Friday, November 6, 2009
+ excessive testing is a waste of time
Might as well release new features and see how the public reacts. Check out this amazing search engine called Google.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
+ new Argumentum Enhanced Comments System
While there may be bugs in this new system, it's functionality far exceeds the standard Facebook Comments widget. You can view YouTube videos and images "in-comment" rather than having to navigate to a external page. You can respond to a specific post, and easily navigate through responses. If the Poster has taken a "position" on the argument in question, you will see it next to his/her name. This is useful for reference purposes.
There's a lot more to come, as after all Argumentum aims to be the perfect place to argue online!
There's a lot more to come, as after all Argumentum aims to be the perfect place to argue online!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
- it is unconstitutional to ban certain religious clothing in US courts of law
1st amendment regarding Religion..
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There is an inherent contradiction in one common interpretation of the 1st amendment, since to determine whether or not the Free Exercise of Religion has been prohibited, it can be construed that the State must at some point Establish the validity of an act as Religious. Jefferson recognized this possibility early, and made himself very clear; the clause was meant to act as a "Wall of Separation" between Religion and government. Jefferson intended that the State not concern itself with religious matters at all; in essence it should act in total Ignorance of Religion. He did not enunciate what he meant by 'Religion', but an extension of his logic leaves little doubt. Religion for Jefferson always referred to Faith; belief in phenomena without scientific evidence and reason. Nudism, the belief that man's natural state is to be without clothing, is therefore a religious belief in the sense that its dogma is not based on science or reasoning; it is a 'Faith.' Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, for true believers, is also a religion, as valid as Sikhism, Islam or Christianity or any other.
Logically if a Sikh should be permitted to wear his turban in court on account of his religion, a Nudist should be permitted to address the judge as his religion demands, in the nude. But then, what if a Yankees fan demands the right to wear his baseball cap in court on the account that his superstition or 'Faith' requires it? Must a judge 'establish' in each separate instance the validity of a particular practice as based on 'Faith.' More disturbingly, must a judge ascertain the extent of a person's religious fervor to grant his request? For example, take the case of a Muslim girl who has never worn a Burqa in her life, yet who demands this right in court. Would we have a theoretically secular judge pore through Shariah law to determine whether or not she is a 'true' Muslim and therefore entitled to this right? Clearly a view that "free exercise" of religion trumps the state's obligation to never Establish Religion is not tenable.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There is an inherent contradiction in one common interpretation of the 1st amendment, since to determine whether or not the Free Exercise of Religion has been prohibited, it can be construed that the State must at some point Establish the validity of an act as Religious. Jefferson recognized this possibility early, and made himself very clear; the clause was meant to act as a "Wall of Separation" between Religion and government. Jefferson intended that the State not concern itself with religious matters at all; in essence it should act in total Ignorance of Religion. He did not enunciate what he meant by 'Religion', but an extension of his logic leaves little doubt. Religion for Jefferson always referred to Faith; belief in phenomena without scientific evidence and reason. Nudism, the belief that man's natural state is to be without clothing, is therefore a religious belief in the sense that its dogma is not based on science or reasoning; it is a 'Faith.' Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, for true believers, is also a religion, as valid as Sikhism, Islam or Christianity or any other.
Logically if a Sikh should be permitted to wear his turban in court on account of his religion, a Nudist should be permitted to address the judge as his religion demands, in the nude. But then, what if a Yankees fan demands the right to wear his baseball cap in court on the account that his superstition or 'Faith' requires it? Must a judge 'establish' in each separate instance the validity of a particular practice as based on 'Faith.' More disturbingly, must a judge ascertain the extent of a person's religious fervor to grant his request? For example, take the case of a Muslim girl who has never worn a Burqa in her life, yet who demands this right in court. Would we have a theoretically secular judge pore through Shariah law to determine whether or not she is a 'true' Muslim and therefore entitled to this right? Clearly a view that "free exercise" of religion trumps the state's obligation to never Establish Religion is not tenable.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
+ the US should have an open border immigration policy
The Declaration of Independence states that "All men are created equal", not that "All Americans are created equal". Many people support immigration in theory, but complain about illegal immigrants getting access to privileges like healthcare and education. Since they aren't subject to taxes, this seems to make sense. Why should taxpayers subsidize public services for non-taxpayers?
If you take this view, as I do, then you should ask yourself if your fighting the right battle. The US is based on the revolutionary idea that any person can come to this country, and by dint of his/her effort and talents make themselves a better life without interference OR assistance by government. The idea that we should close our borders and keep our prosperity to ourselves is extremely reactionary, and goes directly against the principles that have made us the greatest country on earth. If you are against subsidization of healthcare/education for non-taxpayers, then argue directly against the provision of these public services, not against the immigrants who have had no choice in the matter.
Any true American understands that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by virtue of being Human, not on the basis of our ethnicity, religion OR which arbitrary border we happen to be born within. For this reason I support completely open borders.
If you take this view, as I do, then you should ask yourself if your fighting the right battle. The US is based on the revolutionary idea that any person can come to this country, and by dint of his/her effort and talents make themselves a better life without interference OR assistance by government. The idea that we should close our borders and keep our prosperity to ourselves is extremely reactionary, and goes directly against the principles that have made us the greatest country on earth. If you are against subsidization of healthcare/education for non-taxpayers, then argue directly against the provision of these public services, not against the immigrants who have had no choice in the matter.
Any true American understands that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by virtue of being Human, not on the basis of our ethnicity, religion OR which arbitrary border we happen to be born within. For this reason I support completely open borders.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
+ Deceiving Apple Commercials
I am not really an Apple "fanboy". However, whether or not their ads are "deceptive", there is no question that they are good; i.e. funny and cool. Once I had seen these ads, I was compelled to shell out $2400 for a macbook pro; the choice was no longer my own.
Friday, September 11, 2009
- Islam is a religion of peace
Eight years ago today religious fanatics hijacked planes full of Americans, Indians, Englishmen, and many other nationalities. Just imagine what it was like, to see people who look like any other Americans, dressed in modern clothing, rise up with hatred on their minds and anger in their eyes. What did we do to deserve this.. those innocent victims must have asked, as the psychopaths in question screamed "Allah-hu-Akbar".. Why do I have to lose the only life I know and love.. they must have thought, as the perpetrators, heavenly virgins on their minds, flew these planes into buildings, causing death and destruction on a scale unseen in the US since the civil war.
Such a waste of REAL human life and property, all lost for the sake of a delusional fantasy dreamed up by an medieval, illiterate, war-mongering pedophile around 1500 years ago. And now the same people who claim to be "Secularists", atheists, anti-theists.. who rise up with passion, as do I, when we see prayer in public schools, and "in God we trust" on the US dollar and when nuts like Jerry Falwell call ours a "Christian nation".. these same people appear to go out of their way to apologize for this mad delusion and its destructive tendencies. These same people, many of them Indian-Americans, for whom the only two countries that really matter are ones under constant threat, who go out of their way to avoid causing "offense" to others. To them I say.. where has your Reason gone? Do you have any principles at all?
Shame on those who who wish to protect a nonsense ideology which would rob you of your Life and Liberty. It is self hating masochism, pure and simple. I often hear "Don't tar an entire religion with the actions of a few extremists".. What nonsense! Given the ideology in question, it's a miracle that Muslims are on average good, decent people. Here we have, held up as the ideal for all Homo Sapiens, a madman who chooses obedience and faith over logic and reason. Held up as the ideal parent, a man who raped a 9 year old girl, after forcing her into marriage at 6. Held up as the ideal statesman, a man who personally decapitated 500 Jewish men, and took their wives and children as slaves. A man who should be mentioned only in the same breath as Hitler, Genghis Khan and other such tyrants.. yet whose images are now pixelated by AMERICAN media.. all, of course, in the name of not causing "offense"!
This is not an argument against Muslim people, most of whom as I have mentioned, are good and decent members of our species. It is an argument against deluded ideologies, mental weakness and political correctness, that must be fought by those who believe in secular human ideals such as the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We must not leave this fight to fanatical Christians, Jews and Hindus.. it is our responsibility as rational people to stand firm against religious nonsense whenever and wherever we see it.. even if some people must be "offended" in the process.
Such a waste of REAL human life and property, all lost for the sake of a delusional fantasy dreamed up by an medieval, illiterate, war-mongering pedophile around 1500 years ago. And now the same people who claim to be "Secularists", atheists, anti-theists.. who rise up with passion, as do I, when we see prayer in public schools, and "in God we trust" on the US dollar and when nuts like Jerry Falwell call ours a "Christian nation".. these same people appear to go out of their way to apologize for this mad delusion and its destructive tendencies. These same people, many of them Indian-Americans, for whom the only two countries that really matter are ones under constant threat, who go out of their way to avoid causing "offense" to others. To them I say.. where has your Reason gone? Do you have any principles at all?
Shame on those who who wish to protect a nonsense ideology which would rob you of your Life and Liberty. It is self hating masochism, pure and simple. I often hear "Don't tar an entire religion with the actions of a few extremists".. What nonsense! Given the ideology in question, it's a miracle that Muslims are on average good, decent people. Here we have, held up as the ideal for all Homo Sapiens, a madman who chooses obedience and faith over logic and reason. Held up as the ideal parent, a man who raped a 9 year old girl, after forcing her into marriage at 6. Held up as the ideal statesman, a man who personally decapitated 500 Jewish men, and took their wives and children as slaves. A man who should be mentioned only in the same breath as Hitler, Genghis Khan and other such tyrants.. yet whose images are now pixelated by AMERICAN media.. all, of course, in the name of not causing "offense"!
This is not an argument against Muslim people, most of whom as I have mentioned, are good and decent members of our species. It is an argument against deluded ideologies, mental weakness and political correctness, that must be fought by those who believe in secular human ideals such as the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We must not leave this fight to fanatical Christians, Jews and Hindus.. it is our responsibility as rational people to stand firm against religious nonsense whenever and wherever we see it.. even if some people must be "offended" in the process.
- Humans are social animals
This is a cliche used so often that it has lost all real meaning. Humans are less "social" than many other species of animals, from ants to dolphins. In addition, the variation in human behaviour is clearly orders of magnitude greater than in any other species. In other words we are far more likely to have goals and views independent of "society" than not.
Furthermore, most of the greatest human achievements have been entirely by individuals, not society. While governments around the world spent billions to realize human flight, two bicycle mechanics (the Wright brothers) sacrificed all social life (they didn't go to college, get married and generally had poor family relations and few friends) to pursue the impossible.. and achieved it. The same could be said of Google, or even Facebook. Albert Einstein didn't need any publicly funded university to come up with special relativity, brownian motion and the photoelectric effect (all in one year at the age of 25) .. all he needed was a desk and time for his thoughts. Leonardo, Thoreau .. you could go on and on with a list of geniuses, who not only didn't NEED society.. in fact benefitted from isolation.
Yes, Society is an aspect of human existence. But it is hardly all we are, or even what separates us from other species. This is, obviously, the ability to Reason and exercise control (on an Individual AND Social level) over our environment. From my point of view Society, as it has stifled individual achievement and freedom, is the enemy of Humanity. Feel free to live your lives as "social animals", and I'll try to live up to the title Homo Sapiens, "wise man"... but if you choose to impose Your Society over My Individuality, be assured that it is done against my will. Recall Lincoln's words.. "As I would not be a Slave, I would not be a Master".. and remember that any Master-Slave relationship is corrupting to Both parties.
Furthermore, most of the greatest human achievements have been entirely by individuals, not society. While governments around the world spent billions to realize human flight, two bicycle mechanics (the Wright brothers) sacrificed all social life (they didn't go to college, get married and generally had poor family relations and few friends) to pursue the impossible.. and achieved it. The same could be said of Google, or even Facebook. Albert Einstein didn't need any publicly funded university to come up with special relativity, brownian motion and the photoelectric effect (all in one year at the age of 25) .. all he needed was a desk and time for his thoughts. Leonardo, Thoreau .. you could go on and on with a list of geniuses, who not only didn't NEED society.. in fact benefitted from isolation.
Yes, Society is an aspect of human existence. But it is hardly all we are, or even what separates us from other species. This is, obviously, the ability to Reason and exercise control (on an Individual AND Social level) over our environment. From my point of view Society, as it has stifled individual achievement and freedom, is the enemy of Humanity. Feel free to live your lives as "social animals", and I'll try to live up to the title Homo Sapiens, "wise man"... but if you choose to impose Your Society over My Individuality, be assured that it is done against my will. Recall Lincoln's words.. "As I would not be a Slave, I would not be a Master".. and remember that any Master-Slave relationship is corrupting to Both parties.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
- Healthcare is a human right
Today's Facebook meme of the day happens to be "No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick." This is a bold statement, which sounds nice, but upon further review falls as flat as "Hope" and "Yes we can" and similar political reductionisms. It refuses to even address the issue of WHY human beings are entitled to these rights.
The question of what is, and what isn't a Human right is a philosophical one; by definition, any entitlement demands a logical justification, or is in fact an article of faith. Of course, one can religiously (and irrationally) believe that Humans are inherently valuable, which would grant them a positive right to be helped by others when they can't help themselves. I won't get into the absurdity of religious views right now, except of course to note that they are, in fact, absurd.
The real question is what if Humans are Not inherently valuable?.. What then would be the rights we are entitled to? While the easy answer is "none", it is not the only or even most logical answer. The Declaration states that we are entitled, by Nature and Nature's God, to the self-evident and unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. One might say, wait a second, isn't that a religious argument to begin with? I would argue that it is not inherently religious (just like the men who wrote it), and is based on a comprehensive analysis of what it means to be Human.
The words "Nature" and "self-evident" point out the concept that something unique in the Nature of Homo Sapiens that gives us rights with respect to other members of our species, but not with respect to our Creator (whether you believe it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster or DNA by natural selection). Humans are born Free, because they are endowed with the ability to Reason and make decisions for themselves. For one (or more) human beings to take this away from others violates the laws of Nature. Forcing people to help others, for example via tax-funded healthcare, takes away our inherent right to Liberty to provide a very different set of rights.
The technical term for these two types of rights are negative liberty (rights that can only be taken away by government), and positive liberty (rights that must be given by government). My view, which is derived from the Declaration, is that negative liberty must be protected By the government and From the government. Government subsidization of healthcare infringes on negative liberty, and therefore does not fit neatly into the American system and cannot be considered a Human right.
The question of what is, and what isn't a Human right is a philosophical one; by definition, any entitlement demands a logical justification, or is in fact an article of faith. Of course, one can religiously (and irrationally) believe that Humans are inherently valuable, which would grant them a positive right to be helped by others when they can't help themselves. I won't get into the absurdity of religious views right now, except of course to note that they are, in fact, absurd.
The real question is what if Humans are Not inherently valuable?.. What then would be the rights we are entitled to? While the easy answer is "none", it is not the only or even most logical answer. The Declaration states that we are entitled, by Nature and Nature's God, to the self-evident and unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. One might say, wait a second, isn't that a religious argument to begin with? I would argue that it is not inherently religious (just like the men who wrote it), and is based on a comprehensive analysis of what it means to be Human.
The words "Nature" and "self-evident" point out the concept that something unique in the Nature of Homo Sapiens that gives us rights with respect to other members of our species, but not with respect to our Creator (whether you believe it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster or DNA by natural selection). Humans are born Free, because they are endowed with the ability to Reason and make decisions for themselves. For one (or more) human beings to take this away from others violates the laws of Nature. Forcing people to help others, for example via tax-funded healthcare, takes away our inherent right to Liberty to provide a very different set of rights.
The technical term for these two types of rights are negative liberty (rights that can only be taken away by government), and positive liberty (rights that must be given by government). My view, which is derived from the Declaration, is that negative liberty must be protected By the government and From the government. Government subsidization of healthcare infringes on negative liberty, and therefore does not fit neatly into the American system and cannot be considered a Human right.
Monday, August 31, 2009
+ The US should invade and conquer Canada
JFK once said that America does difficult things "not because they are easy, but because they are hard". While it sounds nice, like much of what JFK said, this is an obviously moronic statement. Why ever take the more difficult path, just because it's more difficult? There you have the first reason I would support an invasion of Canada.. because it would be easy. Unlike say, Iraq, Canada is geographically close so we need not expend energy resources to move our troops there. Second, we have already convinced them to send their army to the Middle East, so our army will encounter little resistance. Second, just like Iraq, Canada is full of useful energy resources ripe for American consumption. We can therefore solve our energy crisis while demonstrating our martial superiority and boosting our military industry. For years our Alaskan citizens have had to travel through foreign lands to visit friends and relatives.. yet another problem solved by an annexation of Canada. Finally, many of are sick of hearing complaints about how Canada gives "free" healthcare to its citizens. If Canada was a colony of the US, we could simply send our sick people up there to be treated for "free" and return safe. We can also use it as a penal colony to easy our overcrowded prisons. And many of us detest the idea that the British queen still maintains sovereignty over land in our hemisphere.So many reasons to invade.. and practically none to hold us back. Some times a course of action is so obvious that thinking people see right through it. This appears to be one of those times. An invasion of Canada would be easy, cheap and would benefit us in multiple ways.. so lets rally the troops!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
+ the US is better off without Ted Kennedy
Every time someone famous dies it seems that the only emotion one must express is sadness. Well, I for one, am happy at the passing of this buffoon. Not only was of suspect intellect and morality, and possibly responsible for a MURDER.. his policies and in particular his "bi-partisanship" were key tools in the oppression of individual rights and freedom. His very existence as a powerful politician demonstrated nepotism, and spoke the peculiar and disgusting American yearning for aristocracy.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
+ Libertarianism is the last remaining revolutionary ideology
Karl Marx is famous for stating that Capitalism is the most revolutionary force known to man, and was in fact a great admirer of the American Revolution (which was a libertarian revolution in principle). History has given birth to a scant few truly revolutionary political ideologies: empire, democracy, theocracy and Marxism to name a few. One by one, each of these has proven to be unsustainable.
The age of Empires certainly resulted in the spread of technology throughout the world, but also lead to massive oppression, disaster and tyranny. Eventually maintaining a physical Empire proved too expensive to sustain. Democracy likewise led to the tyranny of the majority, while theocracy failed because it's subjects would eventually realize that the premise on which they were ruled was illogical and oppressive.
Marxism was the most radical of revolutions, but at the same time was the shortest lived, as it's prescriptions for society failed to take into account the nature of Man as a self-interested being. This proved to hold true whether or not men we're acting independently or as part of government. The enforcement of Marxism demanded adherence to a totalitarian state, and did not take into account the specific wants and needs of each individual and subjected them to the will of "the party".
The Jeffersonian revolution lives on through much of the world, as it most closely matches the individual aspirations of each man and women. It is perhaps the simplest of revolutions.. based on the idea that there is no objective means of determining what is "good" for society, and therefore individuals must have the right to decide for themselves. Government exists only to prevent these individuals from enforcing their will on their fellow men. The Jeffersonian revolution has the unique position of being an eternally revolutionary ideology independent of History. That is, as long as a single human being around the world is held under direct oppression by another, the revolution is still to come for THAT individual. As Jefferson stated, he wished to see an Empire of Liberty, where the most powerful authority was that of an Individual over his own thoughts and actions.
The age of Empires certainly resulted in the spread of technology throughout the world, but also lead to massive oppression, disaster and tyranny. Eventually maintaining a physical Empire proved too expensive to sustain. Democracy likewise led to the tyranny of the majority, while theocracy failed because it's subjects would eventually realize that the premise on which they were ruled was illogical and oppressive.
Marxism was the most radical of revolutions, but at the same time was the shortest lived, as it's prescriptions for society failed to take into account the nature of Man as a self-interested being. This proved to hold true whether or not men we're acting independently or as part of government. The enforcement of Marxism demanded adherence to a totalitarian state, and did not take into account the specific wants and needs of each individual and subjected them to the will of "the party".
The Jeffersonian revolution lives on through much of the world, as it most closely matches the individual aspirations of each man and women. It is perhaps the simplest of revolutions.. based on the idea that there is no objective means of determining what is "good" for society, and therefore individuals must have the right to decide for themselves. Government exists only to prevent these individuals from enforcing their will on their fellow men. The Jeffersonian revolution has the unique position of being an eternally revolutionary ideology independent of History. That is, as long as a single human being around the world is held under direct oppression by another, the revolution is still to come for THAT individual. As Jefferson stated, he wished to see an Empire of Liberty, where the most powerful authority was that of an Individual over his own thoughts and actions.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
+ the Obama administration is showing signs of fascist behavior
I was browsing a libertarian page on Facebook, and I came across the following post...
Ryan Sheehan I wrote flag@whitehouse.gov and gave them the names of people giving"fishy" info about healthcare. Obama, dems in the house and senate. Oh yeah and ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. Fox news thank you for being honest.
Thinking (or perhaps hoping) it was some sort of hoax, I googled flag@whitehouse.gov and confirmed my worst fears... The US government is asking Private citizens to act as INFORMANTS regarding the political views of their fellow citizens....
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
I've often wondered how Fascism and Statism really start.. what the first signs would be for ordinary citizens. I came to the conclusions that they would arrive as innocuous requests by the government.. to act in accordance with the public will, to "avoid spreading misinformation". Scary, Orwellian stuff. Watch out America, before its too late.
Ryan Sheehan I wrote flag@whitehouse.gov and gave them the names of people giving"fishy" info about healthcare. Obama, dems in the house and senate. Oh yeah and ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. Fox news thank you for being honest.
Thinking (or perhaps hoping) it was some sort of hoax, I googled flag@whitehouse.gov and confirmed my worst fears... The US government is asking Private citizens to act as INFORMANTS regarding the political views of their fellow citizens....
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
I've often wondered how Fascism and Statism really start.. what the first signs would be for ordinary citizens. I came to the conclusions that they would arrive as innocuous requests by the government.. to act in accordance with the public will, to "avoid spreading misinformation". Scary, Orwellian stuff. Watch out America, before its too late.
The Beginnings of Fascism
I was browsing a libertarian page on Facebook, and I came across the following post:
Ryan Sheehan I wrote flag@whitehouse.gov and gave them the names of people giving"fishy" info about healthcare. Obama, dems in the house and senate. Oh yeah and ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. Fox news thank you for being honest.
Thinking (or perhaps hoping) it was some sort of hoax, I googled flag@whitehouse.gov and confirmed my worst fears... The US government is asking Private citizens to act as INFORMANTS regarding the political views of their fellow citizens....
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
I've often wondered how Fascism and Statism really start.. what the first signs would be for ordinary citizens. I came to the conclusions that they would arrive as innocuous requests by the government.. to act in accordance with the public will, to "avoid spreading misinformation". Scary, Orwellian stuff. Watch out America, before its too late.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
+ Those who lean on religion are Weak
Clearly, religion is for the weak, who do not have the capability to think for themselves and abdicate this responsibility to those who would think for them.
- Marriage and family life should be supported by government
In our culture there is a perverse idea that Marriage and Family are universally desired, and therefore the State should recognize and support them. I for one do not "desire" marriage one bit, not can I say for sure that I will ever desire it. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, neither marriage nor family can be considered Universal (which would require that absolutely 100% of all people agreed).
If I decide never to get married, why is it that I have to pay for the tax breaks, child support, education and other government subsidies for families. It is absurd, and utterly unfair. They are making a choice, and they should pay the true costs for it.
If I decide never to get married, why is it that I have to pay for the tax breaks, child support, education and other government subsidies for families. It is absurd, and utterly unfair. They are making a choice, and they should pay the true costs for it.
Friday, August 14, 2009
+ the world would be a better place if everyone just spoke English
I do not believe that any government should ban people from speaking any language they wish to speak, or that there is nothing valuable in languages other than English, or even that English is a better language than any other. However Given that English is a language used throughout the world, and especially in the most important country in the world, the US, it makes sense for parents to prefer their children grow up speaking it.
The universal use of English has precedent historically. Various other languages have been nearly universal at different times in history, particularly amongst the intelligentsia. (Latin, Greek, German even to some extent Arabic and Chinese). The plain fact is that most scientific inquiry currently is conducted through the use of English, and not to know it is a huge disadvantage.
Furthermore, with the internet and other modern digital technology, it is more likely than at any time in history that we will be able to preserve other languages for posterity. The preservation of a language is no longer dependent on it having active speakers, so this alone cannot be a reason for forcing children to learn it in public schools.
I admit there will be, and even I feel, a certain loss at the fact that many languages are (and will) vanish across the world in the homogenization of culture that is part of globalization. However, nostalgia is not a valid reason to hold the people of the world back from embracing a scientifically advanced future.
The universal use of English has precedent historically. Various other languages have been nearly universal at different times in history, particularly amongst the intelligentsia. (Latin, Greek, German even to some extent Arabic and Chinese). The plain fact is that most scientific inquiry currently is conducted through the use of English, and not to know it is a huge disadvantage.
Furthermore, with the internet and other modern digital technology, it is more likely than at any time in history that we will be able to preserve other languages for posterity. The preservation of a language is no longer dependent on it having active speakers, so this alone cannot be a reason for forcing children to learn it in public schools.
I admit there will be, and even I feel, a certain loss at the fact that many languages are (and will) vanish across the world in the homogenization of culture that is part of globalization. However, nostalgia is not a valid reason to hold the people of the world back from embracing a scientifically advanced future.
+ Those who lean on religion are Weak
Clearly, religion is for the weak, who do not have the capability to think for themselves and abdicate this responsibility to those who would think for them.
+ the world would be a better place if everyone just spoke English
I do not believe that any government should ban people from speaking any language they wish to speak, or that there is nothing valuable in languages other than English, or even that English is a better language than any other. However Given that English is a language used throughout the world, and especially in the most important country in the world, the US, it makes sense for parents to prefer their children grow up speaking it.
The universal use of English has precedent historically. Various other languages have been nearly universal at different times in history, particularly amongst the intelligentsia. (Latin, Greek, German even to some extent Arabic and Chinese). The plain fact is that most scientific inquiry currently is conducted through the use of English, and not to know it is a huge disadvantage.
Furthermore, with the internet and other modern digital technology, it is more likely than at any time in history that we will be able to preserve other languages for posterity. The preservation of a language is no longer dependent on it having active speakers, so this alone cannot be a reason for forcing children to learn it in public schools.
I admit there will be, and even I feel, a certain loss at the fact that many languages are (and will) vanish across the world in the homogenization of culture that is part of globalization. However, nostalgia is not a valid reason to hold the people of the world back from embracing a scientifically advanced future.
The universal use of English has precedent historically. Various other languages have been nearly universal at different times in history, particularly amongst the intelligentsia. (Latin, Greek, German even to some extent Arabic and Chinese). The plain fact is that most scientific inquiry currently is conducted through the use of English, and not to know it is a huge disadvantage.
Furthermore, with the internet and other modern digital technology, it is more likely than at any time in history that we will be able to preserve other languages for posterity. The preservation of a language is no longer dependent on it having active speakers, so this alone cannot be a reason for forcing children to learn it in public schools.
I admit there will be, and even I feel, a certain loss at the fact that many languages are (and will) vanish across the world in the homogenization of culture that is part of globalization. However, nostalgia is not a valid reason to hold the people of the world back from embracing a scientifically advanced future.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
+ Americans have the right to use as much energy as we like
When I buy a bottle of water, the price includes the cost of making the bottle, which includes the value of its ingredients. The term "Waste" is hard to define. It's certainly not a waste for the user, as he takes full advantage of the product he buys. You can say that it was a less efficient way of using that energy, and you might have a "better" use for it. It's your right to buy that same energy and use it in your more efficient way if you like, and mine to use it in my less efficient way. Americans therefore, are wrongly indicted on the count of "wasting" energy, as they are not using something they didn't pay for.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
- Public Schools
Why, some ask, should the children of the rich get better schooling than those of the poor? Aren't we all "born equal", shouldn't we all get "equal opportunities" for success in life? Shouldn't society therefore, through government, aim to bridge this divide by paying for the schooling of poor children?
There are two distinct arguments that one can make against Public Schooling; one economic and social (the government doesn't do a good job of educating children), and the other philosophical. I will deal with the latter in this argument.
Unfairness of all kinds can be divided into two distinct types: that which results from the Choices of other Humans, and that which results from Nature and its Laws. The first type of unfairness is obvious; you might be murdered by another, or he/she may steal your property. This type can, and should, be remedied by Government. The second type is much larger and more vague. Dumb fortune is one example of this unfairness; one day you could win the lottery, the next you might be struck by lightning. Genetics and inheritance are yet another; you could have the genes of Michael Jordan or Mozart, or you could be short, fat and musically incompetent. You might have affluent, dedicated parents or poor lousy ones. All these phenomena have one thing in common; no human choice is ever involved in creating the situation at hand. When government attempts to remedy this type of unfairness, it necessarily increases the first type, as it must regulate and tax to accomplish this.
Public schooling falls clearly into the second type of Unfairness. When government pays for the education of poor children, it must tax everyone to cover the costs. For those with children, or those who hope to have children, this cost seems only fair. When one makes the choice to pass on his genetic and monetary inheritance by having kids, he/she should have to pay for the consequences of that choice, which include the resources spent raising them. However, having kids is a Choice not an obligation. It is far more Unfair for the childless to have to pay for a Choice they did not make, than for some to have to think carefully about whether they have the resources to raise kids of their own.
For anyone that believes in individual Freedom, any action of government must be subject to the same stringent test: does it preserve or promote freedom or does it impinge upon it. Public schooling certainly fails this test, and therefore I am obligated to oppose it.
There are two distinct arguments that one can make against Public Schooling; one economic and social (the government doesn't do a good job of educating children), and the other philosophical. I will deal with the latter in this argument.
Unfairness of all kinds can be divided into two distinct types: that which results from the Choices of other Humans, and that which results from Nature and its Laws. The first type of unfairness is obvious; you might be murdered by another, or he/she may steal your property. This type can, and should, be remedied by Government. The second type is much larger and more vague. Dumb fortune is one example of this unfairness; one day you could win the lottery, the next you might be struck by lightning. Genetics and inheritance are yet another; you could have the genes of Michael Jordan or Mozart, or you could be short, fat and musically incompetent. You might have affluent, dedicated parents or poor lousy ones. All these phenomena have one thing in common; no human choice is ever involved in creating the situation at hand. When government attempts to remedy this type of unfairness, it necessarily increases the first type, as it must regulate and tax to accomplish this.
Public schooling falls clearly into the second type of Unfairness. When government pays for the education of poor children, it must tax everyone to cover the costs. For those with children, or those who hope to have children, this cost seems only fair. When one makes the choice to pass on his genetic and monetary inheritance by having kids, he/she should have to pay for the consequences of that choice, which include the resources spent raising them. However, having kids is a Choice not an obligation. It is far more Unfair for the childless to have to pay for a Choice they did not make, than for some to have to think carefully about whether they have the resources to raise kids of their own.
For anyone that believes in individual Freedom, any action of government must be subject to the same stringent test: does it preserve or promote freedom or does it impinge upon it. Public schooling certainly fails this test, and therefore I am obligated to oppose it.
- India's early leaders were understandably wary of foreign investment
What is "understandable" about a group of individuals (India's early leaders), due to their irrational fears, deciding that ANOTHER group of individuals (the people of India) are incapable of making important decisions. For anyone who, like you, purports to believe in Freedom it should be seen as an extremely arrogant and tyrannical attitude. Tyrannical government is never understandable nor acceptable under any circumstance.
Freedom and Independence are two separate things. Independence alone is meaningless. If I were a slave, what difference does it make if my master was British or Indian? Did the Indian people rid themselves of the British only to become slaves of the Congress Party's whims? India may have gained "independence" from Britain in 1947, but it was not (and still isn't in many respects) a truly free society.
Freedom and Independence are two separate things. Independence alone is meaningless. If I were a slave, what difference does it make if my master was British or Indian? Did the Indian people rid themselves of the British only to become slaves of the Congress Party's whims? India may have gained "independence" from Britain in 1947, but it was not (and still isn't in many respects) a truly free society.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
+ Bottled Water
When you buy a bottle of water, you know exactly what you pay for it. You might buy them in bulk, thereby making your per bottle cost cheaper, or you might buy a single bottle from a vending machine for a buck. You can rest assured that it will be safe, and effective in quenching your thirst. What makes you come to this conclusion? You have done it before, and you have seen others do it before, successfully. You know what taste to expect from each particular brand (Aquafina wins hands down in my opinion). Whether you are in California, New York or Mumbai a bottle of Aquafina still tastes just as good. Can any of you "tap water" drinkers make the same claim? I think not. In fact a cup in Mumbai could kill you, and one in Cali could make you gag.
Lets take a look at this insidious species known as "tap water." Where does it come from? You think it comes from a local public reservoir, but it's truly a mystery. Whereas with Aquafina you can verify the process by which it's made online, by way of a nice graphical presentation. With "tap water", you must hope that the local government isn't corrupted into adding chlorine or a number of other potentially toxic substances. If Aquafina does this, you can sue or boycott them and take away the livelihood of their shareholders and employees. With "tap water", you must wait for the next election to change the system. You must hope that improvement of "tap water" is somewhere in the packages of promises made by various self-interested politicians.
You "tap water" drinkers make the ridiculous claim that it is "free", and to drink bottled water is a waste of resources. Do not kid yourself that it is free. You are paying for it through the mysterious phenomenon known as TAXES. What is the price you pay? It is not easily determined, as each inefficient government institution involved in its creation will add a not-insignificant cost.
Most of all, bottled water proves that the Free Market can handle with excellence even the most basic essentials of life (a concept that escapes most of you "tap water" drinkers). If you want a truly efficient system to distribute any resource at any time and of any kind, the Free Market is infinitely and eternally superior to government institutions.
Lets take a look at this insidious species known as "tap water." Where does it come from? You think it comes from a local public reservoir, but it's truly a mystery. Whereas with Aquafina you can verify the process by which it's made online, by way of a nice graphical presentation. With "tap water", you must hope that the local government isn't corrupted into adding chlorine or a number of other potentially toxic substances. If Aquafina does this, you can sue or boycott them and take away the livelihood of their shareholders and employees. With "tap water", you must wait for the next election to change the system. You must hope that improvement of "tap water" is somewhere in the packages of promises made by various self-interested politicians.
You "tap water" drinkers make the ridiculous claim that it is "free", and to drink bottled water is a waste of resources. Do not kid yourself that it is free. You are paying for it through the mysterious phenomenon known as TAXES. What is the price you pay? It is not easily determined, as each inefficient government institution involved in its creation will add a not-insignificant cost.
Most of all, bottled water proves that the Free Market can handle with excellence even the most basic essentials of life (a concept that escapes most of you "tap water" drinkers). If you want a truly efficient system to distribute any resource at any time and of any kind, the Free Market is infinitely and eternally superior to government institutions.
Monday, August 10, 2009
- the solution to the healthcare crisis involves more government involvement
Your analysis of the healthcare situation is accurate, and all the institutions you mentioned are very much to blame. Obama's solution, which you apparently support, involves increasing the level of government involvement. Yet there is an easier, cheaper and more direct solution, and one that does not involve the government taking control of our bodies out of our hands. That is to combat those very institutions that you mention (insurance companies, the AMA, giant pharma and the malpractice lawyers), and to remove the special privileges they have acquired THROUGH GOVERNMENT.
Lets take the case of the AMA, which has managed to convince the American people and the government that the regulations they support (licensing for professions, monopoly over medical education facilities, prescription drug laws) are in the greater interest of Society. Imagine how much more affordable healthcare would be if these regulations were removed.. Rather than having to go back to the doctor every time to get a prescription, and essentially paying him/her a "tax", you would be able to look up your symptoms and order the appropriate medication from India at a fraction of the cost.
This is just one example of reducing government involvement will be better for the patient than increasing it. I'm sure that if you analyze the governmental regulations imposed by each of the institutions you mentioned, you would realize that the true solution to the crisis is getting the government out of healthcare entirely.
Lets take the case of the AMA, which has managed to convince the American people and the government that the regulations they support (licensing for professions, monopoly over medical education facilities, prescription drug laws) are in the greater interest of Society. Imagine how much more affordable healthcare would be if these regulations were removed.. Rather than having to go back to the doctor every time to get a prescription, and essentially paying him/her a "tax", you would be able to look up your symptoms and order the appropriate medication from India at a fraction of the cost.
This is just one example of reducing government involvement will be better for the patient than increasing it. I'm sure that if you analyze the governmental regulations imposed by each of the institutions you mentioned, you would realize that the true solution to the crisis is getting the government out of healthcare entirely.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
- A complicated society requires a complex government
One of the great knocks on Milton Friedman was that his ideas were "out of the 18th century (due to their association with Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson)," and were too naive for the complex modern world. Let's ignore, for a second, the fatuous proposition that support for individual rights and freedom can ever be considered "naive" and consider only the so called impracticality of a minimalist government.
During the 19th century there were two great scientific theories that conclusively demonstrated that it was possible for complex and efficient systems to arise without intelligent oversight. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection powerfully showed this for the most complicated natural systems in the universe; mammalian organisms. Adam Smith's invisible hand did likewise for human economic systems. In the Wealth of Nations, he proved that prosperity did not depend on government management, but rather on the unstoppable desire for individual men and women to do better by themselves and their family. In fact a strong government often damaged the economy, as it separated the self-interested intentions of individuals from economic decision making, thereby reducing efficiency.
Now, certainly, one cannot prove that some ingenious individual or group of individuals (government) will never be able to design a better economic system at a particular point in time. After all, individuals and companies prove every day that it is possible for the tiniest David to fell the mightiest Goliath. If there is anything to be said about our species it should be to expect the unthinkable. However, the question should not be whether or not it is possible for government to design a superior system, but rather is it likely and sustainable.. and what are the costs imposed on various parties.
Given that in any liberal Democracy there are thousands of ideas floating around on how to fix various problems, and that there is little scientific consensus on which policies would be better for society as a whole, it seems highly unlikely that the particular group of people with the particular set of policies that Might effect a superior system at a particular point in time would simultaneously hold governmental power to enact them. Second, while this theoretical system might be superior to a free market at the current point in time, there is no guarantee that it will be better in the long run. In fact, this seems unlikely given that technological and social change occur at such a dramatic place in the modern world.
In a Friedmanite/Smithian/Jeffersonian Free Market, however, the best set of economic designers need not be involved in government at the right time. The would instead be involved in starting various companies, inventing various new devices and generally improving society independent of authority. When their ideas become outdated, there will be automatically be a new set of ideas waiting in the wings to advance the greater interest of society. The ideas that fail will not be promoted, and the ideas that succeed necessarily bring some benefit to society (or they would not succeed). The Free Market deals with economic complexity much like Natural Selection deals with biological complexity. While it's solutions are not always perfect, the end result is usually a highly efficient system. If one were to knock these ideas as antiquated, then I, for one, would be more than proud to accept the label myself.
During the 19th century there were two great scientific theories that conclusively demonstrated that it was possible for complex and efficient systems to arise without intelligent oversight. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection powerfully showed this for the most complicated natural systems in the universe; mammalian organisms. Adam Smith's invisible hand did likewise for human economic systems. In the Wealth of Nations, he proved that prosperity did not depend on government management, but rather on the unstoppable desire for individual men and women to do better by themselves and their family. In fact a strong government often damaged the economy, as it separated the self-interested intentions of individuals from economic decision making, thereby reducing efficiency.
Now, certainly, one cannot prove that some ingenious individual or group of individuals (government) will never be able to design a better economic system at a particular point in time. After all, individuals and companies prove every day that it is possible for the tiniest David to fell the mightiest Goliath. If there is anything to be said about our species it should be to expect the unthinkable. However, the question should not be whether or not it is possible for government to design a superior system, but rather is it likely and sustainable.. and what are the costs imposed on various parties.
Given that in any liberal Democracy there are thousands of ideas floating around on how to fix various problems, and that there is little scientific consensus on which policies would be better for society as a whole, it seems highly unlikely that the particular group of people with the particular set of policies that Might effect a superior system at a particular point in time would simultaneously hold governmental power to enact them. Second, while this theoretical system might be superior to a free market at the current point in time, there is no guarantee that it will be better in the long run. In fact, this seems unlikely given that technological and social change occur at such a dramatic place in the modern world.
In a Friedmanite/Smithian/Jeffersonian Free Market, however, the best set of economic designers need not be involved in government at the right time. The would instead be involved in starting various companies, inventing various new devices and generally improving society independent of authority. When their ideas become outdated, there will be automatically be a new set of ideas waiting in the wings to advance the greater interest of society. The ideas that fail will not be promoted, and the ideas that succeed necessarily bring some benefit to society (or they would not succeed). The Free Market deals with economic complexity much like Natural Selection deals with biological complexity. While it's solutions are not always perfect, the end result is usually a highly efficient system. If one were to knock these ideas as antiquated, then I, for one, would be more than proud to accept the label myself.
+ morality should be defined as the ability to make ethical decisions
Morality stems from the the concept of free will. If human beings have free will, they have the ability to make decisions based on their views of what is right and wrong.. i.e. ethical decisions. Morality therefore must derive primarily from human reasoning ability, and the freedom to exercise it. Lower animals do not have the reasoning ability required to make such decisions.. therefore we cannot say a lion is immoral because it cruelly kills gazelles, etc.
Friday, August 7, 2009
+ morality should be defined as the ability to make ethical decisions
Morality stems from the the concept of free will. If human beings have free will, they have the ability to make decisions based on their views of what is right and wrong.. i.e. ethical decisions. Morality therefore must derive primarily from human reasoning ability, and the freedom to exercise it. Lower animals do not have the reasoning ability required to make such decisions.. therefore we cannot say a lion is immoral because it cruelly kills gazelles, etc.
+ one man's freedom ends where another's begins
You either do not understand the meaning of freedom, or simply don't believe in it. I have a feeling your idea of personal freedom includes the right to control my actions and thoughts through the democratic prerogative. As I tried to explain before, freedom must be understood from the point of view of negative liberty: the rights ordained by the inherent nature of man as a reasoning being. You have every right to do as you wish with YOUR life, liberty and property.. but not to control how I use mine. You have every right to act as YOU believe is ethical, but not to limit my actions to the criteria you choose. You have every right to buy healthcare for Yourself, or donate money for scientific research, but not to tell me how I spend MY resources. You have every right not to use drugs, or alcohol, but NO natural right to tell me what I do with my body. Freedom cannot be defined as the will of a society, because a society is not of uniform mind and therefore unable to make ethical decisions. Freedom can only defined as the will of the individual, within the constraints of the freedom of other individuals. I have no freedom to murder or steal, because those actions impinge on the rights of the victims. Another way of looking at it is that an individual has infinite natural rights to rule himself, and absolutely zero rights to rule another human being. I agree that a system which effects these beliefs is impractical. For this reason, I am willing to accept a minimalist government that sticks to the role I defined.
- any decision made by the majority should be accepted
You are walking a dangerous line between the democratic values you wish to uphold, and the possible tyranny that could result. You should note that Hitler came to power partly through democratic means. Do you honestly believe that if a majority of our country, at some point in time, wishes to exterminate a particular ethnicity or to enslave them, that decision ought to be permitted by our system of government? Where do you draw the line? The verdict of history is clear.. a tyranny of the majority is just as dangerous as the tyranny of a fascist. The ideal government should prevent any tyranny whatsoever. I believe that the US system comes closest to achieving this, but it is anything but perfect.
- responding separately to points is counter-intuitive
While the usual method of response in digital media is by aggregate arguments, I disagree that it is the naturally intuitive method of conversation. In verbal conversation, it is quite natural to say, for example, wait a second.. you said point A, now I find that absurd and disconcerting. With multiple participants present, verbal conversations tend to split up into various modes of discourse.. person A may disagree with statement B as stated by person B, but agree with statement C by person D etc. In addition, several parallel conversations may be occuring at the same time. This type of discussion is difficult in traditional digital media, but is in fact promoted on Argumentum. You can engage in natural conversation through the comment system with person D, while disputing statement B using a follow-up argument.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
- Argumentum prohibits users from reacting with aggregate arguments
The Argumentum comment system is intended to facilitate 1 on 1 discussions in a similar manner to Email or regular Forums. On a forum, such discussion often leads away from the main topic so that incoming users are confused about what exactly to respond to. On Argumentum however, such conversation is naturally filtered away from the primary argument views, so that other users are not inundated with this unrelated "noise". This permits natural conversation while maintaining the integrity of the primary conversation.
+ Argumentum focuses discussion on specific points of contention
When a person claims "if you believe point A, then point B is the logical conclusion," he makes an implicit assertion that you Should believe point A. In the majority of these cases, you will find that point A is a moral assertion and one that is often politically incorrect to deny. You might preface your response with the fact that you do not accept the premise of his point, but this is often lost or misfit in the overall argument you intend on making. Either way, the fact remains that point A exists, and it is often tangential to the primary argument. How then can you attack point A without interrupting argumentative flow? On Argumentum, all you have to do is create a follow-up proposition with the same fundamental meaning as point A. You can then oppose it, without interfering with the original discussion. Hidden assumptions are the scourge of rational discussion, in the sense that once taken they allow for all sorts of obfuscation. Argumentum allows reason to triumph over such assumptions since it allows them to be attacked on an individual basis.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
- anti-americanism
The following is an excerpt from a review of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, a book by supposed "scholar" Mahmood Mamdani..
Mamdani‘s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others’ attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as “radioactive and highly toxic,” claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.
He notes that U-238 has a “half-life of four and a half billion years,” but fails to appreciate what that means: The shorter an element’s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element’s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.
Essentially, these shells are no more radioactive than the Lead shells which have been used for decades (or any other heavy metal for that matter).
Now, apparently I have one friend who recommends this book, and another who is now reading it (seriously). Ok, you say, seems an innocent enough mistake, considering the book is widely perceived a credible thesis by a credible author concerning the supposed American roots of Islamic terror. But given that such a perception exists, it is not MORE important to independently verify the claims made within, and not LESS? This is an acceptable mistake for a high school history student, not a Columbia professor. In fact, I would go further and make the claim that such an egregious error from a scholar of such repute ought to be taken not as a simple misunderstanding of nuclear physics, but as a betrayal of the author's allegiance to a widely held school of modern leftist thought: anti-Americanism. In plainer words, he seems to be able to say anything as long as it supports the claim that the United States of America is responsible for all the evil in the world.
During the 20th century, these treasonous types chose America's opposition to Socialism and Communism (two related and truly evil ideologies) as their prime focus, but in more recent years it is the American opposition to Islamo-fascism which has been the target of their wrath. This opposition (unlike what Dr. Mamdani suggests) did not begin with the Cold War, but was in fact the theater of some of our earliest military operations. In the early 1800s, the Muslim Barbary pirates of North Africa were waging a relentless war against the Western powers.. often invading and taking entire Irish villages, and European and American naval crews as slaves. Until this point, Thomas Jefferson had fervently believed that this violence was retribution for Christian crusade tainted European Imperalism. Why on earth would they attack ships of the newly independent United States? Imagine his shock at the following events....
From wikipedia:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
""
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ""
It was this that ended his innocence about the nature of the non-European powers, and eventually convinced him to launch the Barbary Wars when he ascended to the Presidency. (the most important outcome of which is the only official US document which mentions the Christian religion: "the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.")
It is more important than ever that this neglected history of American-Islamic relations be revisited in light of the modern world. Especially by people such as Dr. Mamdani, who would otherwise believe that the United States has brought this Islamic violence upon itself by its own actions. It is extremely important to note, that the violence we see from fundamentalist Muslims today is NOT a reaction to perceived injustices, but rather an extension of standard Islamic views on the nature of world power. Islam contends that IT IS the last and final revelation of God, and this revelation INCLUDES the entitlement to world dominance under Shariah law. It is for this reason, that we do not see, for example, terrorists from Cambodia, Laos, Chile or Vietnam (nations which would in any just view have equal entitlement to feel slighted by American actions during the cold war).
Anti-Americanism, as exhibited by Dr. Mamdani, is a cute rebellious ideology, but it is fundamentally flawed in its implicit thesis that without American commitment to individual freedom, the world would be a better place. If America has any wish to remain a prosperous nation of free people, it must realize and directly confront the nature of the beast which faces us: religious bigotry of the highest order.
updated:
@jcrunkleton
I dispute this assertion. As I demonstrated above, Jefferson realized that the American way was incompatible with the existence of tyranny around the globe.
Mamdani‘s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others’ attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as “radioactive and highly toxic,” claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.
He notes that U-238 has a “half-life of four and a half billion years,” but fails to appreciate what that means: The shorter an element’s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element’s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.
Essentially, these shells are no more radioactive than the Lead shells which have been used for decades (or any other heavy metal for that matter).
Now, apparently I have one friend who recommends this book, and another who is now reading it (seriously). Ok, you say, seems an innocent enough mistake, considering the book is widely perceived a credible thesis by a credible author concerning the supposed American roots of Islamic terror. But given that such a perception exists, it is not MORE important to independently verify the claims made within, and not LESS? This is an acceptable mistake for a high school history student, not a Columbia professor. In fact, I would go further and make the claim that such an egregious error from a scholar of such repute ought to be taken not as a simple misunderstanding of nuclear physics, but as a betrayal of the author's allegiance to a widely held school of modern leftist thought: anti-Americanism. In plainer words, he seems to be able to say anything as long as it supports the claim that the United States of America is responsible for all the evil in the world.
During the 20th century, these treasonous types chose America's opposition to Socialism and Communism (two related and truly evil ideologies) as their prime focus, but in more recent years it is the American opposition to Islamo-fascism which has been the target of their wrath. This opposition (unlike what Dr. Mamdani suggests) did not begin with the Cold War, but was in fact the theater of some of our earliest military operations. In the early 1800s, the Muslim Barbary pirates of North Africa were waging a relentless war against the Western powers.. often invading and taking entire Irish villages, and European and American naval crews as slaves. Until this point, Thomas Jefferson had fervently believed that this violence was retribution for Christian crusade tainted European Imperalism. Why on earth would they attack ships of the newly independent United States? Imagine his shock at the following events....
From wikipedia:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
""
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ""
It was this that ended his innocence about the nature of the non-European powers, and eventually convinced him to launch the Barbary Wars when he ascended to the Presidency. (the most important outcome of which is the only official US document which mentions the Christian religion: "the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.")
It is more important than ever that this neglected history of American-Islamic relations be revisited in light of the modern world. Especially by people such as Dr. Mamdani, who would otherwise believe that the United States has brought this Islamic violence upon itself by its own actions. It is extremely important to note, that the violence we see from fundamentalist Muslims today is NOT a reaction to perceived injustices, but rather an extension of standard Islamic views on the nature of world power. Islam contends that IT IS the last and final revelation of God, and this revelation INCLUDES the entitlement to world dominance under Shariah law. It is for this reason, that we do not see, for example, terrorists from Cambodia, Laos, Chile or Vietnam (nations which would in any just view have equal entitlement to feel slighted by American actions during the cold war).
Anti-Americanism, as exhibited by Dr. Mamdani, is a cute rebellious ideology, but it is fundamentally flawed in its implicit thesis that without American commitment to individual freedom, the world would be a better place. If America has any wish to remain a prosperous nation of free people, it must realize and directly confront the nature of the beast which faces us: religious bigotry of the highest order.
updated:
@jcrunkleton
I dispute this assertion. As I demonstrated above, Jefferson realized that the American way was incompatible with the existence of tyranny around the globe.
- while private entities care only for their bottom line, government has the public interest at heart
You have to realize that every single individual person, whether acting privately or as part of 'government' acts only in their self-interest. The government bureaucrat has no special concern for public safety, that the private CEO doesn't have. There is only ONE place where such concern lies, and that is in the individual who is driving a car, and doesn't want to die. The question becomes how do you translate that concern into a system that provides what the individuals in society want? Gaurav's contention, and mine, would be that the free market is more responsive to the individual's concern than the government.
- government should fund research
While it may SEEM sensible for government to fund scientific research in the "greater interest" of society, there are several problems that arise. First, how do you define the "greater interest"? Should it really be up to a few beaurocrats in government to make this decision? When government funds research it skews the research community towards the fields which it funds. Second, sure, some funding may seem beneficial, such as curing cancer. Others its debateable. For example in a lab I worked at, DARPA was funding research into brain-machine interfaces; a technology which is quite far from having any practical use. Does it really make sense for Joe Sixpack to have to pay for my esoteric research? What will he get out of it.. It makes more sense that the Free Market drives research innovation, as it is the best predictor of what is in the "greater interest" of society at large.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
- net neutrality
While the aims of net neutrality are noble, those who promote it fail to notice the potential dangers. One problem is that for different people, net neutrality means different things. At one level are college students, who don't want to be charged extra for downloading movies or using youtube. At another are small web sites, who fear that their sites will be shut out as big companies buy out available bandwidth. The biggest supporters of net neutrality, however, are companies like Google, Facebook, Craigslist, Youtube etc, who do not want to see their empires threatened by other big companies.
These companies know that their revenue depends on people wasting extra time on their sites, without worrying about any extra cost. Youtube is especially dependent on this, as it would be the most affected by restriction on bandwidth use. Google fears that a company like Comcast might charge a small fee for using its search engine. This might hurt Google, but isn't it more fair to people who use only email.. that they be charged for using only email?
A more worrisome situation is one like the following: Microsoft might pay Comcast a licensing fee for Bing to be its sole search provider. However, proponents of net neutrality fail to notice that this situation (an agreement in restraint of trade) is covered by existing anti-trust laws. In fact, the vast majority of truly worrisome outcomes (mostly related to ISPs preferring access to certain sites over others) are covered by these laws anyway, since telecom providers usually have localized monopolies as is.
While it certainly would suck to have to pay more, to use more, it seems fair: simultaneously those who use less would pay less. My prediction is that usage based pricing will eventually lead to lower costs over the wide range of normal internet use.
These companies know that their revenue depends on people wasting extra time on their sites, without worrying about any extra cost. Youtube is especially dependent on this, as it would be the most affected by restriction on bandwidth use. Google fears that a company like Comcast might charge a small fee for using its search engine. This might hurt Google, but isn't it more fair to people who use only email.. that they be charged for using only email?
A more worrisome situation is one like the following: Microsoft might pay Comcast a licensing fee for Bing to be its sole search provider. However, proponents of net neutrality fail to notice that this situation (an agreement in restraint of trade) is covered by existing anti-trust laws. In fact, the vast majority of truly worrisome outcomes (mostly related to ISPs preferring access to certain sites over others) are covered by these laws anyway, since telecom providers usually have localized monopolies as is.
While it certainly would suck to have to pay more, to use more, it seems fair: simultaneously those who use less would pay less. My prediction is that usage based pricing will eventually lead to lower costs over the wide range of normal internet use.
- cash for clunkers
President Obama proclaims the now bankrupt "cash for clunkers" program as an overwhelming success. The state of the economy is such, apparently, that when middle class people take free money it is a cause to be celebrated. Now of course, the middle class market for new cars is not the only segment to benefit from this largess. Since the $4500 is a "voucher" to be used at car dealerships, it is ultimately a gift from the government directly to the pockets of some of the same executives who demonstrated their utter incompetence by failing to avoid bankruptcy AFTER receiving a bailout from the government.
Now, one could say that the point of the program was to benefit the environment. 200,000 inefficient cars are off the road, says our dear leader. Well lets take a quick look at the numbers. The eligibility requirement for the program were cars with <18MPG. The replacement cars must have a combined MPG of 22. This 4mpg difference is unlikely to produce an improvement in the environment commensurate with the price of the program, not to mention the environmental cost of building, and destroying 200,000 automobiles. Like many of the recent democratic proposals, this seems to be a political ploy to avoid responsibility for the party's ineptness.
Now, one could say that the point of the program was to benefit the environment. 200,000 inefficient cars are off the road, says our dear leader. Well lets take a quick look at the numbers. The eligibility requirement for the program were cars with <18MPG. The replacement cars must have a combined MPG of 22. This 4mpg difference is unlikely to produce an improvement in the environment commensurate with the price of the program, not to mention the environmental cost of building, and destroying 200,000 automobiles. Like many of the recent democratic proposals, this seems to be a political ploy to avoid responsibility for the party's ineptness.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
+ Michael Vick deserves to play in the NFL
According to the laws of the land, Michael Vick committed a felony and served his time. Therefore, the government has no right to restrict him from doing as he pleases. However the NFL, as a private organization, does have the right to determine who can or cannot play. There have been rumblings by the league about perhaps suspending Vick further, to send a message about the values it (the league) upholds.
Dog loving has long been a part of American culture, as is football, and so there is a large influential faction of NFL fans who would prefer that Vick never plays again. Rabid dog lovers tend to view Vick's crime as tantamount to murder, without really understanding what that would mean. These same people do not necessarily hold the view that all animals ought to be treated with ethics (the PETA segment is only a small part of the anti-Vick sentiment). They readily consume meat products, and benefit from animal experimentation on primates (which are higher intellectually than dogs), and aren't really calling for all hunters to be rounded up and sent to prison. Essentially, they view dogs, specifically, as a species that ought to be protected by human society.
Now the community of sports/NFL fans consist of more than just this segment of society. Many of us, myself included, believe that no matter the severity of Vick's dog-abusing escapades, the fact remains that he harmed no human being. We may find his actions repulsive, but we understand that the only species that deserves ethical treatment is Homo Sapiens, for a very specific reason: humans have the reasoning ability to distinguish right from wrong. A lion, for example, kills gazelles in the cruelest of ways, but we do not hold the lion responsible for its transgressions. Humans have the right to determine, for themselves, how they treat members of other species.. it is not really a societal prerogative. If you love dogs as pets, you have the right to treat YOUR dog with compassion and love, but not the right to demand that Michael Vick do the same. You have the right to criticize him, and not be his friend, but not the right to stop him from earning a living. Michael Vick deserves to play again, because he committed no real crime against his fellow men, but rather violated a law imposed by those who misunderstand the concepts of ethics and human liberty.
Dog loving has long been a part of American culture, as is football, and so there is a large influential faction of NFL fans who would prefer that Vick never plays again. Rabid dog lovers tend to view Vick's crime as tantamount to murder, without really understanding what that would mean. These same people do not necessarily hold the view that all animals ought to be treated with ethics (the PETA segment is only a small part of the anti-Vick sentiment). They readily consume meat products, and benefit from animal experimentation on primates (which are higher intellectually than dogs), and aren't really calling for all hunters to be rounded up and sent to prison. Essentially, they view dogs, specifically, as a species that ought to be protected by human society.
Now the community of sports/NFL fans consist of more than just this segment of society. Many of us, myself included, believe that no matter the severity of Vick's dog-abusing escapades, the fact remains that he harmed no human being. We may find his actions repulsive, but we understand that the only species that deserves ethical treatment is Homo Sapiens, for a very specific reason: humans have the reasoning ability to distinguish right from wrong. A lion, for example, kills gazelles in the cruelest of ways, but we do not hold the lion responsible for its transgressions. Humans have the right to determine, for themselves, how they treat members of other species.. it is not really a societal prerogative. If you love dogs as pets, you have the right to treat YOUR dog with compassion and love, but not the right to demand that Michael Vick do the same. You have the right to criticize him, and not be his friend, but not the right to stop him from earning a living. Michael Vick deserves to play again, because he committed no real crime against his fellow men, but rather violated a law imposed by those who misunderstand the concepts of ethics and human liberty.
Monday, July 27, 2009
- racial profiling by American cops
While I disagree with President Obama's move of inviting Sgt. Crowley and Professor Gates to "have a beer" at the White House, he could not be more correct then when he pointed out "What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact." I believe that this is the natural outcome of placing too much power in the hands of the police, and why every law passed must really be thought over. Obama's approach is to attempt to change the culture of America through his inspirational words. Cultural changes like this, however, take a long time. Certainly Obama has the perfect opportunity and oratorical abilities to catalyze this change, but no matter how valiant President Obama's effort, and I support it entirely, this will be an accomplishment which will be a long time coming.
However, it is unfair for individual African Americans, and other minorities, to wait for the culture of America to change. The solution, therefore, should be to reduce the power of the police force; to make it much more difficult for individually police officers to act on their personal bigotry and racism. This must be done in two ways. First, as a branch of government, the police should have a federal legal obligation to video tape every encounter. Even if a cop has to "let someone go," because he didn't start his tape recorder, this obligation should still hold. The endless stream of youtube videos documenting the bigotry of American cops is disgusting, and it needs to be resolved now, not in 10 years. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the discriminatory laws which for example penalize the possession of "crack" far more than the possession of cocaine, must be repealed. It is these types of laws which are terribly unfair, and are responsible for much of the disproportional action of police with regards to race. President Obama has indicated that this is in his agenda, and I hope he is able to succeed.
Racial profiling is a practice which is thoroughly anathema to the values of the Declaration, as has been pointed out by great Americans from Jefferson, to Lincoln and Frederick Douglas, to Martin Luther King and now Barack Obama. To those who claim that in practice, racial profiling is necessary to reduce crime, I would respond that practicality is no excuse for bigotry. The costs of racial profiling (hurt feelings and a dereliction of American values) far outweigh any possible benefit.
However, it is unfair for individual African Americans, and other minorities, to wait for the culture of America to change. The solution, therefore, should be to reduce the power of the police force; to make it much more difficult for individually police officers to act on their personal bigotry and racism. This must be done in two ways. First, as a branch of government, the police should have a federal legal obligation to video tape every encounter. Even if a cop has to "let someone go," because he didn't start his tape recorder, this obligation should still hold. The endless stream of youtube videos documenting the bigotry of American cops is disgusting, and it needs to be resolved now, not in 10 years. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the discriminatory laws which for example penalize the possession of "crack" far more than the possession of cocaine, must be repealed. It is these types of laws which are terribly unfair, and are responsible for much of the disproportional action of police with regards to race. President Obama has indicated that this is in his agenda, and I hope he is able to succeed.
Racial profiling is a practice which is thoroughly anathema to the values of the Declaration, as has been pointed out by great Americans from Jefferson, to Lincoln and Frederick Douglas, to Martin Luther King and now Barack Obama. To those who claim that in practice, racial profiling is necessary to reduce crime, I would respond that practicality is no excuse for bigotry. The costs of racial profiling (hurt feelings and a dereliction of American values) far outweigh any possible benefit.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
- Obama's cheap political stunts
Obama's political tactics are often compared to Lincoln's: his fanboys in the mainstream media claim that he appeals to the "better angels of our nature," as Lincoln sought to do. However reality indicates otherwise. Obama's handling of the Gates-Crowley affair smacks of his trademark cheap political maneuvering.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
+ bama's political tactics are often compared to Li...
Obama's political tactics are often compared to Lincoln's: his fanboys in the mainstream media claim that he appeals to the "better angels of our nature," as Lincoln sought to do. However reality indicates otherwise. Obama's handling of the Gates-Crowley affair smacks of his trademark cheap political maneuvering.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
+ American Exceptionalism
American Exceptionalism (the theory that the United States holds a special place among nations and hence a special right to act without the approval of the rest of the world) is as old as the country itself. While some identify it with excessive nationalism, ignorance of world events or even religious bigotry, it actually derives from revolutionary Jeffersonian ideals of individual liberty. In this respect, it is the opposite of nationalism, the antithesis of ignorance, and the inversion of bigotry.
Essentially, the US is not meant to be a nation of PEOPLE in the sense that other nations are: it is a nation of IDEAS, specifically the idea that men ought to be free to determine their own goals and achievements, and that this right exists BEYOND governmental authority, and ABOVE any mere "societal" objectives. These concepts are as clear as can be in the Declaration: "All men are created equal.. with certain inalienable rights." Notice that it does not say "All Americans...". They are further solidified in the Bill of Rights: "shall make NO law restricting the freedom of speech.. etc." While, for example, the Indian Constitution makes an exception for "the greater interests of the nation", the American constitution obvious clear that the "nation's" interests are to be subservient to individual interests.
Jefferson hoped that the United States would act as the catalyst for the formation of an "empire of liberty." This is not, as many whiners on the Left would have you believe, meant to be a military empire, but an empire in which the individual rights of all men would triumph over the tyrannical impulse of government. It is, therefore, the American prerogative to realize this dream, not merely for those living within our borders, but for every human being across the globe. It is a mandate, therefore, not to respect the wishes of other nations and their governments, but rather the rights of each individual within those nations. If even a single Iraqi, Sudanese or Tibetan is deprived of those rights, the United States has the revolutionary duty to free him from bondage and to protect him from future slavery; it matters not if the rest of his countrymen, or the "United Nations" disapprove.
Essentially, the US is not meant to be a nation of PEOPLE in the sense that other nations are: it is a nation of IDEAS, specifically the idea that men ought to be free to determine their own goals and achievements, and that this right exists BEYOND governmental authority, and ABOVE any mere "societal" objectives. These concepts are as clear as can be in the Declaration: "All men are created equal.. with certain inalienable rights." Notice that it does not say "All Americans...". They are further solidified in the Bill of Rights: "shall make NO law restricting the freedom of speech.. etc." While, for example, the Indian Constitution makes an exception for "the greater interests of the nation", the American constitution obvious clear that the "nation's" interests are to be subservient to individual interests.
Jefferson hoped that the United States would act as the catalyst for the formation of an "empire of liberty." This is not, as many whiners on the Left would have you believe, meant to be a military empire, but an empire in which the individual rights of all men would triumph over the tyrannical impulse of government. It is, therefore, the American prerogative to realize this dream, not merely for those living within our borders, but for every human being across the globe. It is a mandate, therefore, not to respect the wishes of other nations and their governments, but rather the rights of each individual within those nations. If even a single Iraqi, Sudanese or Tibetan is deprived of those rights, the United States has the revolutionary duty to free him from bondage and to protect him from future slavery; it matters not if the rest of his countrymen, or the "United Nations" disapprove.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
- startups require government money to succeed
It is possible that in a particular sector like life-sciences, or space exploration startups without strong financial backing (including government funding) might not get off the ground. However the vast majority of successful startups, including companies in these high risk sectors, have made it on their own, or with the backing of small time investors. The majority of internet companies (google, facebook, twitter) all started out with little or no private funding, and certainly no government funding. Going back further, the same can be said of the earlier IT companies like Microsoft, Apple etc. Even further, the Wright Brothers beat the world to human flight without any external funding whatsoever. This is especially remarkable since governments around the world were simultaneously funding various ventures to accomplish the same goal. Clearly government funding, or even funding at all, is not essential for startup success. It seems to me that entrepreneurial drive and individual brilliance are much more necessary requirements.
Friday, July 17, 2009
- anti-americanism
The following is an excerpt from a review of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, a book by supposed "scholar" Mahmood Mamdani..
Mamdani‘s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others’ attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as “radioactive and highly toxic,” claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.
He notes that U-238 has a “half-life of four and a half billion years,” but fails to appreciate what that means: The shorter an element’s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element’s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.
Essentially, these shells are no more radioactive than the Lead shells which have been used for decades (or any other heavy metal for that matter).
Now, apparently I have one friend who recommends this book, and another who is now reading it (seriously). Ok, you say, seems an innocent enough mistake, considering the book is widely perceived a credible thesis by a credible author concerning the supposed American roots of Islamic terror. But given that such a perception exists, it is not MORE important to independently verify the claims made within, and not LESS? This is an acceptable mistake for a high school history student, not a Columbia professor. In fact, I would go further and make the claim that such an egregious error from a scholar of such repute ought to be taken not as a simple misunderstanding of nuclear physics, but as a betrayal of the author's allegiance to a widely held school of modern leftist thought: anti-Americanism. In plainer words, he seems to be able to say anything as long as it supports the claim that the United States of America is responsible for all the evil in the world.
During the 20th century, these treasonous types chose America's opposition to Socialism and Communism (two related and truly evil ideologies) as their prime focus, but in more recent years it is the American opposition to Islamo-fascism which has been the target of their wrath. This opposition (unlike what Dr. Mamdani suggests) did not begin with the Cold War, but was in fact the theater of some of our earliest military operations. In the early 1800s, the Muslim Barbary pirates of North Africa were waging a relentless war against the Western powers.. often invading and taking entire Irish villages, and European and American naval crews as slaves. Until this point, Thomas Jefferson had fervently believed that this violence was retribution for Christian crusade tainted European Imperalism. Why on earth would they attack ships of the newly independent United States? Imagine his shock at the following events....
From wikipedia:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
""
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ""
It was this that ended his innocence about the nature of the non-European powers, and eventually convinced him to launch the Barbary Wars when he ascended to the Presidency. (the most important outcome of which is the only official US document which mentions the Christian religion: "the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.")
It is more important than ever that this neglected history of American-Islamic relations be revisited in light of the modern world. Especially by people such as Dr. Mamdani, who would otherwise believe that the United States has brought this Islamic violence upon itself by its own actions. It is extremely important to note, that the violence we see from fundamentalist Muslims today is NOT a reaction to perceived injustices, but rather an extension of standard Islamic views on the nature of world power. Islam contends that IT IS the last and final revelation of God, and this revelation INCLUDES the entitlement to world dominance under Shariah law. It is for this reason, that we do not see, for example, terrorists from Cambodia, Laos, Chile or Vietnam (nations which would in any just view have equal entitlement to feel slighted by American actions during the cold war).
Anti-Americanism, as exhibited by Dr. Mamdani, is a cute rebellious ideology, but it is fundamentally flawed in its implicit thesis that without American commitment to individual freedom, the world would be a better place. If America has any wish to remain a prosperous nation of free people, it must realize and directly confront the nature of the beast which faces us: religious bigotry of the highest order.
Mamdani‘s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others’ attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as “radioactive and highly toxic,” claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.
He notes that U-238 has a “half-life of four and a half billion years,” but fails to appreciate what that means: The shorter an element’s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element’s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.
Essentially, these shells are no more radioactive than the Lead shells which have been used for decades (or any other heavy metal for that matter).
Now, apparently I have one friend who recommends this book, and another who is now reading it (seriously). Ok, you say, seems an innocent enough mistake, considering the book is widely perceived a credible thesis by a credible author concerning the supposed American roots of Islamic terror. But given that such a perception exists, it is not MORE important to independently verify the claims made within, and not LESS? This is an acceptable mistake for a high school history student, not a Columbia professor. In fact, I would go further and make the claim that such an egregious error from a scholar of such repute ought to be taken not as a simple misunderstanding of nuclear physics, but as a betrayal of the author's allegiance to a widely held school of modern leftist thought: anti-Americanism. In plainer words, he seems to be able to say anything as long as it supports the claim that the United States of America is responsible for all the evil in the world.
During the 20th century, these treasonous types chose America's opposition to Socialism and Communism (two related and truly evil ideologies) as their prime focus, but in more recent years it is the American opposition to Islamo-fascism which has been the target of their wrath. This opposition (unlike what Dr. Mamdani suggests) did not begin with the Cold War, but was in fact the theater of some of our earliest military operations. In the early 1800s, the Muslim Barbary pirates of North Africa were waging a relentless war against the Western powers.. often invading and taking entire Irish villages, and European and American naval crews as slaves. Until this point, Thomas Jefferson had fervently believed that this violence was retribution for Christian crusade tainted European Imperalism. Why on earth would they attack ships of the newly independent United States? Imagine his shock at the following events....
From wikipedia:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
""
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ""
It was this that ended his innocence about the nature of the non-European powers, and eventually convinced him to launch the Barbary Wars when he ascended to the Presidency. (the most important outcome of which is the only official US document which mentions the Christian religion: "the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.")
It is more important than ever that this neglected history of American-Islamic relations be revisited in light of the modern world. Especially by people such as Dr. Mamdani, who would otherwise believe that the United States has brought this Islamic violence upon itself by its own actions. It is extremely important to note, that the violence we see from fundamentalist Muslims today is NOT a reaction to perceived injustices, but rather an extension of standard Islamic views on the nature of world power. Islam contends that IT IS the last and final revelation of God, and this revelation INCLUDES the entitlement to world dominance under Shariah law. It is for this reason, that we do not see, for example, terrorists from Cambodia, Laos, Chile or Vietnam (nations which would in any just view have equal entitlement to feel slighted by American actions during the cold war).
Anti-Americanism, as exhibited by Dr. Mamdani, is a cute rebellious ideology, but it is fundamentally flawed in its implicit thesis that without American commitment to individual freedom, the world would be a better place. If America has any wish to remain a prosperous nation of free people, it must realize and directly confront the nature of the beast which faces us: religious bigotry of the highest order.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
+ US highways should be privatized
While public highways are one of the more innocuous wastes of taxpayer money, it is important to remember the fundamental moral problem with public anything: if you don't use something, why should you have to pay for it? It's easy to say its in the general interest of the nation, so individuals must make sacrifices; but to do that you have to understand what you lose with such sacrifices.. this is simply, your Freedom. Take the case of a lower middle class person, who doesn't have a car, and walks to work. In rare cases, he may take a bus which uses the public highway, but most of the time he has no need for them. Yet, a percentage of his income is used towards subsidizing Microsoft (who's employees drive the freeway to work) and General Motors (who sell more cars because there are highways). Isn't it more fair that he should use his hard earned money to fund his childrens' education, or to buy food? In almost all cases regarding "public goods", while the opposite is usually stated by the politicians selling the good, it is the rich who benefit off the backs of the poor. Surely, public highways are more "convenient" for some people, but does that give us the right to take money from those for whom it is NOT so "convenient?" With privatized freeways, the right people would be paying for highways.. those who actually use them.
+ the US assisted overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile
While this CIA backed coup is trumpeted by certin schools of thought as a perfect example of US imperialism and obnoxiousness in the modern world, they would be wise to actually learn a little about the situation before they launch into an anti-American diatribe. Although he branded himself a "socialist," he had a close relationship with the Chilean Communist party:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende. While much attention is paid to the US owned copper mines he nationalized, he held far more insidious intentions. He intended to seize all property holdings of over 80 hectares, a clear violation of individual liberty and property rights. Within time, his moronic policies led to massive hyperinflation and a collapse of the Chilean economy, a result that could have been easily predicted. Then he began requisitioning private trucks and other vehicles for use by the government. At this point, he was losing control of the country, and was starting to implement dictatorial policies and ignore the court system he was responsible for protecting.
The Declaration of Independence states that all individuals are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which includes property rights to a large degree). When a government becomes destructive towards these ends, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow the government and institute new protections for these rights. The Chilean government under Allende had obviously reached this point. The United States, by virtue of its founding thesis, has the obligation to assist individuals all around the world in their quest for liberty. While one may not agree with the particular action of installing Pinochet, himself a terrible dictator, but at least one who held individual rights to be of some importance, any true American (in the ideological sense) should find it difficult to take the view that Allende's anti-freedom policies should have been allowed to fully take their course.
The Declaration of Independence states that all individuals are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which includes property rights to a large degree). When a government becomes destructive towards these ends, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow the government and institute new protections for these rights. The Chilean government under Allende had obviously reached this point. The United States, by virtue of its founding thesis, has the obligation to assist individuals all around the world in their quest for liberty. While one may not agree with the particular action of installing Pinochet, himself a terrible dictator, but at least one who held individual rights to be of some importance, any true American (in the ideological sense) should find it difficult to take the view that Allende's anti-freedom policies should have been allowed to fully take their course.
+ private schools in developing countries serve the people better than public schools
Private schools in ANY country serve the people better, since it doesn't force people who don't have kids to pay for those who do. What if I choose not to have kids.. why should I pay because someone else wants to continue their genetic line. It's not my choice, its theirs. They should pay for the consequences of their choices.
Friday, July 10, 2009
- web sites should be culpable for illegal activities of their users
Legally speaking, it is the Users of a product service who are responsible for illegal activity conducted through it. For example, should Sears be held responsible if someone used a Sears knife to commit a murder? This extends to internet properties through the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which explicitly protects Web site owners from culpability for criminal activity perpetrated by third parties. People in general should be held responsible for their OWN actions only. Additionally, the internet is a medium in which only information can be exchanged. This makes any culpability for illegal activity a Free Speech issue as well. The 1st amendment guarantees your right to say "meet me at 6pm on the corner of 5th and Main for some dope," or to convey this message through other informational mediums. This right exists above and beyond any mere law which might criminalize the actual transfer or use of marijuana.
+ Nadyenka and her friends should join Argumentum
Someone with controversial opinions like Nadyenka has would be able to provoke lots of fiery reactions, which would be fun for her, and good for me. Once you join, you can post arguments back to facebook from http://arg.umentum.com/ or, if you prefer you can start an argument by entering:
+ something you support OR
- something you oppose
into your publisher box and then choosing "argue" from the publisher menu. Once you start, your friends can react to your arguments, and follow-up with new ones. The arguments never end at Argumentum..
+ something you support OR
- something you oppose
into your publisher box and then choosing "argue" from the publisher menu. Once you start, your friends can react to your arguments, and follow-up with new ones. The arguments never end at Argumentum..
Thursday, July 9, 2009
- if rich countries eat less, poor countries could eat more
You are making an unsupported assumption.. that reduced food demand in rich countries will increase food supply in poor ones. In fact, historical evidence demonstrates the opposite. The real trend is that as the world population (and world food demand) increases, there is actually an increase in PER CAPITA food consumption. This is surprising only if you think that food supply is a limited resource, which it is not. First, at some point in history, humans culturally evolved (through farming) the ability to produce more than enough food for individuals..allowing labor differentiation etc. This led to civilization.. and ensuing technological revolutions, which further increased per capita food production. The best way to decrease malnourishment in poor countries is NOT to re-slice the pizza, but to make a bigger one. Greater food demand in rich countries can spur technological change in food production, and therefore counterintuitively the more Jimmy eats in America, the more Obobu might one day eat in Africa.
- Darwinian natural selection fortifies cultural selective pressures
This seems a little irrelevant to your main argument. Cultural evolution is orders of magnitude more powerful than genetic evolution. For example, for Homo Sapiens to naturally evolve an affinity for Pokemon cards would take millions of years, but
through a memetic process (it was 'cool' to have them) we achieved it in months. While it seems that human culture IS leading to more robust gene drift, its more important effect is to make genetic evolution less important....The next generation will never even know what Pokemon is.. etc. The simple idea that being fat is frowned upon by a society, and this leads to lowered consumption, is sufficient.
through a memetic process (it was 'cool' to have them) we achieved it in months. While it seems that human culture IS leading to more robust gene drift, its more important effect is to make genetic evolution less important....The next generation will never even know what Pokemon is.. etc. The simple idea that being fat is frowned upon by a society, and this leads to lowered consumption, is sufficient.
- societal pressure will lower demand for food
1. Im a little confused about your example... why exactly is Timmy copying Jimmy? Memetic evolution is a selective process, so for Timmy to want to copy Jimmy there has to be an incentive. I will proceed assuming you mean that societal pressure provides an incentive for this strategy..i.e. people make fun of Jimmy for being fat.
2. You are assuming that lower food consumption is the culturally favorable strategy(i.e. being 'thin' is a cultural virtue at the moment). I dispute this, at least for males. The modern ideal for males is more of a large 'athletic' physique than a small 'thin' one or large 'obese' one. So while there is disincentive to eat tasty, but unhealthy food(bad carbs+fat), there is great incentive to eat a lot of healthy food. This 'healthy' food(protein+good carbs) is more expensive from a resource pov, and will if anything further tax food supply.
2. You are assuming that lower food consumption is the culturally favorable strategy(i.e. being 'thin' is a cultural virtue at the moment). I dispute this, at least for males. The modern ideal for males is more of a large 'athletic' physique than a small 'thin' one or large 'obese' one. So while there is disincentive to eat tasty, but unhealthy food(bad carbs+fat), there is great incentive to eat a lot of healthy food. This 'healthy' food(protein+good carbs) is more expensive from a resource pov, and will if anything further tax food supply.
- If Jimmy doesn't finish his plate he will consume less food
There are two strategies to have a clean plate after eating... finish all the food on the plate regardless of the quantity, or ask for the 'correct' amount of food before you start. Forcing Jimmy to finish his food, gives him an incentive to ask for less next time if he was over-stuffed.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
- government should fund research
While it may SEEM sensible for government to fund scientific research in the "greater interest" of society, there are several problems that arise. First, how do you define the "greater interest"? Should it really be up to a few beaurocrats in government to make this decision? When government funds research it skews the research community towards the fields which it funds. Second, sure, some funding may seem beneficial, such as curing cancer. Others its debateable. For example in a lab I worked at, DARPA was funding research into brain-machine interfaces; a technology which is quite far from having any practical use. Does it really make sense for Joe Sixpack to have to pay for my esoteric research? What will he get out of it.. It makes more sense that the Free Market drives research innovation, as it is the best predictor of what is in the "greater interest" of society at large.
Monday, July 6, 2009
- government funding for stem cell research
While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
updated:
While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
updated:
While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
- government funding for stem cell research
While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
- muslims are oppressed around the world
While not all Muslims make this claim, the major organizations who purport to represent them ( and the leftist media) do. The fact is that in most of the countries of the 'ummah,' there is terrible oppression under a tyrannical government. The claim that America has acted imperially in its middle east policy couldn't be further from the truth. In Iraq, for example, America has overthrown a psychopathic dictator who's son reveled in physically torturing the players of that countries' national soccer team. In his place, we have installed a democratic government, which though imperfect is a huge advancement over what was there. Sure, a small group of Palestinians may be under an apartheid like system, but they are in a far better situation than the Darfurians or Tibetans. Further, they have made their own situation worse by acting in a violent and irresponsible manner. How did India get rid of the British? Not by shooting rockets at innocent civilians, but by a long, concerted non-violent struggle. Even the so called atheist 'terrorist' Bhagat Singh demonstrated his commitment to human rights by throwing his tiny bomb in a place where it would make loud commotion, but injure no one. For this, he was executed.
Muslims who are 'oppressed' in their own countries have no standing to blame the US for trying to free them. Furthermore, they have no standing to pose as a cringing minority that needs special protection in countries such as the United States, which actually respect their rights as Human Beings.
Muslims who are 'oppressed' in their own countries have no standing to blame the US for trying to free them. Furthermore, they have no standing to pose as a cringing minority that needs special protection in countries such as the United States, which actually respect their rights as Human Beings.
- i am 'south asian american'
Usually PC terms for ethnicity at least denote a dominant group that might share common interests and goals. ie. 'Arab Americans', 'African Americans' etc.. It is hard to find any similarities between the regional identifications denoted by the term 'south asian.' Religion, language, political leanings, economic success.. none of them encompass 'south asians' in any meaningful way. Most importantly, the actual countries of the region (especially India and Pakistan) have geopolitical interests which are polar Opposites. While we all may be Americans first, if your a 'south asian' with any interest in your country of origin, there is no benefit in merging your political identity with those of other 'south asian' origins. I am Indian American, in the sense that my allegiances are to America and then to India. If that means that they are opposed to Pakistani interests, so be it. If that means I could care less about 'muslim oppression' so be it.
- hate speech should be banned
Obviously certain racist or sexist rhetoric is repulsive, but should it ever be banned? Who gets to decide what is repulsive? It seems to me that "hate speech" is quite often just speech that may disturb the people in charge. For certain religious groups, hate speech is anything that might disturb their little fantasy bubble (AKA faith). These groups often use the term "offensive" as if that, in and of itself, is enough to stop ME from saying it. Well, I don't particularly care what these deluded individuals think.. My right to say what I want, when I want trumps the 'right' of their piddling little egos not to be 'offended.' The first amendment guarantees me this, while it in no place mentions that terribly pathetic work "offensive."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)