Saturday, April 07, 2007
My response to Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy, an article written by the Hoover Institute, Henry R. Nau
The link is here too: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/6848097.html
Regarding a fact selectivity viewpoint...
"We have to neglect some facts not because we are ignorant or ideological but precisely because we can know something only if we exclude something else."
This is non-sensical.
Let's take this statement at face value. It's like saying we can only understand American history if we take it from a rich white man's point of view. Or, we can only understand the theory of evolution if we focus on a few facts, and ignore others.
What determines our world view is not just a matter of choosing facts selectively, but the convergence of a multitude of information and data we encounter in our daily lives.
If I only read one history book regarding the Civil War, I would have an incomplete understanding of the war. The best thing is to get as much information about the war, and to look at it from varying viewpoints to get a better understanding of it.
Same thing with things like science. In particular, the theory of evolution is not valid because of one or two pieces of data, its valid because there are massive volumes of data from biology, physics, geology, and chemistry which validate the theory. To fully discredit something like evolution would require a massive amount of research, and verifiable and observable data to the contrary. No such animal exists at this point.
Similarly, the more one studies history and politics from other perspectives, the broader sense of the world and human behavior one gets. If I look at American history from a Cuban or Guatemalan perspective, I'll get a radically different perspective about the US than if I look at it from an American perspective alone.
Also, if I look at other aspects of human civilization, I'll get a broader sense of history and politics itself. If I consider things like economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology in relation to history and poltics I'm going to have a broader and better understanding of the world stage.
Herein lies the bias of a liberal arts education. Its difficult for me, and most likely other liberal arts types, to see the world from a limited point of view. You can see the viewpoint, but you just can't understand how a limited perspective is justifiable in a complicated world.
So, ultimately what we have is not a matter of individuals being selective about facts, it boils down to differences of opinion. Opinions are subjective and not objective in nature. However, some opinions can be valid if they are backed up with solid reasoning and observable evidence.
Bias comes from having a perspective and an inability to see things from another point of view. It also come from trying to steer and control someone's point of view.
Let's take our friends at Fox News. Does anyone really think that Fox News is a "fair and balanced" network? OK, a minority do, but still the majority have figured out that Fox is a shill for a neo-conservative, autocratic, hardline-Christian, Republican , and big business interests.
My problem with the network is not that it's so skewed to such a viewpoint, but that they try to argue that they're objective. This devalues their message and argument capabilities. If you're going to have an argument, state your case. Be upfront and matter of fact about what you think and believe. Don't hide behind a veil of journalistic integrity, just come out and say, "Hey, we're right-wing shills. This is our take on the world."
That would be far more preferable.
In contrast, look at Air America radio. They don't pretend to be balanced. They're upfront about being progressive liberals. You know if you listen to them, you'll hear arguments from that perspective. Do they pick and choose how they talk about facts.Certainly. Do they claim to be the total answer to all things? No. They tell you to go out and do your homework and decide for yourself.
Consider the "mainstream media." They're overwhemingly controlled by multinational corporations. Are they bastions of radical and overt liberalism and anti-Americanism? No. They are money making ventures and show thier bias in what they cover and don't cover. They exist to make money. Consider the non-stop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and you get the idea. "This just in, Anna is festering in her grave. More at Eleven."
Ask the question, "how does this have any value to my life," and you'll understand what gets shown and not shown in the mainstream media. If it bleeds, it leads. If it's got big tits and bleeds, you got ratings gold.
Bottom line in this argument, people take positions because they have helped them to understand the world, because they come from a certain cultural, ethnic, religious background. Those who transcend their environment and look at the big picture tend to have a broader and more accurate viewpoint. The people who do so, tend to be in the minorty.
Fact selectivity is based on biases learned from a person's individual point of origin.
Regarding North Korea...
"The freeze agreement prevented further production of plutonium and thus capped the amount of weapons-grade materials available to produce nuclear weapons. The termination of the agreement allowed North Korea to resume plutonium production and test a bomb in October 2005. Thus, from this point of view, the termination of the agreement was a mistake even though North Korea had begun a separate enrichment project because that program was still a long way from producing weapons-grade materials."
This very statement and the way it's written overlooks a very key aspect and fact. It ignores the fact that President Bush called out North Korea as a member of the Axis of Evil club. Combine this with the fact that the United States invaded Iraq without just or due cause.
The author shows his bias by neglecting that fact. He then makes the case that people simplify their world views.
No, we have a simplified world view because we (Americans) live in a culture that encourages a simple world view. We want the quick 15 second sound bite about world affairs so that we can get on with our lives. We have a culture that encourages impatience, ignorance, and looking at things from a simplistic perspective.
The author is trying to excuse bad behavior because people have a lazy perspective on the world.
Iraq War perspective
"For example, proponents of the Iraq War saw the incomplete facts about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as evidence of what he was hiding. Opponents of the war saw the same facts as evidence of what he did not have."
The pro-war and anti-war mind sets weren't simply about a disagreement about whether Iraq had WMDs. The argument was about whether the United States had just cause to attack Iraq.
We got attacked on 9/11.
We all agree on that fact.
We know that the hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia. None of them were from Iraq.
The group responsible for 9/11 was a radical Islamic group called Al Qaeda.
The leader of Al Qaeda is a man named Osama Bin Laden.
Osama is from a very rich family in Saudi Arabia.
Al Qaeda was very chummy with the Taliban.
The Taliban was, and still is, a radical Islamic group that ruled Afghanistan.
The origins of the Taliban have to do with the origins of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the lack of support for Afghanistan after the Soviets left. By our inaction in Afghanistan post-invasion, we let the Taliban come to power. We triggered and supported the Soviet invasion as part of the Cold War, and Cold War politics. (Zbignew Brzeznski was the mastermind behind triggering the Afghan-Soviet war. Zbiggy was Carter's man. Side note: Watch the intro to Rambo III, "Dedicated to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan.")
This radical version of Islam, called Wahabi, is taught and promoted in madrassas.
Madrassas are heavily funded schools that teach Wahabi Islam, and also promote an anti-Israel, anti-West world view, they're also financed by Saudi Arabia.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Nobody would argue that the man was due any kind of Nobel prize.
Saddam hated Osama Bin Laden. Hated him. He also hated radical Islamic groups. There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There was no connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. There was no connection between Iraq and the Taliban. Saddam would not have embraced radical Islamic elements because they would work to undermine his authority. Dictators tend to hate people who desire to overthrow them.
The anti-war movement and mindset was not based on arguing over a fact or two about Iraq. It was about the justification for war with Iraq.
There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The Bush administration made the CIA and others in intelligence find any tiny crumb of data to verify the the notion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They were so hell bent on getting a war in Iraq they were willing to do anything to get it. They even commited an act of treason by outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.
9/11 gave the Bush administration all the political capital needed to justify a war in Iraq. Bush argued, and still argues, that it's central to the war on terror. He never bothers to explain why.
Herein brings us back to the subject of perspective.
Americans as a whole are terribly ignorant about the world outside of the United States. Most would have trouble pointing out France on a map, let alone where Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan are.
All we see on the news is a bunch of angry Arabs burning the US flag. This has been par for the course since we were kids back in the 70s. It's pretty easy to fan the flames for war with people who burn our flag. After all, don't they see we're good people?
(Is this the byproduct of the deep liberal bias of the mainstream media, or a media geeked about getting higher ratings to justify higher costs for commerical air time?)
What they see, and what we see are two different things.
They see a country that supports Israel and that supports brutal regimes. They see a nation that is hypocritical and will change alliances at the drop of a hat, especially if it supports Israel or nations that favor American oil companies or military interests.
Going back to the 80s, we can see that the Reagan and Bush administrations supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein. They've been avid supporters of Saudi Arabia. They've also been avid supporters of American military and oil interests, and of fighting the Soviet Union, and communism, at all costs.
In 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam became the poster child of evil. What changed? Iraq was our friend in the 80s, and by the 90s, Iraq and Saddam were public enemy number one.
What changed was that Saddam messed with America's crack habit. By invading Kuwait he was upsetting the balance of control of the flow of oil. This would not stand with the Big Oil companies in the US who really like knowing that the flow of oil is controlled. Controlled oil flow means controlled oil profits.
Keep the junky fixed, but don't mess with the dealers.
The US had enough international support to boot Saddam out of Kuwait, but not enough to support toppling Hussein.
This ticked off a small cabal of neo-conservative elites in the US. They created and formed the Project for a New American Century.
One of their goals was going into Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein and instituting a neo-conservative version of "democracy" in Iraq.
That was Bush and Cheney's goal from day one. Look at who was in the PNAC, and look at who's in the Bush administration. Hello, McFly?! The fix for Saddam was in once Bush took office. (Also note, the return of Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Reagan cronies. Including John Negroponte, among others. You might remember him from such scandals as the Iran-Contra affair.)
Herein lies the question of sources of information. Where did I get my opinion? Am I crack-pot conspiracy theorist? Nope.
First, do a Google search on the Project for a New American Century. Second, dig into the history of the Cold War and look at why Iran is in the state it's in, and why Iraq and Saddam came to power. Back in 1953, the US engineered a coup and toppled the democratically elected president of Iran. (Mossadegh) -- Source: see Stephen Kinzler's "All the Shah's Men", and "Overthrow." Also, read Sheldon and Rampton's books "Weapons of Mass Deception," "The Best War Ever," and "Trust Us, We're Experts." I highly recommend the latter.
After reading these I asked myself the Woodward/Bernstein questions of who profits from such action. Follow the money.
Saddam was planning on taking Iraq out of OPEC and using petroeuros instead of petrodollars.
Again, don't mess with the dealer, just the junky.
Perhaps my viewpoint is cynical in nature, but I base it on human behavior. People in positions of power are ambitious people. They may have good intentions, but ultimately they are self serving. People help their friends. If you're friends with rich oil barons and despotic sheiks, you'll work to help them out.
What's to be gained from the Iraq war? Plenty. The US will have a military base larger than the Vatican sitting in the Green Zone in Iraq. This will give the US direct military control over Iraq and access to Iraq's oil supplies. By having military control in the region, this gives the US the leverage it needs to wage economic war against anyone who opposes us.
It benefits Big Oil, it benefits military contractors, and it keeps American citizens on edge which justifies an out of control defense budget. It also gives more power to the government and allows for greater intervention in the lives of individuals in the US.
Also take into account that world oil production has hit peak production. From here on out, oil's going to get more expensive. The US wants to make sure it's in the best strategic position possible to guarantee a steady flow of oil.
Off on a tangent...
Frightened people don't think rationally. It's easier to control a frightened populace.
By not hunting down Bin Laden and working on making a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will continue to have a new boogie men to frighten the American people with; namely terrorists. We should be trembling in fear over terrorists the same way we quaked in our boots over communists. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Guess the Baby Boomers were too stoned to listen to their own lyrics. It would definitely explain how Bush got into office.
I'll admit I have a neo-Jeffersonian bias. I have a bit of that radical spirit of anti-government in me from studying the American Revolution and the 60s. I'm not so jaded or cynical that I don't believe in our system of government however. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "loyalty to country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
I'm not a libertarian either. I do believe that government can be an effective means of making our lives better and easier. Government, in my opinion, is like a tool. Anyone can use the tool, but only those who understand its use can do so effectively. Giving a person who hates tools access to using them, is counter productive.
We got the leaders we deserve because we let others dictate opinions for us while we remain busy with our personal lives. Americans hate politics, and get really angry when they have to stop and pay attention to it. It's not that Americans don't do nuance, it's that they just don't want to be bothered with the affairs of governance. This ultimately lets corruption sink in, and this creates a jaded and cynical public opinion.
An active and informed public is necessary to keep the government honest. We can't let fear of anything let the government take away our rights and freedoms. We've sat back and traded our democracy for a comfy chair and a surround sound home theater system. We're more than happy to send some poor family's kid to die in a foreign country to keep our oil cheap, but don't let anything take away our comfort.
Lastly, regarding facts...
I've been reading a lot about evolution, global warming, and skepticism. What makes something truly believable is not one fact, or one reliable source, but a convergence of sources confirming something to be true. (See, Michael Schermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time")
I have found a common theme in so-called debunkers of global warming and evolution.
Here's what they do. They look for the troublesome minute details in some theory. Once they find some they use this to claim that a theory is invalid. At best, they muddy the waters and this stirs up controversy, and this results in non-action.
Anti-evolutionists claim that there are gaps in the fossil records. Sure, but there are also complete fossil records showing how one species transformed from one to another. Regardless, this kind of thing is a tit-for-tat kind of argument. It focuses on a small detail rather than the big picture at large.
Which is more plausible: a super powerful supernatural entity creates the universe in an unknowable fashion and makes everything in a six days, or that life was the result of natural forces that happened over billions of years?
Consider first a court case. Would you want someone to go to jail and be punished if that person's guilt was determined by faith or by evidence? Would you want that person to have a trial by a secret group in closed rooms, or out in the open and judged by a jury of peers? Should this person have the right to question his accuser or should he go to jail based on the hearsay of an anonymous individual?
This doesn't require a degree in quantum physics to answer. You want evidence. You want an open trial. Especially if you're the one on trial.
That's how science works. That's also how skepticism works. You don't just take somebody's word for granted, you do your homework and consider as many angles as possible about a complex subject. (See, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design," also by Michael Schermer)
Regarding evolution, the facts show that living things, including humans, changed over time in a natural process.
Why bring up evolution? It points out how people view facts. What matters most to people is not a collection of facts, but whether facts support a persons world view and/or opinion. Inconvenient facts are ignored.
Herein is how I break down something like global warming or evolution. I then consider the sources of the information.
I also ask who benefits from this knowledge, then ask who get harmed by this knowledge.
If global warming is the greates hoax ever inflicted on mankind, as Senator Inhofe (R. Oklahoma) claims, who benefits? Who gets harmed if Americans have to conserve energy, become more mindful of the environment, and think about how pollution effects the world around them?
Why would someone want to inflict such a hoax? Why would the majority of the world's top climatologists and top scientists claim that humans are overwhelmingly responsible for global warming? Are they in league with polar bears to undermine humanity? Is it a communist/socialist plot to destroy capitalism?
Consider conspiracy theories for a moment. Most of them fall apart when they have no evidence to support their claims. What counter evidence has been produced to dispute global warming or evolution? What evidence has been put forth supporting such claims? Looking at the evidence, one finds an overwhelming amount of data supporting global warming is real, and that evolution is a fact.
People buy into conspiracy theories when the sources of information are questionable. As a rule, Americans hold the government in contempt. Also, when official sources tend to omit information, or overlook information, it doesn't help them remain reliable sources of information.
Herein lies the basis of my counter argument for the Hoover article. People don't just ignore facts because they can't consider all the facts. They do so because they have a world view and want it justified. If you have a radical view point, it's best to limit yourself to facts that only support your case. Then you denounce anyone who questions you as unpatriotic, a radical, ungodly, or some other defamatory expression.
The ultimate flaw in Nau's argument is that by limiting oneself to convenient facts, one can get a clearer and more accurate picture of the world. This is the key flaw in conservatism as a political philosophy. Dogmatic adherence to policy, regardless of evidence will bring about political damnation. (Liberals fall into this trap only if they remain dogmatic and rigid about an issue as well. Nobody escapes the trap of rigid thinking.)
Bottom line, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his/her own facts. Ignore and neglect annoying facts at your own peril. The Hoover Institute is merely trying to justify their pro-war, pro-conservative agenda. The author leads a weighted argument, which does nothing to promote a better comprehension of the world, or situation in Iraq, or the Bush administration's policies.
I will give the author credit, at least he attempts to make his case without resorting to name calling or belittling anyone who disagrees with his opinion. For that, we just have to watch the gang at Fox News.
The link is here too: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/6848097.html
Regarding a fact selectivity viewpoint...
"We have to neglect some facts not because we are ignorant or ideological but precisely because we can know something only if we exclude something else."
This is non-sensical.
Let's take this statement at face value. It's like saying we can only understand American history if we take it from a rich white man's point of view. Or, we can only understand the theory of evolution if we focus on a few facts, and ignore others.
What determines our world view is not just a matter of choosing facts selectively, but the convergence of a multitude of information and data we encounter in our daily lives.
If I only read one history book regarding the Civil War, I would have an incomplete understanding of the war. The best thing is to get as much information about the war, and to look at it from varying viewpoints to get a better understanding of it.
Same thing with things like science. In particular, the theory of evolution is not valid because of one or two pieces of data, its valid because there are massive volumes of data from biology, physics, geology, and chemistry which validate the theory. To fully discredit something like evolution would require a massive amount of research, and verifiable and observable data to the contrary. No such animal exists at this point.
Similarly, the more one studies history and politics from other perspectives, the broader sense of the world and human behavior one gets. If I look at American history from a Cuban or Guatemalan perspective, I'll get a radically different perspective about the US than if I look at it from an American perspective alone.
Also, if I look at other aspects of human civilization, I'll get a broader sense of history and politics itself. If I consider things like economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology in relation to history and poltics I'm going to have a broader and better understanding of the world stage.
Herein lies the bias of a liberal arts education. Its difficult for me, and most likely other liberal arts types, to see the world from a limited point of view. You can see the viewpoint, but you just can't understand how a limited perspective is justifiable in a complicated world.
So, ultimately what we have is not a matter of individuals being selective about facts, it boils down to differences of opinion. Opinions are subjective and not objective in nature. However, some opinions can be valid if they are backed up with solid reasoning and observable evidence.
Bias comes from having a perspective and an inability to see things from another point of view. It also come from trying to steer and control someone's point of view.
Let's take our friends at Fox News. Does anyone really think that Fox News is a "fair and balanced" network? OK, a minority do, but still the majority have figured out that Fox is a shill for a neo-conservative, autocratic, hardline-Christian, Republican , and big business interests.
My problem with the network is not that it's so skewed to such a viewpoint, but that they try to argue that they're objective. This devalues their message and argument capabilities. If you're going to have an argument, state your case. Be upfront and matter of fact about what you think and believe. Don't hide behind a veil of journalistic integrity, just come out and say, "Hey, we're right-wing shills. This is our take on the world."
That would be far more preferable.
In contrast, look at Air America radio. They don't pretend to be balanced. They're upfront about being progressive liberals. You know if you listen to them, you'll hear arguments from that perspective. Do they pick and choose how they talk about facts.Certainly. Do they claim to be the total answer to all things? No. They tell you to go out and do your homework and decide for yourself.
Consider the "mainstream media." They're overwhemingly controlled by multinational corporations. Are they bastions of radical and overt liberalism and anti-Americanism? No. They are money making ventures and show thier bias in what they cover and don't cover. They exist to make money. Consider the non-stop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and you get the idea. "This just in, Anna is festering in her grave. More at Eleven."
Ask the question, "how does this have any value to my life," and you'll understand what gets shown and not shown in the mainstream media. If it bleeds, it leads. If it's got big tits and bleeds, you got ratings gold.
Bottom line in this argument, people take positions because they have helped them to understand the world, because they come from a certain cultural, ethnic, religious background. Those who transcend their environment and look at the big picture tend to have a broader and more accurate viewpoint. The people who do so, tend to be in the minorty.
Fact selectivity is based on biases learned from a person's individual point of origin.
Regarding North Korea...
"The freeze agreement prevented further production of plutonium and thus capped the amount of weapons-grade materials available to produce nuclear weapons. The termination of the agreement allowed North Korea to resume plutonium production and test a bomb in October 2005. Thus, from this point of view, the termination of the agreement was a mistake even though North Korea had begun a separate enrichment project because that program was still a long way from producing weapons-grade materials."
This very statement and the way it's written overlooks a very key aspect and fact. It ignores the fact that President Bush called out North Korea as a member of the Axis of Evil club. Combine this with the fact that the United States invaded Iraq without just or due cause.
The author shows his bias by neglecting that fact. He then makes the case that people simplify their world views.
No, we have a simplified world view because we (Americans) live in a culture that encourages a simple world view. We want the quick 15 second sound bite about world affairs so that we can get on with our lives. We have a culture that encourages impatience, ignorance, and looking at things from a simplistic perspective.
The author is trying to excuse bad behavior because people have a lazy perspective on the world.
Iraq War perspective
"For example, proponents of the Iraq War saw the incomplete facts about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as evidence of what he was hiding. Opponents of the war saw the same facts as evidence of what he did not have."
The pro-war and anti-war mind sets weren't simply about a disagreement about whether Iraq had WMDs. The argument was about whether the United States had just cause to attack Iraq.
We got attacked on 9/11.
We all agree on that fact.
We know that the hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia. None of them were from Iraq.
The group responsible for 9/11 was a radical Islamic group called Al Qaeda.
The leader of Al Qaeda is a man named Osama Bin Laden.
Osama is from a very rich family in Saudi Arabia.
Al Qaeda was very chummy with the Taliban.
The Taliban was, and still is, a radical Islamic group that ruled Afghanistan.
The origins of the Taliban have to do with the origins of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the lack of support for Afghanistan after the Soviets left. By our inaction in Afghanistan post-invasion, we let the Taliban come to power. We triggered and supported the Soviet invasion as part of the Cold War, and Cold War politics. (Zbignew Brzeznski was the mastermind behind triggering the Afghan-Soviet war. Zbiggy was Carter's man. Side note: Watch the intro to Rambo III, "Dedicated to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan.")
This radical version of Islam, called Wahabi, is taught and promoted in madrassas.
Madrassas are heavily funded schools that teach Wahabi Islam, and also promote an anti-Israel, anti-West world view, they're also financed by Saudi Arabia.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Nobody would argue that the man was due any kind of Nobel prize.
Saddam hated Osama Bin Laden. Hated him. He also hated radical Islamic groups. There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There was no connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. There was no connection between Iraq and the Taliban. Saddam would not have embraced radical Islamic elements because they would work to undermine his authority. Dictators tend to hate people who desire to overthrow them.
The anti-war movement and mindset was not based on arguing over a fact or two about Iraq. It was about the justification for war with Iraq.
There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The Bush administration made the CIA and others in intelligence find any tiny crumb of data to verify the the notion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They were so hell bent on getting a war in Iraq they were willing to do anything to get it. They even commited an act of treason by outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.
9/11 gave the Bush administration all the political capital needed to justify a war in Iraq. Bush argued, and still argues, that it's central to the war on terror. He never bothers to explain why.
Herein brings us back to the subject of perspective.
Americans as a whole are terribly ignorant about the world outside of the United States. Most would have trouble pointing out France on a map, let alone where Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan are.
All we see on the news is a bunch of angry Arabs burning the US flag. This has been par for the course since we were kids back in the 70s. It's pretty easy to fan the flames for war with people who burn our flag. After all, don't they see we're good people?
(Is this the byproduct of the deep liberal bias of the mainstream media, or a media geeked about getting higher ratings to justify higher costs for commerical air time?)
What they see, and what we see are two different things.
They see a country that supports Israel and that supports brutal regimes. They see a nation that is hypocritical and will change alliances at the drop of a hat, especially if it supports Israel or nations that favor American oil companies or military interests.
Going back to the 80s, we can see that the Reagan and Bush administrations supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein. They've been avid supporters of Saudi Arabia. They've also been avid supporters of American military and oil interests, and of fighting the Soviet Union, and communism, at all costs.
In 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam became the poster child of evil. What changed? Iraq was our friend in the 80s, and by the 90s, Iraq and Saddam were public enemy number one.
What changed was that Saddam messed with America's crack habit. By invading Kuwait he was upsetting the balance of control of the flow of oil. This would not stand with the Big Oil companies in the US who really like knowing that the flow of oil is controlled. Controlled oil flow means controlled oil profits.
Keep the junky fixed, but don't mess with the dealers.
The US had enough international support to boot Saddam out of Kuwait, but not enough to support toppling Hussein.
This ticked off a small cabal of neo-conservative elites in the US. They created and formed the Project for a New American Century.
One of their goals was going into Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein and instituting a neo-conservative version of "democracy" in Iraq.
That was Bush and Cheney's goal from day one. Look at who was in the PNAC, and look at who's in the Bush administration. Hello, McFly?! The fix for Saddam was in once Bush took office. (Also note, the return of Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Reagan cronies. Including John Negroponte, among others. You might remember him from such scandals as the Iran-Contra affair.)
Herein lies the question of sources of information. Where did I get my opinion? Am I crack-pot conspiracy theorist? Nope.
First, do a Google search on the Project for a New American Century. Second, dig into the history of the Cold War and look at why Iran is in the state it's in, and why Iraq and Saddam came to power. Back in 1953, the US engineered a coup and toppled the democratically elected president of Iran. (Mossadegh) -- Source: see Stephen Kinzler's "All the Shah's Men", and "Overthrow." Also, read Sheldon and Rampton's books "Weapons of Mass Deception," "The Best War Ever," and "Trust Us, We're Experts." I highly recommend the latter.
After reading these I asked myself the Woodward/Bernstein questions of who profits from such action. Follow the money.
Saddam was planning on taking Iraq out of OPEC and using petroeuros instead of petrodollars.
Again, don't mess with the dealer, just the junky.
Perhaps my viewpoint is cynical in nature, but I base it on human behavior. People in positions of power are ambitious people. They may have good intentions, but ultimately they are self serving. People help their friends. If you're friends with rich oil barons and despotic sheiks, you'll work to help them out.
What's to be gained from the Iraq war? Plenty. The US will have a military base larger than the Vatican sitting in the Green Zone in Iraq. This will give the US direct military control over Iraq and access to Iraq's oil supplies. By having military control in the region, this gives the US the leverage it needs to wage economic war against anyone who opposes us.
It benefits Big Oil, it benefits military contractors, and it keeps American citizens on edge which justifies an out of control defense budget. It also gives more power to the government and allows for greater intervention in the lives of individuals in the US.
Also take into account that world oil production has hit peak production. From here on out, oil's going to get more expensive. The US wants to make sure it's in the best strategic position possible to guarantee a steady flow of oil.
Off on a tangent...
Frightened people don't think rationally. It's easier to control a frightened populace.
By not hunting down Bin Laden and working on making a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will continue to have a new boogie men to frighten the American people with; namely terrorists. We should be trembling in fear over terrorists the same way we quaked in our boots over communists. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Guess the Baby Boomers were too stoned to listen to their own lyrics. It would definitely explain how Bush got into office.
I'll admit I have a neo-Jeffersonian bias. I have a bit of that radical spirit of anti-government in me from studying the American Revolution and the 60s. I'm not so jaded or cynical that I don't believe in our system of government however. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "loyalty to country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
I'm not a libertarian either. I do believe that government can be an effective means of making our lives better and easier. Government, in my opinion, is like a tool. Anyone can use the tool, but only those who understand its use can do so effectively. Giving a person who hates tools access to using them, is counter productive.
We got the leaders we deserve because we let others dictate opinions for us while we remain busy with our personal lives. Americans hate politics, and get really angry when they have to stop and pay attention to it. It's not that Americans don't do nuance, it's that they just don't want to be bothered with the affairs of governance. This ultimately lets corruption sink in, and this creates a jaded and cynical public opinion.
An active and informed public is necessary to keep the government honest. We can't let fear of anything let the government take away our rights and freedoms. We've sat back and traded our democracy for a comfy chair and a surround sound home theater system. We're more than happy to send some poor family's kid to die in a foreign country to keep our oil cheap, but don't let anything take away our comfort.
Lastly, regarding facts...
I've been reading a lot about evolution, global warming, and skepticism. What makes something truly believable is not one fact, or one reliable source, but a convergence of sources confirming something to be true. (See, Michael Schermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time")
I have found a common theme in so-called debunkers of global warming and evolution.
Here's what they do. They look for the troublesome minute details in some theory. Once they find some they use this to claim that a theory is invalid. At best, they muddy the waters and this stirs up controversy, and this results in non-action.
Anti-evolutionists claim that there are gaps in the fossil records. Sure, but there are also complete fossil records showing how one species transformed from one to another. Regardless, this kind of thing is a tit-for-tat kind of argument. It focuses on a small detail rather than the big picture at large.
Which is more plausible: a super powerful supernatural entity creates the universe in an unknowable fashion and makes everything in a six days, or that life was the result of natural forces that happened over billions of years?
Consider first a court case. Would you want someone to go to jail and be punished if that person's guilt was determined by faith or by evidence? Would you want that person to have a trial by a secret group in closed rooms, or out in the open and judged by a jury of peers? Should this person have the right to question his accuser or should he go to jail based on the hearsay of an anonymous individual?
This doesn't require a degree in quantum physics to answer. You want evidence. You want an open trial. Especially if you're the one on trial.
That's how science works. That's also how skepticism works. You don't just take somebody's word for granted, you do your homework and consider as many angles as possible about a complex subject. (See, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design," also by Michael Schermer)
Regarding evolution, the facts show that living things, including humans, changed over time in a natural process.
Why bring up evolution? It points out how people view facts. What matters most to people is not a collection of facts, but whether facts support a persons world view and/or opinion. Inconvenient facts are ignored.
Herein is how I break down something like global warming or evolution. I then consider the sources of the information.
I also ask who benefits from this knowledge, then ask who get harmed by this knowledge.
If global warming is the greates hoax ever inflicted on mankind, as Senator Inhofe (R. Oklahoma) claims, who benefits? Who gets harmed if Americans have to conserve energy, become more mindful of the environment, and think about how pollution effects the world around them?
Why would someone want to inflict such a hoax? Why would the majority of the world's top climatologists and top scientists claim that humans are overwhelmingly responsible for global warming? Are they in league with polar bears to undermine humanity? Is it a communist/socialist plot to destroy capitalism?
Consider conspiracy theories for a moment. Most of them fall apart when they have no evidence to support their claims. What counter evidence has been produced to dispute global warming or evolution? What evidence has been put forth supporting such claims? Looking at the evidence, one finds an overwhelming amount of data supporting global warming is real, and that evolution is a fact.
People buy into conspiracy theories when the sources of information are questionable. As a rule, Americans hold the government in contempt. Also, when official sources tend to omit information, or overlook information, it doesn't help them remain reliable sources of information.
Herein lies the basis of my counter argument for the Hoover article. People don't just ignore facts because they can't consider all the facts. They do so because they have a world view and want it justified. If you have a radical view point, it's best to limit yourself to facts that only support your case. Then you denounce anyone who questions you as unpatriotic, a radical, ungodly, or some other defamatory expression.
The ultimate flaw in Nau's argument is that by limiting oneself to convenient facts, one can get a clearer and more accurate picture of the world. This is the key flaw in conservatism as a political philosophy. Dogmatic adherence to policy, regardless of evidence will bring about political damnation. (Liberals fall into this trap only if they remain dogmatic and rigid about an issue as well. Nobody escapes the trap of rigid thinking.)
Bottom line, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his/her own facts. Ignore and neglect annoying facts at your own peril. The Hoover Institute is merely trying to justify their pro-war, pro-conservative agenda. The author leads a weighted argument, which does nothing to promote a better comprehension of the world, or situation in Iraq, or the Bush administration's policies.
I will give the author credit, at least he attempts to make his case without resorting to name calling or belittling anyone who disagrees with his opinion. For that, we just have to watch the gang at Fox News.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Read this book:
Or any other by these authors; John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton. They do their research.
Or any other by these authors; John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton. They do their research.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
The Face of War
Here are some very brutal photos of what the Israelis have done to the Lebanese. (Here)
What can I say.
Those who hawk for war, tend not to think about the consequences. This is the result. I wonder how much longer until we start to see Americans in the same boat. The Bush/Cheney admin want war, they'll get it.
Here are some very brutal photos of what the Israelis have done to the Lebanese. (Here)
What can I say.
Those who hawk for war, tend not to think about the consequences. This is the result. I wonder how much longer until we start to see Americans in the same boat. The Bush/Cheney admin want war, they'll get it.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Fascist Creep...
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
Milton Sanford Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-35 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).
Cheney Defends Accessing Bank Account Information
Warrantless Wiretapping on Trial
Court Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Legal
American detained indefinitely without trial
Unethical/Illegal Detainment of POW's.
"[Democrats are ] so angry and so irrational that their anger is causing them to shed the camouflage and shed the masks and we're finding out they are mean-spirited, they are discriminatory, they're extremists , and they're wrong."
---excerpt---
"The 'Democrats don't trust individuals to make the right decisions for themselves. They need people to be in a state of need because that's how liberals derive their power . So they look at average Americans with contempt.' On the other hand, 'Conservatives trust average, ordinary Americans.' On "'the liberal side of the isle, those people are targets for punishment.' The ' Democrats' enemies list' is 'Exxon-Mobil, any pharmaceutical company, Wal-Mart. You go right down the list and it's the people who are defining success in this country .' "
-Rush Limbaugh, with Neil Cavuto on Fox News 2/9/2006 , from Newshounds
(This is an example of projection. Limbaugh projects the image of Democrats in the mold of Republicans. In other words, he reverses what is really going on. The GOP acts the way Limbaugh describes Dems, and the Dems act the way Limbaugh describes the Republicans. )
the definitive aspects of fascism as described by serious political scholars: its populism, particularly its claim to represent the "true character" of the respective national identities among which it arises; and its mythic core of national rebirth -- not to mention its corporatist component, its anti-liberalism, its glorification of violence and its contempt for weakness.
In other words, fascism's appeal is its populist appeal. It conceals its real agenda by using rhetoric that is populist in tone. Just the way Limbaugh dishes it up. (Definition by David Neiwart.) Consider how Limbaugh emphasizes how he's just a "regular guy" and a "harmless loveable fuzzball."
---
Newspeak:
diminishing the range of thought by nullifying the meaning of words.
It renders language meaningless by positing a meaning of a word that is in fact its near or precise opposite.
From 1984, by George Orwell:
"You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right … But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes; only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party."
Another character explains its long-term purpose:
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
---
I could go on, but it seems like I'm banging my head against the wall.
A great website on fascism here.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Brutality 1, Liberty & Freedom 0
America scored a major victory today in Iraq, but humanity scored a
major loss. The death of Al-Zarqawi is a good thing. He was a bad man.
In essence he proved the old adage about one who lives by the sword.
Except in this case he died in an airstrike, but I digress.
This isn't just a victory for the US military and the Bush
administration, but a victory for the forces in society that promote
the "might makes right" mentality. See, we kicked his ass. We're
kicking terrorist butt!! Hooray for America! This justifies Bush's
actions in Iraq. We toppled a government by military force, set up a
government through coercion, used our military to prop up the
government the US chose for the Iraqi people. Might made right.
Yet, I have a sick feeling inside about this victory. It's an empty
victory because its the death of the principles that America was
founded upon, namley the principles that all people are born with
certain inalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. It's the death of diplomacy, the death of seeking
solutions to problems that are resolved through agreements in a
peaceful manner. Solutions that produce long term peaceful results.
It's the death of rationality and reason. It's the death of the
enlightened part of humanity.
In other words, it all goes back to the man with the biggest rock,
biggest spear, biggest tactical nuke, makes the rules. You do as that
man says, or you suffer the consequences. Questioning that man, means
ostracism from the group at best, or death at worst. Human civilization
has been around for around 10,000 years. It took around 9,800 years for
humans to develop secular governments where the rule of law was greater
than the rule of the gun.
With the war in Iraq, and the permanent war on terrorism, the rule of
law just got replaced with the rule of force. Might makes right wins.
The most violent elements in society generally bring change to society.
It's usually those groups that are willing to commit violence (or
commit acts of violence) that generally win against groups that are
non-violent. People who believe in the rule of law tend toward
non-violence. People who bypass the law and take matters into their
hands violently, generally win, unless they're outnumbered and
overpowered by forces willing to respond with violence in kind on a
much greater scale.
September 11, 2001 was the last day of a free America, and the first
day of totalitarian America. Our civil liberties are being
erroded, and few seem to really care or seem to be doing anything about
it. Most are either uncertain about things and take no action, or
others seem to eagerly embrace the encroachment of government upon our
civil liberties. The voices standing up for law, reason, and the
principles of our Founding Fathers are being drowned out by voices
clamoring for security, for revenge, and favor the government doing
anything it sees fit to protect us from terrorists.
We are now in a state of permanent war. Permanent war is the tool of
dictators. The US will be in a perpetual, never ending war with
terrorism. There will be no room for debate, dialogue, or reason to
ever enter conversations. Those voices are being labeled (and will
continue to be labeled) treasonous, cowardly, and coddling to enemies
of the state. Anyone advocating anything besides the might makes right
mentality will be considered enemies of the state.
I've seriously questioned if our democracy can survive George Bush and
his administration. I've seriously questioned if its really worth it to
fight for the rule of law, for civil liberties, and for justice in the
world anymore. I'm sickened by what the Bush administration has done with his
mishandling of the war against terrorism. His administration has set
the foundation for police state America.
Freedom, liberty, and justice are now just corporate slogans used to
get scared and ignorant people to vote for candidates who serve their
own personal interests over the interests of the greater common good,
and to serve the interests of the "might makes right" mentality.
Case in point, recently the Republican candidate, Brian Bilbray, who won
the seat in San Diego was a corporate lobbyist, and he wasn't even a
Californian considering his home residence was in Virginia. You could
argue that he is the better candidate and that he barely won, but the
real thing is the people of San Diego voted for party over quality of
the candidate. Another corporate shill gets a congressional seat. Does
anyone really think he'll stand up for workers rights, immigrant
rights, affordable healthcare, better schools, job security, or civil
rights? Anyone? Granted, Busby made a stupid slip of the tongue comment
that was taken out of context, but should one stupid comment really be
held against the character of the candidate. If that was the case, Bush
would never have become president.
Is it just a case of sour grapes? Am I just whining because things are
going bad for Democrats? No. I'm really concerned for the state of
liberty, and about the future prospects of liberty and justice in
America. I'm very concerned that we are very eagerly throwing two
hundred years of progress toward an egalitarian society out the window
because we were attacked on 9/11. I'm concerned that our government is
pretty much locked into the hands of corporate and special interest
groups. I'm concerned that most people seem apathetic, indifferent, or
unconcerned about the affairs of the state. I'm concerned that when
people figure out that we've chucked our freedom to the curb for
security, it'll be too late to get our freedom back. I'm concerned that
people will have to die fighting and dying to regain that lost liberty,
and I'm concerned that once that liberty and freedom are lost, they may
never be regained.
So, good for America in it's victory against Al-Zarqawi. Good riddance
to him. However, my condolences to America, it's people, to my country,
for the death of it's march toward progress and justice. Might makes
right wins. Reason and peace lose. Hooray for the gun. Long live the
gun!
America scored a major victory today in Iraq, but humanity scored a
major loss. The death of Al-Zarqawi is a good thing. He was a bad man.
In essence he proved the old adage about one who lives by the sword.
Except in this case he died in an airstrike, but I digress.
This isn't just a victory for the US military and the Bush
administration, but a victory for the forces in society that promote
the "might makes right" mentality. See, we kicked his ass. We're
kicking terrorist butt!! Hooray for America! This justifies Bush's
actions in Iraq. We toppled a government by military force, set up a
government through coercion, used our military to prop up the
government the US chose for the Iraqi people. Might made right.
Yet, I have a sick feeling inside about this victory. It's an empty
victory because its the death of the principles that America was
founded upon, namley the principles that all people are born with
certain inalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. It's the death of diplomacy, the death of seeking
solutions to problems that are resolved through agreements in a
peaceful manner. Solutions that produce long term peaceful results.
It's the death of rationality and reason. It's the death of the
enlightened part of humanity.
In other words, it all goes back to the man with the biggest rock,
biggest spear, biggest tactical nuke, makes the rules. You do as that
man says, or you suffer the consequences. Questioning that man, means
ostracism from the group at best, or death at worst. Human civilization
has been around for around 10,000 years. It took around 9,800 years for
humans to develop secular governments where the rule of law was greater
than the rule of the gun.
With the war in Iraq, and the permanent war on terrorism, the rule of
law just got replaced with the rule of force. Might makes right wins.
The most violent elements in society generally bring change to society.
It's usually those groups that are willing to commit violence (or
commit acts of violence) that generally win against groups that are
non-violent. People who believe in the rule of law tend toward
non-violence. People who bypass the law and take matters into their
hands violently, generally win, unless they're outnumbered and
overpowered by forces willing to respond with violence in kind on a
much greater scale.
September 11, 2001 was the last day of a free America, and the first
day of totalitarian America. Our civil liberties are being
erroded, and few seem to really care or seem to be doing anything about
it. Most are either uncertain about things and take no action, or
others seem to eagerly embrace the encroachment of government upon our
civil liberties. The voices standing up for law, reason, and the
principles of our Founding Fathers are being drowned out by voices
clamoring for security, for revenge, and favor the government doing
anything it sees fit to protect us from terrorists.
We are now in a state of permanent war. Permanent war is the tool of
dictators. The US will be in a perpetual, never ending war with
terrorism. There will be no room for debate, dialogue, or reason to
ever enter conversations. Those voices are being labeled (and will
continue to be labeled) treasonous, cowardly, and coddling to enemies
of the state. Anyone advocating anything besides the might makes right
mentality will be considered enemies of the state.
I've seriously questioned if our democracy can survive George Bush and
his administration. I've seriously questioned if its really worth it to
fight for the rule of law, for civil liberties, and for justice in the
world anymore. I'm sickened by what the Bush administration has done with his
mishandling of the war against terrorism. His administration has set
the foundation for police state America.
Freedom, liberty, and justice are now just corporate slogans used to
get scared and ignorant people to vote for candidates who serve their
own personal interests over the interests of the greater common good,
and to serve the interests of the "might makes right" mentality.
Case in point, recently the Republican candidate, Brian Bilbray, who won
the seat in San Diego was a corporate lobbyist, and he wasn't even a
Californian considering his home residence was in Virginia. You could
argue that he is the better candidate and that he barely won, but the
real thing is the people of San Diego voted for party over quality of
the candidate. Another corporate shill gets a congressional seat. Does
anyone really think he'll stand up for workers rights, immigrant
rights, affordable healthcare, better schools, job security, or civil
rights? Anyone? Granted, Busby made a stupid slip of the tongue comment
that was taken out of context, but should one stupid comment really be
held against the character of the candidate. If that was the case, Bush
would never have become president.
Is it just a case of sour grapes? Am I just whining because things are
going bad for Democrats? No. I'm really concerned for the state of
liberty, and about the future prospects of liberty and justice in
America. I'm very concerned that we are very eagerly throwing two
hundred years of progress toward an egalitarian society out the window
because we were attacked on 9/11. I'm concerned that our government is
pretty much locked into the hands of corporate and special interest
groups. I'm concerned that most people seem apathetic, indifferent, or
unconcerned about the affairs of the state. I'm concerned that when
people figure out that we've chucked our freedom to the curb for
security, it'll be too late to get our freedom back. I'm concerned that
people will have to die fighting and dying to regain that lost liberty,
and I'm concerned that once that liberty and freedom are lost, they may
never be regained.
So, good for America in it's victory against Al-Zarqawi. Good riddance
to him. However, my condolences to America, it's people, to my country,
for the death of it's march toward progress and justice. Might makes
right wins. Reason and peace lose. Hooray for the gun. Long live the
gun!
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
The Da Vinci Kerfluffle
I listened to the radio this morning and heard Jerry Springer remark about the Da Vinci code. I'll paraphrase his statement. "Making a movie like the Da Vinci code is like making a movie about the Holocaust as a hoax."
Well... I have to disagree.
The whole kerfluffle about the Da Vinci code is that it questions the validity of Christian teaching and dogma. It's also a work of fiction. FICTION. It's not fact. The author found some things that are real and factual, and then put them in his book to tell a story.
(I thought the movie was boring, but the subject matter was interesting. But I digress.)
OK, back to Springer's statement. The problem with his statement is that he is saying the truth of Christianity is as true as the Holocaust. Therein lies the problem. Christianity is resting on a house of cards. As long as people believe there was a guy named Jesus who was the son of God, and he performed miracles, Christianity remains valid.
The Holocaust however doesn't rely on people's faith to believe it happened. There are hours of documentary footage, piles of photographs, and millions of witness testimonies to attest to the fact that the Holocaust really happened. The concentration camps are still intact as museums and memorials to all those whose lives were snuffed by the Nazis.
In other words, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the Holocaust was real and it happened.
There is no overwhelming evidence to prove that Jesus was real, or that he performed miracles, or that he was the son of God, or for that matter that there is even a God. (Watch the movie, "The God Who Wasn't There" to see what I mean.)
Belief in God, Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Zeus, or any other supernatural or divine entity is an act of faith. It's a grand assumption. Evidence and proof of existence of anything paranormal is irrelevant to people of faith. They believe what they believe regardless of evidence.
So, Christianity exists because people believe it to be true. They have faith that it's true. If they begin to look under the hood, they'll find lots of questions and few answers that satisfy. Religion is built on a house of cards. It's a stacked deck. Once you believe, you believe for life.
At least until you learn to question your beliefs.
So, Jerry Springer's statement was incorrect. Making a movie or writing a book about how Christianity is a dubious religion is not like making a movie about how the Holocaust was faked. It's a perfectly valid book to write, since Christianity's validity and religion's validity are based on intangible and baseless proofs to make their case. To write a fictional book about real world things is the stuff that fiction writers do.
Nobody gets on the case of Stephen King if he writes a book about a car coming to life and being possessed by an evil spirit. Nobody questions Tom Clancy when he writes about a president who doesn't exist, and writes about a special agent who does incredible things. (Even though Clancy does extensive research on military and government things.) Nobody complains about John Grisham writing about lawyers who aren't real, and bout cases that never happened. (Even though he was a real life lawyer who knows about law.) Why is Dan Brown singled out and attacked?
The reason is because underneath the surface of his writings there is a grain of truth. Christianity, like all religions, can be made invalid by skepticism and disbelief. The Christians are understandably hot under the collar about The Da Vinci Code. After all, it brings into question the integrity of the church, the validity of religion and belief, and asks that people look into the reality behind religion.
Free thinking people asking open questions about any religion is dangerous. People might actually learn something, and being to think for themselves. Just imagine, a world filled with people skeptical about authority. A world filled with people that learn to think, question, and reason. Pretty creepy isn't it. That's what has the powers that be frightened about The Da Vinci Code.
Too bad the movie sucked.
I listened to the radio this morning and heard Jerry Springer remark about the Da Vinci code. I'll paraphrase his statement. "Making a movie like the Da Vinci code is like making a movie about the Holocaust as a hoax."
Well... I have to disagree.
The whole kerfluffle about the Da Vinci code is that it questions the validity of Christian teaching and dogma. It's also a work of fiction. FICTION. It's not fact. The author found some things that are real and factual, and then put them in his book to tell a story.
(I thought the movie was boring, but the subject matter was interesting. But I digress.)
OK, back to Springer's statement. The problem with his statement is that he is saying the truth of Christianity is as true as the Holocaust. Therein lies the problem. Christianity is resting on a house of cards. As long as people believe there was a guy named Jesus who was the son of God, and he performed miracles, Christianity remains valid.
The Holocaust however doesn't rely on people's faith to believe it happened. There are hours of documentary footage, piles of photographs, and millions of witness testimonies to attest to the fact that the Holocaust really happened. The concentration camps are still intact as museums and memorials to all those whose lives were snuffed by the Nazis.
In other words, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the Holocaust was real and it happened.
There is no overwhelming evidence to prove that Jesus was real, or that he performed miracles, or that he was the son of God, or for that matter that there is even a God. (Watch the movie, "The God Who Wasn't There" to see what I mean.)
Belief in God, Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Zeus, or any other supernatural or divine entity is an act of faith. It's a grand assumption. Evidence and proof of existence of anything paranormal is irrelevant to people of faith. They believe what they believe regardless of evidence.
So, Christianity exists because people believe it to be true. They have faith that it's true. If they begin to look under the hood, they'll find lots of questions and few answers that satisfy. Religion is built on a house of cards. It's a stacked deck. Once you believe, you believe for life.
At least until you learn to question your beliefs.
So, Jerry Springer's statement was incorrect. Making a movie or writing a book about how Christianity is a dubious religion is not like making a movie about how the Holocaust was faked. It's a perfectly valid book to write, since Christianity's validity and religion's validity are based on intangible and baseless proofs to make their case. To write a fictional book about real world things is the stuff that fiction writers do.
Nobody gets on the case of Stephen King if he writes a book about a car coming to life and being possessed by an evil spirit. Nobody questions Tom Clancy when he writes about a president who doesn't exist, and writes about a special agent who does incredible things. (Even though Clancy does extensive research on military and government things.) Nobody complains about John Grisham writing about lawyers who aren't real, and bout cases that never happened. (Even though he was a real life lawyer who knows about law.) Why is Dan Brown singled out and attacked?
The reason is because underneath the surface of his writings there is a grain of truth. Christianity, like all religions, can be made invalid by skepticism and disbelief. The Christians are understandably hot under the collar about The Da Vinci Code. After all, it brings into question the integrity of the church, the validity of religion and belief, and asks that people look into the reality behind religion.
Free thinking people asking open questions about any religion is dangerous. People might actually learn something, and
Too bad the movie sucked.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
---
RANDOM ACTS OF CONCIOUSNESS
---
Would you make someone the Commisioner of Baseball if he hated baseball? Would you put someone who hates science fiction in charge of programming the Sci Fi Channel? If you were an employer, would want to hire someone whose enthusiastic about working for you, or hire someone who dreads the idea of working for you?
Why then, would you elect someone to a office who hates government?
---
Denial Policy with Relish
I was thinking about the current presidential administration and the previous administration, and about honesty.
Let's review. Clinton would engage in the flat out lie,or in information omittance. Bush (and the Republicans) merely attack those who question him (them), He (they) will distort facts, or just plain out lie.
Let's see if you can figure out how the Bush admin deceives with the following parody: (We'll create a hypothetical scenario of President Bush (or any Bush official or representative) and a team of reporters.)
"President Bush, did you put ketchup on your hot dog?"
"I did not put relish on my hot dog."
"We didn't ask about relish, Mr. President, we asked if you put ketchup on your hot dog."
"You know, there are people in this country who just hate relish on a hot dog. I repeat. I didn't put relish on the hot dog."
"Again, Mr. President, did you put ketchup on your hot dog?"
"There are people in this country who do not believe that some condiments deserve equal attention. There are people in this country who think that relish does not deserve equal time with other condiments. Relish can be enjoyed just like other condiments like ketchup and mustard."
"We were just trying to get to the point of the matter, Mr. President. Did you put ketchup on your hot dog?"
"I've already answered that question. I've said everything I'm going to say on the matter. Next question."
Just to be fair, let's review the previous President's style.
"President Clinton, did you put ketchup on your hot dog?"
"I did not have ketchup relations with my hot dog."
"Mr. President, we've found mustard stains on your tie, what can you say about that?"
"I had an innapropriate relationship with mustard and my hot dog. I'm not proud of the fact."
Why is it we Americans are tolerating this level of dishonesty from our politicians?
Certainly, we don't want to be lied to. We don't want to be treated like children, and kept in the dark about important matters of state. I understand wanting to sugar coat information, or to create a positive spin on a bad thing, but these politicians work for us, the people.
The absolute level of disconnect between the Republicans and the people has gotten to a critical level. If we keep electing them, we will not live in a free society for much longer. Isn't it time we began to think about what's good for the country, and in turn what's best for us?
If the Democrats want to win elections, they got to bring the debate back to their side of the table. Granted, they're facing a media that is absolutely shunning them at this moment, which makes it hard to get your viewpoint across. Dems must phrase debates that don't fall into the Republican court. Don't let the Republicans dominate the argument, or let them change the subject to a wedge issue.
---
Dealing with the Wedge...
I was thinking that one could use the Bush admin policy of changing the subject to work against them.
Take abortion.
If a Democrat is being questioned about abortion, turn the argument against the questioner.
"Mrs. Jones, what is your stance on abortion?"
"Well, Bobby. Although I feel abortion is an important issue, it is not a bread and butter issue. By bread and butter issue, I mean an issue that deals with the day to day living of Americans. Issues like job security, job availability, health care costs, education, civic infrastructure, and the health of the economy."
"But what about abortion, Mrs. Jones?"
"Let's look at the statistics. Abortion is drastically on the decline. The number of abortions being performed annually continues to drop. Compare abortion rates from the 80's to the present day. It's on the decline. People are finding other options besides abortion. How does that compare to issues like people who earn a decent living losing their jobs to outsourcing? If we can take care of people's livelihood, the issue of abortion becomes moot."
Here's the crux of the argument: put the focus on what is important in society. Put the emphasis on what is more important. Is making abortion illegal more important than ensuring that families have good jobs, can live in good homes and safe communities, and to provide quality education for their children, and to have access to quality affordable health care?
Take any wedge issue the Republicans toss out, and flip it back to the bread and butter issues. That's what Democrats are mostly concerned with, Republicans are interested in dominance and control, not in governing.
Take the above argument, and put in gay marriage, gay adoption, or any other fringe type issues the Republicans toss up. Make the Republicans come to the table and deal with real issues. They lose every time.
Go on the offensive.
Take fiscal responsibility. Republicans are terrible with running the government. Does it make sense to drastically impair the federal government (or state governments) to the point where it can't do its job? That's not responsible, that's treason. Think about it. The policy of borrow and spend is reckless. The federal debt lies over $8 trillion now, and its mounting quickly. Nobody wants to pay taxes, but this debt is going to come due at some point, and the American tax payer is going to have to pay the price. It's going to be steep, and the biggest problem is that most of the deficit spending was wasteful spending.
Republicans like to borrow and spend, and then drastically waste what they spend money on. Ineffective, inefficient, and reckless, that's Republican fiscal policy, and if you look at the foreign policy it matches their domestic policy.
That being said, look at the Kerry campaign. He campaigned in a bubble. He needed to face Bush head on, throw out all the facts about how rotten the Bush admin has been, and why he would have been a better candidate. Granted, the Bush admin used every dirty trick they could, and sadly they won. (I guess when you cheat, you'll win, but you'll get a hollow victory.) Kerry took the high ground at a time, when he needed to roll up his sleeves and take Bush to task. He didn't, and that's why he lost. If he had taken Bush to task, he would be president today.
It's not the job of Americans to aquiesce to power. It's our job to question it, and keep it in check. Considering Bush's current approval rating is below 40%, its evident that Bush's presidency and his campaign was merely smoke and mirrors, and not one of integrity, honesty, or what is best for the country. I'm hearing voter's remorse over voting for Bush, let's hope that carries to the polls in '06. If we can get the Dems to take back the house, Bush will become a better president, in the sense that he's now going to have to be accountable for his actions.
----
Battlestar Galactica - The flaw of the characters in BSG: How do you blindly and foolishly keep loving someone who you know will kill you or kill the people you know? Absurd behavior in characters is fine in a comedy, but it weakens a drama. At some point, this show is going to go down an absurd route, and I will stop watching it. It's hovering right at the edge of absurdity.
RANDOM ACTS OF CONCIOUSNESS
---
Would you make someone the Commisioner of Baseball if he hated baseball? Would you put someone who hates science fiction in charge of programming the Sci Fi Channel? If you were an employer, would want to hire someone whose enthusiastic about working for you, or hire someone who dreads the idea of working for you?
Why then, would you elect someone to a office who hates government?
---
Denial Policy with Relish
I was thinking about the current presidential administration and the previous administration, and about honesty.
Let's review. Clinton would engage in the flat out lie,or in information omittance. Bush (and the Republicans) merely attack those who question him (them), He (they) will distort facts, or just plain out lie.
Let's see if you can figure out how the Bush admin deceives with the following parody: (We'll create a hypothetical scenario of President Bush (or any Bush official or representative) and a team of reporters.)
"President Bush, did you put ketchup on your hot dog?"
"I did not put relish on my hot dog."
"We didn't ask about relish, Mr. President, we asked if you put ketchup on your hot dog."
"You know, there are people in this country who just hate relish on a hot dog. I repeat. I didn't put relish on the hot dog."
"Again, Mr. President, did you put ketchup on your hot dog?"
"There are people in this country who do not believe that some condiments deserve equal attention. There are people in this country who think that relish does not deserve equal time with other condiments. Relish can be enjoyed just like other condiments like ketchup and mustard."
"We were just trying to get to the point of the matter, Mr. President. Did you put ketchup on your hot dog?"
"I've already answered that question. I've said everything I'm going to say on the matter. Next question."
Just to be fair, let's review the previous President's style.
"President Clinton, did you put ketchup on your hot dog?"
"I did not have ketchup relations with my hot dog."
"Mr. President, we've found mustard stains on your tie, what can you say about that?"
"I had an innapropriate relationship with mustard and my hot dog. I'm not proud of the fact."
Why is it we Americans are tolerating this level of dishonesty from our politicians?
Certainly, we don't want to be lied to. We don't want to be treated like children, and kept in the dark about important matters of state. I understand wanting to sugar coat information, or to create a positive spin on a bad thing, but these politicians work for us, the people.
The absolute level of disconnect between the Republicans and the people has gotten to a critical level. If we keep electing them, we will not live in a free society for much longer. Isn't it time we began to think about what's good for the country, and in turn what's best for us?
If the Democrats want to win elections, they got to bring the debate back to their side of the table. Granted, they're facing a media that is absolutely shunning them at this moment, which makes it hard to get your viewpoint across. Dems must phrase debates that don't fall into the Republican court. Don't let the Republicans dominate the argument, or let them change the subject to a wedge issue.
---
Dealing with the Wedge...
I was thinking that one could use the Bush admin policy of changing the subject to work against them.
Take abortion.
If a Democrat is being questioned about abortion, turn the argument against the questioner.
"Mrs. Jones, what is your stance on abortion?"
"Well, Bobby. Although I feel abortion is an important issue, it is not a bread and butter issue. By bread and butter issue, I mean an issue that deals with the day to day living of Americans. Issues like job security, job availability, health care costs, education, civic infrastructure, and the health of the economy."
"But what about abortion, Mrs. Jones?"
"Let's look at the statistics. Abortion is drastically on the decline. The number of abortions being performed annually continues to drop. Compare abortion rates from the 80's to the present day. It's on the decline. People are finding other options besides abortion. How does that compare to issues like people who earn a decent living losing their jobs to outsourcing? If we can take care of people's livelihood, the issue of abortion becomes moot."
Here's the crux of the argument: put the focus on what is important in society. Put the emphasis on what is more important. Is making abortion illegal more important than ensuring that families have good jobs, can live in good homes and safe communities, and to provide quality education for their children, and to have access to quality affordable health care?
Take any wedge issue the Republicans toss out, and flip it back to the bread and butter issues. That's what Democrats are mostly concerned with, Republicans are interested in dominance and control, not in governing.
Take the above argument, and put in gay marriage, gay adoption, or any other fringe type issues the Republicans toss up. Make the Republicans come to the table and deal with real issues. They lose every time.
Go on the offensive.
Take fiscal responsibility. Republicans are terrible with running the government. Does it make sense to drastically impair the federal government (or state governments) to the point where it can't do its job? That's not responsible, that's treason. Think about it. The policy of borrow and spend is reckless. The federal debt lies over $8 trillion now, and its mounting quickly. Nobody wants to pay taxes, but this debt is going to come due at some point, and the American tax payer is going to have to pay the price. It's going to be steep, and the biggest problem is that most of the deficit spending was wasteful spending.
Republicans like to borrow and spend, and then drastically waste what they spend money on. Ineffective, inefficient, and reckless, that's Republican fiscal policy, and if you look at the foreign policy it matches their domestic policy.
That being said, look at the Kerry campaign. He campaigned in a bubble. He needed to face Bush head on, throw out all the facts about how rotten the Bush admin has been, and why he would have been a better candidate. Granted, the Bush admin used every dirty trick they could, and sadly they won. (I guess when you cheat, you'll win, but you'll get a hollow victory.) Kerry took the high ground at a time, when he needed to roll up his sleeves and take Bush to task. He didn't, and that's why he lost. If he had taken Bush to task, he would be president today.
It's not the job of Americans to aquiesce to power. It's our job to question it, and keep it in check. Considering Bush's current approval rating is below 40%, its evident that Bush's presidency and his campaign was merely smoke and mirrors, and not one of integrity, honesty, or what is best for the country. I'm hearing voter's remorse over voting for Bush, let's hope that carries to the polls in '06. If we can get the Dems to take back the house, Bush will become a better president, in the sense that he's now going to have to be accountable for his actions.
----
Battlestar Galactica - The flaw of the characters in BSG: How do you blindly and foolishly keep loving someone who you know will kill you or kill the people you know? Absurd behavior in characters is fine in a comedy, but it weakens a drama. At some point, this show is going to go down an absurd route, and I will stop watching it. It's hovering right at the edge of absurdity.
