This blog is no longer actively maintained, but I'm keeping it around for posterity and for some of the good posts it contains (see the "My Favorite Posts" list on the right).
If the favorite posts interest you, please follow to my new blog Disentangled Reality.
Though fair warning—there is some angsty and slightly over-the-top material here.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, June 30, 2008
Can we afford even one more day?
Our Republic, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was intended to prevent us from being in the situation we find ourselves in. If everything worked as intended, Bush would never have been selected in 2000, re-elected in 2004, or would have been impeached by the end of 2007.
But everything has failed us. Our economy is declining. We're deep in debt. Our troops are bogged down in the Middle East. Our dependence on oil and fossil fuels threatens to cripple us further. (Ironic how the price of oil is hurting our economy so much, when steps to move away from it are often cast aside as likely to 'hurt our economy.')
And now, the venerable Seymour Hersh, who has been right about so many things these past eight years, brings us this: Preparing the Battlefield, a report on how the Bush Administration, with the consent of the so-called "Gang of Eight" have been stepping up covert activities inside Iran.
Who are these congressmen (and woman?) to think that they have any place in colluding with an Executive to draw us closer to a war that they seem to think is a foregone conclusion? How are these actions any different than an overt declaration of war? Of course, if we found out that Iran was leading covert operations in the U.S. to undermine our government, would we not consider that an act of war? I think we would.
The article, and other commentators elsewhere, have suggested that the Bush administration wants to do something about Iran before Bush leaves office, or that Israel might want to strike while it still has a hawkish supporter in office.
Thankfully, Bush doesn't have much time left. But every day this President is still in office, we are in danger. Can we afford even one more day, let alone seven months?
I don't think we can take that chance.
If our Republic was operating as the Founders intended, we would be well into the impeachment process by now. Little did they expect that the sacred Impeachment would become a political tool by the Republican party, and that the opposition party would be adverse to using it because there are 'better' things they could be doing--ignoring the fact that the Republicans have been obstructing everything they have tried to do, making that excuse worse than irrelevant.
Without impeachment, re-election, or any other possible consequences to his actions, this administration has no incentive to restrain itself.
When the Executive ignores the popular will, and Congress refuses to take action, what recourse is left to the ignored public?
Unfortunately, short of armed revolution, I don't see any. I don't believe, this day in age, that anything like revolution would be successful anyway--we've become too urbanized, too pampered and lazy to even consider it.
Some would say that as long as our elections are in tact and the Democrats are able to take power again, everything is A-Okay. That will be true, when it happens. But for the next seven months, we are closer to a dictatorship than we've ever been. Hopefully it will be temporary, and there is no reason to think anything will happen to prevent that, fortunately.
But my question to you is, what can we do in the meantime? Can a war with Iran be prevented? And if our worst fears are realized, and one does start... what should be done then?
(Cross-posted at DailyKos and on Facebook.)
But everything has failed us. Our economy is declining. We're deep in debt. Our troops are bogged down in the Middle East. Our dependence on oil and fossil fuels threatens to cripple us further. (Ironic how the price of oil is hurting our economy so much, when steps to move away from it are often cast aside as likely to 'hurt our economy.')
And now, the venerable Seymour Hersh, who has been right about so many things these past eight years, brings us this: Preparing the Battlefield, a report on how the Bush Administration, with the consent of the so-called "Gang of Eight" have been stepping up covert activities inside Iran.
Who are these congressmen (and woman?) to think that they have any place in colluding with an Executive to draw us closer to a war that they seem to think is a foregone conclusion? How are these actions any different than an overt declaration of war? Of course, if we found out that Iran was leading covert operations in the U.S. to undermine our government, would we not consider that an act of war? I think we would.
The article, and other commentators elsewhere, have suggested that the Bush administration wants to do something about Iran before Bush leaves office, or that Israel might want to strike while it still has a hawkish supporter in office.
Thankfully, Bush doesn't have much time left. But every day this President is still in office, we are in danger. Can we afford even one more day, let alone seven months?
I don't think we can take that chance.
If our Republic was operating as the Founders intended, we would be well into the impeachment process by now. Little did they expect that the sacred Impeachment would become a political tool by the Republican party, and that the opposition party would be adverse to using it because there are 'better' things they could be doing--ignoring the fact that the Republicans have been obstructing everything they have tried to do, making that excuse worse than irrelevant.
Without impeachment, re-election, or any other possible consequences to his actions, this administration has no incentive to restrain itself.
When the Executive ignores the popular will, and Congress refuses to take action, what recourse is left to the ignored public?
Unfortunately, short of armed revolution, I don't see any. I don't believe, this day in age, that anything like revolution would be successful anyway--we've become too urbanized, too pampered and lazy to even consider it.
Some would say that as long as our elections are in tact and the Democrats are able to take power again, everything is A-Okay. That will be true, when it happens. But for the next seven months, we are closer to a dictatorship than we've ever been. Hopefully it will be temporary, and there is no reason to think anything will happen to prevent that, fortunately.
But my question to you is, what can we do in the meantime? Can a war with Iran be prevented? And if our worst fears are realized, and one does start... what should be done then?
(Cross-posted at DailyKos and on Facebook.)
Thursday, October 18, 2007
'Race' and Evolution
James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix, said in a recent interview that, effectively, blacks are, on average, less intelligent than other races. Here's the quote (via the ABC News link above) from an article quoting Dr. Watson:
As many know, Dr. Watson doesn't exactly have a great reputation: after all, his and Francis Crick's discovery was based on data stolen from Rosalind Franklin, and there have been stories about his male chauvinist views. Thus, many will be quick to write this statement off as a personal racist streak. And perhaps he does harbor some racist views--one particular sentence is telling: "His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." Here, he is erroneously attributing a group average to individuals, encouraging the extrapolation of a generalization to particular individuals, and vice versa, the stock in trade for prejudice and stereotyping.
But what about the rest of his statements? Let's consider what he is saying, starting with his last statement.
Now let's talk a bit about human evolution. The current generally accepted theory is that modern humans evolved in Africa and that a couple groups left Africa, maybe in several waves, to colonize other areas. Those groups located nearby geographically will tend to intermix their genes readily, while those geographically far apart (by distance alone or by barriers such as oceans or mountain ranges) will exchange genes rarely, if at all. If any population is split into two isolated or nearly-isolated groups, the groups will change (read: evolve) differently from each other. These differences are very apparent in facial structure, skin tone, and other obvious physical characteristics.
It is important to note that this distinction only works when looking at widely disparate parts of the globe. If you were to move systematically from one place to another across the land, (say from Eastern Africa to China) you would see a gradual shift from one set of characteristics to another. This is an important observation, and I hope the consequences of it are not lost on you; I will touch on it again later.
Returning to the general differences observed in disparate human populations, if we can see fairly big differences in visible surface features, why could there not be differences in other characteristics? And why couldn't one of these be intellectual capacity? It seems like a fair inference to make, given that we've established that genes can impact intellectual capacity, whatever that really is. Thus, it is possible that disparate groups of people can differ in intellectual capacity.
Now we can start to evaluate the portion of Dr. Watson's statement mentioned above. We have established that "the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution" can conceivably differ. Do we have, as he claims, "no firm reason to anticipate" that intellectual capacity would evolve identically in all human populations? Well, it seems unlikely that much 'downward' divergence would occur from a base level. However, it is entirely possible that all groups did tend to increase in intellectual capacity, but at differing rates. Thus, it does appear that this claim is also true. Given this, it should of course be apparent that "wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so" -- if indeed groups of humans vary in the "powers of reason," no amount of wishing will change that fact.
Sound familiar? The same thing is seen in a biological treatment of race: distinctions can be apparent in the extremes, while the races may appear to blend together in-between. Race-designation, like species-designation, is an artificial categorization imposed on a messy world. However, the artificial nature does not mean the designation is useless. It should also be emphasized that race here does not necessarily relate to skin color. It relates to ancestry from a historically isolated population relative to other populations. (As an aside, race distinctions will diminish as increased genetic mixing between disparate populations occurs.) These populations will have unique distributions of genes, potentially resulting in different phenotypic (displayed) outcomes.
Now let's return to this part of the statement. Let's assume, for the moment, that we have a good definition of intellectual capacity (which we don't), and that we have a good way to measure it (which we don't, and quite possibly can't), and for the sake of argument let's assume he is correct that people of African descent have, on average, less of an intellectual capacity. What does this mean? Well, it means that if you were to apply the ideal test to people of African descent, and obtained a mean, that number would be lower than that obtained for people of other descent. The mean is a value that indicates that (assuming an even, or 'normal', distribution) 50% of individuals are above that value, and 50% of individuals are below that value.
However, this doesn't tell us anything about how two populations relate to each other. In fact, it is highly likely that, even if the average does really differ, variation of the two populations would overlap so much that it would be incorrect to take the (potentially true) sentence "blacks, on average have less intellectual capacity than whites, on average" to mean the (patently false) sentence "all blacks have less intellectual capacity than all whites." You similarly cannot use the first statement to imply that any particular individual has a greater or lesser intellectual capacity than any other. This problem is further compounded by the inherent fuzziness around the borders of what we consider to be races. This is why discrimination based on race, even with evidence such as we have been discussing, makes no sense; this is exactly what Dr. Watson said. The second part of the above statement just makes sense: sure, promote those who do well regardless of race, but don't promote those who aren't quite there simply to meet some ideal of diversity.
Of course, even if all of this might be true, some would say that we should forbid any inquiry into such matters as sex differences or racial differences because it encourages the generation and maintenance of prejudices. I reject this type of claim on its face. Forbidding intellectual inquiry simply because it could generate 'harmful knowledge' has never made sense. Certainly a racist (or sexist, etc.) could seize on such knowledge as proof of their beliefs; however, their inability to grasp the difference between group averages and individuals ironically places them in the lower reaches of the intellectual capacity scale, and they would be unlikely to change their minds even if evidence showed the opposite was true.
Even if Dr. Watson has some racist tendencies, his overall statement and conclusions are not illogical in and of themselves; however, we would need a much more robust, culturally- and educationally-neutral way to determine intellectual capacity before we could make such a firm conclusion in any direction.
So what about his claim regarding Africa? It could, conceivably, be a factor, but the more important contributors to difficulties in aiding Africa are likely environmental and cultural. It's better for all involved to assume the latter.
Update: Dr. Watson has disclaimed his entire comments (CNN), though more likely to calm down the resulting firestorm than because he really didn't mean them, though his premise that there are good data supporting his claim is specious at best. As you can see, the reasoning behind the issue is complex, and may be difficult for some people to grasp, if they are paying attention through the whole explanation. It was probably easier for him to apologize than to try to explain.
"He says that he is 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours-–whereas all the testing says not really,' and I know that this 'hot potato' is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.' He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because 'there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level.' He writes that 'there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.' "
As many know, Dr. Watson doesn't exactly have a great reputation: after all, his and Francis Crick's discovery was based on data stolen from Rosalind Franklin, and there have been stories about his male chauvinist views. Thus, many will be quick to write this statement off as a personal racist streak. And perhaps he does harbor some racist views--one particular sentence is telling: "His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." Here, he is erroneously attributing a group average to individuals, encouraging the extrapolation of a generalization to particular individuals, and vice versa, the stock in trade for prejudice and stereotyping.
But what about the rest of his statements? Let's consider what he is saying, starting with his last statement.
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."Despite the many problems with defining and testing something like "intellectual capacity", we should be able to agree that there is something called "intellectual capacity" that we all have. It should also be clear that, unfortunately, not everyone has an equal intellectual capacity: simply look at true geniuses and the severely mentally handicapped in any population. Now we've established that a wide variation of intellectual capacity exists; some is certainly due to environmental factors, but some portion has to be due to our genes, our DNA. After all, we aren't smarter than fruit flies because of our upbringing and diet.
Now let's talk a bit about human evolution. The current generally accepted theory is that modern humans evolved in Africa and that a couple groups left Africa, maybe in several waves, to colonize other areas. Those groups located nearby geographically will tend to intermix their genes readily, while those geographically far apart (by distance alone or by barriers such as oceans or mountain ranges) will exchange genes rarely, if at all. If any population is split into two isolated or nearly-isolated groups, the groups will change (read: evolve) differently from each other. These differences are very apparent in facial structure, skin tone, and other obvious physical characteristics.
It is important to note that this distinction only works when looking at widely disparate parts of the globe. If you were to move systematically from one place to another across the land, (say from Eastern Africa to China) you would see a gradual shift from one set of characteristics to another. This is an important observation, and I hope the consequences of it are not lost on you; I will touch on it again later.
Returning to the general differences observed in disparate human populations, if we can see fairly big differences in visible surface features, why could there not be differences in other characteristics? And why couldn't one of these be intellectual capacity? It seems like a fair inference to make, given that we've established that genes can impact intellectual capacity, whatever that really is. Thus, it is possible that disparate groups of people can differ in intellectual capacity.
Now we can start to evaluate the portion of Dr. Watson's statement mentioned above. We have established that "the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution" can conceivably differ. Do we have, as he claims, "no firm reason to anticipate" that intellectual capacity would evolve identically in all human populations? Well, it seems unlikely that much 'downward' divergence would occur from a base level. However, it is entirely possible that all groups did tend to increase in intellectual capacity, but at differing rates. Thus, it does appear that this claim is also true. Given this, it should of course be apparent that "wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so" -- if indeed groups of humans vary in the "powers of reason," no amount of wishing will change that fact.
"He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because 'there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level.'"Now we've established that it is entirely possible for different groups of humans to differ in intellectual capacity. Before I discuss this portion of the statement in full, I must touch on the concept of 'race' in biological terms. Contrary to what you might believe, species are not discrete units that have specific, defined boundaries. 'Species' are neat designations imposed on a messy world, to allow us to have some hope of grappling with it. Biologists understand that the borders of what is a species is often very fuzzy: there are examples of groups of animals where two fairly similar groups can interbreed with an intermediate group, but the two extreme groups cannot interbreed with each other (See Wikipedia: Ring species). Species distinction can only be seen between two geographically separate groups of animals, while there may be a constant variation seen when moving from the region of the first group to the region of the second group.
Sound familiar? The same thing is seen in a biological treatment of race: distinctions can be apparent in the extremes, while the races may appear to blend together in-between. Race-designation, like species-designation, is an artificial categorization imposed on a messy world. However, the artificial nature does not mean the designation is useless. It should also be emphasized that race here does not necessarily relate to skin color. It relates to ancestry from a historically isolated population relative to other populations. (As an aside, race distinctions will diminish as increased genetic mixing between disparate populations occurs.) These populations will have unique distributions of genes, potentially resulting in different phenotypic (displayed) outcomes.
Now let's return to this part of the statement. Let's assume, for the moment, that we have a good definition of intellectual capacity (which we don't), and that we have a good way to measure it (which we don't, and quite possibly can't), and for the sake of argument let's assume he is correct that people of African descent have, on average, less of an intellectual capacity. What does this mean? Well, it means that if you were to apply the ideal test to people of African descent, and obtained a mean, that number would be lower than that obtained for people of other descent. The mean is a value that indicates that (assuming an even, or 'normal', distribution) 50% of individuals are above that value, and 50% of individuals are below that value.
However, this doesn't tell us anything about how two populations relate to each other. In fact, it is highly likely that, even if the average does really differ, variation of the two populations would overlap so much that it would be incorrect to take the (potentially true) sentence "blacks, on average have less intellectual capacity than whites, on average" to mean the (patently false) sentence "all blacks have less intellectual capacity than all whites." You similarly cannot use the first statement to imply that any particular individual has a greater or lesser intellectual capacity than any other. This problem is further compounded by the inherent fuzziness around the borders of what we consider to be races. This is why discrimination based on race, even with evidence such as we have been discussing, makes no sense; this is exactly what Dr. Watson said. The second part of the above statement just makes sense: sure, promote those who do well regardless of race, but don't promote those who aren't quite there simply to meet some ideal of diversity.
Of course, even if all of this might be true, some would say that we should forbid any inquiry into such matters as sex differences or racial differences because it encourages the generation and maintenance of prejudices. I reject this type of claim on its face. Forbidding intellectual inquiry simply because it could generate 'harmful knowledge' has never made sense. Certainly a racist (or sexist, etc.) could seize on such knowledge as proof of their beliefs; however, their inability to grasp the difference between group averages and individuals ironically places them in the lower reaches of the intellectual capacity scale, and they would be unlikely to change their minds even if evidence showed the opposite was true.
Even if Dr. Watson has some racist tendencies, his overall statement and conclusions are not illogical in and of themselves; however, we would need a much more robust, culturally- and educationally-neutral way to determine intellectual capacity before we could make such a firm conclusion in any direction.
So what about his claim regarding Africa? It could, conceivably, be a factor, but the more important contributors to difficulties in aiding Africa are likely environmental and cultural. It's better for all involved to assume the latter.
Update: Dr. Watson has disclaimed his entire comments (CNN), though more likely to calm down the resulting firestorm than because he really didn't mean them, though his premise that there are good data supporting his claim is specious at best. As you can see, the reasoning behind the issue is complex, and may be difficult for some people to grasp, if they are paying attention through the whole explanation. It was probably easier for him to apologize than to try to explain.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Damned if we do...
Recently I've been thinking about the situation in Iraq, and struggling. I hate this war as much as the next person; I was against it from the beginning. It has weakened us domestically and internationally, and it has strengthened our enemies. I've wanted us to get out of there for a long time now... but I'm no longer as confident of that option anymore. Would leaving truly be the end of our involvement, or might we end up with a new problem 5 or 20 years down the road which will cost much more to tackle than sticking it out now? Will Iraq, now Shiite-majority, align with Iran after a bloody civil war? But if we stay instead, is there really a significantly decreased chance of that outcome, with much more American--and Iraqi--blood having been spilled in the process?
Regardless of how odious the start of the war was, we need to look at the problem of Iraq detached from those emotions, as a stand-alone problem. If we do not do this, we risk over-correcting and causing a greater problem than we already have, in a vain attempt to turn back the clock and pretend the invasion never happened. If we do pull out, we must do so only after careful, sober contemplation of the possible outcomes.
Regardless of how odious the start of the war was, we need to look at the problem of Iraq detached from those emotions, as a stand-alone problem. If we do not do this, we risk over-correcting and causing a greater problem than we already have, in a vain attempt to turn back the clock and pretend the invasion never happened. If we do pull out, we must do so only after careful, sober contemplation of the possible outcomes.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Immigration
It's been a while, hasn't it? I'd like to talk about immigration policy in the United States, specifically the legislation which was recently rejected in Congress twice in the past two months.
First let's explore some of the principles underlying the issue. "We are a country of immigrants," is a commonly-heard phrase, but what does it really mean? At the simplest level, it means that the vast majority of the people living in America today can trace most of their ancestors from Europe and elsewhere, arriving after the 1500s. We're all familiar with the Jamestown colony and the Pilgrims, and all the waves of immigration since then. Every new wave of immigration was seen very similarly by those already established here. They were cast with suspicion, there were fears that they are taking "our" jobs, that they weren't assimilating. Thus, it is argued, we or our ancestors were subject to these same irrational fears at one point, and they eventually assimilated quite well. On the whole this is true; over several generations, assimilation has tended to occur.
There is certainly a small subset of Americans who are anti-immigrant and harbor these fears and prejudices, but that isn't the major reason that some people are against illegal immigration. Another phrase often used is "no one is illegal." This is supposed to strike an empathetic note, emphasizing how people who come live in the United States illegally are doing so because they're experiencing hardship in Mexico and are trying to improve their lives coming to America. It's sad that they are having this hardship, and it is commendable that they are trying to improve their lives by coming here. But lets consider this line of thinking... does everyone facing oppression and hardship have some right to come live in the U.S.? Any realist would have to admit that there are far more impoverished, starving, downtrodden masses (and there are people in the world facing much more hardship than those entering the country illegally) in the world than our country could accommodate, and if we even attempted to make an open invitation, the standard of living for everyone would drop precipitously, and there would soon be no more American Dream to reach for. As a practical matter, it would be impossible to allow everyone to come in if they wanted to. There is no inherent right for any person or group of people to pursue the 'American Dream'.
The United States of America is an entity containing a society, defined territory, resources, and a sovereign government. The government exists to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (Preamble, U.S. Constitution), and it thus has a vested interest in monitoring and controlling the flow of people into the country. There are population vs. resources considerations (as noted above) and health and medical considerations, as well as security interests, among other things.
I agree with immigration in general: it's vital and in keeping with our national ideals. However, it becomes a problem when some would-be immigrants circumvent the legal, official immigration process and they aren't being caught and deported. The first problem with this is that we lose control over how many people are coming into the country and who they are. Second, we discourage and frustrate all the people who are patiently wading through the legal channel. Third, those that get through illegally are forced to stay underground and are subject to extortion and more hardship.
Currently there are two immigration paths. You can go through the legal process and enter American society as just another person, or you can try to cross the border illegally (sometimes almost killing yourself via smugglers) and taking day-labor jobs that pay far below the poverty level until you're caught or you die.
The first step to dealing with the problem is to shut off the second path. The border must be secured. Granted, this would be much easier if we weren't spending $144 billion/year in Iraq (Thanks Bush!), but it must be done. Why? Well, no matter what path you would choose to take to deal with the immigrants already here, it's much easier to do if you bring the rate coming in form a deluge to a trickle or not at all. Not to mention that there are security benefits from securing the border as well, from smugglers to possible terrorists.
The next step is to deal with those immigrants already here. Now I can sympathize with the boot-'em-out strategy, but they won't be very efficient or effective. The passive version, which is to make it so inhospitable for them here (by tightening enforcement on employers and the like) that they'll have to leave, likely won't work because these people are poor, may not have the resources to go back, or it may still be a better life here then at home. The active version, which is to actively hunt down and deport them, would require astronomical resources and effort from our law enforcement agencies and judiciary, and this would likely detract from the more important victim crimes. Also, as a nation we're partly responsible for their current situation. We didn't secure the border very well and we also didn't apply enough pressure on employers and to deporting them when their numbers were few. Thus many found it easy to live here, told their friends and family back home, and more and more came in. At this point, once we have secured the border, then implementing a program--call it 'amnesty' if you must, but the term shouldn't matter--which would give these people, who are currently living as a permanent underclass--a status which, ironically, would discourage assimilation--a path to legality, and eventually citizenship. Now of course we'd run background checks and deport those who had committed felonies and maybe make those with misdemeanors work a bit extra hard. But no other system is practical enough or accounts for the fact that our prior negligence allowed this to become as big a problem as it is.
I hope now you can see why we need to secure the border first, and that doing what this immigration bill would have done is putting the cart before the horse. And this is why I, a Democrat, am glad that it failed.
First let's explore some of the principles underlying the issue. "We are a country of immigrants," is a commonly-heard phrase, but what does it really mean? At the simplest level, it means that the vast majority of the people living in America today can trace most of their ancestors from Europe and elsewhere, arriving after the 1500s. We're all familiar with the Jamestown colony and the Pilgrims, and all the waves of immigration since then. Every new wave of immigration was seen very similarly by those already established here. They were cast with suspicion, there were fears that they are taking "our" jobs, that they weren't assimilating. Thus, it is argued, we or our ancestors were subject to these same irrational fears at one point, and they eventually assimilated quite well. On the whole this is true; over several generations, assimilation has tended to occur.
There is certainly a small subset of Americans who are anti-immigrant and harbor these fears and prejudices, but that isn't the major reason that some people are against illegal immigration. Another phrase often used is "no one is illegal." This is supposed to strike an empathetic note, emphasizing how people who come live in the United States illegally are doing so because they're experiencing hardship in Mexico and are trying to improve their lives coming to America. It's sad that they are having this hardship, and it is commendable that they are trying to improve their lives by coming here. But lets consider this line of thinking... does everyone facing oppression and hardship have some right to come live in the U.S.? Any realist would have to admit that there are far more impoverished, starving, downtrodden masses (and there are people in the world facing much more hardship than those entering the country illegally) in the world than our country could accommodate, and if we even attempted to make an open invitation, the standard of living for everyone would drop precipitously, and there would soon be no more American Dream to reach for. As a practical matter, it would be impossible to allow everyone to come in if they wanted to. There is no inherent right for any person or group of people to pursue the 'American Dream'.
The United States of America is an entity containing a society, defined territory, resources, and a sovereign government. The government exists to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (Preamble, U.S. Constitution), and it thus has a vested interest in monitoring and controlling the flow of people into the country. There are population vs. resources considerations (as noted above) and health and medical considerations, as well as security interests, among other things.
I agree with immigration in general: it's vital and in keeping with our national ideals. However, it becomes a problem when some would-be immigrants circumvent the legal, official immigration process and they aren't being caught and deported. The first problem with this is that we lose control over how many people are coming into the country and who they are. Second, we discourage and frustrate all the people who are patiently wading through the legal channel. Third, those that get through illegally are forced to stay underground and are subject to extortion and more hardship.
Currently there are two immigration paths. You can go through the legal process and enter American society as just another person, or you can try to cross the border illegally (sometimes almost killing yourself via smugglers) and taking day-labor jobs that pay far below the poverty level until you're caught or you die.
The first step to dealing with the problem is to shut off the second path. The border must be secured. Granted, this would be much easier if we weren't spending $144 billion/year in Iraq (Thanks Bush!), but it must be done. Why? Well, no matter what path you would choose to take to deal with the immigrants already here, it's much easier to do if you bring the rate coming in form a deluge to a trickle or not at all. Not to mention that there are security benefits from securing the border as well, from smugglers to possible terrorists.
The next step is to deal with those immigrants already here. Now I can sympathize with the boot-'em-out strategy, but they won't be very efficient or effective. The passive version, which is to make it so inhospitable for them here (by tightening enforcement on employers and the like) that they'll have to leave, likely won't work because these people are poor, may not have the resources to go back, or it may still be a better life here then at home. The active version, which is to actively hunt down and deport them, would require astronomical resources and effort from our law enforcement agencies and judiciary, and this would likely detract from the more important victim crimes. Also, as a nation we're partly responsible for their current situation. We didn't secure the border very well and we also didn't apply enough pressure on employers and to deporting them when their numbers were few. Thus many found it easy to live here, told their friends and family back home, and more and more came in. At this point, once we have secured the border, then implementing a program--call it 'amnesty' if you must, but the term shouldn't matter--which would give these people, who are currently living as a permanent underclass--a status which, ironically, would discourage assimilation--a path to legality, and eventually citizenship. Now of course we'd run background checks and deport those who had committed felonies and maybe make those with misdemeanors work a bit extra hard. But no other system is practical enough or accounts for the fact that our prior negligence allowed this to become as big a problem as it is.
I hope now you can see why we need to secure the border first, and that doing what this immigration bill would have done is putting the cart before the horse. And this is why I, a Democrat, am glad that it failed.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Surge and a Dictator's Death
Read: "He takes his secrets to the grave. Our complicity dies with him." Robert Fisk, The Independent
Read/Watch: "Olbermann: Special comment about 'sacrifice'" Countdown w/Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
It's unbelievable that we've reached this point. Over 3,000 U.S. troops killed on the battlefield. Many thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives. Nearly 47,000 U.S. troops, and God only knows how many Iraqis, have been wounded (link). And for what? Iraq has an insurgency that's been in its "last throes" (link) for a year and a half now, and there's no end in sight. It's even been reported that many members of the Bush administration, possibly even Cheney himself, may actually believe that the war is already lost (link).
So why, then, is a surge being considered? At this point, the reason is morbidly obvious: Bush does not want to be the guy who lost Iraq, does not want to be the one to oversee the withdrawal. NBC reported (link) that a pentagon official told them that the "surge" idea (a "surge" is not a strategy) was "more of a political decision than a military one." This is sickening. If you haven't, please watch Keith Olbermann's 'Special Comment' linked above.
Thankfully, the Democrats were able to take over both the House and the Senate, and we might be able to finally see some changes. The Democratic leaders of both bodies sent a letter stating, in the strongest terms ever used by Democrats, that a surge should not occur and that a phased withdrawal and shift to training and counter-terrorism operations must begin. Read it here.
And of course, Saddam Hussein was executed last week by hanging. His crimes, of course, are indisputably horrific, and there is no question that if anyone deserved the death penalty, he would be one of them. However, execution in this manor was a very, very bad plan. The 'trial' which got him to this point was a joke--a 'kangaroo court'--set up by a shaky Iraqi government under the guidance of the "Coalition:" lawyers and judges were killed, and Saddam's lawyers were hampered. In the end, he was only tried for one of his crimes and killed immediately. Why couldn't we have a proper international tribunal to fully document all of his crimes? Part of the reason, perhaps, is that U.S. complicity--and the people behind it--would very likely have been brought up, things they hope people would forget. Please read the first article linked at the top regarding this. It is a shame we rushed through this, and all for revenge.
The war did not start out impossible to win; we may have ended up in this place even if we had done things right, but we are certainly much worse off than we could have been.
Happy New Year.
Read/Watch: "Olbermann: Special comment about 'sacrifice'" Countdown w/Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
It's unbelievable that we've reached this point. Over 3,000 U.S. troops killed on the battlefield. Many thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives. Nearly 47,000 U.S. troops, and God only knows how many Iraqis, have been wounded (link). And for what? Iraq has an insurgency that's been in its "last throes" (link) for a year and a half now, and there's no end in sight. It's even been reported that many members of the Bush administration, possibly even Cheney himself, may actually believe that the war is already lost (link).
So why, then, is a surge being considered? At this point, the reason is morbidly obvious: Bush does not want to be the guy who lost Iraq, does not want to be the one to oversee the withdrawal. NBC reported (link) that a pentagon official told them that the "surge" idea (a "surge" is not a strategy) was "more of a political decision than a military one." This is sickening. If you haven't, please watch Keith Olbermann's 'Special Comment' linked above.
Thankfully, the Democrats were able to take over both the House and the Senate, and we might be able to finally see some changes. The Democratic leaders of both bodies sent a letter stating, in the strongest terms ever used by Democrats, that a surge should not occur and that a phased withdrawal and shift to training and counter-terrorism operations must begin. Read it here.
And of course, Saddam Hussein was executed last week by hanging. His crimes, of course, are indisputably horrific, and there is no question that if anyone deserved the death penalty, he would be one of them. However, execution in this manor was a very, very bad plan. The 'trial' which got him to this point was a joke--a 'kangaroo court'--set up by a shaky Iraqi government under the guidance of the "Coalition:" lawyers and judges were killed, and Saddam's lawyers were hampered. In the end, he was only tried for one of his crimes and killed immediately. Why couldn't we have a proper international tribunal to fully document all of his crimes? Part of the reason, perhaps, is that U.S. complicity--and the people behind it--would very likely have been brought up, things they hope people would forget. Please read the first article linked at the top regarding this. It is a shame we rushed through this, and all for revenge.
The war did not start out impossible to win; we may have ended up in this place even if we had done things right, but we are certainly much worse off than we could have been.
Happy New Year.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Revitalization
This tropical-background (pictured above) will be what I use for a bit; let's see if it'll stick. Thank you to Digital Blasphemy for the background image, called "Tropic of Capricorn (2006)" which I used here.
I'm not entirely happy with the whole layout. It's not as polished as I'd like, but I don't have the time I'd need to invest to really make it shine.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Nice Guy Syndrome
Okay so it's been awhile. But that's okay, because the 5 people that read this probably know what's been up with me anyway.
------------
I'm glad to see there's at least one person out there who recognizes the plight of us nice guys (click the title.) I especially like the following part (ignore the focus on "getting laid" here; it's valid for relationships as well):
------------
I'm glad to see there's at least one person out there who recognizes the plight of us nice guys (click the title.) I especially like the following part (ignore the focus on "getting laid" here; it's valid for relationships as well):
And perhaps more disturbing, the nice guys don’t seem to get laid as often as they should. And I wish I could logically explain this trend, but I can’t. From what I have observed on campus and what I have learned from talking to friends at other schools and in the workplace, the only conclusion I can form is that many girls are just illogical, manipulative bitches. Many of them claim they just want to date a nice guy, but when presented with such a specimen, they say irrational, confusing things such as “oh, he’s too nice to date” or “he would be a good boyfriend but he’s not for me” or “he already puts up with so much from me, I couldn’t possibly ask him out!” or the most frustrating of all: “no, it would ruin our friendship.” Yet, they continue to lament the lack of datable men in the world, and they expect their too-nice-to-date male friends to sympathize and apologize for the men that are jerks.
Friday, December 30, 2005
To Everything There Is A Season, and a Time to Every Purpose Under Heaven
It is often said that religion gives our lives purpose and meaning that would not otherwise be there, and this is one reason why religious people tend to reject the naturalist explanations of science when science conflicts with (or is perceived to conflict with) their religious beliefs. Often, science is seen by these people as atheistic and non-purposeful.
Now it is worth noting that while science is silent on the existence or not of a deity, science does contradict some specific religious beliefs. For example, Genesis runs fairly against science, if it's taken as the literal Word of God. But religion since it does not rest on a solid evidenced-based foundation, is very flexible, and adherents are able, if they choose, to subtly alter their beliefs to synchronize with the findings of science. Going back to Genesis, an adherent could reinterpret the story to be a metaphor or simplification, for early people would not have understood it if it was more complex and incomprehensible; or, alternately, that it really happened in the way described but everything was made such that it would appear to have formed via naturalistic mechanisms, to test their faiths. But some people choose not to alter their beliefs at all in the face of reality, choosing instead to insist that the other is wrong. We see this often with the Intelligent Design movement, but I'll return to that topic in some other post.
If we had science alone and we were left without religion, some think life would be meaningless. Science can only describe those things that exist in nature, and 'meaning' does not exist in nature, and only exists by virtue of human consciousness; that is, 'meaning' is contained within the mind, not out in the larger world. Thus, science, by definition, doesn't deal with or assign meaning. But the very fact that meaning is created by human consciousness allows any human to fill the void of "meaningless existence" however they choose--even something based upon a current religion, if he or she so chooses, but which does not conflict with the evidence that nature provides. Because ultimately, those who deny reality only deny their selves. Let's hold that thought, though, and explore what meaning and purpose is given by religion.
So religion gives us purpose and meaning. I thought about this, and I realized I didn't really know what purpose this was. On the face of it, the obvious purpose under most religions is to achieve a good afterlife of some sort. This allows us to come to grips with the idea that death is an inevitable part of our lives and the lives of people we love. Sometimes people even use it to rationalize every misfortune in their lives, ascribing it to some grand plan on the part of God, a plan which we cannot ourselves envision but in which every event is progress towards the illusive, vague goal. Okay. But what kind of grand purpose requires so much death and misfortune? Indeed, I wouldn't think God would require anything particular to occur on Earth. After all, most of our earthly problems wouldn't exist if we weren't created in the first place. So then, why create humans? Taking the Judeo-Christian view, it seems like the only reason we were created was to worship God. To me, that's not such a great reason to be around. We certainly weren't created to take care of the rest of creation, when the rest of creation could pretty well take care of itself if we simply went away and since we're doing a pretty poor job of it right now. So we're left with the preparing-for-afterlife purpose. Why have a pre-afterlife, anyway? And the afterlife must be a pretty crowded place by now; and unless the world ends soon, there'll be even more people around. Then why will Armageddon come at any particular time? Is there some critical-soul-number Heaven has to reach?
But I'm going off topic here; the point is, the purpose provided by religion isn't all that impressive, even while it may help us come to terms with mortality. But since religion's purposes aren't all that impressive, and, as I mentioned above, humans are able to create their own meaning, we are not doomed to a meaningless existence if science alone is left to us. We can find meaning in our own worlds without the help of centuries-old philosophers. Are your friends and family no longer your friends and family without religion? Does the community service you take on no longer help anyone because you aren't being watched by God as you do it? Does killing someone suddenly become okay without religion? The answer to all of these is no; nothing that gives our daily lives any meaning does not depend on God. One can even find solace regarding mortality without religion, if one looks for it. Note that I am not actually arguing against religion here; I myself am still an undecided Catholic. What I am demonstrating is that meaning and purpose does not necessarily depend on religion.
There is nothing wrong with an atheistic belief. There also shouldn't be any reason for religions to oppose science, because science merely attempts to describe what actually occurs in nature, which doesn't by definition exclude spirituality or religion; however, science does rightly exclude those beliefs which deny reality, and beliefs running counter to reality are false.
Now it is worth noting that while science is silent on the existence or not of a deity, science does contradict some specific religious beliefs. For example, Genesis runs fairly against science, if it's taken as the literal Word of God. But religion since it does not rest on a solid evidenced-based foundation, is very flexible, and adherents are able, if they choose, to subtly alter their beliefs to synchronize with the findings of science. Going back to Genesis, an adherent could reinterpret the story to be a metaphor or simplification, for early people would not have understood it if it was more complex and incomprehensible; or, alternately, that it really happened in the way described but everything was made such that it would appear to have formed via naturalistic mechanisms, to test their faiths. But some people choose not to alter their beliefs at all in the face of reality, choosing instead to insist that the other is wrong. We see this often with the Intelligent Design movement, but I'll return to that topic in some other post.
If we had science alone and we were left without religion, some think life would be meaningless. Science can only describe those things that exist in nature, and 'meaning' does not exist in nature, and only exists by virtue of human consciousness; that is, 'meaning' is contained within the mind, not out in the larger world. Thus, science, by definition, doesn't deal with or assign meaning. But the very fact that meaning is created by human consciousness allows any human to fill the void of "meaningless existence" however they choose--even something based upon a current religion, if he or she so chooses, but which does not conflict with the evidence that nature provides. Because ultimately, those who deny reality only deny their selves. Let's hold that thought, though, and explore what meaning and purpose is given by religion.
So religion gives us purpose and meaning. I thought about this, and I realized I didn't really know what purpose this was. On the face of it, the obvious purpose under most religions is to achieve a good afterlife of some sort. This allows us to come to grips with the idea that death is an inevitable part of our lives and the lives of people we love. Sometimes people even use it to rationalize every misfortune in their lives, ascribing it to some grand plan on the part of God, a plan which we cannot ourselves envision but in which every event is progress towards the illusive, vague goal. Okay. But what kind of grand purpose requires so much death and misfortune? Indeed, I wouldn't think God would require anything particular to occur on Earth. After all, most of our earthly problems wouldn't exist if we weren't created in the first place. So then, why create humans? Taking the Judeo-Christian view, it seems like the only reason we were created was to worship God. To me, that's not such a great reason to be around. We certainly weren't created to take care of the rest of creation, when the rest of creation could pretty well take care of itself if we simply went away and since we're doing a pretty poor job of it right now. So we're left with the preparing-for-afterlife purpose. Why have a pre-afterlife, anyway? And the afterlife must be a pretty crowded place by now; and unless the world ends soon, there'll be even more people around. Then why will Armageddon come at any particular time? Is there some critical-soul-number Heaven has to reach?
But I'm going off topic here; the point is, the purpose provided by religion isn't all that impressive, even while it may help us come to terms with mortality. But since religion's purposes aren't all that impressive, and, as I mentioned above, humans are able to create their own meaning, we are not doomed to a meaningless existence if science alone is left to us. We can find meaning in our own worlds without the help of centuries-old philosophers. Are your friends and family no longer your friends and family without religion? Does the community service you take on no longer help anyone because you aren't being watched by God as you do it? Does killing someone suddenly become okay without religion? The answer to all of these is no; nothing that gives our daily lives any meaning does not depend on God. One can even find solace regarding mortality without religion, if one looks for it. Note that I am not actually arguing against religion here; I myself am still an undecided Catholic. What I am demonstrating is that meaning and purpose does not necessarily depend on religion.
There is nothing wrong with an atheistic belief. There also shouldn't be any reason for religions to oppose science, because science merely attempts to describe what actually occurs in nature, which doesn't by definition exclude spirituality or religion; however, science does rightly exclude those beliefs which deny reality, and beliefs running counter to reality are false.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The 20-year-old Virgin
| Your Ultimate Purity Test 2.0 Score Is... | ||||
| Your Score: | Average For All Users | Average For All Straight Liberal Single Pink-Skinned 17 to 23-Year old Males (153 total) | ||
| Dating | 69.23% | 33.3% | 33.71% | Flirts mildly, then runs away |
| Self-Lovin' | 68.18% | 61.68% | 53.83% | Master of your domain |
| Shamelessness | 95.16% | 78.01% | 84.6% | Has yet to see self in mirror |
| Sex Drive | 95.24% | 76.01% | 80.75% | Monks are envious |
| Straightness | 98.15% | 40.47% | 38.8% | Just go fuck something, okay? |
| Fucking Sick | 98.98% | 90.39% | 93.89% | Refreshingly normal |
| Gayness | 100% | 79.54% | 93.96% | Repressed, are we? |
| Dominant | 100% | 87.55% | 90.49% | Afraid to cross at "Don't Walk" signs |
| Submissive | 100% | 87.98% | 92.46% | Submits to no one... almost |
| Total Score | 93.16% | 74.53% | 77.55% | |
| Take The Ultimate Purity Test 2.0 and see how you match up! (By The Ferrett) | ||||
Thursday, October 20, 2005
An Objective View of Reality
The other day my friend Miki and I got into a debate over whether there is such a thing as an "objective reality." She was telling me about a discussion about altered states of reality in her Antro class.
Example: In order to pass into adulthood, males in a certain Native American tribe went out into the wilderness, in solitude, to fast until they entered an 'altered state of reality' in which they have visions which tells them something about themselves.
Another example: this certain other group of people built granaries, and often people would rest under them for shade. However, termites often eat away at the structures and occasionally the structures would collapse on a person underneath. Despite knowing about the termites, the people still come up with some other reason to satisfy their need of needing meaning in reality, needing to know "why me?".
In both these examples, Miki contends, all that matters is how real the belief is to the believer. Everyone has different beliefs and no one belief is more or less valid than any other as long as the believer finds validity in it. Therefore, everyone experiences "subjective reality," based on each individual's perceptions. In addition, she claimed that science is no more or less valid than any other set of explanations; that is, "starvation-induced hallucination" is as correct as "starving yourself allows you to see a higher plane of existence that can only be detected when you are in that state", just because the latter seems real to that person and that tribe.
If you know me, you won't be suprised to find out that I largely disagreed. To the latter, I responded that what they see isn't telling them anything about a separate, external reality but rather is telling them something entirely about their own internal nature. Put another way, no two people in the same state would agree on what they're seeing; the hallucinations are not real objects on some higher plane of reality. Rather, they're generated by the person's mind even though they are percieved as existing outside the person. Further, psychologists studying phenomenon like this have looked at the brain's activity, and are discovering what happens in a person's brain in one of these alternate states. And with the granaries, what happens is that the termites are busily chewing away at these structures nonstop, and eventually they'll weaken it to a point where it can no longer hold itself up. Since people often rest under these, probability dictates that sometimes the structures will collapse when someone is underneath. Wrong place at the wrong time.
At this point, she replied that while she personally believes that my logic is probably correct, the worldview of science is not any superior to any other worldview and it is entirely possible that some other worldview is more correct than science. Hence, no objective reality.
This cannot possibly be true, and there must be an objective reality in which we all exist. Indeed, we could not possibly exist if there was not an objective reality. Consider color. Look at the trees outside; assuming it isn't fall, the trees are green. Now get a friend and ask what color the trees are, and she will agree that they are green. Two separate people, two separate minds, agree about some property about something that exists external to either mind. Expand this to all other things around you, and you will find that there is a hell of a lot that you both agree about regarding the world around you. Now add a third person, and you will find he also agrees with your observations. Expand this to the entire human population and you will find that almost everyone agrees on almost everything that you previously observed with your one friend. Now I say almost everything and almost everyone because there will be some people who cannot detect the things that other humans can. For instance, some people are color-blind, fully blind, or deaf; obviously they won't agree on things they can't detect in the first place. And further, the things that people disagree on here (remember, we're only talking about physical external environment) are not due to some "alternate reality," but rather are due to some difference in the way they detect the outside environment. While I would agree that, to those people who, for instance, are blind, all that matters to them is what they experience themselves, as that the reality they must navigate in is without light. However, that does not mean they can conclude that there is no such thing as light; they just have no way to detect it. Similarly, just because someone is having some spirtual vision after starving and isolating themselves, doesn't mean that the vision is part of some external reality that someone only in that state can detect. The sheer number of things that so many humans can agree on about the world we live in suggests that there is an objective reality in which we all exist. If there was not such an objective reality, it would be absolutely incredible that any two people could agree on any one thing about the outside world, let alone several billion people agreeing on a near-infinite number of things; even groups of people who have been isolated for a long time from other people can still agree on all of these things. Indeed, it would be suprising that we aren't each our own world.
The central assumption of the science "worldview" is that we all live in an objective reality. If we didn't live in such a single, consistent reality, it should become immediately apparent in the unexplainable inconsistencies in the set of all observations made about one aspect of the world. But this isn't so: we see that things behave very consistently. Science would not exist if this central assumption wasn't true. However, science itself isn't the objective reality. Science is the attempt to describe that objective reality, looking for more consistencies about the external world more obvious than the color of trees. This description of the objective reality is true, on the whole, regardless of anyone's subjective perceptions and beliefs.
My example was gravity: we see that all objects cause all other objects to accelerate toward them in proportion to their masses and the inverse square of the distance between them. Scientists call this phenomenon gravity, and attribute it to a not-entirely-understood phenomenon called the gravitational force. Miki suggested that another worldview might have another reason for why things are that way. At that point, though, the other culture's reason and science's reason are just two names for the same observation. (Until, that is, we find that gravity is related to other things which that culture's explanation doesn't describe.)
My next example was a common plastic cup. We can all agree that it looks like it does, and that it has the shape it does, and science can take atoms and molecules and build them up into such a cup. Miki then said that other cultures may not agree with that. But lets look at a nuclear weapon. Scientists know very well how atomic bombs work, and it depends entirely on the existence of atoms of certain sizes and properties. If I were to detonate an atomic bomb in the village of a culture which doesn't believe in the existance of atoms, their belief wouldn't keep their village from being incinerated and their region from being saturated with lethal levels of radiation in exactly the way our science describes. One's subjective beliefs do not affect the reality they live in. There is an objective, shared reality.
Science however, doesn't depend on human experience and perception for their observations. Science understands that parts of the world are not observable with our limited senses. For example, the light we see by is a select range of frequencies of electromagnetic waves, and color itself is only a result of how our detection apparatus works. Thus science uses nonbiological apparati whose workings we understand very well in the context of the many consistencies science has previously described.
As we all live in the same objective reality, our detection systems all receive the same input from the world. And as we are all humans, our detection systems all function in the same way. Since we all receive the same input, where does the variation come from? Where do our different perceptions arise? The mind. Each one of us has a unique mind which is shaped by numerous factors, including our genes, our prenatal environment and the culture we grow up in, as well as additional experiences we accumulate through our lives. Perception comes from the application of our unique minds to the incoming stimuli from the world. In cognitive psychology, this is called "top-down processing"; that is, we apply our mental structures to the incoming stimuli, which results in perception. Therefore if the stimuli is the same and the perception is different, it arises from our differing mental structures. And if something is in our minds, it's not in the world, regardless of how real something may seem.
Example: In order to pass into adulthood, males in a certain Native American tribe went out into the wilderness, in solitude, to fast until they entered an 'altered state of reality' in which they have visions which tells them something about themselves.
Another example: this certain other group of people built granaries, and often people would rest under them for shade. However, termites often eat away at the structures and occasionally the structures would collapse on a person underneath. Despite knowing about the termites, the people still come up with some other reason to satisfy their need of needing meaning in reality, needing to know "why me?".
In both these examples, Miki contends, all that matters is how real the belief is to the believer. Everyone has different beliefs and no one belief is more or less valid than any other as long as the believer finds validity in it. Therefore, everyone experiences "subjective reality," based on each individual's perceptions. In addition, she claimed that science is no more or less valid than any other set of explanations; that is, "starvation-induced hallucination" is as correct as "starving yourself allows you to see a higher plane of existence that can only be detected when you are in that state", just because the latter seems real to that person and that tribe.
If you know me, you won't be suprised to find out that I largely disagreed. To the latter, I responded that what they see isn't telling them anything about a separate, external reality but rather is telling them something entirely about their own internal nature. Put another way, no two people in the same state would agree on what they're seeing; the hallucinations are not real objects on some higher plane of reality. Rather, they're generated by the person's mind even though they are percieved as existing outside the person. Further, psychologists studying phenomenon like this have looked at the brain's activity, and are discovering what happens in a person's brain in one of these alternate states. And with the granaries, what happens is that the termites are busily chewing away at these structures nonstop, and eventually they'll weaken it to a point where it can no longer hold itself up. Since people often rest under these, probability dictates that sometimes the structures will collapse when someone is underneath. Wrong place at the wrong time.
At this point, she replied that while she personally believes that my logic is probably correct, the worldview of science is not any superior to any other worldview and it is entirely possible that some other worldview is more correct than science. Hence, no objective reality.
This cannot possibly be true, and there must be an objective reality in which we all exist. Indeed, we could not possibly exist if there was not an objective reality. Consider color. Look at the trees outside; assuming it isn't fall, the trees are green. Now get a friend and ask what color the trees are, and she will agree that they are green. Two separate people, two separate minds, agree about some property about something that exists external to either mind. Expand this to all other things around you, and you will find that there is a hell of a lot that you both agree about regarding the world around you. Now add a third person, and you will find he also agrees with your observations. Expand this to the entire human population and you will find that almost everyone agrees on almost everything that you previously observed with your one friend. Now I say almost everything and almost everyone because there will be some people who cannot detect the things that other humans can. For instance, some people are color-blind, fully blind, or deaf; obviously they won't agree on things they can't detect in the first place. And further, the things that people disagree on here (remember, we're only talking about physical external environment) are not due to some "alternate reality," but rather are due to some difference in the way they detect the outside environment. While I would agree that, to those people who, for instance, are blind, all that matters to them is what they experience themselves, as that the reality they must navigate in is without light. However, that does not mean they can conclude that there is no such thing as light; they just have no way to detect it. Similarly, just because someone is having some spirtual vision after starving and isolating themselves, doesn't mean that the vision is part of some external reality that someone only in that state can detect. The sheer number of things that so many humans can agree on about the world we live in suggests that there is an objective reality in which we all exist. If there was not such an objective reality, it would be absolutely incredible that any two people could agree on any one thing about the outside world, let alone several billion people agreeing on a near-infinite number of things; even groups of people who have been isolated for a long time from other people can still agree on all of these things. Indeed, it would be suprising that we aren't each our own world.
The central assumption of the science "worldview" is that we all live in an objective reality. If we didn't live in such a single, consistent reality, it should become immediately apparent in the unexplainable inconsistencies in the set of all observations made about one aspect of the world. But this isn't so: we see that things behave very consistently. Science would not exist if this central assumption wasn't true. However, science itself isn't the objective reality. Science is the attempt to describe that objective reality, looking for more consistencies about the external world more obvious than the color of trees. This description of the objective reality is true, on the whole, regardless of anyone's subjective perceptions and beliefs.
My example was gravity: we see that all objects cause all other objects to accelerate toward them in proportion to their masses and the inverse square of the distance between them. Scientists call this phenomenon gravity, and attribute it to a not-entirely-understood phenomenon called the gravitational force. Miki suggested that another worldview might have another reason for why things are that way. At that point, though, the other culture's reason and science's reason are just two names for the same observation. (Until, that is, we find that gravity is related to other things which that culture's explanation doesn't describe.)
My next example was a common plastic cup. We can all agree that it looks like it does, and that it has the shape it does, and science can take atoms and molecules and build them up into such a cup. Miki then said that other cultures may not agree with that. But lets look at a nuclear weapon. Scientists know very well how atomic bombs work, and it depends entirely on the existence of atoms of certain sizes and properties. If I were to detonate an atomic bomb in the village of a culture which doesn't believe in the existance of atoms, their belief wouldn't keep their village from being incinerated and their region from being saturated with lethal levels of radiation in exactly the way our science describes. One's subjective beliefs do not affect the reality they live in. There is an objective, shared reality.
Science however, doesn't depend on human experience and perception for their observations. Science understands that parts of the world are not observable with our limited senses. For example, the light we see by is a select range of frequencies of electromagnetic waves, and color itself is only a result of how our detection apparatus works. Thus science uses nonbiological apparati whose workings we understand very well in the context of the many consistencies science has previously described.
As we all live in the same objective reality, our detection systems all receive the same input from the world. And as we are all humans, our detection systems all function in the same way. Since we all receive the same input, where does the variation come from? Where do our different perceptions arise? The mind. Each one of us has a unique mind which is shaped by numerous factors, including our genes, our prenatal environment and the culture we grow up in, as well as additional experiences we accumulate through our lives. Perception comes from the application of our unique minds to the incoming stimuli from the world. In cognitive psychology, this is called "top-down processing"; that is, we apply our mental structures to the incoming stimuli, which results in perception. Therefore if the stimuli is the same and the perception is different, it arises from our differing mental structures. And if something is in our minds, it's not in the world, regardless of how real something may seem.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Bureau of the Public Debt : FAQ 4.2 - How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
This is just too good. ^Click the title^
As of 9/16, the debt was $7,919,996,476,821.03, aka ~$7.9 trillion.
Can you imagine Bush going door-to-door asking for donations?
"Your $100 contribution will bring us just $7,919,996,476,721.03 away from our goal! If you donate right now, we'll also throw in bioweapons-certified duct-tape, science-proof earmuffs, and a box of official Presidential M&Ms!"
Oh man... and this guy refuses to repeal his tax cuts even in the face of what we'll have to pay with both Katrina and Iraq on our hands. So where's the money coming from? China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. Woohoo! Buy American! Oh... wait...
This is ironic... really it is. Bush wants to separate from the international community and wants to basically end any international agreements, doesn't want the UN to have any force (despite claiming he thought the UN should be stronger... guess that's only when it's aligned with US interests). And yet, with all this borrowing from other countries, with the oil we depend on from the Middle East, we're becoming ever more dependent on the rest of the world financially while at the same time trying to distance ourselves from the world politically.
Looks like democrats are waking up. Along with the interview Bill Clinton gave linked above, John Kerry and John Edwards both gave awesome speeches recently. I'm sorry, but at least Edwards can speak well spontaneously, and either of them would be better Presidents. I reserve judgement on what policies they might or might not have done, but in terms of the President's responsibilities and such, I'd be willing to bet both of them would be more Presidential than our current one.
And it looks like Americans are starting to think the same thing. Too bad they couldn't have realized this just a year ago, or we might have improved things some.
One last note... again with the appointment of political hacks by this administration! Bush wants to appoint Julie Myers to be head of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency. Funnily enough, she just married Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's chief of staff, her uncle is Air Force General Richard B. Myers, and she has no experience with immigration or customs.
That's all I have for right now. Maybe next time I'll post something more my-life and not current-news.
As of 9/16, the debt was $7,919,996,476,821.03, aka ~$7.9 trillion.
Can you imagine Bush going door-to-door asking for donations?
"Your $100 contribution will bring us just $7,919,996,476,721.03 away from our goal! If you donate right now, we'll also throw in bioweapons-certified duct-tape, science-proof earmuffs, and a box of official Presidential M&Ms!"
Oh man... and this guy refuses to repeal his tax cuts even in the face of what we'll have to pay with both Katrina and Iraq on our hands. So where's the money coming from? China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. Woohoo! Buy American! Oh... wait...
This is ironic... really it is. Bush wants to separate from the international community and wants to basically end any international agreements, doesn't want the UN to have any force (despite claiming he thought the UN should be stronger... guess that's only when it's aligned with US interests). And yet, with all this borrowing from other countries, with the oil we depend on from the Middle East, we're becoming ever more dependent on the rest of the world financially while at the same time trying to distance ourselves from the world politically.
Looks like democrats are waking up. Along with the interview Bill Clinton gave linked above, John Kerry and John Edwards both gave awesome speeches recently. I'm sorry, but at least Edwards can speak well spontaneously, and either of them would be better Presidents. I reserve judgement on what policies they might or might not have done, but in terms of the President's responsibilities and such, I'd be willing to bet both of them would be more Presidential than our current one.
And it looks like Americans are starting to think the same thing. Too bad they couldn't have realized this just a year ago, or we might have improved things some.
One last note... again with the appointment of political hacks by this administration! Bush wants to appoint Julie Myers to be head of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency. Funnily enough, she just married Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's chief of staff, her uncle is Air Force General Richard B. Myers, and she has no experience with immigration or customs.
That's all I have for right now. Maybe next time I'll post something more my-life and not current-news.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Sunday, September 04, 2005
The Taming of the Shrub
Contracts are being handed out by the military to help restore their bases in the South. Guess who? Yup, that's right, Halliburton, the company that Cheney had never told to stop sending him money. And another thing, do you know why those people stuck in the convention center in New Orleans didn't have any food or water? The so-called Department of Homeland Security ordered the Red Cross not to enter the city, because it would "make people not want to evacuate and cause more people to enter the city" Take a look.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the worst presidency in American history. Some of you may have been shocked by how long it took to get relief and help into New Orleans, and how Bush went to gave his VJ-day speech more importance than rushing to the disaster area. You may have scoffed whenever someone brought up how everything he does is politically-driven (where I mean 'politics' in the worst sense) and his public appearances are highly controlled and scripted, or how any protesters are forced into a fenced-in zone far away from where the president actually is. Maybe you've dismissed seeming character flaws as "charming" and "he's a man of the people." Perhaps you've overlooked some bad moves just because he's part of your party, or supports some policies you like. Well guess what? Just as we had plenty of warning of what a hurricane could do to New Orleans, we could have had plenty of warning about Bush from his years as governor of Texas, which were enshrined in Mary Ivins's book Shrub: The Short and Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. What she reported there has been carried over verbatim into the federal government, with little or no exception; but even worse, because the Texas governorship is one of the least powerful in our country, while the Presidency is extremely powerful, and he's been increasing it even further. And it doesn't help that Republicans in Congress are putting politics and party above the best interests of the nation, and have stood behind Bush in lockstep until recently. Bush hasn't changed any, it's just that this horrendous disaster and the stress that has been placed on him by Cindy Sheehan's rekindling of the anti-war movement is pushing him to the breaking point, causing him to lose his cool and to start making political mistakes.
However, many of the Democrats are no better, Hillary Clinton one of the worst among them. She's as politcal and scripted as any number of Bushes. We need real leadership in this country. We need to boot out our representatives who are placing politics at the forefront and show them that we will not tolerate a government run by elite, calculating politicos jostling for power first and doing their jobs second.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the worst presidency in American history. Some of you may have been shocked by how long it took to get relief and help into New Orleans, and how Bush went to gave his VJ-day speech more importance than rushing to the disaster area. You may have scoffed whenever someone brought up how everything he does is politically-driven (where I mean 'politics' in the worst sense) and his public appearances are highly controlled and scripted, or how any protesters are forced into a fenced-in zone far away from where the president actually is. Maybe you've dismissed seeming character flaws as "charming" and "he's a man of the people." Perhaps you've overlooked some bad moves just because he's part of your party, or supports some policies you like. Well guess what? Just as we had plenty of warning of what a hurricane could do to New Orleans, we could have had plenty of warning about Bush from his years as governor of Texas, which were enshrined in Mary Ivins's book Shrub: The Short and Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. What she reported there has been carried over verbatim into the federal government, with little or no exception; but even worse, because the Texas governorship is one of the least powerful in our country, while the Presidency is extremely powerful, and he's been increasing it even further. And it doesn't help that Republicans in Congress are putting politics and party above the best interests of the nation, and have stood behind Bush in lockstep until recently. Bush hasn't changed any, it's just that this horrendous disaster and the stress that has been placed on him by Cindy Sheehan's rekindling of the anti-war movement is pushing him to the breaking point, causing him to lose his cool and to start making political mistakes.
However, many of the Democrats are no better, Hillary Clinton one of the worst among them. She's as politcal and scripted as any number of Bushes. We need real leadership in this country. We need to boot out our representatives who are placing politics at the forefront and show them that we will not tolerate a government run by elite, calculating politicos jostling for power first and doing their jobs second.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
What God giveth, God can taketh away
Update: I left out how Bush has cut funding for the Veterans Administration and has cut veterans benefits since he came into office, while we're starting to see the first homeless Iraq vets on the streets. There's just so much he's done that one can't even begin to list everything they've done which is dragging us down.
A man who claims to be doing God's work and who claims to talk to Him personally is being brought down by his Creator.
This is the worst disaster we've ever seen as a country. We knew, however, that this was a danger, and Americans all over are asking why the levees in New Orleans failed and why our President didn't mobilize our forces quickly or rush to the scene immediately. European countries, including the Netherlands which faces the same problems as New Orleans, don't understand this either, because a disaster of these proportions is not something you'd expect to see in a very wealthy, powerful nation which has known of the danger for a long time. Meanwhile over $70,000,000 has been donated to the Red Cross by Americans, $100,000,000 donated by businesses. The American people are doing there part, but where's our president? Why are we facing such a horrible disaster we've forseen?
Take a look at these editorials:
New York Times: "Waiting for a Leader"
Washington Post: "A Dearth of Answers"
Manchester Union Leader (a conservative paper, folks): "Bush and Katrina"
We also have to ask oursleves about where we've placed our priorities. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. Most of our armed forces, including our National Guard who are supposed to be on-hand for situations like this, are tied up in Iraq as well, let alone those who have been killed over there. Getting involved in Iraq has weakened our country. Iraq and the all-important tax cuts were directly blamed by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Bush Administration's cuts in funding for New Orleans' levy reinforcement and for the Federal Emergency Management Administration's Project Impact which was supposed to help us prepare for such a hurricane hit. And what have we gotten in return for stretching ourselves so thin? World opinion has turned against us, and some people have turned so far as to be susceptible to recruitment by terrorist organizations. Iraq is unstable, and it's turning into an Islamic republic and an incubator of hatred for America. We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of Americans. Many thousands of lives both here and there have been scarred forever, and many communities are badly wounded as well. We've employed contractors in Iraqi prisons who've been getting away with raping and murdering and torturing the captives. No weapons of mass destruction were secured, and it sounds like we didn't make a big attempt to secure those UN-sealed facilities which were in Iraq or the nuclear scientists there, possibly making it easier for other countries to get WMDs. Iran and North Korea have become more determined on the Nuclear front just because they want a deterent against US invasion. Saudi Arabia is still considered one of our biggest allies. Afghanistan is still not entirely stablized and we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden and the Taliban is still in the country in force.
We've had so many problems here we should be spending our resources on, and it's so apparent that there wasn't any urgent need to attack Iraq; how can anyone now think that Iraq was a good idea? At least with Saddam in power the Mideast was more stable, and we were succeeding in keeping him in check, yet Bush took us to war, wouldn't tell us how much it would cost while cutting taxes massively, he wouldn't say how long we'd be there, told us Iraq's oil would pay for the war, told us Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, told us Saddam was a wildcard who had secret WMDs and was in cahouts with terrorists (as if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan weren't), told us that it didn't matter that we weren't able to catch Osama, told us that Afghanistan was doing just great, told us war was the last resort against Iraq, opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commision until it became politically expedient, puts political friends in positions of power regardless of whether they're actually qualified for the job, and has been consistently doing things to the benefit of large corporations without regard to what is actually good for our country and the people. Something's fundamentally wrong with this administration, and it needs to go.
Of course, none of this mentions peak oil. Peak oil is the point at which no matter how many oil wells we drill, no matter how fast we pump oil out of the ground, the amount of barrels filled per day will not increase, and will begin to decrease. Almost everyone agrees that it will occur within 50 years. Some experts think we may have already reached it, but most predictions put it within 15 years. Think about how high gas prices have gotten already. Then look at how a disaster has affected that price. Now imagine that supply starts decreasing while demand keeps increasing. Unless we make a major initiative to break free of the grasp of oil and to start using renewable sources of energy and to push fuel efficiency as far as we can until we can find some non-oil method for fueling cars, we may not be able to survive the peak. Such a change in the economy has the potential to be catastrophic, especially for those below the current poverty line. I think we can, and we will survive it. But we have to make the necessary changes now, before it becomes a problem.
A man who claims to be doing God's work and who claims to talk to Him personally is being brought down by his Creator.
This is the worst disaster we've ever seen as a country. We knew, however, that this was a danger, and Americans all over are asking why the levees in New Orleans failed and why our President didn't mobilize our forces quickly or rush to the scene immediately. European countries, including the Netherlands which faces the same problems as New Orleans, don't understand this either, because a disaster of these proportions is not something you'd expect to see in a very wealthy, powerful nation which has known of the danger for a long time. Meanwhile over $70,000,000 has been donated to the Red Cross by Americans, $100,000,000 donated by businesses. The American people are doing there part, but where's our president? Why are we facing such a horrible disaster we've forseen?
Take a look at these editorials:
New York Times: "Waiting for a Leader"
Washington Post: "A Dearth of Answers"
Manchester Union Leader (a conservative paper, folks): "Bush and Katrina"
We also have to ask oursleves about where we've placed our priorities. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. Most of our armed forces, including our National Guard who are supposed to be on-hand for situations like this, are tied up in Iraq as well, let alone those who have been killed over there. Getting involved in Iraq has weakened our country. Iraq and the all-important tax cuts were directly blamed by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Bush Administration's cuts in funding for New Orleans' levy reinforcement and for the Federal Emergency Management Administration's Project Impact which was supposed to help us prepare for such a hurricane hit. And what have we gotten in return for stretching ourselves so thin? World opinion has turned against us, and some people have turned so far as to be susceptible to recruitment by terrorist organizations. Iraq is unstable, and it's turning into an Islamic republic and an incubator of hatred for America. We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of Americans. Many thousands of lives both here and there have been scarred forever, and many communities are badly wounded as well. We've employed contractors in Iraqi prisons who've been getting away with raping and murdering and torturing the captives. No weapons of mass destruction were secured, and it sounds like we didn't make a big attempt to secure those UN-sealed facilities which were in Iraq or the nuclear scientists there, possibly making it easier for other countries to get WMDs. Iran and North Korea have become more determined on the Nuclear front just because they want a deterent against US invasion. Saudi Arabia is still considered one of our biggest allies. Afghanistan is still not entirely stablized and we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden and the Taliban is still in the country in force.
We've had so many problems here we should be spending our resources on, and it's so apparent that there wasn't any urgent need to attack Iraq; how can anyone now think that Iraq was a good idea? At least with Saddam in power the Mideast was more stable, and we were succeeding in keeping him in check, yet Bush took us to war, wouldn't tell us how much it would cost while cutting taxes massively, he wouldn't say how long we'd be there, told us Iraq's oil would pay for the war, told us Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, told us Saddam was a wildcard who had secret WMDs and was in cahouts with terrorists (as if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan weren't), told us that it didn't matter that we weren't able to catch Osama, told us that Afghanistan was doing just great, told us war was the last resort against Iraq, opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commision until it became politically expedient, puts political friends in positions of power regardless of whether they're actually qualified for the job, and has been consistently doing things to the benefit of large corporations without regard to what is actually good for our country and the people. Something's fundamentally wrong with this administration, and it needs to go.
Of course, none of this mentions peak oil. Peak oil is the point at which no matter how many oil wells we drill, no matter how fast we pump oil out of the ground, the amount of barrels filled per day will not increase, and will begin to decrease. Almost everyone agrees that it will occur within 50 years. Some experts think we may have already reached it, but most predictions put it within 15 years. Think about how high gas prices have gotten already. Then look at how a disaster has affected that price. Now imagine that supply starts decreasing while demand keeps increasing. Unless we make a major initiative to break free of the grasp of oil and to start using renewable sources of energy and to push fuel efficiency as far as we can until we can find some non-oil method for fueling cars, we may not be able to survive the peak. Such a change in the economy has the potential to be catastrophic, especially for those below the current poverty line. I think we can, and we will survive it. But we have to make the necessary changes now, before it becomes a problem.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Weird Dream
I had a really weird dream last night, which involved an adobe city and people going around with assault rifles, constantly fearing being attacked by snipers. I had bad aim, as it seemed like I was aiming with a mouse and not with my arms. Along the way I saw someone on the rooftops and it was someone from my high school, who also had a gun, and we were both wary of each other even when we recogonized each other. So I moved away carefully and somehow ended up in this base-like place, down aisles that seems like library shelves without books, ending in a slight rectangular depressed room that had this metal net over most of it, as a shield of sorts. It was rectangular and cluttered, with a bunch of other people I recognized but couldn't name now for the life of me. There was a door just opposite from the netted part, and people were going in and out. Then somehow the net fell down, I almost feel was the result of an attack. Then I helped reattach it to the openning, on someones' shoulders. There was a ladder just outside the doorway, and people were going up and down that too. I saw a few people I didn't recognize and thus was suspicious of... and then I think that's when I woke up.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Boston Globe Letter to the Editor Regarding Intelligent Design
The Boston Globe - Intelligent design's doubt: Is evolution the full story?
To the Editor:
In Sunday’s article “Intelligent design’s doubt: Is evolution the full story?” the writer states that “even if it were accepted that evolution had been assisted by some designer, intelligent design cannot say who or what the designer is.” This statement is misleading on its face and is used by intelligent design advocates to attempt to get around the barriers traditional creation stories have had. It is true that it does not say whether the designer is God, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, or Queztalcoatl, and so does not endorse any specific religion. It may not say who, exactly, the designer is; but when you carry intelligent design out to its logical conclusion, it does declare that some supernatural intelligence exists. One might argue that maybe the designers were aliens; but then how did the aliens become complex enough to have intelligence and manipulate our evolution? No, the only possible designer is some form of God.
Intelligent design basically says using mathematics what creationists have always been saying; specifically, that everything works too perfectly and is too complex to have not been designed. However, there is much evidence that things don’t work all that perfectly; they just work, period. And if things were so perfectly designed, there shouldn’t be any evidence, at all, that the components of these ‘perfect’ mechanisms had any other function in the past. If all life is so perfectly designed, why are we humans imperfect in so many ways?
We must remember that even the simplest bacterium we study today has been evolving for around 3.5 billion years. When animal-like cells developed from bacteria, bacteria had already been around and evolved for 1 billion years. When multicellular organisms first appeared, the animal-like cells had around 1.5 billion years to evolve and diversify prior. In contrast, human civilization has only been around for the last 30,000 years, 0.0008% of the total time life has existed. Science has only been around for maybe the last 300 years, 0.000008% of the total time life has existed. Given the very fast reproductive cycle of single-cell organisms, it’s entirely possible that seemingly irreducibly complex structures could have developed in those inconceivably long periods of time.
At worst, intelligent design would halt research into other ideas of the origins of life; as intelligent design, like all creationist theories, is not falsifiable. At best, intelligent design would have science taught and researched as normal, with the caveat that some kind of God exists. At worst, it interferes with science. At best, it inserts religion into science classes. When it comes down to it, intelligent design is no better or worse than other creationist theories and, like them, it has no valid place in our research labs or our science curriculum.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Bauer
To the Editor:
In Sunday’s article “Intelligent design’s doubt: Is evolution the full story?” the writer states that “even if it were accepted that evolution had been assisted by some designer, intelligent design cannot say who or what the designer is.” This statement is misleading on its face and is used by intelligent design advocates to attempt to get around the barriers traditional creation stories have had. It is true that it does not say whether the designer is God, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, or Queztalcoatl, and so does not endorse any specific religion. It may not say who, exactly, the designer is; but when you carry intelligent design out to its logical conclusion, it does declare that some supernatural intelligence exists. One might argue that maybe the designers were aliens; but then how did the aliens become complex enough to have intelligence and manipulate our evolution? No, the only possible designer is some form of God.
Intelligent design basically says using mathematics what creationists have always been saying; specifically, that everything works too perfectly and is too complex to have not been designed. However, there is much evidence that things don’t work all that perfectly; they just work, period. And if things were so perfectly designed, there shouldn’t be any evidence, at all, that the components of these ‘perfect’ mechanisms had any other function in the past. If all life is so perfectly designed, why are we humans imperfect in so many ways?
We must remember that even the simplest bacterium we study today has been evolving for around 3.5 billion years. When animal-like cells developed from bacteria, bacteria had already been around and evolved for 1 billion years. When multicellular organisms first appeared, the animal-like cells had around 1.5 billion years to evolve and diversify prior. In contrast, human civilization has only been around for the last 30,000 years, 0.0008% of the total time life has existed. Science has only been around for maybe the last 300 years, 0.000008% of the total time life has existed. Given the very fast reproductive cycle of single-cell organisms, it’s entirely possible that seemingly irreducibly complex structures could have developed in those inconceivably long periods of time.
At worst, intelligent design would halt research into other ideas of the origins of life; as intelligent design, like all creationist theories, is not falsifiable. At best, intelligent design would have science taught and researched as normal, with the caveat that some kind of God exists. At worst, it interferes with science. At best, it inserts religion into science classes. When it comes down to it, intelligent design is no better or worse than other creationist theories and, like them, it has no valid place in our research labs or our science curriculum.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Bauer
Monday, August 08, 2005
The Revolution is Now
MeetWithCindy.org
Everyone (and I know there aren't many of you), go check out that website and see what this one woman is doing. Cindy Sheehan is the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, and she is camping outside of Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch until he meets with her. Why is she doing this? Because she wants to know why Bush sent her son to die in Iraq, she wants to know what the "noble cause" is which Bush keeps referring to. A lot of people are starting to join her there and support her in this. She's been there for several days now and plans to stay there until she gets her answer. She's starting to attract huge amounts of attention; Google had counted 609 articles written about her all over the world. Is it possible that she, along with the indictments that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might hand down to people in the Bush administration, will be the key to unraveling this administration only 8 months into its second term? We can only hope, but I will definately try to help her if I can, and I plan to donate some money once they have the website set up to accept PayPal payments.
Here's to the beginning of the end of the Bush administration.
Everyone (and I know there aren't many of you), go check out that website and see what this one woman is doing. Cindy Sheehan is the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, and she is camping outside of Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch until he meets with her. Why is she doing this? Because she wants to know why Bush sent her son to die in Iraq, she wants to know what the "noble cause" is which Bush keeps referring to. A lot of people are starting to join her there and support her in this. She's been there for several days now and plans to stay there until she gets her answer. She's starting to attract huge amounts of attention; Google had counted 609 articles written about her all over the world. Is it possible that she, along with the indictments that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might hand down to people in the Bush administration, will be the key to unraveling this administration only 8 months into its second term? We can only hope, but I will definately try to help her if I can, and I plan to donate some money once they have the website set up to accept PayPal payments.
Here's to the beginning of the end of the Bush administration.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
"We are the Counterculture. You will be made an individual. Resistance is futile."
One of my friends was complaining on her blog that the counterculture people she knew were critical of some of the things she did which were 'mainstream', that she wasn't being an individual. I posted a really long comment on her blog, and as she and I both loved my use of metaphor in my description of what was going on, and as I in general was happy with my reply, I thought I'd post it here. Not that many more people see this blog that don't see hers... but we'll ignore that for now. ;-)
Basically what's going on is a "mainstream counterculture", and this same thing is going on in other areas, such as "reverse racism" that is sometimes talked about. The counterculture developed as a reaction to what they saw as bad traits of society; and they're certainly right to do so if they choose. But now the "counterculture" is established and defined, and thus if you aren't completely and totally rebelling against the "mainstream" in every way under your control, you're not "one of them", not an “individual”. The same thing has happened elsewhere. Some black communities are just as racist against whites as whites have been against them and would paint a black who is friends with a white a traitor. Some feminists find a woman who decides to forgo her career to become a housewife to be repulsive. These movements become so entrenched in themselves that they loose sight of their real aim. Their originally diffuse mass starts to coalesce and define itself as a distinctive body and, like a planet forming around a star, you can either be pulled completely by the planet, or completely by the star, but there’s no place for balance, as many may see it. Of course, not everyone, thankfully, falls into an entrenched mindset, but it sounds like many of the people you’ve heard from, the part of the counterculture you’ve interacted with, is part of that mindset, and by doing so they’re really just enforcing a new conformity instead of encouraging people to be their own agents. I think you should be proud, because you’re much more of an individual than anyone suggesting you have to be more like someone else.
Basically what's going on is a "mainstream counterculture", and this same thing is going on in other areas, such as "reverse racism" that is sometimes talked about. The counterculture developed as a reaction to what they saw as bad traits of society; and they're certainly right to do so if they choose. But now the "counterculture" is established and defined, and thus if you aren't completely and totally rebelling against the "mainstream" in every way under your control, you're not "one of them", not an “individual”. The same thing has happened elsewhere. Some black communities are just as racist against whites as whites have been against them and would paint a black who is friends with a white a traitor. Some feminists find a woman who decides to forgo her career to become a housewife to be repulsive. These movements become so entrenched in themselves that they loose sight of their real aim. Their originally diffuse mass starts to coalesce and define itself as a distinctive body and, like a planet forming around a star, you can either be pulled completely by the planet, or completely by the star, but there’s no place for balance, as many may see it. Of course, not everyone, thankfully, falls into an entrenched mindset, but it sounds like many of the people you’ve heard from, the part of the counterculture you’ve interacted with, is part of that mindset, and by doing so they’re really just enforcing a new conformity instead of encouraging people to be their own agents. I think you should be proud, because you’re much more of an individual than anyone suggesting you have to be more like someone else.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Requiescat in Pace
I've never really known anyone who has died. My grandfather died about 8 years ago, but I wasn't very close to him. One of my second cousins died last year of brain cancer, but I also only knew her a little bit. Death has never really touched me close to home before.That changed when I looked at the front page of today's paper. I took the paper out of it's plastic bag and set it down to peruse. I looked at the headlines, and the really cool pictures someone took of lightning in the bad storms last night, but then my eyes glanced just below and breifly glanced over the headline--something about a crash and UNH professor--and locked onto the picture. It was a picture of the professor I completed my Biotech III internship with, Dr. Charles Warren. I wondered briefly why he was in the news, and then I looked back up at the headline, and my heart stopped when I saw it: "Paraglider crash kills UNH professor"
Crash kills UNH professor. Crash kills. Kills... Kills? UNH Professor... Killed? Death... He is dead. Dead? UNH Professor... Dr. Charles Warren; someone I knew; someone I highly respected. Is it possible? Of course it is; no one is exempt from the laws of nature, the law of mortality. But in the prime of one's life? From an accident while doing something you love? It's truly tragic. This might take a while to sink in completely; death had never before hit so close to home.
He was a very kind, genial man, and very smart. It was easy to get along with him, he hated being called Dr. Warren, preferring Charles. I enjoyed very much working with him on his research over those three weeks two summers ago. When I started that internship, he had just come back from a paragliding competition in Australia, something he seemed to love. I had hoped to perhaps work in his lab again over a summer, if briefly. I'm sure he will be missed.
RIP Dr. Charles Warren
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)