of whether it is desireable.

So, whether you're a vaguely guilty moonbat or a panicky terrified wingnut, don't worry about the inevitable impeachment. It won't happen just because Bush is an idiot and a jerk, and it won't happen just because his lies are killing people. It won't happen because he is outnumbered by Democrats, and it certainly won't happen as revenge for Clinton. This is far, far more serious than the little partisan tit-for-tat games so beloved and feared by shrill Republican "strategists." Rather, impeachment will happen solely because it is a necessary step towards restoring freedom and liberty to America.

So relax. After all, freedom and liberty were supposed to be bipartisan concerns, right?

Right?

Of Foxes and Henhouses

2006-11-20T08:37:00.000-08:00

To characterize Bush's tendency to appoint extremists to oversee agencies that those extremists hate as "alarming," would be putting things mildly. The fact that he continues to do so directly after the Democratic victory in both houses of Congress is nothing less than a warning shot across their bow that, for all his talk of being "above the fray," Bush intends to continue to politicize every aspect of American life at all levels. As if that point weren't made quite clearly by the very fact that Bush's campaign manager continues to oversee policy in any official capacity, Bush now enters his lame duck phase continuing to overstock the bureaucracy with partisan hacks. Although this most recent appointment does not require Senate confirmation, Bush presents the heretofore unconsidered counterexample as to why it should.

Ahem: Eric Keroack has been appointed to head the family planning services for the Department of Health and Human Services. As such, he will be responsible for any federal programs regarding the promotion and distribution of birth control. And what experience qualifies this worthy for such a position? Simply that he was previously director of "A Women's Concern," a group which opposes the promotion and distribution of birth control.

Setting aside for the moment all of the obvious arguments regarding the relationship between restricting birth control and the occurrence of abortion, it would seem shocking that a sitting president should appoint someone to oversee an agency who would obviously like to see that agency razed to the ground... if this weren't merely another instance in a long line of exactly that behavior. Bush has a tendency to put foxes in charge of henhouses, apparently for no other reason than that he is not fond of hens. It's like putting the enemy's generals in charge of your own army because you want to lose - but Iraq is another story.

The first thing that comes to mind is, what if the shoe were on the other foot? What if a Democrat in office put Tre Arrow in charge of the Department of the Interior? Ann Berlin in charge of Agriculture? How about Ralph Nader in charge of Commerce? Obviously the right-wingers would rightly scream that such a President had gone mad, and was instituting a dangerous policy that would lead directly to the destruction of the American economy. But there would be essentially no difference between that and the current administration's appointments, in that putting single-issue radicals in charge of their governmental nemeses is, to put it gently, an irresponsible pattern of behavior. Adjusting the mandate of governmental agencies is a job which should only appropriately be done via the legislature, as it should involve debate and public consideration. But to do so merely by executive appointment is nothing more or less than dereliction of duty, committed by both the appointee and the President himself.

However, this raises a larger and more difficult issue: what can be the proper political response to those who run for office with the intent of destroying government from within? It's not like we didn't have warning. The Rand/Goldwater/Reagan/Bush philosophy has been presented clearly and thoroughly enough before now, even as it has become increasingly strident and extremist over the past 50 years. These Republicans have stated loudly and at every possible moment that they would prefer to see all government agencies ground to a complete halt, and will work to do so whenever they can get away with it. The complete destruction of government itself (except for the military) has been explicitly and openly stated in platforms and campaign promises. And now, with this appointment and others, with every incompetent misstep and failure to act, we see those promises fulfilled. We can hardly say that we shouldn't have been expected to see it coming. Inept, unworkable government is both the premise and agenda of neoconservatism, after all. The apparent ineptitude of the Bush administration is therefore a matter of intentional philosophy, not of accident. They mean to screw everything up, and are doing so on purpose.

It isn't really possible to scold someone for destroying (or "reforming," to use the Gingrichese) that which they believe it is their moral duty to destroy. One can't shame these people into feeling bad for razing necessary governmental programs which they strongly believe are not only unnecessary, but actively harmful as well. To a lesser extent, they believe the same of all government (except for the military). Bush and his ilk are simply not cognizant of concepts such as the responsibility and duty of governmental bodies to perform their office faithfully. To the neocon right wing, all of government is nothing more than a pit into which their heroes are willing to descend in order to slay its monsters. It is not going out on a limb to state that such persons are well out of contact with reality, and should be kept as far as possible from holding offices in the government that they purport to hate so fervently. Unfortunately, the rest of us still have to deal with them, at least for the time being. The question is, how? After all, it's not like Congress can use the "power of the purse" against agencies that this administration is trying to throttle to death anyway.

First of all, these "bomb-thrower" appointees must be literally called to task. They may cackle with glee now that they hold the reins of their most hated enemies, but the oversight capacity of Congress must now hold them to executing the duties of their new offices faithfully, completely, and accurately. As such, they must be forced to actually perform their hated jobs correctly, or face indictment for abandoning their job responsibilities. For in order to act on their obvious intent they would have to break actual laws, either by neglecting their specified duties or by hiding or falsifying information gathered by their agency. As such, the forthcoming congressional hearings into wiretapping and manipulated intelligence will prove to be only the tip of a vast bureaucratic iceberg of malfeasance within nearly every government agency. I find it difficult to believe that such persons have been doing their jobs properly, given that they loathe those jobs as a matter of philosophical and/or religious dogma.

Now that we have a Congress prepared to actually exercize the oversight responsibility delegated to it by the Constitution, two years saturated with scandals as yet unknown are simply inevitable. Don't say you weren't warned. The only way we've avoided hearing about what's been crawling around under these rocks so far has been to avoid looking under rocks. But hopefully with enough such hearings, those who campaign against government agencies will become considerably more hesitant in the future to apply for or to accept positions running those agencies. If forced to actually do their jobs, they would either have to become what they purport to hate or reverse their stated convictions entirely.

In the long run, it is high time that those of us to the left of the new center took the time to make the case for government. If these Ayn Rand conservatives would characterize us as Socialists (or even Communists) merely for suggesting that certain functions of government are useful and necessary in order to define the limits and bounds within which individual enterprise may best flourish, then it is far more powerful to make the argument that their extremist call for no government (except for the military) leads ultimately to pure economic anarchy under the rule of a fascist junta. Just look at any third-world banana republic for the inevitable end result of their philosophy: the military is 90% of government, a handful of people have all the wealth, all infrastructure is privatized (that is, nonexistent) and the middle class has been completely eroded, leaving behind nothing but a vast - er, "affordable labor market" to be either exploited or discarded by the aforementioned wealthy. There are many examples of such economic wastelands available for comparison today. Each constitutes the antithesis of everything that America stands for.

And don't let the neocons try to tell you that this is not truly their aim. The fact that they haven't thought out the end result of their political dogma does not mean that they can disavow it so easily. Everything may be mere fun and games when it's all just rhetoric, but now that they have been stupid and insane enough to turn it all into policy, the real results of this creed are becoming clear to the electorate. If we could have a proper discussion of which functions of government should be exercized to what degree, then that would be sane. But to always call for "smaller government" regardless of the current actual size of the government, and regardless of its current activities or our current needs, constitutes merely a thinly veiled call for precisely such a form of pure economic anarchy. And even that thin veil is rapidly dropping.

But let's allow the fascists and the communists to fight out their extremist philosophies in other countries than ours. Among other things, America was supposed to be the land of the sane. Anybody who tries to tell you that we should be completely to either side of any philosophical scale merely in order to fulfill the purity of their vision is a raving lunatic and needs to be called so immediately whenever they dare open their bleating yap. It's time that we brought a new sense of shame to those who would dare to make a virtue out of dereliction of duty. That is not the American way, and these madmen are no patriots.

Iraq and a Hard Place

2006-11-16T10:35:00.000-08:00

To me, this is mixed news. Bush has received a four-point "victory study" from the Iraq Study Group, which specifies actual goals for what constitutes "victory." To say that it's about time would be a gross understatement. If we had done this, say, three years ago we might have actually met some actual goals by now. And such goals as remain might also not have to be quite as modest as they've become.

What's been really driving me nuts is that Bush & co. have been saying since the start that they won't leave until they "win," or achieve "victory." At the same time, they constantly refuse to define what those words actually mean. Other than our President, I know of no other employee of any kind who has ever gotten away with the argument that benchmarks on his job performance are to be avoided on the grounds that they will harm his job performance. Such breathtaking chutzpah as this would get you fired like a shot from any burger joint in the world. And yet Bush & co. roll on.

At this point, I'm generally inclined to believe that anything the Iraq Study Group says is a relatively good idea, compared to the other options available to us at this late date. Even if we were to begin withdrawal now, we would hypothetically want defined goals for what to achieve on the way out. But since we're already in the quagmire, we might as well listen to some actual foreign policy professionals who know how to define goals and meet them.

Here's what they want Bush to do:

1. Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq

Setting aside the blood pressure spike I feel on reading this, it's simply a stupid idea. Escalating troop levels, like not having invaded Iraq at all, is an idea that's well past its time. If we had started the occupation with more troops initially, we might have done somewhat better than we have. Nevertheless, its far too late to fix everything merely by increasing forces on the ground by less than 15 percent. That's too little, too late to turn things around in Iraq. Yet at the same time, it's more than enough to further inflame the electorate in America. So McCain is an idiot for suggesting the same thing, especially if he thinks he's got a shot at 2008 after caving on torture. As if this conflict didn't fit the Vietnam profile enough as it is (and does anybody else remember them insisting "this won't be another Vietnam" over and over again?) troop escalation fits even further. The only thing (short of Bush putting on a Nixon mask) that would make this look exactly like 1970 would be to reinstate the draft - and I wouldn't put that past him at this point.

2. Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

This is a good one. Contrary to the Bush policy regarding pre-invasion Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and the whole damn United Nations, it is never too late to conduct diplomacy. Only regional networks can provide long-term stability to fragmented areas (see Kosovo). And maybe this will actually push Bush into at least talking with Iran and Syria, rather than the usual policy of rattling sabres at them. That would be nice.

3. Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others

Well, duh. I wasn't actually aware that we'd actually stopped any specific "process," but this explains a lot. The Iraqi government's gradual polarization into competing death squads has always seemed to me to be something that was completely avoidable from the start. As it turns out, it was.

4. Increase resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces

And here's where we come to the tough choice. The last thing the newly Democratic Congress needs is to bend over the way that the Republicans have for the last six years. However, using the "power of the purse" to starve the war effort is only going to hurt troops, which is the last thing that anybody wants to do. Bush has already demonstrated a willingness to put soldiers into harm's way without sufficient equipment, and he's not likely to change his spots this late in the game. But Dems will get the blame if they don't continue to pony up. The smart thing for the Democratic legislature to do would be to attach amendments to any Iraq appropriations bills rolling back such foul stains as the provisions of PATRIOT Act and the Military Commisions Act. That puts Bush in the position of either allowing Congress to repair the Constitution or to take responsibility himself for overextending the existing military budget.

In drafting this document, the Iraq Study Group also pretty much threw out insistence on maintaining "Western-style" democracy (whatever that means), and that's a good thing. Democracy can't be imposed from without, by definition. Whatever Iraq becomes, for us to try to change it again would naturally be undemocratic. But then, every time a right-winger refers to "freedom" or "liberty" these days (and they do it a lot) I am reminded of this quote from the movie The Princess Bride: "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It's going to be a long, hard two years with Bush continuing to fight for his "war" to the very end. He fights against Iraq, against the world, and against America. Even fighting against common sense, he stubbornly continues to refuse to withdraw from the endless progression of fights that he picks.

It's time that America at least started fighting back.

What we're dealing with here

2006-11-15T07:10:00.000-08:00

Day 1: Register a domain name. Yay!

Day 4: Realize I need hosting to do anything. Look up hosting services, pick one. Point the domain thingy at the host thingy. Then forget about it completely.

Day 73: Oh yeah, don't I have a website?

Day 74: Play with various PhP blog packages. Decide I don't like any of them.

Day 91: Hey, didn't Google resurrect Blogger from the dotcom graveyard? I used to like them, until they were down to one employee and nothing worked.

Day 95: Try various combinations of ancient usernames and passwords from the hazy mists of my memory. Get one to work. What is this "beta" business? Grr.

Day 113: Point the blog thingy at the ftp thingy. Bang my head against templates all day. Back in my day, they didn't have that law saying you have to use "div" tags instead of tables for layout. But I'll be damned if I'm going to show myself as some kind of pre-bubble dinosaur. I'm hip to the new code. I'm down. I'll get this to work eventually. Now I just need to figure out what it is that I'm trying to with it in the first place. Attempt to do twelve ridiculous things at once. My personal site will be all things to all people! I will be the new The Google! Sketch a bazillion ridiculous ideas on a piece of paper until it's mostly ink. Since when did clean design get so complicated?

Day 114: Oh yeah, content. I should probably actually post something, huh? I hear that self-referentiality is clever.

Day 1263: Hey, I notice that I used to have some blog posts. Maybe I should do something with that. Forget this domain name business, let's just go ahead and trust Google for now.