No, really, it does. Because, when you combine politicians with vasts amounts of money, then ask them to remember that it's for health care, they respectfully keep themselves in check...
No, just kidding, they ask nurses to work for free to fund new buildings..
Friday, January 26, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Environmentalism Racist?
Here is another interesting fact put forward by Michael Crichton:
"I conclude that most environmental 'principles' (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, 'We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution.'"
"I conclude that most environmental 'principles' (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, 'We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution.'"
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Another viewpoint on Environmentalism...
The scientific political heir to Richard P. Feynman's views on science, and its need to remain pure in terms of being "science-only", I.E. not tainted by business or governmental politics, is Michael Crichton.
If 'ole Dick Feynman were here, he would agree. Read "Genius: Life and Times of a Curious Character" to see his viewpoint. One of my few regrets in this life will be to never have met the man. (and yes, I can call him Dick. He macked on my Grandma back in the day.)
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear, as found at: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/fear_main.shtml)
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.
Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)
Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.
Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.
After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.
But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit."
Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.
Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the "active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented." German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.
A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, "solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals." In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.
Lysenko's methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.
Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.
By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as "bourgeois pseudoscience" in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko's ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.
Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.
In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world" of our past. That hope is science.
But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."
That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
If 'ole Dick Feynman were here, he would agree. Read "Genius: Life and Times of a Curious Character" to see his viewpoint. One of my few regrets in this life will be to never have met the man. (and yes, I can call him Dick. He macked on my Grandma back in the day.)
(Excerpted from State of Fear, as found at: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/fear_main.shtml)
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.
Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)
Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.
Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.
After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.
But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit."
Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.
Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the "active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented." German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.
A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, "solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals." In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.
Lysenko's methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.
Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.
By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as "bourgeois pseudoscience" in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko's ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.
Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.
In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world" of our past. That hope is science.
But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."
That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ok, so I'm a little behind...
I just finished reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".
Wow. Just wow.
The story is his usual page-turning romp through a technological nightmare, where the resolution you thought was going to solve everything happens WAY too early to be an actual solution, and further serves to convolute the plot in a direction you hadn't anticipated. Simply amazing.
Crichton uses actual data to prove his point that the Global Warming issue has been blown out of proportion, and that we are actually on the cusp of another mini-ice age. All the while, he is shooting down arguments that environmentalists raise towards someone doubting what we have been told is a "real, dangerous threat".
*SPOILER ALERT*
Towards the end, one of the minor characters points out that before 1989, the words "crisis", "catastrophe", etc. were rarely associated with environmental causes in the media.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, something had to replace the fear of communism as a way of maintaining control.
The "Military-Industrial Complex" no longer is a safeguard that people cling to to protect them against the latest, seemingly insurmountable "bad guy".
Enter the "Political-Legal-Media Complex". The PLM seeks to control people by making them worry about something they have little hope of actually affecting, focusing them into kicking the goads. People are so worried about the environment, they don't think about other problems.
He also takes a swipe at the "liberal" colleges, claiming that this new complex is a "[factory] of fear". "The notion that these institutions [colleges] are liberal is a cruel joke. They are fascist to the core...."
As if to prove his point, just the other day, I opened slashdot to see there is talk of decertifying any weathermen who dare express skepticism towards global warming
Just a few months ago, the media were positively SCREAMING for us to transition to corn-based Ethanol for fuel, backed by Greenpeace and the like, yet recent research shows that for the land use that is required, filling the tank once could feed a person for a year
As another example, the DDT outrage that happened in the 70s has successfully banned the use of DDT, despite the fact that the research done was biased at best, and illegal at worst. DDT, which was known not to be a carcinogen, and innocuous enough to eat, ended up killing people as malaria flared back to life. In fact, DDT was so effective that WHO is reversing its ban, and now suggesting that it be used again to combat Malaria in Africa
He makes the claim that scientists have become like Renaissance painters of old, where the creation (in this case, research) is tailored to be as favorable as possible to the patron supplying the funding.
Crichton suggests "double-blind" funding for scientists, so that the scientists have no idea who is supplying the funding for experiments and simply do the research without bias.
* END SPOILER ALERT *
I encourage you to pick up a copy of this book. It will challenge your commonly held notions on what is truly going on in the environmental movement.
I'll end with a quote from my scientific hero, Richard P. Feynman: "It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared, but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."
(Yes, it's a run-on sentence. He was a scientist, not an English Major.)
Side note: After reading this, I am deathly afraid of these things.. If you read it, you will be too. *shudder*
Another side note: a VERY thinly veiled Martin Sheen-esque character gets his in a way that is infinitely satisfying. Let's see him accept THAT script when it comes around!
Wow. Just wow.
The story is his usual page-turning romp through a technological nightmare, where the resolution you thought was going to solve everything happens WAY too early to be an actual solution, and further serves to convolute the plot in a direction you hadn't anticipated. Simply amazing.
Crichton uses actual data to prove his point that the Global Warming issue has been blown out of proportion, and that we are actually on the cusp of another mini-ice age. All the while, he is shooting down arguments that environmentalists raise towards someone doubting what we have been told is a "real, dangerous threat".
*SPOILER ALERT*
Towards the end, one of the minor characters points out that before 1989, the words "crisis", "catastrophe", etc. were rarely associated with environmental causes in the media.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, something had to replace the fear of communism as a way of maintaining control.
The "Military-Industrial Complex" no longer is a safeguard that people cling to to protect them against the latest, seemingly insurmountable "bad guy".
Enter the "Political-Legal-Media Complex". The PLM seeks to control people by making them worry about something they have little hope of actually affecting, focusing them into kicking the goads. People are so worried about the environment, they don't think about other problems.
He also takes a swipe at the "liberal" colleges, claiming that this new complex is a "[factory] of fear". "The notion that these institutions [colleges] are liberal is a cruel joke. They are fascist to the core...."
As if to prove his point, just the other day, I opened slashdot to see there is talk of decertifying any weathermen who dare express skepticism towards global warming
Just a few months ago, the media were positively SCREAMING for us to transition to corn-based Ethanol for fuel, backed by Greenpeace and the like, yet recent research shows that for the land use that is required, filling the tank once could feed a person for a year
As another example, the DDT outrage that happened in the 70s has successfully banned the use of DDT, despite the fact that the research done was biased at best, and illegal at worst. DDT, which was known not to be a carcinogen, and innocuous enough to eat, ended up killing people as malaria flared back to life. In fact, DDT was so effective that WHO is reversing its ban, and now suggesting that it be used again to combat Malaria in Africa
He makes the claim that scientists have become like Renaissance painters of old, where the creation (in this case, research) is tailored to be as favorable as possible to the patron supplying the funding.
Crichton suggests "double-blind" funding for scientists, so that the scientists have no idea who is supplying the funding for experiments and simply do the research without bias.
* END SPOILER ALERT *
I encourage you to pick up a copy of this book. It will challenge your commonly held notions on what is truly going on in the environmental movement.
I'll end with a quote from my scientific hero, Richard P. Feynman: "It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared, but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."
(Yes, it's a run-on sentence. He was a scientist, not an English Major.)
Side note: After reading this, I am deathly afraid of these things.. If you read it, you will be too. *shudder*
Another side note: a VERY thinly veiled Martin Sheen-esque character gets his in a way that is infinitely satisfying. Let's see him accept THAT script when it comes around!
Monday, December 11, 2006
Religon of peace holds an unbiased holocaust conference....yeah right...
So Iran, the great moderate Islam country that it is, is holding a holocaust conference.
No, I'm sure the choice of people visiting hasn't been stacked, and I'm sure it will be nice and civil and devoid of a political agenda...
...and while I'm dreaming, I want a pony.
No, I'm sure the choice of people visiting hasn't been stacked, and I'm sure it will be nice and civil and devoid of a political agenda...
...and while I'm dreaming, I want a pony.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Poor kids?
I feel more sorry for these poor mall Santas. Almost none of them look happy. A few look downright murderous...
Check it out!
Check it out!
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Some more interesting thoughts...
Here are some discussions I had over at Billy's blog.
I thought I'd repost them for your enjoyment...
When looking at the middle east, what results of having a fully muslim country is atrocious.
Looking at David Koresh, Pat Robertson, etc. when a Christian screws up, we are quick to say, “he’s a nutball, and we don’t associate with them.”
In most of the Islamic contact I’ve had in college and otherwise, they tend to try to justify (poorly) acts of barbarism and inhumanity:
Suicide bombings in Israel? “It’s ours! They should be pushed out into the sea!”
Killing of Theo Van Gogh? “He was speaking blasphemy!”
In fact, I find it interesting that they never distance themselves from the act, they justify the reasoning.
The people in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt who were dancing in the streets, handing out free candy, etc., after 9/11 tend to make me doubt the peaceful nature of Islam.
As a Christian Counter-example, When Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell make their usual crack-pot denouncements, there is a quick slam from the formal church, both distancing and making it clear that there is no connection with them.
I see very little of that happening in the 10/40 window.
Where were the Christian Riots when Jeff MacDonald made his cartoon of Jesus giving oral sex to Piglet? (Note: link doesn’t actually show the image)
There weren’t. The matter was handled without deaths or destruction.
I guess the distinction I am making is in dealing with Islam as a culture or on a personal basis. I forget where I heard it, but I think this rings true: “A person is smart; people, are dumb, panicky animals”.
As for them growing so fast, I remember in the 1990s, the fear was that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormans were going to take over. “The mainstream church will be eclipsed by 20xx!”
And yet, here we are.
I do think that it is fruitless for us to sit here in our Christian-advantaged surroundings and postulate about “reaching out” to Muslim people when there is no threat of reprisal.
Living inside the 10/40 window, such an invitation would have to be kept in secret, and invites the possibility of death or permanent ban from the country.
My only fear is that the Muslim community will become a “squeeky wheel” to badger people into submission. People will voluntarily self-censor themselves out of fear.
I like Piglet. I like people questioning my religon. I like freedom to question any religon. Having a “dialogue” with another religon is kinda limiting if it means you can’t question any of their precepts or perceptions.
The recent “Cartoon riots” show, in my mind, a willingness to resort to violence when something is critical of their religious perception. Yet, I don’t think anyone of us would feel any hesitancy to field questions about priest and altar boys.
And this behavior is the point I am trying to make: Having a “dialogue” with an American Muslim is not as you would have with a 10/40 Muslim.
I guess what I am looking at is the fruit of a mostly-muslim nation. When Muslims are allowed to run the entire show (Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.), human rights go out the window. We are dealing with a conquering enemy, something our generation has not had to contend with.
In my mind, this is not Britain and Brussels getting together to talk over a border dispute. Imagine, as Alexander was approaching India, the leaders of the Kambojas asked him to “dialogue”.
As you stated, correctly, I think, “in Islam she[christianity] has her only rival for the conquest of the world.” You are right there. They are attempting to take over the world. And as I was saying before, I suspect that their attempts in the US will not be successful due to existing laws and attitudes that will make things difficult. If anything, they will have to dillute the anti-Jewish/Christian/infidel retoric here.
The American Muslims here might be nice, pleasant, what have you. However, the 10/40 muslims show nowhere near the same amount of tolerance.
But what happens if they decide not to tone it down? How do we respond? If they gain sufficient numbers that the more radical Mullahs/Imams/whatever come over, what do we do at that point? What if, while attempting to hold them on hate-crime charges, we encounter riots? It’s a scenario I see happening all too easily.
I am a WWII warfare buff. I think it was fascinating how the world came together to combat a true evil, and (barely) came out victorious.
Reading Steven Ambrose’s books (Citizen Soldier, Band Of Brothers, etc.), which are biographical accounts of WWII’s european campaigns, the soldiers were amazed how they travelled up and down Germany, but never found a nazi. (Imagine that).
Yet, the culture is what allowed for Auschwitz, Chełmno, etc. It wasn’t that the whole of the population was active in the Extermination camps, but because they were hardened, even if it didn’t lead to ACTIVE agression towards jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., the culture they contributed to allowed these atrocities to occur.
In Islam, we see much of the same.
No, the vast majority of muslims will not attempt to suicide Israeli malls. However, when it happens, they will not think it a tragedy. When Iran calls for Israel to be “pushed into the sea”, they may not march in support, but they don't consider it a disgrace.
That is where I find the most difference. Any Christian who firebombs an abortion clinic in the name of Christ will find himself shunned and decried by all but the most extreme of screwballs. Heck, a Secret Serviceman who made anti-Muslim slurs is being charged.
If it happened in Iran, and it were anti-Israeli slurs, how much of an investigation do you think there would have been?
My fear is not the Muslims actively committing acts of violence. It’s the many many more Muslims supporting these acts of violence passively.
And sure, there are the few who are willing to stand up against them, but they are in the minority.
Billy, you mentioned about the people talking about the active cheering on the part of Christians inside the church. My response is that their impulses were that of Americans, not as Christians. This makes them not acting right as Christians.
With Muslims, well, the ones I have come into contact with anyway, are very emphatic that their anti-west, anti-Israel attitudes are part of their religious fervor, not out of any nationalistic pride. Indeed, it is amazing how Imans are the firebrands that tend to whip up a country, whereas over here, it’s more the politicians that have to motivate people to action.
I have no problems with reaching out to Muslims over here in the US. The governing laws and its enforcement make it next to impossible for them to use religious excuses to exact Sharia law.
A discussion amongst some of my friends overseas sparked an interesting point:
The key to unravelling the Muslim thread could lie in their women.
Inside the 10/40 window, especially in the lesser rich areas, women are almost property. After one of my friends (who is a red-cross nurse in Qatar), witnessed how they are treated, she said they are pretty much “brood bitches” I.E. they are there to make a nest, and crank out more soldiers for the fight against Israel and the west. (There is even a phrase: "Women are for children, men are for fun" Yes, closeted homosexuality is rampant there)
She suggested exposure to the freedoms that are available to women at a younger age could cause many of them to not wish to tow the religious line, resulting in a more moderate female population.
Interesting thought…
I thought I'd repost them for your enjoyment...
When looking at the middle east, what results of having a fully muslim country is atrocious.
Looking at David Koresh, Pat Robertson, etc. when a Christian screws up, we are quick to say, “he’s a nutball, and we don’t associate with them.”
In most of the Islamic contact I’ve had in college and otherwise, they tend to try to justify (poorly) acts of barbarism and inhumanity:
Suicide bombings in Israel? “It’s ours! They should be pushed out into the sea!”
Killing of Theo Van Gogh? “He was speaking blasphemy!”
In fact, I find it interesting that they never distance themselves from the act, they justify the reasoning.
The people in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt who were dancing in the streets, handing out free candy, etc., after 9/11 tend to make me doubt the peaceful nature of Islam.
As a Christian Counter-example, When Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell make their usual crack-pot denouncements, there is a quick slam from the formal church, both distancing and making it clear that there is no connection with them.
I see very little of that happening in the 10/40 window.
Where were the Christian Riots when Jeff MacDonald made his cartoon of Jesus giving oral sex to Piglet? (Note: link doesn’t actually show the image)
There weren’t. The matter was handled without deaths or destruction.
I guess the distinction I am making is in dealing with Islam as a culture or on a personal basis. I forget where I heard it, but I think this rings true: “A person is smart; people, are dumb, panicky animals”.
As for them growing so fast, I remember in the 1990s, the fear was that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormans were going to take over. “The mainstream church will be eclipsed by 20xx!”
And yet, here we are.
I do think that it is fruitless for us to sit here in our Christian-advantaged surroundings and postulate about “reaching out” to Muslim people when there is no threat of reprisal.
Living inside the 10/40 window, such an invitation would have to be kept in secret, and invites the possibility of death or permanent ban from the country.
My only fear is that the Muslim community will become a “squeeky wheel” to badger people into submission. People will voluntarily self-censor themselves out of fear.
I like Piglet. I like people questioning my religon. I like freedom to question any religon. Having a “dialogue” with another religon is kinda limiting if it means you can’t question any of their precepts or perceptions.
The recent “Cartoon riots” show, in my mind, a willingness to resort to violence when something is critical of their religious perception. Yet, I don’t think anyone of us would feel any hesitancy to field questions about priest and altar boys.
And this behavior is the point I am trying to make: Having a “dialogue” with an American Muslim is not as you would have with a 10/40 Muslim.
I guess what I am looking at is the fruit of a mostly-muslim nation. When Muslims are allowed to run the entire show (Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.), human rights go out the window. We are dealing with a conquering enemy, something our generation has not had to contend with.
In my mind, this is not Britain and Brussels getting together to talk over a border dispute. Imagine, as Alexander was approaching India, the leaders of the Kambojas asked him to “dialogue”.
As you stated, correctly, I think, “in Islam she[christianity] has her only rival for the conquest of the world.” You are right there. They are attempting to take over the world. And as I was saying before, I suspect that their attempts in the US will not be successful due to existing laws and attitudes that will make things difficult. If anything, they will have to dillute the anti-Jewish/Christian/infidel retoric here.
The American Muslims here might be nice, pleasant, what have you. However, the 10/40 muslims show nowhere near the same amount of tolerance.
But what happens if they decide not to tone it down? How do we respond? If they gain sufficient numbers that the more radical Mullahs/Imams/whatever come over, what do we do at that point? What if, while attempting to hold them on hate-crime charges, we encounter riots? It’s a scenario I see happening all too easily.
I am a WWII warfare buff. I think it was fascinating how the world came together to combat a true evil, and (barely) came out victorious.
Reading Steven Ambrose’s books (Citizen Soldier, Band Of Brothers, etc.), which are biographical accounts of WWII’s european campaigns, the soldiers were amazed how they travelled up and down Germany, but never found a nazi. (Imagine that).
Yet, the culture is what allowed for Auschwitz, Chełmno, etc. It wasn’t that the whole of the population was active in the Extermination camps, but because they were hardened, even if it didn’t lead to ACTIVE agression towards jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., the culture they contributed to allowed these atrocities to occur.
In Islam, we see much of the same.
No, the vast majority of muslims will not attempt to suicide Israeli malls. However, when it happens, they will not think it a tragedy. When Iran calls for Israel to be “pushed into the sea”, they may not march in support, but they don't consider it a disgrace.
That is where I find the most difference. Any Christian who firebombs an abortion clinic in the name of Christ will find himself shunned and decried by all but the most extreme of screwballs. Heck, a Secret Serviceman who made anti-Muslim slurs is being charged.
If it happened in Iran, and it were anti-Israeli slurs, how much of an investigation do you think there would have been?
My fear is not the Muslims actively committing acts of violence. It’s the many many more Muslims supporting these acts of violence passively.
And sure, there are the few who are willing to stand up against them, but they are in the minority.
Billy, you mentioned about the people talking about the active cheering on the part of Christians inside the church. My response is that their impulses were that of Americans, not as Christians. This makes them not acting right as Christians.
With Muslims, well, the ones I have come into contact with anyway, are very emphatic that their anti-west, anti-Israel attitudes are part of their religious fervor, not out of any nationalistic pride. Indeed, it is amazing how Imans are the firebrands that tend to whip up a country, whereas over here, it’s more the politicians that have to motivate people to action.
I have no problems with reaching out to Muslims over here in the US. The governing laws and its enforcement make it next to impossible for them to use religious excuses to exact Sharia law.
A discussion amongst some of my friends overseas sparked an interesting point:
The key to unravelling the Muslim thread could lie in their women.
Inside the 10/40 window, especially in the lesser rich areas, women are almost property. After one of my friends (who is a red-cross nurse in Qatar), witnessed how they are treated, she said they are pretty much “brood bitches” I.E. they are there to make a nest, and crank out more soldiers for the fight against Israel and the west. (There is even a phrase: "Women are for children, men are for fun" Yes, closeted homosexuality is rampant there)
She suggested exposure to the freedoms that are available to women at a younger age could cause many of them to not wish to tow the religious line, resulting in a more moderate female population.
Interesting thought…
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Revenge of the Religon of Peace...
So, let me get this straight...as part of our appeasal of the Muslim faith, we can't:
Transport Booze in a Taxi
Transport Dogs in a taxi (Seeing eye dogs included)
Or Have a building shaped like a cube
Might I suggest something for the Muslim faith:
To be fair, Christianity has its share of recent homicidal tendancies...for instance, when Andres Serrano dunked a crucifix in a tank of his own urine, the rioting was severe....oh...wait...
Transport Booze in a Taxi
Transport Dogs in a taxi (Seeing eye dogs included)
Or Have a building shaped like a cube
Might I suggest something for the Muslim faith:
To be fair, Christianity has its share of recent homicidal tendancies...for instance, when Andres Serrano dunked a crucifix in a tank of his own urine, the rioting was severe....oh...wait...
Monday, October 02, 2006
Grab Bag of stuff:
Well, another terrorist raid was conducted in Iraq.
It would appear that an 18 year old conducting the raid left a memento courtesy of Kevin Smith.
A little background for those of you who don't get it.
Also, a collection of REALLY good quotes came across my desk:
"Fighters are Fun, but Bombers make policy"
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
It would appear that an 18 year old conducting the raid left a memento courtesy of Kevin Smith.
A little background for those of you who don't get it.
Also, a collection of REALLY good quotes came across my desk:
"Fighters are Fun, but Bombers make policy"
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
Friday, September 22, 2006
You women are gonna hate me...
Ok, here's a little story about Joe:
Joe, after quitting T-ball in 3/4th grade, didn't really get a lot of exercise.
About 7th grade, Joe starts finding out he needs Large shirts.
There was a basketball league in high school.
Some Karate in 10th grade for a couple of years.
Then, he joined a gym about the 2nd year of jr. college.
Finally, some definition appeared on his body. Things were looking good.
Joe finds out he needs XL shirts.
Then Joe met Carrie. Joe was in love, and (foolishly) thought she was too.
While Joe and Carrie went to the gym together, they didn't spend as much time there, because they were too busy hanging out with each other.
So Joe goes to University, and cancels his gym membership.
Being an engineer, he can't spend as much time at the free on-school gym as he'd like.
While Joe is swelling down in muscle size, he's noticing that there is some flab appearing on the body. Not a good thing.
Joe graduates college, and, after a year of unemployment, finally works for NAVSEA.
A year later, having paid off his car a year early, he decides to re-join the gym he was at in Jr. College (Yes, he was living at home again at this point).
Having been a flabby-body, it is hard to work it off, especially with all of mom's good cookin' available to him.
So, early this year, Joe moves out. He gets a place in Santa Barbara.
He's still buying XL shirts because, hey...he's still XL, right?
After living on Yogurt and Vegatables for about six months, and rigorous workouts, Joe accidently made a discovery today when trying on some old clothes:
Joe can fit in MEDIUM shirts now.
Joe, after quitting T-ball in 3/4th grade, didn't really get a lot of exercise.
About 7th grade, Joe starts finding out he needs Large shirts.
There was a basketball league in high school.
Some Karate in 10th grade for a couple of years.
Then, he joined a gym about the 2nd year of jr. college.
Finally, some definition appeared on his body. Things were looking good.
Joe finds out he needs XL shirts.
Then Joe met Carrie. Joe was in love, and (foolishly) thought she was too.
While Joe and Carrie went to the gym together, they didn't spend as much time there, because they were too busy hanging out with each other.
So Joe goes to University, and cancels his gym membership.
Being an engineer, he can't spend as much time at the free on-school gym as he'd like.
While Joe is swelling down in muscle size, he's noticing that there is some flab appearing on the body. Not a good thing.
Joe graduates college, and, after a year of unemployment, finally works for NAVSEA.
A year later, having paid off his car a year early, he decides to re-join the gym he was at in Jr. College (Yes, he was living at home again at this point).
Having been a flabby-body, it is hard to work it off, especially with all of mom's good cookin' available to him.
So, early this year, Joe moves out. He gets a place in Santa Barbara.
He's still buying XL shirts because, hey...he's still XL, right?
After living on Yogurt and Vegatables for about six months, and rigorous workouts, Joe accidently made a discovery today when trying on some old clothes:
Joe can fit in MEDIUM shirts now.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
New freedom in the Chinese marketplace...
You have the freedom to be monitored by students. That's right...the government is paying students to monitor forums and report people who aren't towing the party (pardon the pun) line.
Sweet jebus on a stick...it's 1984, but in China. These people are reporting the "Spies of Goldstein" in forums.
And if that wasn't bad enough, now the Chinese media is telling foreign press what they can and can't report.
In unrelated news, China has become a haven for fuzzy bunnies and rainbows. Tiananmen Square never happened. And Taiwan is part of the mainland China. And Tibet too.
Nope, everything is perfect in China. As long as you belong to $Official_State_Religon, you'll be ok, I guess.
Sweet jebus on a stick...it's 1984, but in China. These people are reporting the "Spies of Goldstein" in forums.
And if that wasn't bad enough, now the Chinese media is telling foreign press what they can and can't report.
In unrelated news, China has become a haven for fuzzy bunnies and rainbows. Tiananmen Square never happened. And Taiwan is part of the mainland China. And Tibet too.
Nope, everything is perfect in China. As long as you belong to $Official_State_Religon, you'll be ok, I guess.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Welcome to the US...
Here's the breakdown: using a series of laws that you and I will NEVER have to learn, the visiting Iranian ex-president has been sued by a group of Iranian Jews who allege that his policies were the cause of their relatives' dissapearence and torture.
The article goes on to say that they had the suit all ready to go, and had to wait until he was physically in the US to serve it. It also says it was personally served to him.
I would pay big money to see that on youtube/video google.
Folks, Abu Gharab was a frat prank.
If you want to see real torturers in action, watch American trial lawyers.
Give them an opportunity and a profit motive, and I'll bet Saddam would curl up into a fetal position and ask for death by piano wire.
Personally, I'm inclined to let them have their way with this waste of oxygen.
You think the Bush Administration is going to do anything?
I hope not.
Ok, I'm out.
The article goes on to say that they had the suit all ready to go, and had to wait until he was physically in the US to serve it. It also says it was personally served to him.
I would pay big money to see that on youtube/video google.
Folks, Abu Gharab was a frat prank.
If you want to see real torturers in action, watch American trial lawyers.
Give them an opportunity and a profit motive, and I'll bet Saddam would curl up into a fetal position and ask for death by piano wire.
Personally, I'm inclined to let them have their way with this waste of oxygen.
You think the Bush Administration is going to do anything?
I hope not.
Ok, I'm out.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Interesting stuff...
Well, Al Zahawri and his Californian buddy have invited all Americans to join Islam. You know, I'd like to see what would happen if the DoD just wrote them and said, "ok". How could they justify bombing us then? Mind you, I'm not talking about actually converting. Just give them a momentary bit of confusion. Kind of like when you used to play tug of war, and the other team would just let go. Threw you off balance, didn't it?
In other news, here's a very sad story, and can help explain why I am anti-union:
*ahem* Canadian Soldier dies.
Town Canadian soldier was in finds out on a Saturday
Town Canadian soldier was in wants to lower the flags half mast.
None of the unionized workers were in, as by union rules, they had the day off.
So, a Councillor comes in on his off hours to do it himself.
Union files a grievance, as raising and lowering the flag is a union job
Asshats...
In other news, here's a very sad story, and can help explain why I am anti-union:
*ahem* Canadian Soldier dies.
Town Canadian soldier was in finds out on a Saturday
Town Canadian soldier was in wants to lower the flags half mast.
None of the unionized workers were in, as by union rules, they had the day off.
So, a Councillor comes in on his off hours to do it himself.
Union files a grievance, as raising and lowering the flag is a union job
Asshats...
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Shoe Bomber...
Hey...the shoe bomber was sentanced....a long time ago...
And the judge basically bitch-slapped him, his point of view, his religous justification for murder, and his questionable motives.
I nominate this for the new speech that should recieve "Gettysburg Address" noteriety.
Any takers?
And the judge basically bitch-slapped him, his point of view, his religous justification for murder, and his questionable motives.
I nominate this for the new speech that should recieve "Gettysburg Address" noteriety.
Any takers?
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Interesting point...
on fark.com forums:
"How do they determine who is a civilian and who is hezbullah?
I mean 300 of the 450 Lebanese civilians killed could be Hezbullah...they all wear civilian clothes and operate out of apartment buildings, schools, hospitals etc.
All they need to do is remove the AK47 from dead bodies hands and all of a sudden they are a 'civilian'..."
Interesting tactic...like arming your 12 and 14-year olds, sending them out to fight, then lamenting Israel for "killing innocent children" when they are forced to defend themselves.
And now I repeat my mantra: "There are precious few problems in this world that greater firepower cannot solve".
"How do they determine who is a civilian and who is hezbullah?
I mean 300 of the 450 Lebanese civilians killed could be Hezbullah...they all wear civilian clothes and operate out of apartment buildings, schools, hospitals etc.
All they need to do is remove the AK47 from dead bodies hands and all of a sudden they are a 'civilian'..."
Interesting tactic...like arming your 12 and 14-year olds, sending them out to fight, then lamenting Israel for "killing innocent children" when they are forced to defend themselves.
And now I repeat my mantra: "There are precious few problems in this world that greater firepower cannot solve".
Interesting language...
"Disproportionate"
I always thought that term was suspect...Does that mean that Israel has the right to send suicide bombers into Palestinian? Should they have simply sat back and launched rockets back into Lebanon? This would have been akin to England not invading Germany, but instead firing rockets back into Germany.
War is not a proportionate affair. You overtake and destroy your enemy. That's how wars are won. If a small guy does not have the firepower necessary to destroy an enemy's army, he should either ally with a larger army, or sue for peace. This idea of "fairness" does not equate to the battlefield, nor will it ever.
I also love how the talk is now focuses on civilian casualties. What they fail to focus on is Hezbollah using civilians as shields
Israel has warned all those not affiliated with Hezbollah to evacuate. Those staying behind know the risks. As I outlined earlier, the UN tower that was attacked was being used as a Hezbollah firing position.
This is necessary to demonize Israel for "killing innocents". It's evil at its worst, and needs to be rooted out.
I always thought that term was suspect...Does that mean that Israel has the right to send suicide bombers into Palestinian? Should they have simply sat back and launched rockets back into Lebanon? This would have been akin to England not invading Germany, but instead firing rockets back into Germany.
War is not a proportionate affair. You overtake and destroy your enemy. That's how wars are won. If a small guy does not have the firepower necessary to destroy an enemy's army, he should either ally with a larger army, or sue for peace. This idea of "fairness" does not equate to the battlefield, nor will it ever.
I also love how the talk is now focuses on civilian casualties. What they fail to focus on is Hezbollah using civilians as shields
Israel has warned all those not affiliated with Hezbollah to evacuate. Those staying behind know the risks. As I outlined earlier, the UN tower that was attacked was being used as a Hezbollah firing position.
This is necessary to demonize Israel for "killing innocents". It's evil at its worst, and needs to be rooted out.
Friday, July 28, 2006
North korea is pissing everyone off..
Even China is getting upset with them.
See, China is in an interesting place right now. They can't attack the U.S., much as I'm sure they would like to. This is because we are investing a lot of money in/with them, and they require the financial capital in order to grow.
China is attempting to play on the public market, and requires some clean-up in order to do so. For instance, with the Bejing olympics only two years away, they are attempting to teach their populace to wash their hands and not spit in public.
How does this fit in with North Korea? Well, as China can't attack us directly, they have to use intermediaries. And right now, they have us in a bind.
North Korea, has enough conventional arms pointed at Seoul to wipe it out on first strike if a war should break out.
So we have to protect our ally carefully.
On the other side, we have to protect our heavy investments in Taiwan. China wants to bring Taiwan back into the fold, but Taiwan isn't having any.
So how are these related?
Simple. China will use the threat of one to counter-act the other. If we protect South Korea in a war against North (again), our protection of Taiwan falters. And, if China makes a push to retain Taiwan, it simply has their North Korea puppet get hot over in South Korea in order to spread our forces out.
Bush is playing a diplomatic tightrope right now, and playing it well. The only reason we aren't in a mad rush to go in hot and heavy into North Korea is that Kim Jong Il isn't paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in South Korea. He is only starving his own people, and not really attacking outside his borders, except for the occasional saber-rattling (I.E. missile tests). We can take our time and see how far a diplomatic approach takes.
See, China is in an interesting place right now. They can't attack the U.S., much as I'm sure they would like to. This is because we are investing a lot of money in/with them, and they require the financial capital in order to grow.
China is attempting to play on the public market, and requires some clean-up in order to do so. For instance, with the Bejing olympics only two years away, they are attempting to teach their populace to wash their hands and not spit in public.
How does this fit in with North Korea? Well, as China can't attack us directly, they have to use intermediaries. And right now, they have us in a bind.
North Korea, has enough conventional arms pointed at Seoul to wipe it out on first strike if a war should break out.
So we have to protect our ally carefully.
On the other side, we have to protect our heavy investments in Taiwan. China wants to bring Taiwan back into the fold, but Taiwan isn't having any.
So how are these related?
Simple. China will use the threat of one to counter-act the other. If we protect South Korea in a war against North (again), our protection of Taiwan falters. And, if China makes a push to retain Taiwan, it simply has their North Korea puppet get hot over in South Korea in order to spread our forces out.
Bush is playing a diplomatic tightrope right now, and playing it well. The only reason we aren't in a mad rush to go in hot and heavy into North Korea is that Kim Jong Il isn't paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in South Korea. He is only starving his own people, and not really attacking outside his borders, except for the occasional saber-rattling (I.E. missile tests). We can take our time and see how far a diplomatic approach takes.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The religon of peace...
It is times like this that I am grateful for people like Jack Hayford, who provide a moment of clarity in the chaos.
I have no problems with any Muslim who wishes to live in peace. However, it is the passive/agressive nature of the people of Muslim faith that has me concerned. Those not performing acts of violence are very often supporting it passively, or justifying it.
As I commented in another blog, to take a lesson from another Jewish-hating culture, and, at the risk of Godwin-ing this blog:
To stand with Israel is not to oppose Arab peoples as an entity or to oppose the rights of Arabs living in Israel to a peaceful, politically secure, and prosperous life.
God has no disposition against any human being, certainly not Arabs who are the
offspring of Ishmael, the other son of His chosen leader Abraham. Standing for Israel doesn’t require an anti-Arab stance and doesn’t require us to be loveless toward other peoples.
The relentless animosities of sectors of the Arab world are not merely political causes but are driven by spiritual powers that will not be satisfied until Israel ceases to exist.
The forces opposed to Israel are not simply those of people who don’t like Jews. We are caught in the stream of spiritual forces greater than humanity, forces that cannot be overthrown politically or by the power of persuasion. These forces can only be broken by intercessory prayer where principalities and powers are cast down.
The same spirit driving these animosities is equally opposed to Christians as to Jews and in time will eventually bring persecution to both.
Just as Scripture states there are two witnesses that will be put to death in Jerusalem at the very end of time (Revelation 11), there have been two witnesses that have stood for God throughout history – the Jews and the Christians. The hostilities and animosities are just as leveled at believers as they are at Israel, because there is a spirit in the world that is against all that is called God and everything about Him.
• God as Creator – to Whom we owe our worship.
• God as Judge – to Whom we owe our accountability.
• God as Redeemer – Who has shown Himself through His Son, Jesus.
• God as the moral Lawgiver of all humanity – to Whom we owe a responsibility in terms of our behavior.
I have no problems with any Muslim who wishes to live in peace. However, it is the passive/agressive nature of the people of Muslim faith that has me concerned. Those not performing acts of violence are very often supporting it passively, or justifying it.
As I commented in another blog, to take a lesson from another Jewish-hating culture, and, at the risk of Godwin-ing this blog:
"Reading Steven Ambrose’s books (Citizen Soldier, Band Of Brothers, etc.), which are biographical accounts of WWII’s european campaigns, the soldiers were amazed how they travelled up and down Germany, but never found a nazi. (Imagine that).
Yet, the culture is what allowed for Auschwitz, Chełmno, etc. It wasn’t that the whole of the population was active in the Extermination camps, but because they were hardened via propaganda/culture, even if it didn’t lead to ACTIVE agression towards jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., the culture they contributed to allowed these atrocities to occur.
In Islam, I see much of the same."
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Simply amazing...
Sooo....I'm visiting out here in San Fernando Valley with some friends (LA for those of you who don't know around where that is... )
It seems that I've met up with a bunch of my former classmates...It was cathartic to hear about all of the "in-crowd"'s "after-high-school" lives. (Hint to all you High Schoolers...once High School is over, popularity means nothing..)
I was amazed at how many times someone would say, "so-and-so turned into a complete [Rhymes-like-witch]", or, "She was so stuck up...". Meanwhile, I, having been on the outside of the whole social scene, simply went, "umm...duh?"
I'm also glad I skipped out on the whole "oh, she met this guy, got pregnant, married the guy, cheated on him, divorced him and re-married after she became pregnant with his kids, etc." drama scene. Turns out that many of my former classmates didn't have it together nearly as much as they let on.
All those Friday nights alone with my computer seems like time well spent...
It seems that I've met up with a bunch of my former classmates...It was cathartic to hear about all of the "in-crowd"'s "after-high-school" lives. (Hint to all you High Schoolers...once High School is over, popularity means nothing..)
I was amazed at how many times someone would say, "so-and-so turned into a complete [Rhymes-like-witch]", or, "She was so stuck up...". Meanwhile, I, having been on the outside of the whole social scene, simply went, "umm...duh?"
I'm also glad I skipped out on the whole "oh, she met this guy, got pregnant, married the guy, cheated on him, divorced him and re-married after she became pregnant with his kids, etc." drama scene. Turns out that many of my former classmates didn't have it together nearly as much as they let on.
All those Friday nights alone with my computer seems like time well spent...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)