Eff's Rambles (Archive)

It is done.

2005-12-21T14:47:00.000-05:00

After I sign out, I will have lost access to this account. There was a delay, but I have decided to implement this now. I have kept it so that I can receive any comments this blog might get, but that is it.

And finally

2005-12-13T17:10:00.000-05:00

This is post 160 and the last hurrah.

On some issues I shall give my position and briefly why I hold it.

Abortion: I am pro choice because I have faith in most women to decide the issue with a good heart. I also think fighting it is futile.

On immigration: I believe it should be controlled, but not based on race. Objective controlls based on economic need and the capacity of the nation to absorb the immigrants should be the main reasons for limiting it. I also believe immigration laws should be simple enough to understand.

On gay right: I am pro gay rights. I do understand the offense felt toward gay marriage, considering that many people faithfully believe it is improper, even sinful, or nearly so, but I think that secular societies are not beholden to their concerns on the issue. And I believe it the individual, so theories about the downfall of society do not hold water for me. I have no reason to hate homosexuals, and so on.

On the Iraq war: While I am undecided on when and how to leave. I was not for it. I might not have agreed with all of the arguments people made against it, but my position I do not agree with having gone to war; I was unconvinced of Saddam's ability to be a viable threat, and think domino democracy is idealistic and dangerous. I also felt it could endanger regional stability. The moral questions of how right are sanctions, and what kind of government the status quo before the war would have been ruling Iraqis had the war never began are other issues, and very subjective ones.

Conspiracy theories: I do not like them. That is mainly because I need major convincing to call the intent of accused conspirators, or the supposed puppets of theirs, false, and proclaim only one theory as the truth.

The environment: I believe in balance, but I lean mostly pro environment, believing corporations should be regulated, punished strongly for violations, and made to reason very well why they cannot follow a particular guideline.

Guns: I have no specific position on most current laws about guns. My supporting principle for my pro gun position is that the right of self defense against intended harm is more important than the counter hypothetical of random harm, and that guns fall strongly and objectively within the capacity to effect decent defense. I do not claim this will always be the case. But I also do not believe in circumstantial data that attempts to refute the claim of defensive effectiveness. I think such use is fallacious and unethical.

The death penalty: I oppose it. I believe killing may only be justified in war, depending on the justness thereof, as well as the manner of killing, and self defense. I think it is unethical to kill contained people, and for economic reasons. I also do not want innocents killed.

On religion: I support its existence as a means of bringing some people comfort. But I am an agnostic whom leans atheist. But I do not blame religion for most of the world's evils and pain. I choose, instead, to blame irrational nature in people.

Three years and the last week

2005-12-12T02:34:00.000-05:00

I have decided to end this blog. By the twentieth of December, it shall be deleted, and I shall save none of the content. I have come to accept somethings, about others and myself, at least enough to know that this is the right decision. So if I have regular readers, or if you are just curious, save what you want to.

Bye.

3 years

2005-12-11T00:57:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow marks my third year as a blogger. K.

2005-12-09T11:39:00.000-05:00

I have an archive and a guest book at the bottom of this blog. Say hello in the latter and leave a comment somewhere in the former. Go to it, for I think I might be starting to repeat myself.

Pertinence!

2005-12-08T15:27:00.000-05:00

It's time to learn what that is.

You have a complicated situation in which the lives of many people could be effected.
You need to decide on which course to take, and who should lead it.

Do you, a, study the legitimacy of the issue, the necessity of a given course option, and the viability of each candidate to lead the action, or, b, do you make a contention about one of the candidates moral authority while ignoring the viability of the other candidates, and the rest of the aforementioned issues?

It's really not that hard of a quiz.

Also, what is with some people calling things paranoid? Do people fully understand what that implies? Some examples are fine, but the term is so often used that it seems applicable to anything someone cannot grasp the need for. According to some, or so it seems, anything not certain to happen more than once a week must be a false issue, and only paranoid people are concerned about them. Dictionary.com says, "often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason." That claims that even with apparent rationality behind a given concern, that does not preclude it from being delusional. Of course, that's an escape, since it is still on the burden of the person making the claim that someone is paranoid to refute his logic.

Damned preview

2005-12-07T11:41:00.000-05:00

Maybe it's just on my end, but the preview function in the template editor is not working properly. Reverting to the default number doesn't fix the alignment problem with my test numbers.

The cynicism in me says I'm not the only one with this problem.

Journalism: Consequences and Standards

2005-12-06T20:24:00.000-05:00

Consequences

There are two issues I want to briefly comment on. The first has to do with recent revelations that CIA rendition flights have been occuring in Europe, and that the US Military is using especially dubious propaganda in Iraq.

To be fair, there are uncertainties ( objectively speaking) as to the extent and specifics of these cases, but I am not here to offer much debate on the merits of what these US government branches are alleged to be doing. It is, however, true, I believe, that these policies can have a protective value. But they can also have negative repercussions. In either case, the supporting side argues negative consequences are likely to occur. This puts the media, the opposition in this case, in a difficult position: On the one hand their journalistic ethic compels them to report facts and keep the public informed despite suppositions as to what might negatively result from reportage of sensitive information. But, on the other hand, there's the belief that some duties of citizenry obligate deference and self imposed silence when reporting might cause harm and hinderence to military operations and national security.

From the perspective of outside observers, the question of which side is correct may be presumed as fifty/fifty, where the general public is divided as to who is right. But I shall attempt to speak from the perspective of journalists, and I hope I do not offend actual journalists in attempting to do so. Still, I think it should be all right, because I am going to use a general principle that I believe is broadly applicable:

I contend that it is the first and foremost loyalty of journalists to follow the ethics to which they assigned themselves as journalists, and that it would be an unreasonable burden to apply abstract bases for exceptions to adhering to said ethics. The abstract bases are those theoretical negative consequences which might come about as a result of reporting on sensitive militarily related information. While not all cases of proclaimed national security interest are illegitimate, the use of such a proclamation has an undeniably excusatory effect, wherein it can be said that various actions must be kept silent because of the potential to harm national security whether or not the probablity of doing so is high. Consideration should be given to national security interests, but it should not preclude all reportage, even in the name of deference.

Standards

What are the standard for determining what a legitimate story is?

I must admit that, while mainly boring, like it or not, the debate over where Christmas is said and not is an actual news story.

First, it brings up a constitutional issue; even if that matter is settled for some, it is not for all, thus it remains as a story, especially if court cases about it exist.

The second reason is more important to me because I mean to refute the notion, or at least the implied one, that a story needs to have multiple and widespread occurences to be legitimate if it is not large in scale or particulary unique. Perhaps in some cases, but in the case of Christmas vs. Happy Holidays, that should not be the case. Given that most people in the US are Christian, many of which are practicing, there, established, is a clear majority which presumably favors scenes and signage which are pro Christian and might not be secular, or who are not inherently opposed to them. If there are individuals and groups intending to prevent religious specific advertising and inclusion in public places, the issue of whether or not that is an overstepping of bounds by the minority, as well as, going back to the constitutional debate, whether or not the some cases might exemplify respecting an establishment of religion is important. It is also a matter that goes deeply into the moral core of many Americans. Whatever side you are on, whether secular or in favor of Christmas displays, et al, the story is valid. As for me, I am an agnostic whom leans athiest. I might comment further, but I do not have much to say on that matter.

Blog Against Racism Day

2005-12-01T06:39:00.000-05:00

I wish I could think of creative, emotionally compelling words to express my disdain for racists, but, in truth, advocacy posts, whether for or against something, are difficult for me. So I shall let my feelings be clear yet expressed in my own peculiar way, with, as I have been accused of using, strange logic, or good logic.

Some people say racism and associated evils like bigotry and xenophobia comes from ignorance. But I do not accept that explanation. Ignorance gives some understanding to initial fear but not long term hatred. It is idiocy which fosters racism. It is stupidity which presumes the inferiority of others. And it is moronism which condemns an entire race based on the fallacy of guilt by association, wherein the action of one person or even many makes all of similar appearance deserving of, according to racists, hatred. Racism is for the incessantly mentally lazy. And non of this understanding of how senseless racism is takes great intelligence to comprehend. Indeed, it takes so little thought that the laziness needed to understand it means the person unable to is far more likely evil than simply ignorant.

Arrogance, disingenuousness, and independence

2005-11-29T10:43:00.000-05:00

Each has in common an aspect of my principles on blogging, etc.

I try to be modest, though I am not without certitude as to the correctness of some of my arguments arguments and conclusions.

I try not to present my blog as more than it is, and especially not as what something else is.

And, while my overall opinions might not always be independent, I do try to practice one kind of independence (the kind most important to me), that of coming to a conclusion based on my own unique reasoning. Though I am not free from the influence of others, I am the type, and have done this, to debate the arguments of people even when we agree upon the contention. I suspect that can lead some to think my overall opinion on an issue is the opposite of theirs. But that is not necessarily the case. I might just think his argument is bad.

Free vs Unfree and their thoughts on the governance of them.

2005-11-28T23:00:00.000-05:00

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

Why is it right to judge the people of a free democratic nation whose policies one disagrees with, but wrong to hold to account the people of an unfree nation when the former is statistically diverse in agreement with their nation while the latter largely agrees with their nation? The obvious answer is that unfree people should be presumed to have no allowed freedom of expression.

A fallacy with that line of reasoning is that, while the free nation model generally uses objective, or nontheless accurate government, data gathered in a non coercive environment about the stastics of public agreement to government policies, the unfree nations' expression inhibiting laws might or might not prevent specific forms of expression and access to independent data from which their peoples can form their opinions about their governments. So, while reports that such nations peoples are not allowed to say what they feel might come from reputable sources, the actual inaccuracy of said peoples' opinions is difficult to know.

The tendency of some people to judge foreign peoples based on the governments they have over the opinions they collectively express is not always fair. Certainly, apathy and indifference by peoples of free nations which reasons their low voter turnout is not an excuse, but nor does this mean that it's accurate to say that the apathetic few agree with all that their nations have done and intend to do, nor is it correct to claim that they always could know what their governments were going to do.

Political Compass (this is my 150th post)

2005-11-28T21:14:00.000-05:00

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/printablegraph.php?ec=-3.00&soc=-1.69

Thank you, Cunningham.

2005-11-28T20:35:00.000-05:00

In American news (prepare to be bored), a Republican Congressman admitted to taking bribes. Good, now, unlike the immature rationale of jumping after I Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Tom DeLay before they are convicted, there's a solid basis for going after Randy "Duke" Cunningham, his aforemented admission. Here, folks, is a fair target. Whether or not anyone should show mercy based on Cunningham's public apology is an individual choice, but not showing much, if any, mercy is understandable.

Do you understand individuality and freedom?

2005-11-23T09:48:00.000-05:00

The importance of that question is not only to discover others and your own understanding, but if there's an acceptance of the consequences of all variations of the concept.

There is, no doubt, a debate about the needs of the many versus the few. And when one should win over the other is difficult to decide. But, what's disturbing for me is the seeming lack of appreciate, respect, or whatever the term might be, for individual liberties which are contested against by statistical arguments. Why does that bother me? A statistical argument, if accurate, is generally valid. Isn't that correct? I suppose. But it's not always accurate, but, moreso, it's not always valid because of its accuracy. An important thing about individual liberties is that they in part exist because of public respect and tolerance, and its acceptance of the possible negative consequences of the exercise of those liberties. So the question in this context becomes: Whether or not it's about life and death, should we supercede liberties for the sake of a statistical improvement?

Illegal Immigration: A controversial perspective on evil.

2005-11-20T03:11:00.000-05:00

I do not think of myself as being anti immigration. I do think that strong border security is nationally vital, and that a nation has the right to impose limits on who can come into it, but based mostly on the principle of consistent application of law and what a nations capacity is to absorb immigrants. I also prefer to call a spade a spade when it is inarguable. It is purely disingenuous to call an illegal immigrant anything other than what he is, illegal. And, now, I am going to call a certain type of immigrant rights advocate, anyone fitting the following model, evil.

Those who break laws to assist illegal immigration and attack anyone challenging them on it.

What makes them evil is not their intent, which I must presume for a given person of that type, for fairness' sake, is good since there is a compassion component to consider. And their methods have some bearing, but those are not the main bases for my contention.

What makes some of them evil is that they are willing to impose upon their own society potentially massive disruption and risk by forcing into it a foreign element (illegal immigrants, who, in some cases, if not most, they know little about), and care more about their one sided morality than how their fellow citizens could be effected and how they feel about illegal immigration and law breaking methods to aid it. This is not to say that I know illegal immigrants to be responsible for most social burdens, such as criminal acts, etc. Illegal immigrants might be the most productive members of the societies they came into. But every person, his character, his willingness to behave within his society's social norms is an unknown element at birth. This unpredictability is problematic enough, and it is unfair to alter the field of life in a nation by adding a person not present by abiding with the law. Native born people are automatically within the law, thus the field is not fundamentally uneven. Some nations might have an economic necessity for the cheap labor illegal immigrants are willing, or not, to provide. Unfortunately, too many of them are exploited and enslaved. But that necessity is strongly contingent on the actual unwillingness of a society's own native people to take on certain types of jobs, and the actual economic necessity of those jobs and related businesses. While arguments that the moral necessity of a business and the job it provides is because of its emotional value to some people and communities might be natural, such is a standard that is potentially counterproductive because it could exist in an almost any economic hypothetical on this matter, and not everything can exist at the same time.

The evil, again, is that some of them do not care what happens to anyone else as long as they follow their own conscience. And they will cite statistics to downplay concerns about their actions. The problem with that is that statistics, while possibly having a myriad of other problems like the methods used to come to them, subjectiveness in their relevance, et al, might not preclude all of the concerns given by those protesting what the assistors of illegal immigration are doing. While knowing this, the law breakers would still defend their actions by continuing on with their argument of improbability. The fact that high improbability means exceptions must exist means little to them. They are doing good, according to them, and any negative consequences are acceptable, for only an evil and selfish person would object; a racist, bigot, etc. That is the thinking of many of them, and they are evil for it.

If I receive angry responses which disrespect the context of this post, in each of their authors you shall see a supporter of the evil.

Tossing in some silly fluff.

2005-11-17T08:41:00.000-05:00

You are a Self-Discoverer

You're not religious, but you've created your own kind of spirituality.
Introspective and thoughtful, you tend to look inward for the divine.
You are distrusting of all forms of organized religion.
You especially dislike religious gurus and leaders, who you feel are charlatans.

What's Your Religious Philosophy?

Your World View

You are a fairly broadminded romantic and reasonably content.
You value kindness and try to live by your ideals.
You have strong need for security, which may be either emotional or material.

You respect truth and are flexible.
You like people, and they can readily make friends with you.
You are not very adventurous, but this does not bother you.

What Is Your World View?

Break

2005-10-29T08:00:00.000-04:00

I'm taking a break from most internet activity, focusing on some much more than others. So nothing new here will be forthcoming anytime soon. I have an archive, so if some honor me with reviews of my older posts, including assaults on my abuse of the English language, that would be good.

Have a good whenever.

Libby indicted and mean ol' right wingers.

2005-10-28T15:23:00.000-04:00

Yes, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been indicted. All I want to say is that I admit to being glad someone was. I have no animous toward any of the persons involved. But at least now there is a story to continue. Had it ended on no indictments, conspiracy theories would have run amok. Now the new story has substance. The first story had substance, and so does the second story. Leftist conspiracy theories and rightist lionizing, had no one been indicted, would not be a story. It would be bored people inventing facts and creating images unproven by a non indictment.

And the mean ol' right pushed out Miers? They might have, but the real mean ol' person here is not the general right winger, or even further right than them. The arrogant prick is Bush, whom it seems thought he could get someone through with dubious credentials, based on his word. The argument here is that if his earlier nominations fit the conservative mold, conservatives should defer to his selection and disregard the issue of a lack of documented qualification. Who knew character references are all that's needed to get on the Supreme Court? Yes, Bush's arrogance, though he might have meant well, put Miers through a proverbial meat grinder. I feel sorry for Harriet E. Miers more so because Bush can't advocate for anyone or thing much better than saying "trust me" and "things are hard, you must overcome," than for what the mean ol' right supposedly put her through. If I drank, I'd cheer Bush's inflated ego.

Sped and Pled and other Dred

2005-10-26T07:37:00.000-04:00

When did they become archiac? Am I the only one sick of hearing and reading speeded in place of sped and pleaded in place of pled? Also, am I wrong or do people use but a lot, sometimes even if there's no conflict in their sentence?

Abortion Debate and War

2005-10-22T04:35:00.000-04:00

I am pro choice on abortion. I do not like the act, but few do, so far as my impression of public sentiment goes. I prefer to trust in womens' choices on the difficult decision. For me, the most I would want from a girlfriend or wife whom I impregnate is to know if the decision is to have an abortion before the. My permission is not what I want sought. I just want to be respected and have a chance to come to acceptance with it, especially if their choice is abortion.

That said, I have seen some people claim there is hypocrisy in the position of being for a given war while also being against abortion. The argument is that many innocents die in war, so why are not those innocents as deserving of protection from war as a fetus is from abortion? The premise there is that all life is sacred and must be protected and preserved as much as possible.

The argument is correct on the surface. Looking from it, there is moral inconsistency. But there is a problem; a failure to make an important distinction.

The difference is what can be served not by, but despite the deaths.

Abortions, hypothetically speaking, could serve in the long term to result in negative and positive consequences for the societies inwhich they are committed. But that is without consideration of myriad possible reasons for either type of consequence, thus from that basis any contention that abortion will have a particular result is incorrect; plausible alternative reasons should not be excluded nor ignored before disproving their plausibility. The same holds true for the deaths or murders of people in and around war zones.

But war, while not not able to promise to resolve all matters current and future, can still serve a purpose, in the short term. That is the proper basis for judgement of any war second to the ethical nature of their justifications. This means that, while not wanted, deaths of innocents resulting from wars might not make the wars inviable.

For some people, no war, no violence, can be justified. But I am not a pacifist. I do not dismiss the possibility that a war can be done for a just reason. And, pragmatically, the continuation of a war could be necessary for reasons beyond the originals for a war.

So the difference is this: In the micro sense, abortions serve a purpose, in the macro, they might, but from a broadly hypothetical basis. But in the micro and macro, war can serve to result in something positive. Indeed, more lives could be saved if the previous existing situation was more deadly, statistically speaking, than the war situation. Even if or when war's micro and macro successes are equally hypothetical to that of abortion's, there might exist an urgency of an encompassing nature for many that compels a war to come into being or continue. Abortion opponents have difficulty, or cannot, seeing when and how abortion could result in something positive for many. But some of them, and not only them, can conceive of war being able to save more lives than it ultimately takes. Can abortion do this to an equal degree?

Nauseating tv ads

2005-10-20T17:55:00.000-04:00

Mel

reminded me,

here

, of a gripe I meant to make not long ago.

To all the advertising firms behind the promotion of drug research companies, plastics makers and generally any product that has a life saving potential, for the love of something, shut up. I assume some of the involved companies do great work, but, every time I see these ads, I feel like someone is trying to sell me Mother Theresa in a bottle. The damn ads look almost the same. And the Philip Morris "don't smoke but by our junk anyway" ads takes it all for not only bordering on moral inconsistency, but for being the most pitiable crap I've seen in sometime. It's probably the lawsuits that forced them to make the stupid ads. When the damn Truth ads against the tobacco industry start to become bearable, the sap-filled, "look at us, we're doing Jebus work" ads start. Yes, I'm a griping jerk, but the ads are just so annoying. "Plastics make it happen." I happen to want to ram a plastic fork into some places.

And another thing. Why are models talking back to me? Really, I've never been one really impressed by most models, but that's a personal aesthetic I won't get into. But I liked it better when they were quiet. I say this not intending to supress expression, but to spare my ears. Some of these models are more masculine in voice than me. Well, nearly everyone is. But Ms. Gorgeous with the Husky Voice could help to drop, or never have it created in the first place, the second half of the nickname by being quiet and showing off her even skin and golden ratio jawline and not disturbing poor me.

Mix of nonsense

2005-10-20T08:34:00.000-04:00

Try as I may, I just don't feel much empathy for those kids at the Catholic school in Long Island, N.Y. being denied sponsorship for their spring prom and having it cancelled by the school. Sure, it's an important time for the kids, and one can question the fairness in judging people on how much they spend on themselves. But, still, I'm not good at partiality on this one. I despise the existence of beer and debauchery in general, which is apparently a mainstay of many of these events, and the thought of some young person getting lost in the euphoria they might feel in such events, which could be a beautiful thing, makes me reactively uncomfortable and a bit angry, because it could also be that person is happy because they are high. Is it my business if they are high? Well, yes because of the potential for harm that can come about because of their state of mind, which could adversely affect me, but I doubt many of them will grasp that consequences of getting plastered. My nature has always been reserved, even anal retentive if one prefers, but unless the principal, Hoagland, is lying, he has my support, because no school that must keep up a moral appearance should be required to support people having beer parties, and worse, where the potential for loss of contol becomes exacerbated.

In Pal Talk's Social Issues section, which I was just in a few minutes ago, people were discussing bikes and I don't know what else. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but there are just somedays when one doesn't feel like listening to off topic comments.

Speaking of Pal Talk, it seems there's some famous person known as The Social Issues Tattler. I've no clue how long this person has been around. I was once asked if I was him/her. No. Really, I guess because of narcissism, I don't care a lot about him/her until I get a mention or until someone else I'm interested in is mentioned, which has a happened on occasion. I've not read all his stuff (I just glance).

I bet I'm not the only one unsure of when to use commas, brackets and parentheses.

We need more art. Yes, but putting the art in accurately would be good. Weeks back I was watching a cartoon and an excerpt from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner was read aloud in it. Beautiful part, to bad the captions messed up a bit of it. I don't know if it ruined the eulogy aspect of the scene, but accuracy would be nice.

I think someone has to ask this if it's not been asked already: Wilma the Hurricane is angry, so what did Fred do?

Law & Order: I'm getting mixed signals from the show's direction. Is Waterston leaving it soon? He seems to be near ready to have a nervous breakdown every week.

I can't get into recent major news stories. I don't know how I can not be enthralled by the events in Pakistan and the surrounding areas in its neighboring countries, and in Iraq, but I'm just not. One thing has bugged me for a bit, where is the Bono, et al, lead fundraising concert? Speaking of Pakistan's tragic events, I heard some guy on BBC radio from the UN calling donor countries stingy and saying we don't get it. He might be right, but regardless of that, I enjoyed his emphatic nature. Winter is coming. Give more, world governments. Good man, that guy. Whatever his name is.

For sometime I thought my local station was tape delaying the BBC radio. Damn DST to hell.

Lastly, I hate gripes about alarmist media. Of course some reports probably go beyond the pale, or not, but anyone running out and stock piling submachine guns, 50 cases of each conceivable supply, and going into their bunker over how I've seen most stories reported, can, I hope, only have the good fortune, for the rest of us, of getting stuck there and forgotten. Good riddance to hyper reactionary morons.

The public will as the moral reason

2005-10-15T13:43:00.000-04:00

As I basically touched on in my last post, I wonder if public will and a traditionalism of deferrence to states' rights and privileges, especially on the matter of inspiration for this query, is enough to supplant federal authority, presuming such authority exists.

But, more broadly, is public will a sufficient moral predicate? And, in cases of health care, is there a standard to which people related thereto are obliged, or is it solely a case of individual moral preference, along with public will, among?

I do not know if I would call for an absolute standard, but I find it hard to find justification of the states' rights premise on matters of medicine, etc., without some moral predicate that gives at least tacit acceptance of controversial medical practices, such as physician-assisted suicide.

Philosophy and morality over the Oregon case

2005-10-13T03:34:00.000-04:00

I have not yet fully read, and I admit legal documents intimidate me, the CSA to confirm or debunk my initial beliefs. But, even so, I am glad that I am willing to take a position contrary to the interest of my own morality. It would be easy for me to say that a state has a limited right to use drugs in the manner prescribed, but what I must remember is that my morality might not have been a large motivator in the passage of the CSA and all parts within it relating to the Oregon case. But, in all honesty, it's not a case of being an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, it's that I don't want to intrude on the business of other people to that extent. Even if the use of the particular drugs is unlawful, it's temporary.

Another thing that makes me question the inherent wisdom of the state's rights argument is this notion that one must defer to them on matters of medical use, defining what is proper. But can "medically legitimate" be defined absent some moral basis, a Hippocratic Oath or some other standard? Is Oregon entitled to define proper use based on the tradition that states usually do, or they don't, but I'm not sure?

Villainy (hyperlink to article)

2005-10-12T15:27:00.000-04:00

A Faulty Law, a Feud, a Fatality

Sunday, October 9, 2005; Page B08

Last month John Frederick Ames, a bankruptcy lawyer from Richmond, was acquitted of the murder of his neighbor, Oliver "Perry" Brooks [Metro, Sept. 17]. It was the latest chapter in a story worthy of William Faulkner that concerns an arcane 1887 law and a state legislature that refused to repeal it.

The dispute that led to Brooks's death began in 1989, when Ames, who had purchased a 675-acre Caroline County farm from a widow facing bankruptcy, sent his neighbors a registered letter informing them that he was going to build a fence around his property. The letter also said that he was going to charge his neighbors for half the cost of the fence, which amounted to thousands of dollars. Ames said the 1887 law allowed him to bill them for the fence even without their consent.

Ames's neighbors, who included retirees on fixed incomes, received bills of $6,000 to $45,000. All of them, including Brooks, who was living on $400 a month from Social Security, refused to pay. Ames had billed Brooks $45,000 for his share of the fence. Ames reportedly offered to forget about the $45,000 if Brooks would deed over some of his land, but Brooks refused. The case went through the courts, and in 1991, Ames finally prevailed in the Virginia Supreme Court.
His neighbors then scraped together the money for the fence -- all but Brooks, that is, who continued to refuse to pay. Ames subsequently sued his neighbor for $450,000 for fence damage caused by a bull that Brooks owned. The bull repeatedly broke the fence and strayed onto Ames's cattle farm. Ames called these bull incursions an "intentional disregard" of his rights. Brooks responded with obstinacy and anger.

The bad blood finally boiled over in April 2004, when Brooks's bull once again strayed onto Ames's land. Despite court orders barring him from entering Ames's property, Brooks went to retrieve his livestock. An armed Ames told him to leave the animal. When Brooks brandished a stick he used to herd the bull, Ames shot in the face and then four more times.
Ames said the shooting was in self-defense. But his acquittal by a jury last month on a murder charge on the basis of self-defense isn't the end of the story. Ames still may get the land that he was seeking from Brooks. He previously sued the Brooks family for $11.3 million in an action that originally cited everything from infliction of emotional distress to terrorism. He recently withdrew that action, but he still has a lien on the Brooks property and an outstanding fence payment that could exceed $150,000 with interest. The Brooks family is suing Ames for wrongful death.

Ames may fit the stereotype of a lawyer who will use any law to his advantage, regardless of the cost to others, but the Virginia General Assembly deserves equal blame for the mess that culminated in the death of a man. It repeatedly failed to repeal the archaic law that allowed the feud to get going in the first place.

When the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ames in 1991, it noted that Virginia was out of step with the common-law rule that a landowner's boundary line is a lawful fence and that a cattle owner is liable for trespass by his animals. Virginia, however, does not impose such liability on livestock owners and allows them to force neighbors to pay toward "fencing out" livestock. Despite the feud and requests for the law to be changed, the legislature did not act. Only after Brooks was dead and Ames was facing a murder charge did it change the law -- and then only to exempt landowners without livestock, which would not have protected Brooks.
The common law and most states impose costs on livestock owners for any damage that their animals cause to a neighbor. This sensible "fence-in" approach recognizes that a livestock owner should not be able to impose the cost of his or her enterprise on neighbors.

A fundamental purpose of the law is to reduce conflicts among neighbors by maintaining clear, consistent and fair rules. The Virginia legislature clearly failed in that duty. It may be true that good fences make good neighbors, but the Brooks killing shows that bad laws, like bad fences, make for bad neighbors.

-- Jonathan Turley
is a law professor at George Washington University.
jturley@law.gwu.edu

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations to this morally bankrupt fellow Virginian for being a jackass.

My big question is this: If he could not afford the cost of the fence project, or is to cheap to pay it himself, why the hell did he buy the farm in the first place? And my second question is what other options did Ames have?

"Ames's neighbors, who included retirees on fixed incomes, received bills of $6,000 to $45,000. All of them, including Brooks, who was living on $400 a month from Social Security, refused to pay. Ames had billed Brooks $45,000 for his share of the fence. Ames reportedly offered to forget about the $45,000 if Brooks would deed over some of his land, but Brooks refused."

There's straw in that bush

2005-10-06T22:24:00.000-04:00

I did not catch all of the speech but I shall read the transcript off the Whitehouse's page in full later, but the part I heard, which I quote here, reached out at me.

"Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. "

He is making a strawman. He gets half the argument right when he says some have argued our presence and actions in Iraq have strengthened extremism. But then he goes on and claims that the argument also states that what we are doing is the reason for the extremism. The correct way to refer to the argument is to say that some believe our actions have strengthened extremism and exacerbated it, creating more extremists. Such a distortion as Bush has made makes me wonder how much attention he gives to the nuances in arguments against his policies. I would hope that his advisors could do a better job, or that Bush could try to pay more attention.

My knowledge of the Russian and Chechnyan conflict is small, but I do suspect that Bush is making a false analogy. If judged by the supposed reasons for Osama, al Qaida, et al, hatred of the US, I doubt the Chechnyan attacks on the school in Beslan was motivated by unwanted US presence, along with other things which are either factual, false or conspiratorial, whose blame is put on the US. If the Beslan school terrorists were Muslim, or proclaimed as such, that seems to me to be the strongest link, that I am aware of. Even if they are connected with al Qaida, I doubt that US troops in or near Mecca motivated them. And there all ready exists another reason, Chechnyan "liberation," or whateverterm is appropriate. Bush's comment can be interpreted as saying that the attack on the school was done more for the purposes of al Qaida than for Chechyan "liberation." While there could be statements supporting that theory, I doubt it was the strongest motivating factor. How much does Iraq and terrorism there really have to do with the Chechnyan and Russian conflict?

DwD2

2005-10-06T16:49:00.000-04:00

From my slight skimming (as it's far too complex for me to read through all of it, ok, I'm lazy) of the CSA, in reference to the Oregon assisted suicide case, although my empathy is with Oregon, I think the Feds will win. I doubt the allowance of a merciful death, though it is emotionally compelling, will be seen as a compelling public interest, especially in terms of public safety. I also don't think an argument of a traditional role of states determining medically legitimate uses, which I think is a major argument being made in defense of Oregon, is going to work when in reference to federally regulated opiates that fall under Schedule II definition, which does not seem to directly, if even tacitly, to sanction, let alone support, medically assisted suicide. Even if one argues that an absence of specific comment on this issue in the CSA should give the states default authority, it must still be argued how that would be good for the public safety. Public safety, being a broad term, could, I believe, more easily be used to argue against what is essentially the hastening of death for a person. I believe many philosophies and religions would define the quickening of a person's death as antithetical to the concept of public safety, though I realize not all would, or so I presume.

Death with Dignity?

2005-10-05T19:15:00.000-04:00

Well, I might look into the Oregon assisted suicide case later, but I can say right off hand that it's not easy to feel immediate empathy for the federal government's case against the law in Oregon, which, as I understand it, allows a doctor to prescribe drugs which can be taken in lethal doses to hasten death in a less or unpainful manner for those whom are terminally ill with 6 month or less to live. But the case is not my immediate interest right now, though I am curious about it.

What I am interested in at the moment is the phrase "death with dignity." I can imagine how some people would feel this way, especially if the disease that strikes them will effect them in terrible ways. But, and this speaks only for myself, were I that ill I am not sure, even with the most terrible last few weeks, days and hours I could imagine, if I would feel I died without dignity. And who knows, in some cases, if I could tell if I was without dignity? I also doubt I would feel dignified in dying by medication overdose. Still, I am not here to judge people, and my empathy is with Oregon, but I do find it interesting how people perceive dignity.

To me, though I might die horribly, so long as before that period I felt I was a dignified person, if I do have a spirit, I think it will forgive itself.

Two things I find disturbing.

2005-10-03T17:38:00.000-04:00

First is the notion that the corruption of a source, or even the alleged corruption thereof, proves the information it provides is false. Which, if applied universally, would make the concept of informants moot.

The second is idea that anyone is guilty because they are disliked.

I have seen examples of each recently, and in places where I would hope more consideration would be given before expresssing what might be a knee jerk response, as if the comments were between two buddies watching sports together instead of at places where though out opinion and argument is the intended purpose.

The second one disturbs me especially at this moment because what I have to ask is, "would you really want you anymore to go down for something he might be innocent of, and do you want to gloat before his guilt is even established?" I wonder how that could not bother a person.

People have strange ethics.

Homicide/Suicide Bombers and Rational Thinking.

2005-09-30T23:59:00.000-04:00

An AP article I read in one of the local papers earlier yesterday went into the subject of why some people commit the act of blowing themselves up to kill others. The article sought to dispell, or at least lessen the presumption that they are the main reasons for said act, the idea that poverty, poor education and indoctrination into a radicalized religion are the main motivating reasons people commit the act. It showed nationalism and wanting liberation as some major reasons. It also showed that the backgrounds of at least some, if not most, of the people that have committed the act were not those of poor and ill educated people, but of productive members in their societies who were from middle class homes.

But what struck me about the article is that, if the education of these people has been under estimated, the rational thinking ability of them might not have been. For it seems that even with education, the human mind is still capable of justifying committing acts, for whatever reasons, that seem to be so wasteful and tragic, and that many outside observers see as unecessary and counter productive.

One could ask, as I am now, are these people any smarter with their education? And what are they being taught?

The blogs in order: Oldest to youngest

2005-09-26T10:36:00.000-04:00

The Presurfer
RatBlog
Rob Instigator
Ergonomic Blogic
Eff's Rambles
Iraq Blog Count
Monstercow Unplugged
Mel's Diner
SeaWitch
Ellas Devil
Duskie's Place
Maquinna's Poop du Jour
Phylax
Misti
THIS IS NOT MY COUNTRY
Morgue's Mess

US Debate: Flag wavers or dissenters: Which are more "patriotic?"

2005-09-26T10:05:00.000-04:00

The answer? The flag wavers.

Here is why.

First, there is a distinction to be noted: While it is true that some dissenters wave the flag, the term generally applies to conservative people who are generally content with the state of affairs.

With that in mind, we can see that the waving of the flag by such persons is meant symbolically as an expression of support for the status quo.

Does this mean that dissenters wave the flag with animosity toward the US? No, but that is not the relevant element in assessing the comparitive patriotism of the two groups.

The reason the dissenters lose in general on this one has to do with the far stronger presumptive nature of their motives and desires. One must presuppose that the dissent is intended to bring about beneficial change, and that said change is in keeping with American philosophy. Granted, that philosophy, what it is and should be, is subjective, but that does not negate the primary point being made here. The greater civic involvement of the act of dissent over that of flag waving does not refute this. Because the flag waver seeks to maintain while the dissenter seeks to alter, the far more uncertain nature of an individual dissenter's goals and motivations, which might be for the betterment of the nation, even to return it to what it "should" be, makes the logical default on the question of which is more patriotic the flag waver, for his is the more solid of the two.

Are dissenters unpatriotic? No.

Feeling "Most Daunted"

2005-09-24T05:10:00.000-04:00

I don't know about anyone else, but I've always liked most ghost stories and shows (I've heard of perhaps dozens if not at least a hundred), so I began to occasionally watch a show out of the UK called "Most Haunted." Sounds interesting. Well, no. The problem is that the "psychic" is often wrong or unverified, and much of the time it's fourtyfive or so minutes of the crew investigating each house, hearing something I, most of the time, can't hear (maybe I'm going deaf), and yelling "what's that?" and "fuck!(censored)" I congratulate it on being the most profane paranormal show I've ever seen. I might keep watching it on an occasional basis but the anti climactic nature of the show is very disappointing. When does something exciting happen on that show?

Troops: Suporting them

2005-09-23T12:14:00.000-04:00

A while back I commented that it is basically a fallacy, an over extention if you will allow, to say that dissent is patriotic, as is suggested as being its inherent nature. Dissent simply is disagreement, and can be spurned on by very unpatriotic motives. What is it to be a patriot? That is a personal matter, and I have my views on what leans more toward that way, but the definition of patriotism is not the main focus of this commentary.

Moreso, I am going to focus on what it means to support troops. This is not a long argument, but I believe the logic I apply here to be sufficient, and I hope, if the reader agrees with that characterization, that he will consider, before any offenses he might have over my opinion helps him to form a negative opinion of me, my argument.

But first, I am not attempting to resolve the question of whether or not it is patriotic to support troops leaving a war and, by some standards, losing it. To me, sincere belief in the futility and, most especially, the unconstitutionality of a war is enough to preserve the patriotism of a call to end a war and stay the course. Intent is obviously very important to me, though knowing what that is might not always be easy; I suspect that it rarely is.

And here is what I am attempting to resolve: Are you supporting troops by calling for their removal from where they are performing their duties?

Conclusion: No.

While it is true that calling for the removal of soldiers from an "unconstitutional" war is not unpatriotic, generally speaking it is patriotic, though some could make a necessity argument for a war in some current, I suppose, or hypothetical cases, that is largely a separate matter, in my view irrelevant, and no effort to disparage someone's patriotism is intended.

A soldier, while human and carrying many of the emotional issues civilians have and face, is primarily not primarily defined by his similarity to everyone else, but by his profession and association. A soldier works for his government, or through it for his people. (Unless, in some cases, he is a mercenary, but that type of soldier is not intended to be commented on here.) A soldier does not exist as a single person where only his preservation and humanity are relevant. A soldier is part of a larger unit, each of which are banded together to implement actions which they soldier hope will improve the lives of their nation's people, and sometimes the peoples of other nations. War is reprehensible, beyond our understanding or beyond our acceptance, even if we understand it. A given action in a war can make us want to call back every last grunt in the field; and little to no progress can make us see the futility of our troops efforts that we often call noble. But, disdain or support an action, it still does not address one key issue: the soldiers that believe in what they do, or simply have faith in the wisdom of their leaders, are soldiers partly because of where they are; the very functions they are performing. Leaving a war does not mean a soldier is no longer a soldier, but it does mean he is acting opposite to within his tranied capabilities. When one supports the removal of troops from combat, it is not automatically unpatriotic, but it is also not support for the human as the soldier that he is, for his safety and honor, but for the human separate from what he is, a soldier. By calling for their removal, you are supporting the human being in each of them alone, with the caveat being a strategic basis for your call of removal. But you are not supporting them as soldiers.

Where is credit due?

2005-09-20T15:28:00.000-04:00

Here is a hypothetical to consider. I am interested in knowing how much acknowledgement and accolade this person deserves.

Suppose that someone predicts an outcome, and it comes to be. But suppose that his predictions were, at the time they were made, speculations stemming from limited knowledge and sources of dubious quality. Also suppose that his logic was highly flawed, and that he was presumptive and ignorant of, or choosing to ignore, the nuances which could be used to counter at least one, or more, of his contentions.

Does it matter if his arguments were weak in their bases? Should he be forgiven for at least some errors if his understanding was sincerely developed and without intent to be unfair? In fairness, I doubt most people have the time, let alone the commitment, to look into all aspects of any issue, and I believe people are influenced by majority commentary, so I am not sure how much some errors in factual understanding should undermine that person's right to credit when he is correct about an outcome which he hypothesized. But if the argument was inadequately formed, should its poor quality be ignored only because it happened to turn out to be right?

And, since some might require it, here is a reality based example of what I mean, with conclusions which might not be accurate, but, for the sake of the example, let us please assume that they are.

Some argued that because of religious animosities [supposed to whatever degree] between Shi'i and Sunnie muslims, and Saddam's poor treatment of the Shi'i muslims, and the Iran-Iraq war, along with many other unknown reasons that I am sure exist, Saddam Hussein would not ally with such groups as al-Qaeda and those with al-Qaeda connections, if only in proclaimed association. While the known evidence appears to support that conclusion, and I would agree that it is the most probable one, I find it difficult to agree with the characterization of it as an absolute, even if absent evidence to the contrary. The basis for that contention seems to be historical discord, but I do not think that would preclude consideration of the concept of acting in self interest. Whether or not Saddam would be acting in his self interest or against it to work with al-Qaeda is another matter that I do not intend to be dismissive of, but I do wonder if it can be rejected because of moral and philosophical disagreements. I think that the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," is not sufficiently defeated by hatred alone. I would doubt that Saddam would be the first to ally with someone that was a former enemy. To me, being correct about a non al-Qaeda connection to Saddam, with hatred as the sole predicate and premise, is not quite as impressive as the person that made it might think.

Kids and Reality

2005-09-15T22:10:00.000-04:00

I suppose it is easier for parents and full time caregivers, if anything is really easy, but for those of us that only watch children occasionally, it is much harder. What I speak of is communication with the imaginative but irrational minds of the young. The concern, as I have heard and read many state it, is that we supress that irrationality to the detriment of children. I think there is some truth to that. I used to have stronger and more frequent dreams. I used to be afraid of shadows and superstitions which I see more and more as silly. Have I matured? Not enough. And I do not proclaim myself to be the most rational and logical man alive. My ineptness at figuring out simply logic puzzles proves to me that I am no Spock. Still, I have some longing for those days when a shadow was as much sorceror's portal as it is the result of scientific principl . I am glad that I have some decent reasoning skills, but I feel incomplete. As I age, I think that I shall continue to want to go back to old dreams, maybe even the nightmares, to see

her

again.

But, as much as I miss it, I find it difficult to interact with children that are still in that mode where they still believe in emerald palaces and magic swords. With limited time, my natural impatience, and my tendency to forget and not appreciate the value I see now, the seeming nonsense from a child loses some of its adorable charm and becomes an unwanted exercise in trying to make sense of what they are saying.

I am often interested in the truth. Children are not logically consistent, though they might believe what they say is true. Their minds are susceptable. Ask a child how its day was and this what you might find: that it had dreams, dreams which sometimes seem to relate to the last thing they looked at, even if it was the first time they had ever seen it. And that pattern of claims about dreams and events in this world that occur prior to the influential experience, or before, but with the dubiousness of their validity still present, stays. For them, laws of time and probability, indeed, the very idea of being realistic, means far less than they do to us. And the problem in all of this is that when you have such limited time and want to be sure you understand the child, trying to decipher their stories is not so much the joy it should be. It turns more into a task. It is not so easy to cultivate the creative mind and keep it growing as some think. It is not easy to help with that, high minded ideals not withstanding.

But, of course, those are my views.

Too often our forgiveness and tolerance knows almost no limits

2005-09-06T17:09:00.000-04:00

And, damn Hell, they should.

I wish I had a kinder or more benign topic for what is at this moment my 125th post, but right now I only have seething anger.

I watched half of Montel Williams, and after it I was too wrapped up in the tragedy of the first story, and upset enough, to finish watching the rest of the episode. There were other stories on it, and I might try to check out one of the repeat airings when they come.

But, for now, let us get on to the first travesty.

Ortralla Mosley's mother Carolyn, recounted the brutal manner of her daughter's murder, and how the school, knowing of the threats (Montel mentioned that there were at least 3, possibly 4, incidents of McTears, the Ortalla's murderer, brandishing knives and saying he was going to kill her), did almost nothing. Those bastard kids simply talked about it. Who the fucking Hell raises kids that just talk about a person armed and making threats?! What kind of advice is it to give an endangered student that she should tell school officials is the person threatening her gets to close? Could it be that the school did more that I know of? Yes, that's possible, but whatever they did do was damn sure not enough. I am sick of us excusing kids amoral indifference and the blatant incompetence of officials. The previous girlfriend of the murderer spoke of how he admitted to dreams that would be a siren to anyone that is not a complete idiot. Every lazy, cowardly little shit in that school who did nothing and could have, should be made to pay, and very dearly so. And anyone that wants to lecture me on being reasonable toward those kids and the school staff, et al, should remember one thing, by saying that it could happen to anyone, you confirm society is, at times, shit.

Keep these in mind as I mention one last thing, I missed the first 7-9 minutes, at least, of the episode, and I believe I am missing 1 or 2 stabbings in this heinous list.

Stabbed through in the back, through the heart.

Stabbed through the lungs from the front.
Stabbed in both temples, not through, one in each.
Stabbed through the skull or forhead.
Severe throat slitting.

She was on her knees at one point.

She forgave him.

Fuck Reagan High

Impressed too easily

2005-09-06T09:37:00.000-04:00

Some people seem to be enamoured by the shoot from the hip, straight talker. I agree that this trait in a person can be effective, but so can nuance. It disturbs me the way someone can go around yelling invectives and complaints about something and be put on a pedestal. This person is sometimes asked to run for high office. Why? Because they called some politician an idiot? Because they took a commanding tone? Being in office certainly should have more competency requirement that the ability to complain in a way that appeals to emotions. Speaking truth to power is not enough to be a mayor, let alone a president.

The whole idea is absurd.

That guy is an incompetent bastard! Do this and that!

Please send campaign contributions, for I know you are impressed to Hamlin, c/o The Pied Piper.

Instinct or paranoia?

2005-09-04T01:56:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I wonder, ok, often I wonder, if instincts, that hunch one has about his surroundings, including the people around him, is more often accurate than the objective person, or those trying to be, wants to be true. Is the basis for instinct in the form of what would appear on the surface to be a paranoid react or conclusion weak? I don't know, but my own hunches plague me even with rationalizations. I think I can read people better than they give me credit for. And I think that statement smelled strongly of paranoia.

PSTD of women

2005-09-04T00:35:00.000-04:00

I have to admit this does not surprise me, but perhaps I am sexist in some ways. I suspect it's true regardless of this, "Women tend to seek help. That could be one reason the rates of PTSD appear higher for women—they show up at the VA and, therefore, in the statistics." I would presume women to be more effected by war than men. I think they are just more empathic than men are. I rather wish I was so empathic.

Why does it sometimes take years for PTSD to show up?

I suppose our natural rationalizations breakdown over time. But I don't know.

I've been thinking about nurses, somewhat about nursing, on occasion, but with more frequency lately, for a bit of time. I can't say it's something I've felt a strong interest in. But nurses or other medical professionals seem to surround me, in family, friends and casual acquintances.

Ok, GoStats time

2005-09-01T23:20:00.000-04:00

Well. let's see what's new.

In hits for the past month it's 288, but substantially less since I often look into my own blog and sometimes have to reblock my ip and pc from counting.

Hosts: 146
Visitors: 147
163 sessions

Rank is 229 in Gov. & Society.
In overall ranking I'm at 6074

So that puts me below and ahead of

SGA Connections Internships

and

NOAA Research International Activities

In the overall I'm at these places, below then above:

Evervigilant Official

;

My Photo Blog

The search words that have brought up this blog are:
and
moral
war
e-harmony
monstercow
manogomy
musical
mastery
damascus
iraq
in
have
nice
noddings"
www.monstercow.com
web
virginia
video
usa
to

And the phrases are:

moral reasoning to end iraq war
2003/08/23
"i have nice feet"
monstercow video
"shasta groene" "scarred

My what is a liar post ranks well, as does the war and moral consistency response thread. That one seems to be checked on occasionally.

Well, that's it for the month of August.

Ethics of Prosecutors and Defense attorneys

2005-08-25T12:31:00.000-04:00

Perhaps this is a naive question, and maybe I should just try to find out for myself, but then I would not have another thing at present to put in this blog, at least not in the way I currently intend to express it, but I wonder if there is ever a contradiction, a kind of ethical inconsistency, in moving from one side of the law to another. I specifically refer to the transition, and becoming, of prosecutors into defense attornies. But I suppose the same concern could exist in the converse.

My understanding is that prosecutors, using the evidence available to them, deduce the guilt of suspects and try to construct and support arguments intended to convince juries of those suspects', now defendents, guilt. I also understand that defense attornies try to find flaws, of varying significance, in prosecutors' cases against their clients, and that defense attornies might have obligations to perform zealously on behalf of their clients, which could entail lower standards for reasonable doubt.

What I wonder about, and what troubles me, is that it seems, to me, that the acid test prosecutors might pose to their own assessments of suspects' cases are likely to be lowered in standards, so as to make those cases more easily classified as insufficient to demonstrate the guilt of the suspects, if prosecutors act in the capacity of defense attornies.

So I wonder if these prosecutors who become defense attorneys are conflicting with their own standards or could be becoming more fair when they move to the other side.

Blog Things

2005-08-24T10:29:00.000-04:00

My French name is Xavier Chrestien
----------------------------------

My outrageous name is Neal Downe
--------------------------------

I'm 50% weird. My Hawaiian name is Meka Keahi.
My quick and dirty Iq is "Your IQ Is 110; Your Logical Intelligence is Average; Your Verbal Intelligence is Exceptional; Your Mathematical Intelligence is Above Average; Your General Knowledge is Genius."
----------------------------------

The True You
You want your girlfriend or boyfriend to be more relaxed, calm, and composed.
With respect to money, you spend as little as possible.
You think good luck is something you won't attain - you expect bad luck.
The hidden side of your personality tends to be a little selfish. You only do what interests you.
You are tend to think about others' feelings a lot, perhaps because you are so eager to be liked.
When it comes to finding a romantic partner, you base your search on information from your friends.
------------------

Your Taste in Music:
80's Pop: High Influence
80's Alternative: Medium Influence
90's Pop: Medium Influence
Classic Rock: Medium Influence
80's R&B: Low Influence
80's Rock: Low Influence
90's Hip Hop: Low Influence
Adult Alternative: Low Influence
Alternative Rock: Low Influence
Progressive Rock: Low Influence
R&B: Low Influence
------------------

Your True Birth Month Is October
Selfish
Decisive
Romantic
Emotional
Concerned
Daydreamer
Sympathetic
Just and fair
Loves to chat
Bad tempered
Loves outdoors
Very opinionated
Strong clairvoyance
Attractive and suave
Easily lose confidence
Always making friends
Does not lie or pretend
Touchy and easily jealous
Inner and physical beauty
Treats friends importantly
Seldom helps unless asked
Easily hurt but recovers easily
Soft-spoken, loving and caring
Loves those who love in return
Spendthrift and easily influenced
Does not care of what others think
Loves to travel, the arts and literature
----------------------------------------

I am 55% normal
---------------

The art piece that best describes me is "From the Lake, No. 1"
by Georgia O'Keeffe
-------------------

I am 10% extroverted, 90% introverted
-------------------------------------

Left and right brain: You Are 65% Left Brained, 35% Right Brained
-----------------------------------------------------------------

My religious philosophy is atheist.
-----------------------------------

My blog personalityis pensive and philosophical
-----------------------------------------------

My Expression Number is 2
A mediator and peacemaker, you get along well with others.
You light up in group situations, but struggle when you're alone.
Modest and understated, you accomplish more than you give yourself credit for.

Cooperative, courteous, and considerate are words people use to describe you.
You know how to handle anyone, no matter how much of a pain they might be.
Tactful and friendly, nearly everyone who knows you admires you.

Sometimes you are overly sensitive and easily hurt.
When you get too sensitive, you can become shy and uncertain.
At your worst, you can be apathetic and withdrawn.
--------------------------------------------------

I was actually born under:
The year of the monkey

Full of spunk, you are the original party animal.
You bring fun, activity, and stimulation to any event.
Self-control is not one of your strong points; you have been known to over indulge.
Cheerful and energetic, you can turn the most boring thing into something fun.

You are most compatible with a Rat or Dragon.

I should have been born under:
The year of the horse

You've got a ton of energy - and need plenty of room to roam.
You tend to follow your whims, and it's hard for you to stick to one thing.
Specific jobs, loves, and friends are always changing and never a part of your life for long.
Very intuitive, you tend to know what people are thinking before they say a word.

You are most compatible with a Dog or Tiger
-------------------------------------------

My Political Profile
Overall: 45% Conservative, 55% Liberal
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
------------------------------------------------

My personality types.

#1 Match: ISFJ
The Nurturer

You have a strong need to belong, and you very loyal.
A good listener, you excell at helping others in practical ways.
In your spare time, you enjoy engaging your senses through art, cooking, and music.
You find it easy to be devoted to one person, who you do special things for.

You would make a good interior designer, chef, or child psychologist.

#2 Match: ISFP
The Artist

You are a gifted artist or musician (though your talents may be dormant right now).
You enjoy spending your free time in nature, and you are good with animals and children.
Simply put, you enjoy bueaty in all its forms and live for the simple pleasures in life.
Gentle, sensitive, and compassionate - you are good at recognizing people's unspoken needs.

You would make a good veterinarian, pediatrician, or composer.

#3 Match: ISTJ
The Duty Fulfiller

You are responsible, reliable, and hardworking - you get the job done.
You prefer productive hobbies, like woodworking or knittings.
Quiet and serious, you are well prepared for whatever life hands you.
Conservative and down-to-earth, you hardly ever do anything crazy.

You would make a great business executive, accountant, or lawyer.

#4 Match: ISTP
The Mechanic

You are calm and collected, even in the most difficult of situations.
A person of action and self-direction, you love being independent.
To outsiders yous eem impulsive, surprising, and unpredictable.
You are good at understanding how all things work, except for people.

You would make an excellent pilot, forensic pathologist, or athlete.

#5 Match: ESFJ
The Caregiver

You are sympathetic and caring, putting friends and family first.
A creature of habit, you prefer routines and have trouble with change.
You love being in groups - whether you're helping people or working on a project.
You are good at listening, laughing, and bringing out the best in people.

You would make a great nurse, social worker, or teacher
-------------------------------------------------------

Yet another incessant firearms debate

2005-08-21T09:50:00.000-04:00

Yes, I saw another one, and I posted the following there first.

I call these the 7 sinful points.

1. As far as guns having the only purpose of killing. In some cases, good.

2. I am interested in a full refutation of why a gun can never be effective for individual defense, not situational statistics that have yet to disprove a simple, and basic fact: Guns are within their physical capacity to effect the desired out come of self preservation and the defeat, and yes that might mean death, of an assailant.

3. Yes or no, is distance and power considered a standard for most good strategem?

4. Situations which are variable cannot disprove the validity of my effectiveness claim. If one sites that a merchant with a gun is likely to be killed by the armed robber, he first admits it is not a guarantee, and he second confirms that the situation does not totally preclude the merchant from having the possibility of using his gun to save his life. The merchant's right to a firearm cannot be measured by the improbability of its effectiveness, since that improbability is not an absolute, making preventing his ownership of a gun on that basis unfair.

5. Self defense against intended harm does preclude consequences from the use of the means in question, guns, of that defense. Persons whom are confronted with a threat to themselves are not morally bound to give up a means of defense solely on the basis that society might be harmed by his gun or the guns of other persons, for which he has no responsibility for.

6. It is relevant and true that the police cannot be everywhere. And There might not be certainty of even the obligation of police to aid people, let alone to try to prevent harm to them. And that obligation, to be carried to its arguable necessity, would entail granting powers that would have the same effect of a police state, that of constant and large presence, which might be good or bad, depending on a populace's relations with their police and other police, and allowing constant searches for a very hard to predict event, I presume, unless someone knows when all violent crimes occur.

7. Superiority and balance of force does not make one immoral.

Iterating again old contentions I have made, though maybe the phrasing has some slight differences.

I am right. Period.

Believing in something: Rallying for and against.

2005-08-19T11:54:00.000-04:00

If you believe in something, could you march with others under one banner advocating additional causes, or methods, you do not fully believe in or understand? Or, could you believe in anything strongly enough to take on unintended associations?

I do not think that I could.

Sometimes

2005-08-16T17:47:00.000-04:00

I wonder if most people that criticise the msm (mainstream media) for its news coverage, going into sweeping generalizations about its various forms of bias, about the supposed superiority of other sources, where some even proclaim them as excellent alternatives and not just supplementals and verifiers or debunkers, base their opinion on solid study and long experience in reviewing the msm. I don't know. Maybe most do. I've no intent to study the matter. But I still get the impression that some people are convinced of what others say, or of their own beliefs, by second hand sources and what might be simple errors by the given member of the msm, which they come to hate. I might be wrong. I might be blind to the truth. But I still have my doubts. I still wonder, as I basically alluded, how much people consider the justification for their disdain.

Oh I thought I might as well.

2005-08-09T09:56:00.000-04:00

I do not know if anyone has noticed this, but I rarely blurb, or whatever it is called. No, I do not present long and well reasoned contentions with a lot of sources either. Whatever you think of me my opinions and arguments are almost completely my own. I admit that I am a bit proud of that, though it makes it harder for me to claim I was deceived. I really do think for myself. Or try to. And now for the "short" "blurb" thought for at least today.

People hand out compliments too much.

I appreciate the ones I have received, and I think other's should be thankful for the ones they get. But compliments can give people a false impression of greater interest in them than the complimenters actually have. And I sometimes wonder why some messages get complimented. I see comments, my own included, that get a bit of praise and I think to myself that nothing said in those comments deserves that kind of feedback. I do not throw around compliments much for those reasons. I am hard to please and do not want to give people any wrong impressions as to how much I can and will participate.

Perhaps I am just very peculiar.

2005-08-07T03:09:00.000-04:00

Well, I am.

I do not understand people; how they reason. I often do not even get their ethics as well as I would like to, and I have been complimented for my balance. I think my reasoning might be offensive to some, because I will often fence sit because of it on evidence people around me think is the most blatant proof that an issue is confirmed to be factually one way, whichever way that is.

Here is an example, based on real occurences, that make me wonder about how people come to conclusions. But before I give them I state here that I realize that any example I give could itself be a hasty generalization. But my point is not to prove some people less intelligent than me, nor is it to claim I have a superior understanding of logic and how to construct arguments. What I mostly want is for someone smarter than me to explain how it is that people I think should know better either do not, or how it is I am being the idiot.

The following names are fictitious.

Alpha is in a chat room talking with multiple people.

Later some one named Beta comes into the room and begins to cite supposed and, or, proven evil acts by a nation, via its military.

Beta: "A soldier from Ocran's Marines raped a 12 year old girl in Goshnu!"

Beta: "The Ocran army covered up the rape!"

Beta: "The Ocran military if full of barbaric arseholes [yes, I said arseholes, so keep that in mind as you read this and, damn it, appreciate it!], they murdered an unarmed man in the war of Seele Coast!"

Beta: "In 2032, 2040 and 2044, 15 rapes and murders were committed by Ocran troops, and 12 went unpunished! Where is the justice!"

Alpha is following all of this, wondering what these incidences are supposed to prove. He thinks that the examples are too statistically small and infrequent to justify a negative generalization about Ocran and its army.

Beta continues to list examples in war and outside of war.

But, after a bit, Beta announces a whopper of an accusation.

Beta: "In 2016 the Ocran navy bombed an innocent village, went in and massacred the survivors! Over 2000 deaths on their hands!"

Alpha sees that and is thinking to himself, "could that be true?" Thinking further, "that is terrible, if it is true." Alpha does not know enough to dispute what Beta claims.

Here is where my reasoning seems to differ from Beta. I, as Alpha, come up and ask what to me is a salient point.

Alpha: "Beta, I do not know if your last claim is true, but if it is, why did you not mention that first?"

I have never been answered, that I can remember, when I ask the Betas I have encountered why they chose to build up with insufficient sample to prove their accusation. I guess it is to bring credibility to a greater charge of wrong doing. Perhaps they intend people to believe that if they can accept that small and infrequent incidences of heinous crimes are likely true, or which they know to be true, they must accept the possibility of a greater evil act having occured, one that must be the result of policy or negligent discipline. But I do not make inferences from small examples of dubious significance. To me, though it might be less believable without earlier examples of supposed greater plausibility, the largest example should come first. It might be that I cannot disprove a large example, so I am left in a difficult position, one that might be untenable, of trying to be objective yet morally consistent. I can express doubt, of course, or try to find context to explain why the large example event might have happened. It is difficult to fight such a large example. The validity of the smaller examples is less relevant than the large one because the implication was not strongly supported by them. But the large example is powerful because it could be strong evidence of the characterization of Ocran as evil. I wonder if I am the only one that sees it that way.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane

2005-08-05T08:11:00.000-04:00

Shall we?

Sapped

2005-08-04T16:14:00.000-04:00

It's not that I'm particularly prolific, but I do feel as if the ideas have been sapped from me. I don't think it's a case of saying everything I can say, but of saying everything again, even if in a slightly altered form. I suppose there are only so many ways a person who couldn't score better than slightly above average on some logic tests, or parts therein, can arrogantly tell people they are being fallacious in their reasoning.

I think, though, that what motivates me more isn't pure logic, rationality, or at least the most reasonable use of emotions in any kind of determination, but fairness. I hate presumptions. I despise precluding anything because of clear prejudice on my part. Have I done any of those? I assume I have and will again, but I'm one of those odd people that self loathes and thinks too much of himself at the same time. First bit of arrogance in that is my willingness to call that normal human trait of condlicting views of the self "odd", implying a possible uiqueness in my being. Well, to me I'm a bit different than most people I know, as I tend to argue from premises, and with contentions, that aren't the most cited. I don't do as well on logic tests as I want to, and I prefer to think it's because the tests weren't clear, but I doubt I'm that lucky. I think this is why many commentators watch politics, they are hoping some one who's more of an idiot, in some way or more, than them will say something they can write about.

A small little comment here, and not about idiots but about sociopaths. I kind of like them. Not for what they do, and I hate it when a person is devoid of conscience, but for what can be done to them. I can't say I'd feel as bad for violence inflicted upon the remorseless than for the guilt ridden wrecks. A person could careless? Ok, smash his head into the table. Well, it's easier to be violent removed from a hypothetical situation, unless one is violent in nature. I'm not, but I do get angry easily. I'll holler and curse quite readily in my own environment.

Oh, how awful for everyone reading this, I thought of one more thing to say.

I might've touched on this before, in one of the posts on bullies, but I've noticed some adults have a hyprocritical conception of maturity and of when someone's being immature. Here's an example: One person is being rude, and someone points it out asks the person to stop. On its surface, there's nothing wrong with that. But if the rudeness of the first person is exaggerated or the criticism in response to either case is given in a rude manner, the critic should be willing to admit it, right? No, for to defend your conduct against harsh criticism isn't a right. You, according to these judging bullies, must not only accept how they criticised you, but agree with them in everything. To them, they are entitled to attack you in an undeserved way, and you are an immature baby for challenging your treatment. Beware abuses of what maturity is. Bullies shouldn't be allowed to define it. Accept what I say. If you refuse, I suggest you grow up.

New Feature

2005-08-01T16:52:00.000-04:00

As the handful of readers of this blog may know, I have a go stats counter at the bottom of the page.

Satrting today and at the beginning of each month, or not long thereafter, I shall give select data from my GoStats account for this blog. I have much of it protected now, though I might open up some information later.

Under the attendance summary I have had 114 hosts with 120 visitors and 178 sessions in 30 days.
My page rank is 165 under the category of Government & society.
I am ahead of and below these pages respectively, http://iamjacksrestlessthoughts.blogspot.com/ http://www.valparaisofire.org/
The search word hits that most often brought up this blog are:
Words/ Count
and /2 (3.92%) Same for the rest.
moral /war
monstercow
e-harmony
manogomy
Under search phrases (also with equal results for each):
Phrases /Count
moral reasoning to end iraq war/ 1 (25.00%)
2003/08/23
"i have nice feet"
monstercow video
Under Page Popularity the top pages are mostly the home page or the older url or blogger in general. So here are the top 3 pages beyond the home page:
Pages/ Count

effsrambles.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-liar.html /18 (2.61%)
my_rambles.blogspot.com/2004/11/re-war-and-moralconsistency.html /16 (2.32%)
effsrambles.blogspot.com/2005/04/you-do-not-understand-pain-because-you.html /12 (1.74%)

A majority of people do not go past the first page, almost 73 % choose not to.
A slim majority spend 4 minutes on the blog (est).
The longest time spent here, by a minority, is 46 minutes.
Finally, the top 5 nations represented by visitors are:
Country/ Count

United States/ 144 (53.14%)
Greece/ 23 (8.49%)
Canada/ 20 (7.38%)
Australia/ 17 (6.27%)
New Zealand/ 12 (4.43%)

So, here's a request.

2005-07-22T06:55:00.000-04:00

Well, for any persons so inclined, for whatever reason(s), to actually read my blog, I'd like a response to something. You might have noticed that I spend most of my time expressing my method of reasoning, or how I woud idealy like to do think about a given subject. Assuming I'm not so poor in writing and grammar overall that you need a translator to make sense of it, maybe you could explain to me who, if anyone, I emulate, to whatever degree. Perhaps I speak pure drivel and use the worst logic possible. If that's true, I accept that. Still, I wonder how flawed my thinking really is. I wonder which is more or less flattering, being compared to a philosopher or just being called unique. I think I'll be lucky if uniqu is the word people use.

Ok, so if you are out there, skim however much you want and tell me about myself.

Sources, context and bias.

2005-07-21T08:56:00.000-04:00

So I got to thinking, somewhat inspired by message board threads about moral standards and applying them equally, about whether or not human rights organisations that denounce certain acts are being objective or speaking in unfair objection toward some when they criticise everyone for the same effects of their acts no matter the justifications any of them give. Is it really, as I believe most would call it, a left wing bias that forms their opinions and guides their standards? I do not know. But nor can I say it is fair even if it is not, let alone is.

I suppose it could be said that death is death. But I cannot look past the moral reasoning behind an action. While many believe that no murder can be justified, not all deaths are murder.

A problem that any organization faces is politicization of its method of criticism. It would be of great risk to credibility to accept one justification over another, especially when the justifying arguments apply to many sides.

I think there is always a risk in using statements from human rights groups, even ones with consistently applied standards. If they criticise everyone, it does not take into account contextual considerations that might, to some, justify acts committed or resulting without intent and, or, desire, by some. But if it does accept one justification, despite stated goals of ending inhumane suffering no matter where it is, it shows partiality which lessens its right to judge others, according to some.

Even when they are being consistent, one could say a bias exists, just not without question one of malice. Perhaps more one without consideration.

War and validation.

2005-07-18T07:58:00.000-04:00

Honestly, this is getting on my nerves. Let's see if I can make this clear. War has one validating purpose, winning. Whether war did or did not end some ideological terror imposed on people is beside the point. If one nation defeats another, whether in defense or as the agressor, war has served its purpose. War isn't suppose to solve every consequence before it and thereafter. If you win, your war was validated. The only thing that might invalidate war is illegality and, moreso, non necessity. There'd have to be near countless wars for it to have a large enough effect on society to mold it into a kind of paradise. I hate how people expand war into something that exceeds its purpose.

On the Subject of Moral Judgements Upon Past Choices.

2005-07-11T17:27:00.000-04:00

Normally, from my experience, some one will bring into question the fairness of negatively criticising a choice made in the past, by making a reference to the context of the time of the decision. I'm among such persons guilty of that sometimes vague questioning of how objective a critic is being. When the reference is specific, it might be correct to say that the context issue is meant as a direct defense as opposed to an implied one, depending on the subjective perception of one present at the debate.

But vagueness is incomplete; a suggestion that there might have been justification for a past decision because of existing reasons and hypothetical ones, with our without a basis in the reality of the time, does not prove that the decision was the right one. As to whether not there is such a thing as a "right" decision, that is a concern which I might not be able to address.

Perhaps what should be of concern to one criticising a past decision, is if it the criticism is morally consistent.

And here lies a major problem. Is it a moral code, absolutely applied, that is best, or is it better to use circumstantial rationalization?

Pedophiliac Obsessiveness.

2005-07-06T14:35:00.000-04:00

I wonder, and this is not a deep thought but, perhaps, a question with a complicated answer, how obsessed can a person?

Based upon the speculation I have heard about the case against Joseph Edward Duncan III, it would seem he likely put the children through some or all of the following.

The witnessing of the subjugation of family and friends (in the case of the boyfriend of their mother).
The fear in each.
The murder of all three.
The brutalizing of themselves, witnessing each other's horror.
Seeing the other die.
Being helpless throughout all of it.

If Mr Duncan is guilty of these 3, likely 4 murders, and the motive turns out to be obliging his own perverted satisfaction, he would revile the man that apparently beat his own daughter and someone else's daughter to death over, as I understand it, some curfew violations and a few petty acts. I think he might have accused the daughter of stealng from her mother's purse. I don't remember enough details about the case to really go searching for it.

Shasta Groene is probably scarred badly by all of this, and her father is left with a terrible burden. I would not be surprised if she has nightmares about something terrible happening to him; goodness forbid that ever to happen. Both have issues to face and wounds that might not heal to where they can live in "relative" comfort. I would not know how I could handle it.

I saw some of the surveillance footage of Shasta with Mr. Duncan. She looks so small. Truly a sickening situation and horrific ordeal for the innocents involved.

Short thought: Individual Irony

2005-06-28T10:40:00.000-04:00

I would find it ironic that a person could criticise individualness for sometimes being a selfish obstacle to the needs of the majority while simultaneously lamenting for the better treatment of other individuals in an earlier time, a time wherein many others were badly treated, sometimes including some of those individuals the person chooses to support.

June M.o.M.

2005-06-17T09:49:00.000-04:00

I am thankful to the Philosophy4Everyone group for the honor of being their June, 2005 Member of the Month. Please check out their webpage and the rest of the links I have put in here.

Note that I am not responsible for all content, and am not affiliated with all the links.

What is a liar?

2005-06-17T08:17:00.000-04:00

A liar can be defined as any person stating something false, but the label is almost exclusively reserved for people willfully telling falsehoods.

Of the various types of lies, some, or perhaps all, have their severity of offense determined by the standard to which we hold the individual liar; some people can get away with some lies because of lesser expectations while others cannot. When a powerful and influential person lies, even those kinds having to do with personal matters, the character issue affects public perception. That is less important to most people when a liar is of substantially less significance. Also, people of great importance, though not apparently tangibly to the critics judging them, is held to a higher standard by such persons.

One of the later concerns, and perhaps the most important, is determining the rationalization factors of a lie and how to punish, if deemed appropriate, the liar.

Some lies are done to protect others from harm. Some lies are thought necessary in order to push through something unpopular, or things that presumably would be difficult to get acceptance for. These are lies of good, or claimed to be, intention.

One of the most difficult questions about lying is deciding what method of determination is necessary to establish a person as a liar, and one deserving of punishment. A lie that is forgiven or rationalized by most people due to the benefits it brought, or allegedly have, could still have the liar being punished. The intention behind a lie is no guarantee against punishment.

I do not know all the elements necessary for determining what a liar is. But, for consideration of use, I submit these as part of the methodology.

Pattern of honesty. This is important in establishing the sincerity a person is likely to have in the future, but it is weak in that it cannot in fact prove a future statement will be false or true, and it is prejudicial, though perhaps earned. Patterns show probability, not certainty.
Logic of claimed truth. lies can be found in the existence of factors that contradict the statements in which they are made. But, as something can be unusual, its improbability of occurence does not establish it as a lie. It is presumed that something is false because it cannot logically have happened in the way inwhich it is claimed to have been or is so unlikely that it is considered reasonable to disbelief.
Presumption of knowledge. This pertains to whether or not a person states something with the understanding that it is false in some or all respects. In this case we presume a lie exists, based on the status of the person, which we believe effects the probability of knowing a lie is being told. People of great position are often thought to have special access to information that can help verify and discredit what their claims. But people in such positions can be mislead. And it may be that the myriad information they are given about a matter does not serve to establish the necessity or non necessity of the course of action toward resolution of said matter. The strength of the individual elements toward one conclusion or another about the claim, might lean substantially one way.
Plethora of evidence. A person can be thought to be a liar based on the weight of the information that contradicts the claim made. But this falls into its own problems. I mentioned just a bit earlier the issue of evidential strength, and it, too, applies here.
Uncorroborated alibi. Claims which do not have verification, such as witnesses to that effect, are often considered to be false. But, since witnesses can lie, other forms of evidence are needed. But the absence of evidence to confirm a statements veracity might not prove it false. The credibility of the person and witness(es) making the, at least in part, contradictory claims, as well as the probability of involvement, in some cases, by either, and of the claim by the person being true, are what might be the needed recourse for determining the accuracy of the claim.

In the end, I must admit that I am doubtful of the ability to establish most people as liars under objective scrutiny.

What's important to you? What should be?

2005-06-03T17:06:00.000-04:00

I ask those questions because a trend has developed, not a new one, I believe, in challenging partisan hijacking of elections and the officials elected from them.

Though it might be equal on both sides, I have noticed it as more prevalent on the moderate and left sides.

And what is being done is to define the issues of the various conservative groups as unimportant in comparison to the issues which are in the self interest of everyone, which one presumes are best handled under Democratic leadership. But some see it as a good strategy to seek less to marginalize the "less important" issues and more to incorporate them into the party platform in a way that is ideologically consistent while being appealing to a broad cross section.

I find the first part of this tactic offensive. I don't agree with every conservative criterion for what makes a person and party elected, but nor do I like to be told that my issues, if they are not economic or likely to have a direct impact on my life, are unimportant. It's my right to choose my own issues, even if they don't compare in importance to some one else's standards. I'm not saying my issues must be the most important to everyone else, but they are to me, and that's what matters most. Other's are entitled to their opinions, but there dislike of one of my issues won't make me drop it.

Just another thing that bothers me.

2005-05-27T08:41:00.000-04:00

Well, in one of my older posts I mentioned the issue of appropriate timing of references to the bad behavior of others in defense of oneself and one or more parties that are a part of a debate, and here I shall touch on that breifly to make a small gripe. To all that feel it is necessary, I sincere doubt most people need a lecture about how some improper behavior is a. common; b., committed by both sides of a debate, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It adds very little to my understanding in general to remind me that "both sides do whatever," i.e., things I already know, which I admit is not much, but that type of hypocrisy is not conceptually foreign to me. It is also not very enlightened nor brilliant to bring it up. So, in the quest to be the master of fairness, if you ever read this blog post please do not bother me with this lecture. Have a pleasant whenever.

Newsweek and applying the premises.

2005-05-23T07:14:00.000-04:00

Believe it or not, I do not have a desire to attack or blame Newsweek for the deaths that occured as a supposed excerbation that their apparently unverified story is alleged to have caused, but I cannot let stand the fallacy of at least twi premises used to attack the Bush Administration, not because I am in their camp, but because they are fundementally unfair.

First, neither a commentator nor average person is a court of law, so to apply the reasoning that violations have occured before so it is reasonable that it will occur again is to imply guilt without proof of the specific crime, allegations and past incidents are not proof, is wrong.

And that relates to the broader premise of the Bush administration is bad, so the charges mentioned in the Newsweek story must be true.

If you hate someone, and they did it before, why could they not have done it now?

It is not a matter of what could have been done but what was actually done. No amount of patterns without concrete relation to the incident in question will prove the Administration is at fault for this, let alone that it (the flushing of the Koran) even occured.

What is truth: Revised edition (Yes I know I do not know what I am talking about).

2005-05-12T11:04:00.000-04:00

I have deleted the original and shall now try to better explain how I determine what is truthful.

It is factual that something that is true is true, hence it could not be so if it were not, that being absent or majorly so the factor of human subjective judgement in deciding it as such. But the conclusions toward what is true are not always based in centertainty, so truth must follow logic, as best as any individual or group can be logical in their analysis. Therefor truth is often a matter of the most probable from logic, as human subjective distortions are an unavoidable potentiality, whatever the fallacies of our understandings might be.

To decide what is logical the following must must be learned as best access and time allows. I apologize for the disorderliness of this list.

The pattern of events from which one can inductively infer the next event in the presumed series.
The pattern of human behavior relating to the events from which one can inductively infer the next type of behavior as it relates to the next event as it is inferred.
The deductive and inductively logical elements within the human and events factors which weakens or strengthens the logic of the inferrences about the human and events factors.
The preponderance of similarities in the supposed pattern of events.
The strengths and weaknesses of the similarities within each event.
The strengths and weaknesses should be determined by the level of logically alternative reasons for the similarities, and by the frequency by which persons appear in the event patterns, as well as the probability that said persons could appear, taking into consideration which, if any, persons have died, are too far and incapable of affecting an event.
Essentially, doubt must always be considered, if not, any false claim can be used to make a lie or an error seem as if it or conclusions from it are true.

The probable truth is that which we conclude from patterns established by the level of counterveiling reasons for each element within the pattern.

When we cannot conclude logically otherwise, we are left with the objective and probable truth.

We might not always be obligated to accept and agree with the probable, but if we act in strong opposition to it and perhaps what stems from it, we take a great risk.

On Secularists

2005-05-05T11:08:00.000-04:00

Well, I am not going strongly into the religion and state separation debate, nor shall I at this time try to define what it is to establish, or respect an establishment, of religion by a state. I also will not go deeply into the similarities and differences between secularists, so far as it is a philosophy and ideology, and the opinions of conservatives, liberals, et al. But, on the subject of human reasoning, its value and why it is important that it supersede religious doctrine, at least in when creating legislation and enforcing law and order, I think, supposing the following is accurate (at least enough), there is a kind of irony.

Religions are often developed slowly, formed from the minds of several people, and from the indirect influence of even more of them. The mores of societies past, perhaps present, evolve and devolve the religious' messages. Generally, religions are conservative in their progress, sometimes totally conservative, hence there is no progress in some, most, or all areas. But, while the development of a religion might not be democratic, and their creators, being men and not gods (presumably), might not always be the most brilliant and qualified of persons, religions are often accepted by the masses. That brings the question of whether or not those that follow religion are being unreasonable, thinking without enough of their rational left hemisphere. I cannot say. Others can debate what is rational, but what I can say is that there is an irony in the idea that human reasoning would be superior to the "archaic, draconian, flawed tenets, et cetera," of religion, when so many humans (it is from our collective ideas that we form our societies of reason) accept religion. I am not sure how much difference in societies there would be. And that might be the agenda here, if I can be forgiven for sounding conspiratorial, that it is less about the reasoning of people than the goals of the philosophical secularists. If societies do not change significantly by the absence of religions in state matters and beyond (to wherever) the effort to limit its influence would have been a failure. It would then appear that people and many parts of religions were in agreement, and that human rational thought was never as miniscule in the religious as some might think.

Acting morally. (For any readers of this blog interested in updates, please click this title for the new url)

2005-04-23T05:24:00.000-04:00

I realize this issue is complicated for many; that there are arguable exceptions, so much so that universal models are impossible, but for many others, morality is clearly understood, not opaque.

I am not sure I will hold this opinion, but a moment in an argument I was having with someone brought to mind an answer that, for now, I can accept. It is simple, surely unoriginal, and might not be worth much time, but here it is:

To determine what is morally good, empathize or sympathize with those that could be effected or affected by your behavior, and, if the either is negative, determine if the benefit that could come from your behavior outwieghs the negative.

Theere are other factors, of course, such as what determines an overriding benefit. I would answer necessity, but necessity varies largely on what alternatives one has faith in; sees as viable.

That the ego might be correct is not the point.

2005-04-14T18:15:00.000-04:00

I do not know when and where it began, and I do not know from what group or person it was first uttered, but there is an old media mantra about its perceived responsibilities.

Groups, persons, each often seem to think of themselves as having certain responsibilities. Many would agree with either on what they think should do. But sometimes we can go too far.

What is it when we do? It is arrogance. It is when we go past seeking the truth and trying to speak it, to believing only we can see it and know it. It is when we see ourselves as the hero and see villains, real or imagined, that we risk the great fortune of being heros and the terrible embarrassment of irresponsible unfairness in our effort to hold it to account.

I do not know when this began with the media. Maybe it was with Franklin, or during the Vietnam era, but, while there is some good that can come from a watchdog attitude, it is important not to be corrupted by self importance. And proclaiming themselves in a heroic fashion may be evidence that the consequence of arrogance is short at hand.

You do not understand pain because you have never experienced it!

2005-04-06T02:02:00.000-04:00

Why do idiots say that when they know nothing about the person whom they negatively criticize for making a comment about suffering and death which they disagree with?

I answered my own question of course, they are idiots, they cannot help it.

Is that kind of presumptive stupidity common? Is it contagious?

It is not about restoring honor.

2005-03-21T13:13:00.000-05:00

I will tell you that I am a moral person; rather traditional. Am I ever hypocritical? Yes, and I am also not an altruistic person. But acts of selfishness and cruelty bother me, especially those done with conscious understanding. I am angered that a person could not only be so evil as to do something intentionally cruel or selfish and negligently stupid, but that said person could live on. Far too many people excuse terrible behavior: they are young, they were drunk, the other person made me angry. I will not say that special circumstances do not exist, but some people know of their guilt and evil of what they did, and in some cases their acts resulted in death. And those horrid persons death by their own hand or lifetime of attempted redemptions suits me fine. How any person, that has killed heinously or been involved with a dangerous act done in a cruel manner on others, does not think of, at least, and act upon suicide, sickens me. It is near sociopathic rationalizing of their own acts and negligence; their heartless apathy. I do not want suicide as an option just to restore honor to the guilty or the towns from which they came, I just want it because, while I oppose state executions and agree that the state must try to prevent suicide attempts by prisoners, etc., I believe trash ought to know what it is and remove itself from this plain. If they aren't willing to try to make up for their acts, I wish they'd do the final acts on themselves.

Probably unoriginal psychological and, or, neurological question.

2005-03-13T00:14:00.000-05:00

If a person with a child and an addiction to something is given the hypnotic suggestion that the child will die if said person resumes use of the item of addiction, where even being in its tangible presence will act as a trigger for the hypnotic suggestion to repeat in that person's mind until the person stops any attempt at using the item, and the person uses it despite believing, presumably, in the cost of use, the child's death, what does that say about the person? What does it say in general. I don't know, but I am curious. If someone would like to answer this as best as possible, please do so. Thank you.

The Sgrena shooting: A Short plea for Silence.

2005-03-09T19:50:00.000-05:00

The Sgrena shooting is still under investigation. Claims need to be confirmed, and testimony disputing the claims need to be checked out. All reasonable avenues need to be used to resolve this matter. So, to every one going on about who's at fault, in the name of being objective, please shut up, you fucking leeches, and let the investigation finish. Then, if you have a reasonable argument to contest the investigation and what punishments, if any, were given, can you not look like an evil asshole in your protests and defenses.

Damn bastards jump at the gun over every news story.

The worst is that some of you want punishment before errors, let alone malicious intent, have been established as reasonably avoidable.

Etc.

2005-03-05T23:00:00.000-05:00

Making bad comparisons.

Hitler and Bush are not the same person. Similarites do not make people mirrors of each other, nor the virtual reincanations of others. One might be able to argue Bush is evil, but no amount of supposed, even proven, similarities can show that people are the same when one of them does not share the same belief as the other, and has not been reviewed with the benefit of the hindsight of history. Without such context, one is engaging in broad, possiby, theorizing; it's often harder to prove the intent and psychology behind an action when said action is still being implemented. But one can find reasons for an action, however the intent is hard to prove. Hitler was a bigot, racist mass murderer. Bush is not, save for, depending on your opinion, the last part.

Also, no matter how innocently intend, any comparison to Hitler is offensive to many. One might find it interesting, and it might be, perhaps enlightening, but it shouldn't be surpising that some, perhaps most people find it appalling.

Long and Short of Something.

Two kinds of interpretations and subsequent resolutions in response to an event are those that might be more useful for the long term prevention of the occurence of a like event, and those that might be more useful for preventing events which are theorised, like those events that might recur in the long term, to occur, but, however, in the short term.

It's possible that the continuation and exacerbation of a policy which might be the whole or partial reason for the occurence of the first event might make recurrences of like events more probable. But it's also possible that that policy might be the only viable method for stopping the occurence of short term events which might be arguably more probable, if it is the case that evidence exists more strongly in its favor than for the theoretical one that believes said policy to be the reason for the perpetration of the first event, and one might presume other events committed by the same perpetrators, or others responding in like manner, for as yet undertiminable reasons, to the original perpetrators.

The continuation of a policy that might be responsible for an event might make recurrences of similar events, or the likelihood thereof, virtually perpetual. But the necessity of the policy, if cessation is not seen as viable, might override long term consequential considerations and subsequent resolutions to that end. The precedent made by an event might make it necessary to continue with the same policy, or use a new one, which might not comply with the needs of the long term perspective.

Bullies 2

2005-03-02T23:14:00.000-05:00

I remember that it was many years ago, I couldn't have been older than thirteen. There was a kid that I would never treat badly. One day I did. I think I tried to apologise, but I am not sure how good of an attempt I made that day. I don't know what happened to him, but I am sure we did not part with him thinking as well of me as I would have liked. If I ever remember his full name, I should like to apologise if I can find him. Well, that is in the past and I do not know how much I should wonder about it, what I did. Have I done enough of that? And do I really want to talk to him about it? I'm not sure if I should let it go. I tend to think often about the things I regret.

Some take bullying seriously, speaking sincerely about how wrong it is, and try to find solutions to the problem. The solutions vary. But some are dismissive. Some put it all down to a natural part of life which people over react to.

Well, to those who dismiss the importance of talking with bullies and their victims; to those who presume most instances of bullying are exaggerated in degree and impact, no matter who you are, you are a fucking sack of shit.

People have died, felt isolated, driven to terrible acts and the possible commission of violence toward those whom wronged them in no way (the innocent, undeniably), because the seriousness of this issue was downplayed. You chose to treat it as a small issue. How dare you. From the parents of bullies and their victims, to the peers of both, any of you that could have spoken up, could have helped any of them, and did not try, and even encouraged becasue of an imbecilic belief that it is ok, you are scum and should feel the greatest level of shame. As a whole, I have little sympathy and empathy for any of you.

Not everyone will grow stronger, bolder and more outward. Life need not be made harder by cruelty.

Do your jobs and help these kids and yourselves.

Been Tardy

2005-02-22T18:44:00.000-05:00

I'd planned to take a break from the groups I belong to, but personal matters and some depression over them has caused me to return, partially.

The truth is I belong to too many groups, but I can't bring myself to leave most of them.

I think what I should do is pick one group at a time and focus on it so that I feel I am at least trying to contribute, and not divide my attention, though I might neglect the others for a while.

It should be noted that I don't have an opinion and decent understanding of everything under the sun, or don't want to share my opinions on some issues.

On the subject of evil and defining people as such.

2005-02-14T16:52:00.000-05:00

Evil is a complex issue. Of consideration are myriad factors. Each act can, in theory, have its justifications. Likewise, when there exists hypocrisy in those judging what is evil, their standards for defining what is evil can be used against them in their claim of something as being evil. Some might argue the relevancy of hypocrisy when there exists necessity to justify an act. Some might argue that an act is evil regardless of the benefit or intent behind the act. And some in that debate will agree that the evil act was necessary, while others will not. Some will find that the act, though defined as evil when done by others, is not evil when they do it.

And neccesity brings me to the subject of defining someone as evil. On an individual level, for things such as murder and rape, it seems a consensus that these are evil and thus murderers and rapists are evil. But war and painful impositions by governments on their people is a harder matter to define. Acts of war and acts to prevent war can have serious hypothetical consequences. What is the greatest good, and how can it best be served? Here we have the qaundry of competing theories and the morality of what which interest is best to act in the defense of.

I thought about this for a few days, and my conclusion is this: While evil acts can find people to rationalise them, there are two things that distinguishes a good person from an evil person that commits evil acts, if that is possible; necessity and choice. To argue that an evil act is necessary there must exist no viable alternative. If the end goal can be met through less evil or non evil methods, or there can be some reasonable compromise, and this belief rests on a realistic understanding of the situation as a whole, than, though hypothetical negative consequences should be considered, commiting unecessary evil acts which are known to not be the only good option, makes one evil. Some acts are so terrible that no past history of humanitarian behavior can negate one from being called evil.

Firearms 2

2005-01-22T16:58:00.000-05:00

Click title for Firearms part 1. By the way, there are some other links in titles in this blog but I'm not sure where.

Earlier today I was told that what I need to understand about the gun control debate comes from understanding the effects of deaths by gun misuse on children. I was told that I need to investigate such tragedies. The implication being, that if I understood on that level, I would be an advocate for stricter gun control. Such a presumption is wrong. I submit that my own presumption of myself is as valid as those which anyone else make of me.

My view on guns comes from a belief in the right of self defense against intended harm and the capacity of guns vs. all other lesser tools/weapons to meet the needs of that right.

While it is terrible that many die because of gun use, it does not supersede a right of self defense, the necessity of which is situational and can therefor not be disproven. Nor can the effectiveness of guns in the practice of self defense be disproven. In both cases, there is a human element to consider.

Gun ownership should have some restrictions. But what kind is another debate.

It was also suggested that homes with children should not have guns in them, but that is unfair. In the first place, because it would take a round about way to attempting automatic mass gun banishment, and in the second place, because, instead of restrictions based on personal competence, or proof of a lack of it, it is a restriction that presupposes incompetence. Again, we return to the human element. In order to accept the application of a statistic on the dangers of gun ownership in homes with children, it must first be accepted that those human elements which largely contribute to disrespecting those dangers are inherent and unavoidable. I do not accept those as universal constants.

On the nature of evidence.

2005-01-17T15:41:00.000-05:00

This is nothing too indepth. It is merely inspired by a minor debate I had with two people over President Bush and his family's two dogs. It seems they, or one of them, would not come to him when called. I have not seen the video where this happens. The contention of the two people is that it is evidence that Bush abuses the dogs and, or, they fear him because he is evil, more or less. Obviously, I disagreed. I doubt the strength of such supposed evidence.

Perhaps Bush is evil, but he may be good, I cannot be certain of either, at least not without more consideration.

I shall ask no one to agree with me on the quality of that evidence, but I do wonder something about the use of weak evidence.

Wether they are used in the legal courts or those of public opinion, how ethically acceptable is it to use ambiguous and, or, weak evidence, even in conjunction with other, perhaps in some cases stronger or strong in their own right evidence?

Perhaps subjective interpretation is the final judge on this matter.

Dissent

2005-01-04T10:17:00.000-05:00

Since this has been repeated so much, I shall state here out of a feeling of necessity that any act intended to be beneficial to one's country can be called patriotic, and that an act which might do more harm and be of less benefit to a person's country than what occurs under present policy may be called unpatriotic; whichever it is, it is a subjective term, thus the notion that dissent is automatically patriotic is illogical nonsense. Dissent is as good as its intent and as it compares to the level of evil of the status quo it stands in opposition to. Dissent is not inherently patriotic. And, to be frank, I do not much care if you are patriotic.

On the subject of enlightenment

2005-01-02T20:37:00.000-05:00

I am sure this shall bother many people, but I do not believe in it. Enlightenment has become synonymous with some ideologies. No longer is it merely the advancement of understanding, presuming it ever was defined that way, but the acceptance of some philosophies of a pacifistic, tolerant and accepting nature. But for me to believe that is what in part defines an enlightened culture, I would first have to reject any argument for the necessities of force for the purpose of preservation of societies and their interests. And I have long rejected pacifism as the only approach to resolution.

Any given use of force might be deplorable by itself, but there exists negative and positive hypothosizing of the consequences of force and dimplomacy. This should not be taken as favoring force, but that the idealism of diplomacy has contingencies that may not serve the desires and interest of a given people, and who is right to preach acceptance of loss to said people?

It is said that enlightened people talk, that is only partially true. Enlightened people talk, understand and react as their circumstances allow; enlightened understanding might not translate into reactions at the same level. That it is possible for any culture to concede to many things, as might be necessary in any negotiation, is quite impressive. But the difficulty of concession on the grandest scale, and faith in the absence of force, is incredibly high.

Many believe in preserving something, something which they believe has a right to exist in their possession or that of certain others'. Whether they are fools or not, improperly prioritizing, they can only be persuaded once they become accepting of new priorities and confident in other methods for the attainment and protection of those new interests.

The idealism of the results of rejection of force and the supposedly selfish interests, is beyond my acceptance. I cannot automatically believe in the greatness of such a society, and I cannot wholly abandon my selfishness; not nearly enough to move all of us into the realm of enlightenment.

Enlightment should not be defined by any tenet beyond understanding. To call some behavior evil or good is fine, but to call it unenlightened or enlightened is not.

I am not a barbarian, and I doubt, I hope you will forgive me for this, that you are enlightened. I am most surely neither, though some might tag me as being the former.

Influential Blogs

2005-01-01T20:52:00.000-05:00

This is a small blog. I do not intend for it to be of any great value to anyone but myself and a few friends who I hope find something I have to say interesting or at least temporarily amusing. While the recognition of some of the larger blogs would be nice to have, were anyone of note to find this blog worthy of it, I do not think I would enjoy it for long. Eventually, the pressure to perform would overwhelm me. It would, indeed, come all too early if I had such popularity. Still, I wonder where all the words I put here will go. Suppose I never delete this blog and barely keep it afloat, will any part of it ever be used by a class on internet culture in some school? Will I have professors laughing at me or intrigued by me? Should hobby blogs such as mine ever really be considered as an alternative source of information? I can't compare to most bloggers, and that's a good thing in the end. I prefer to keep some anonymity. I like being vague; speaking generally.

For those of us whom spout on things we know little about, I hope our influence is nill.

Observing Bullies

2004-12-24T21:32:00.000-05:00

I have noticed, and I do not believe I am the only one, that bullies have a flawed understanding of what maturity is, as well as what words actually mean.

To the deluded mind of the bully, stupid is synonymous with ignorant.

In relation to the above, they also seem to think that anything they believe to be common knowledge must be, in fact, common knowledge, therefor if you do not know what they do, you must be an idiot because you would have to be pretty stupid to not to know the equivalent of what they do, to whatever level their knowledge extends. I suppose it is rather humbling that they do not think they know more general information than the those whom they insult.

And remember the rule of maturity: After you belittle someone, tell them to get over it. Because hypocrisy in civility is no where near as bad as defending yourself or seking revenge. Maturity asks you why you cannot take a joke. And the answer is because you are too stupid to understand that you should get over being abused and drop silly notions of punishment and revenge. Don't forget, you moron, that it is not a good move to try to talk out your disagreements, because only wimps do that, and you don't want to be a stupid wimp, do you? Well, too late! You are a pansy! Now let's have a laugh while I stomp your privates and spit in your face.

Winning is all that matters

2004-12-12T04:23:00.000-05:00

It's true, when one think about it. What needs to be done is to be flexible about what winning is, and think of the victories now and then not as being in conflict with each other, as they might be, but as complimenting each other. Losing can be a victory. Winning can be costly. It's all about hedging one's bets. If need be, consideration of changes to one's goals may be necessary. Pragmatism, rationalism, these things help to understand that neither war mongering or pacifism are the answer. It's a cold, perhaps Machiavellian way of seeing things. But perfection is impossible, and choices can be very limited. Few seem suicidal for their principles. If winning means death or a thousand gifts of love, fine, so long as the goal is being sought in the best way possible, and who is to say what that is? Hopefully, the goals of others agree with mine.

Hiding

2004-12-11T10:22:00.000-05:00

Well, after a millenia, MSN messenger finally allows for invisible sign-ins. I do not know yet if one can remain invisible and converse with a contact or must change from invisible to visible in order to be able to chat with a contact.

It looks like more people can avoid their "friends" or not further delay their "busy" schedules.

It seems Yahoo is the best for that.

Now fear this

2004-12-09T14:41:00.000-05:00

I must admit to a great deal of foolishness, but often I see things through their interest to me and how they serve it.

I take it as a truth that we are moved to another's will through fear, and that this is a method used by governments and media, sometimes in accordance with each other.

But, with all that I am accepting of, I still cannot doubt less that I do not know. When, where and how something is exaggerated, though all evidence may direct a rational man to know, I do not, or at least do but think that it is what must be.

For all the supposed lies there still exists the capacity to know, one far exceeding my own. Am I so certain of what they are, or do I merely predicate from hate?

If they are wrong, can they help us survive? Does theory save?

It is true that dissent can reveal a truth, but so, too, is it a possible truth that opposing voices speak with a propagandizing tongue as they accuse leaders of doing the same.

I would prefer not to, but I have little faith in any of them, so by capacity I must side, and those in power have it, dissenters and doubters do not.

Fame!

2004-12-08T01:46:00.000-05:00

Still, it is the wrong sex.

mô…

Congrats all the same.

Worse for the psyche?

2004-12-07T07:12:00.000-05:00

One of the arguments against how the "war" on terrorism is being handled I have seen is that we spend too much of our focus on terrorism when there are worse statistically deadly matters, such as earthquakes and car accidents. But that does not surprise me. I think it is because, as I believe, those other events, being usually without malice of intent, spawn sadness more than hate. Acts of violence are willful and mallicious. They give rise to anger more than sadness, and anger is harder to cope with. The forces behind them are known and might let their intent to be known. Forces behind natural occurrences are conceptual. And acts of violence are feared; they have known intent of mallicious harm behind them. The difference in nature and motive might be irrelevant, even false, to some logicians, but they are of great importance to me.

Is it necessary to down play one issue to protest the inadequacy of concern for the other?

Officially Speaking

2004-12-05T02:32:00.000-05:00

Happy Birthday!

Confessional

2004-12-05T02:21:00.000-05:00

There's something enticing about violence. Something perversely lovely about it. Not for its sake is it so, but for what it may represent. For me, I can think of nothing so honest an expression of love as the willingness to act as an animal and bring down all enemies in the name of one whom you find so lovely; so necessary. The violence matches your passion. All dying if must be. That is loyalty to a faulting degree, and therefor the most sincere. So the ugly become beautiful by their act to destroy and create more of it to protect the beautiful. And their selfs wither by their acts as the attractive look on with appreciation or horror. But it matters little, for they are alive, and that is all the beasts could ask of them.

Living upto

2004-12-05T02:08:00.000-05:00

It never seems to flow right, but what does that matter? What ever does? Still, on intelligence I am thinking; of my own, and others. I am thinking of what I am to it, and what others are. But more so of what I am not and would prefer to be. Can one be inately brilliant; understand so little yet stand above giants? Does that hallmark intelligence? Thoughts deriving only from the mind. Of limited scope it is, and yet still surpassing when isolated to just one element, aspect, particle of something grander. So complex is it that he who trekked falls and sees only the cold hand of envy pushing him down again. And the wish to not be considered in anyway so well, as others have, surpasses him more greatly than did his own actions against his expectations of what he could do in that large, vast field of geniuses. And idiocy increases unwantingly. Not bliss, but shame.

Fascinating, no, not really nor ever.

Happy Pre Birthday

2004-12-03T15:25:00.000-05:00

You know who you are and you know I love you almost as much I love the delusion that I am right most of the time. Have a good one.

Ok.

So I lied

2004-12-03T15:08:00.000-05:00

To whomever: I feel bored, tired, dejected, abandoned and hopeless, angry, irritable, et al. Yes, I admit it, now leave me alone, unless you have a sexy picture of an attractive adult human female to show me, then I might reconsider. Or an interesting link.

I'd like to gouge my eyes out. I don't want to die or hurt myself, my eyes just bug me.

Soon I'll be spending time doing something I have to which I hate, and I'm not saying what that is. I just don't want to do it. It should take several hours and make me sick/ sicker.

God damn it, why is it so hard to find things?!

Stupid government.

Re: War and Moral Consistency

2004-11-15T13:58:00.000-05:00

From Open Commentary

From: mô…
Sent: 11/9/2004 1:34 AM
i'm not sure, in war, if any side is ever really right.

i think a lot of it comes down to political turn-over. leaders change and with them the dynamics of the group and sometimes the soical mentality too. it's a good demonstration of the need to always be self reliant, and forgiving, if the situation ever becomes reversed.
From: mô…
Sent: 11/9/2004 1:36 AM
are typos contagious?
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/2004 1:45 AM
I doubt they are.

Interesting point.

From PhilosophyAbsurdity

From: Big_Daddy_76
Sent: 11/8/2004 10:34 PM

Enough of this 'country A' crap, let's get down to facts, and not rhetoric, if we may.

After being driven from Kuwait, Iraq signed an armistice, further hostility being dependent on Iraq's compliance, or non-compliance with said armistice.

After 10+ years (MORE THAN 10 YEARS!!!) of non-compliance with UN resolutions,
after continued obstruction of UN weapons inspectors attempts to determine if Iraq
still had WMD in it's possession,
after 10+ years of illegally bypassing the UN's 'Oil for Food' program
(abetted by UN members France, Germany and Russia, but let's not talk about that),
and after continued attempts by Iraq to shoot-down US and GB aircraft enforcing the
UN's 'No Fly Zone', (with components sold to it illegally by the UN members previously mentioned)
(Mind you, the previous paragraph is not opinion, it is reality, that someone chooses not to recognize them, does not invalidate the facts!)

Then.......
The US decides (ALMOST unilaterally) to end the sham, and enforce the armistice agreed upon by Iraq!

So, I have to ask:
Why is the US considered the agressor?

Why, after 10+ years of Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions, is the US accused of 'rushing to war'?

Why is the US condemned for 'not seeking a world concensus', with nations actively involved in criminal activities in Iraq?

Why is the US condemned for not having UN authorization, when the UN shows no 'moral fiber', and won't enforce it's own resolutions?

IMNSHO, the only nation that has shown any 'moral consistency' at all, is the US!!
But that's just my opinion.........
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/2004 12:10 AM

My understanding is the the "No Fly zone was not UN sanctioned.

The actual guilt of anyone, let alone a country as a whole, or at least its government, remains yet to be seen. But it is yourt right to draw conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the nations you mentioned.

As for whether or not America is morally consistent, I am not getting involved in that. I mostly as asking about specific choices in a narrow context. I understand if some cannot work within it, that's inherent is any hypothetical, at least I would think so.

I do not know precisely why Europe opposed the war and feels America was in the wrong to go wage war, but I think the two most likely reasons are Europe's opposition to force, for humanitarian reasons and so on, in most circumstances unless urgent, and do not believe Saddam's continued presence in power in Iraq created.

For them, necessity, it seems, trumps the issue of accountability, or at least the use of force to hold a state accountable. I cannot say they are wrong, but I do wonder, if further diplomacy and sanctions are the alternatives, just how long should the US and Britain have continued with the controversial No Fly Zones, defended sanctions which seem to have been manipulated? Even if cost and rsik factors are lower, it does not sit well to have to keep a force monitoring a dictator. Is it the contention of many European's that there should have been an end to monitoring of Saddam's activities, or at least a lessening of it. I am not out to target Europe, but I just wonder about policies. I wonder about whose accountable: why someone should or should not be; vaibility, pragmatism, practicality, reliability, steadfastness.

I tend to lean toward Europe's view, as I understand it, though I do wonder about aspects of it.
From: Big_Daddy_76
Sent: 11/9/2004 2:14 AM
Tomcat:

The 'No-Fly' zones weren't UN sanctioned?
They certainly were a part of the Armistice, correct?
There were never any UN resolutions condemning them, were there?
If the NFZ weren't UN sanctioned, they certainly were tacitly approved.

How long should they have been maintained?
How about: "Untill SH was in compliance with the UN resolutions"?

This mess should have been taken care of within 5 years of the end of the Gulf War,
but, well, Bill Clinton happened, and we all know he was too busy using interns as
humidors to do anything about the attack on the USS Cole, let alone that mess GHWB left behind..........
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/2004 2:28 AM
I don't know the details of the armistice.
From: morgue_evolved
Sent: 11/9/2004 8:21 AM
okay so i didnt read every word in this thread.

but, i believe the US was accused of rushing into war..because no one shot at us on our soil first. it's always been that way, hasn't it ? no one is allowed to start a war without repercussion without having been "hit" first.

okay...don't mind me...just pass right by this post.
From: Dreamian™
Sent: 11/9/2004 1:24 PM
If I knew for sure that someone hated me enough to kill me, and I also knew that this person has killed before and has no problem with killing again, and I knew that it was only a matter of time that this person would be able to carry out this threat, and there were only 2 choices: wait for it and hope he misses, or strike first. I suppose so long as you're not too squeamish, and you value your life, and it would be considered self defence by anyone that counts, then the choice is easy.

Dreamian*.(
From: morgue_evolved
Sent: 11/11/2004 8:25 AM
hi dreamy !

okay, with that line of thought, there was a point in my life where i could have killed my ex-husband (and wanted to).

why didn't I ?

the upset of my already fragile life ?
the repercussions it would have on our son ?

i suppose thoughts of what would occur afterward. thinking ahead to what would transpire. did bush think ahead ? shit, does bush think ? i don't think it's his job anyway, to think.

you know, i read a book once (wow..really)...involving a conspiracy where the powers that be around the world (corporations) get together and devise a plan where a terrorist organization hits the US bigtime allowing for attacks on other countries...putting everyone (the little people and those that still think what they do and say matter) around the world into an uproar...keeping them busy while the big guys sit back and rake in the mula and the power....it ends with the world f-ed and the little people still little....no happy ending. God knows why i just typed this sh-t...

anywho...have a good day.
From: Dreamian™
Sent: 11/11/2004 1:51 PM
Morgue, what do you mean by "could have killed my husband"? Was he trying to kill you?

I see what you are saying morgue, but that does not fit in with the scenario I layed out. I basically said that if I had reason enough to believe that someone was going to kill me as soon as they got the chance; the smart thing to do may be to strike first.

Thinking of the future is what I believe bush is doing. I think that it is obvious that if Sadam were left in power, and if he were able to hinder our efforts (lets not mention the cost thereof) to insure that he is unable to obtain the ability to hold the world at hostage, or inflict enormous casualties upon his enemy (namely US), then he surely would achieve this goal; in our future!

I don't see how anyone can doubt that if sadam were ever handed a missle capable of reaching the USA or numerous missles for that matter, with nuclear war heads, that he would use them in a heartbeat. Probably would even attatch one or more of his own soldiers to it to aide in making sure it reached its destination, if he thought that would help.

Dreamian*.(
From: Dreamian™
Sent: 11/11/2004 1:54 PM
I think that he would probably make it look like someone else did it and then wait for his chance to walk into kuwait again, or wherever else he thinks he can get away with it. He strikes me as the sneaky type for some reason.

Dreamian*.(

From Philosophy 4 Everyone

From: stevapaloooza
Sent: 11/8/2004 5:16 PM
C is currently slaughtering unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast in the name of protecting it's colonial holdings. So I doubt it sat out Iraq for moral reasons.

The answer to your question is C is a douchebag.
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/8/2004 6:27 PM
C is not specifically France. As I said, inspired by. And several states that opposed the war will not help, though France may b ethe most important and necessary state for acheiving America's goal in Iraq.
From: Hershey
Sent: 11/8/2004 8:05 PM
F14_D here is another aguement to consider:
A has a hard on for war and he's using it soley for the purpose of f..king weaker countries to get what he wants..

"Bush has got them scud missiles lined up so accurate-like that he ain't never gonna shoot a camel in the ass when he's wanting to take out Osama's testicles"
-- Alpy the alpinist
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/8/2004 8:19 PM
Stiff forces make for a hard enemy to defeat. Boooinnggg.
From: Rorke11
Sent: 11/9/2004 1:43 AM
Side D is right. Side D recognizes that Side A is an Imperialist, Side B is a regional dictator that constitutes no real danger to Side A save for the danger to Side A's fortune 500 corporate interests in petro chemicals and Side C doens't wish to jeopardize its business interests with Side B by supporting the Imperialist Side A who has a long standing history of both saving and screwing Side C. Side D decides that the best course of action is to simply let Side A overextend itself, bankrupt itself and then take the vacated spot on top of the global econimic hill. Sometimes in-action is the best action to take....
Rorke
From: turboenjen
Sent: 11/9/2004 6:06 AM
I like that Rourke. Who is side D when taken out of hypothetical terms? Genius!

Here goes:

It depends on what basis of judgement you use. If you go by the law of the land,

A should never have been in power and should be held accountable for war crimes

B should never have been in power and should be held accontable for war crimes

C has not commited any war crimes and therefore can not be held accountable

If you go by moral conscience

Well you better hope that A, B, and C were all guided by conscience and not by political agenda. Unfortunately we have no means with which to judge that. Will they burn in hell for ignoring their conscience and submitting to political agenda? Well, Aren't we already?
From: RubyTuesday_
Sent: 11/9/2004 8:07 AM
Lets simplify it a tad more:

A=A man arrested as a serial killer
B=The Police Cheif
C=The Judge

A man is arrested and accused of being a Serial killer, 1st degree murder.

There is no proof he is indeed a Serial Killer and the facts prove otherwise.

He is an ass who beats his wife and children, and believes it is his responsiblity to keep order in his household according to his religion, (spare the rod, yadayada) but he is not charged with that offense.

The Police cheif knows he is wrong, but being unable to locate the real serial killer he decides to arrest a crimanal, any criminal. He refuses to acknowledge his deception on the grounds that the Man is infact a criminal, maybe not guilty of the crime he is charged with but a crimal non the less and hey crime is crime and it's his job to arrest criminals. The Police chief truely believe he is stopping crime.

Under the law 1st degree murder is punishable by death, yet the man is guilty of 1st degree assault punishable by 10-15 years incarceration (guessing).

The Judge is aware the charges are bogus, and that the Police cheif violated the Man's rights.

If The Judge refuses to hear the case and brings to light the violation of the Man's rights, the Man could be set free and continue to beat his wife and children.

If The Judge continues the deception the Man will die based on a lie and the Judge will have set aside his Legal responsibilities and Moral ethics.

If the Judge says and does nothings and asks that the case be transfered to another court, he then is part of the deception and thus also a guilty party.

Mean while the real serial Killer is free to contine his reign of terror against society.

If The Judge had been able to rule on the Facts of the Crime the Man actually commited Justice would have been served.
From: ČhëriWølf11
Sent: 11/9/2004 10:25 AM
I realize this thread is an excellent exercise in thought and perception. But I can't help but point out a serious problem in a nation with a military like the USA. When issues of wrongful distortions leading to war, poor planning of that war, diminishing jobs, a greater poorer class are trumped by so called morals we have a cultural divide that can only be termed as frightening.
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/2004 10:51 AM
That is an interesting scenario, Ruby, and your point about the limited ability, or inability, of C to make a decision that is in the best interest of serving the cause of justice without full knowledge is a good one, and how can we fault what might be an imperfect judgement when the facts upon which it was made are imperfect (hopefully I have not grosly misunderstood your points)? But, as I have said, the Iraq war was an inspiration, one which I did not intend to imply should be reflected in all aspects of my hypothetical. Of course, it's allright if people wish to use the facts or their interpretations of the Iraq war issue. But A, B and C were not meant to be assumed as being guilty of what at the very least rumor says they are. Also, and I do think your scenario whent a good way toward addressing this, the underlying motives and actual behavior of A and B are not the main question, whether or not C is acting more or less in acordance with an element of its ethic if it engages further or does not, is. And I do not think the scenarios quite match up. Besides the difference in scale, the war scenario has violence in the present sense. Your scenario has that at first, but is a matter for B (A) to decide. When the issue comes before C, the violence which may result in bad judgement is itself hypothetical. Even with all knowledge, the wrong choice, if defined by outcome, could be made. If the reasoning was sound in C's decision, would the moral onus, if any, on C be as high for presumed violence as opposed to existing violence? Granted, there is presumption in both scenarios. The violence in my scenario could suddenly cease. But abrupt cessation of violence was not listed as a possibility and could not be within the power of C to bring about as easily as it could in your scenario. If such were so, there likely would be no need for C to be asked by A to consider involving itself in a way it disagrees with. The C in your scenario differs in that it is placed in the role of a judge that has the burden of responsibility to maintain law and the fair application thereof. C fulfills its responsibility by acting in compliance with narrow parameters to which it is legally bound. A's violence, if released and under the presumption it woud be violent, then becomes under the purview of B to deal with. The C in the war scenario is not a judge and thus cannot claim to have met its responsibility, as the legal parameters may not exist or be as clear in its case. This C must contend with whether or not its action or inaction is consistent with or ideal to its morality. Can it claim it followed the law and is therefor not responsible for X, Y and Z?
From: stevapaloooza
Sent: 11/10/2004 4:13 AM
C is not specifically France. As I said, inspired by. And several states that opposed the war will not help, though France may b ethe most important and necessary state for acheiving America's goal in Iraq.

I don't care. I used your well-constructed moral equation as a flimsy pretext to attack France. And I'd do it again!!
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/10/2004 6:16 AM
Yeah. Glad to be of service.
From: ČhëriWølf11
Sent: 11/11/2004 11:24 AM
Hey Stevie,

It is nice to see you pop in again. How ya been? Tell all you been up to. Don't leave out any names. Heehee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now let me address this very interesting hypothetical representation F_14D presents and also some comments from others.

Since we have a human history laden with the process of war, the fact that it exists as a way to settle differences or disputes must come as no surprise.

After much diplomatic wrangling between entities, A wages war on B; the third entity (C) was and remains opposed to the actions of A on strategic and moral grounds.

So what we seem to be concentrating on with F_14D's scenario is the morality of war's existence, human behavior in general, and the accountability for actions when agreements exist.

C is bound only to unquestioned loyalty to itself, those under its charge, and select, overriding principles.

It is the above statement that most catches my focus. Stevie puts a name on C saying it is France. Even if C is France the question of their being bound to participate in the war requires two properties.

1. Does C owe A their uncontested support and participation from some valid contract or agreement between the two?
2. If so, what gives validity to any contract of the sort?

IMHO, if A and C have some sort of contract that says one will come to the others aide in time of need, that pertains to A requiring the efforts of C due to a survival situation. I believe when the survival of any ally is at risk the person has a moral obligation to assist in some manner to stabalize the situation. I would not go so far as to declare they must physically fight the war. Participation could be in using other channels like the diplomatic one.

So if that contract can be loosely interpreted and inclusive of C's right to verify the status of A's claim, and thus choose between aiding A by one means or another than C abides the contract on a superficial level even if C morally decides not to participate by sending troops. If the contract specifies that C will participate in any engagement of war involving A and C uses no means to work with A, claims nuetrality or moral indifference, than C sounds remiss.

I know all that speel above seems like double speak. But taking a part of one argument F_14D points out :

By not assisting A or B, C is being true to its principle. It is not engaging in a war it opposed by physical interaction.

I would add those three words to make that statement representative of where I would comfortable is stating C's stand. It doesn't mean I would appreciate C or have much respect for them after they made such a choice. And on a personal scale in all likihood it would eventually result in my severing the contract ties with C.

Because I might interpret their decision as an end to our original agreement. But before severing ties I think in all fairness I would at least be willing to draw up a new contract with C that would either entail specifics of their participation in any action, or give them the latitude of their moral convictions.

Consequently, I don't view France as C. To me C would have to be a nation that actually had a committment to A in respect to any war action. And so I would ask how such a contract could be morally right in the first place? And who would be willing to sign or agree to something like that?

Thus, to sum up the parts I mentioned should be addressed, the morality and decision of A's choice to war falls on A. Human behavior to date demonstrates that humans solve problems via methods that result in killing one another. And the accountability for the killing remains an unsolved mystery, because humans tend to blame each other and noone takes the responsibility for the death and destruction. Yet in their history the loser of the conflict most often carries the burden for the blame.

Cheri

From Philosophy with your coffee II

From: TALLYBENDER
Sent: 11/8/2004 11:25 AM
UNITED NATIONS

For the purpose of this discussion let A through Z represent

nations. All nations agrred to join together and prevent wars

after WWII. Nation A iniated the start of This United Nations

and hosts it today on its soil. A strongly critized nation R for

vetoing decisions not in their self interest. But when all voted to

sanction B for using poison gas, only A and I abstained from

voting for it. All from A to Z helped to prevent B from

occuppying nation nation Q. Now A is involyed in occuppying

B without United Nations approval. Your question is should C

and others support a war they did not authorize. Perhaps they

should help get this war stopped end the occupation of B.

From: F14_D
Sent: 11/8/2004 6:45 PM
As I said, this is inspired by the Iraq war. I do not intend to apply answers given to the hypothetical to the event upon which it is based and charge the countries C applies to with being wrong. I do not see the relevance of A's moral consistency or lack thereof. Obviously you're referring to Halabja in the real life situation, but even then the question would be whether France, et al, is being morally consistent, not the purity of America's motives.
I did not consider the option you gave, and I should have. Thanks for bringing it up. that's why I said some arguments and not the arguments.
From: TALLYBENDER
Sent: 11/8/2004 8:10 PM
MORALS AND AGGRESSION We loudly condemed Russia when it invaded Hungary and Afghanistan and justly so. If we are to have an internatioal body to prevent wars, all must abide by the same standard. To take a year to plan an invasion does not seem qualify asan imminet threat. Leaving plenty of time if neccessary for a constitutional declarationof war by congress or a decision by the United Nations.
From: Big_Daddy_76
Sent: 11/8/2004 10:19 PM
Enough of this 'country A' crap, let's get down to facts, and not rhetoric, if we may.

After being driven from Kuwait, Iraq signed an armistice, further hostility being dependent on Iraq's compliance, or non-compliance with said armistice.

After 10+ years (MORE THAN 10 YEARS!!!) of non-compliance with UN resolutions,
after continued obstruction of UN weapons inspectors attempts to determine if Iraq
still had WMD in it's possession,
after 10+ years of illegally bypassing the UN's 'Oil for Food' program
(abetted by UN members France, Germany and Russia, but let's not talk about that),
and after continued attempts by Iraq to shoot-down US and GB aircraft enforcing the
UN's 'No Fly Zone', (with components sold to it illegally by the UN members previously mentioned)
Mind you, the previous paragraph is not opinion, it is reality, that someone chooses not to recognize them, does not invalidate the facts!

The US decides (ALMOST unilaterally) to end the sham, and enforce the armistice agreed upon by Iraq, so I have to ask:

Why is the US considered the agressor?

Why, after 10+ years of Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions, is the US accused of 'rushing to war'?

Why is the US condemned for 'not seeking a world concensus', with nations actively involved in criminal activities in Iraq?

Why is the US condemned for not having UN authorization, when the UN shows no 'moral fiber', and won't enforce it's own resolutions?

IMNSHO, the only nation that has shown any 'moral consistency' at all, is the US!!
But that's just my opinion.........
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/2004 12:01 AM
My understanding is the the "No Fly zone was not UN sanctioned.

The actual guilt of anyone, let alone a country as a whole, or at least its government, remains yet to be seen. But it is yourt right to draw conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the nations you mentioned.

As for whether or not America is morally consistent, I am not getting involved in that. I mostly as asking about specific choices in a narrow context. I understand if some cannot work within it, that's inherent is any hypothetical, at least I would think so.

I do not know precisely why Europe opposed the war and feels America was in the wrong to go wage war, but I think the two most likely reasons are Europe's opposition to force, for humanitarian reasons and so on, in most circumstances unless urgent, and do not believe Saddam's continued presence in power in Iraq created.

For them, necessity, it seems, trumps the issue of accountability, or at least the use of force to hold a state accountable. I cannot say they are wrong, but I do wonder, if further diplomacy and sanctions are the alternatives, just how long should the US and Britain have continued with the controversial No Fly Zones, defended sanctions which seem to have been manipulated? Even if cost and rsik factors are lower, it does not sit well to have to keep a force monitoring a dictator. Is it the contention of many European's that there should have been an end to monitoring of Saddam's activities, or at least a lessening of it. I am not out to target Europe, but I just wonder about policies. I wonder about whose accountable: why someone should or should not be; vaibility, pragmatism, practicality, reliability, steadfastness.

I tend to lean toward Europe's view, as I understand it, though I do wonder about aspects of it.
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/2004 12:05 AM
Well, I am not sure what imminent threat is. I suppose that, had the WMD threat existed in reality to the extent many thought, the option to use force might lost its realistic worth by the time diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. And it's nearly impossible to exhaust diplomacy, especially if the philosophies of those defining exhaustion are highly pacifistic.
From: just a reader
Sent: 11/9/2004 6:18 AM
Thank you, F14_D, for bringing this one over here, to this coffee board also. Interesting, the different replys you are getting. Especially, so soon after the election. That was a difficult choice, for most Americans, I'm thinkin'.....but, a choice had to be made. Good to have the groundwork done, on the different philosophies. Why, do we think, and do, like we do? Doesn't anyone know history anymore?
E.
From: TALLYBENDER
Sent: 11/9/2004 6:20 AM
damn I like a good argument, but the war is a fact, as much as I like arm chair quarter backing, May be we should discuss some way out of that mess.
From: Cabster_297
Sent: 11/9/2004 8:19 AM
We could sit and debate the right and wrong of the US attack ( let's face it .. Coalition??? ..yeh right ) on Iraq. It's a done deal, right or wrong.

I remember Powell coming up here and presenting his 'irrefutable' evidence of WMDs and hidden nuclear devices to our politicians ... and when our Prime Minister made his statement to the effect .."show me proof .. the proof is the proof and I don't see any proof" most people made fun of him and it was fodder for the standup comedy crowd ... but now it doesn't seem like such a joke ... eh?

As an aside ... Powell has been conspicuously absent from the world stage lately.. hasn't he? My money says he will be replaced/resign after Jan./05.

Anyway ... the way I see it ... The US is in Iraq to stay. Obviously they will have to reduce the numbers, but Iraq is going to serve the same purpose that the Philipines served for years. A military presence that will keep the locals in line. As long as there is a ready to go military force in the region ... no one will give Israel a hard time. Oh .. there are going to be the fanatics .. but the regional enemies like Syria, Jordan, Egypt etc ... will not risk any kind of an assault. And don't rule out the protection it affords the Saudi Royal Family. They have a few internal problems with fundamentalists as well. And how much of America do they own???

A strong commitment in Iraq serves two purposes ... it protects and assures the flow of oil from the region and it provides a major security blanket for Israel. And I don't think that would have changed if the Dems had gotten elected. Now .. if Nader had made it ... hmmmmm.

I think the US was wrong for taking on the roll as The World's Cop ... but it's done and we just have to live with it. Killing Iraqi's and sending the flower of American Youth back in body bags (again) isn't much of a deal.

I think that with the Rep. holding onto The Whitehouse and gaining control of both the Senate and the Congress ... you are going to have to watch your Government very closely. Four years could prove to be a very long time.

And ... the death or whatever it's called today .. of Arrafat certainly isn't going to make things any more pleasant in the area. All they need now is a Palestinian civil war.

I read somewhere that he is the 6th richest man in the world and he left his family out of his will ... seems that all that money that the world was giving to Palestine was going to Switzerland ... duhhh ... what a surprise...eh? No wonder his wife doesn't want him declared dead.

Now if I could solve the problems of the Middle East and then gain control of the weather and make my wife take me seriously ... damn .. I could rule the world!!!!

Mack
From: TALLYBENDER
Sent: 11/9/2004 8:30 AM
YEH I KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT HISTORY ESTE, LIVED A HELLUVA LOT OF IT.NEBUCHADNEZZAR HAD TROUBLE LONG AGO HOLDING 0N TO IRAQ AND EVERONE SINCE HAS.
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/2004 8:55 AM
Sure, Estte. I've posted this a few places. The responses have been interesting.
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/20

I think, after these threads die, which I presume they will eventually (not too long from now, I suspect), I might copy the replies into my blog.

From Terminology Poets

From: ziigzaag
Sent: 11/8/2004 10:47 AM
F, the problem I have with the parameters of your question is that you first present C with moral AND strategic rationales for not supporting the war.

"After much diplomatic wrangling between entities, A wages war on B; the third entity (C) was and remains opposed to the actions of A on strategic and moral grounds."

But in your list of options, C’s rationale is restricted to "moral" reasons only. Yes, I think that’s an extreme limitation of parameters as to why C would not support the war. Surely you don’t think it’s that simple.

Many times in reality, morality is a luxury most cannot afford. Is it really practical or possible to act on every immoral act or human rights abuse we see going on in the world? How much is a country willing to sacrifice it’s own lives and treasure to fix every human abuse that goes on in the world?

Using any sort of moral argument for the invasion of Iraq is nothing more than a convenient manipulation to disguise the reasons we actually invaded.

Dufar in the Sudan should be enough evidence to convince you that this moral argument is bogus in the first place and consider the moral questions you are posting here to be for the most part moot or useless since it has nothing to do with the reason we invaded.

If your question dealt more with strategy and practicality, that would be more to the reality of what’s happening, to me.

From: F14_D
Sent: 11/8/2004 7:22 PM
From: ziigzaag
Sent: 11/8/2004 10:47 AM
F, the problem I have with the parameters of your question is that you first present C with moral AND strategic rationales for not supporting the war.

"After much diplomatic wrangling between entities, A wages war on B; the third entity (C) was and remains opposed to the actions of A on strategic and moral grounds."

No, I do not, and I should have given more respect to reasons for C's opposition on strategic grounds, but that is in large part because after acknowledging those could exist, my interest was, and had been from the beginning, to ask about the morality of C's position in my hypothetical. I actually think C's right to put the interest of itself first justifies its opposition to A's action. I do not think C owes A blind loyalty. WhatI do wonder is if c is being more consistent to its principles or less consistent if it seems A is incapable of handling the situation. But, going back to reality, the anti whatever forces in Iraq sem to be making a mockery of the Iraqi defensive forces. I heard one station was taken out in an hour, and we're supposed to have 125,000 members of their police forces up and running some time in December. I'm sorry to armchair quearter back, but things look like shit as they are now. Well, on the bright side, Bush's rose colored State of the Union speech, at least the foreign matters part should be good for a laugh. Just remember that "things is hard" and have a cookie. I'm reassured by that, why aren't you?

True, it is not practical. However, it was not, nor has not been argued that all instances of abuse must be addressed with force. And it does ask the question of when and where force is justified if no one is doing anything and a people are suffering. If not out of self defense or reasons such as resource control, there seems to be no reason to aid anyone, which is a shame, but perhaps an understandable one.

Using any sort of moral argument for the invasion of Iraq is nothing more than a convenient manipulation to disguise the reasons we actually invaded.

I do not engage in speculation on true intent. I do not contest that some of them could be right, it is just not something I am comfortable in doing. That is naive of me, yes, but it is just how I am. And whether or not America was justified, or A was, is another, though fair to ask, question.

The arguments were primarily about whether or not C is right to maintain its stance if it is trying to be in keeping with its principle, not if A was right to have attacked B. But I do agree that Arfur does strongly demonstrate hypocrisy if human rights concern is considered as the motivating factor. Do you think America should go in?

If your question dealt more with strategy and practicality, that would be more to the reality of what’s happening, to me.

The scenario is a hypothetical. Nothing in it is an exact mirror of what is occuring in the event that inspired it. It is inherently flawed. I respect your criticism and thank you for it. TALLYBENDER did point out that I neglected to give C the option of working to stop A from continuing to war with B. A definite major oversight on my part. I am glad I said some argument and not the arguments. As for the strategic and practical necessity of the real life situation and the hypothetical, the former is beyond my level and skill to address fairly, in part because of doubt, and I would have to invent such reasons for the latter beyond A's vague proclaimed ones.

From: phootyraskel
Sent: 11/9/2004 12:49 PM
A...hey B you bettter stop it right now or im coming over there and kick your ass.

B...infidel! you will all die

C...please you two calm down somebody might get hurt

A...did you see what they did, somebody has got to pay are you wit us C

B...haha we didnt do it but we are glad it happened ..infidels!

C...hey lets just talk this thing over

A...(bombs and bullets fly people do get hurt)we won! we won! see C we didnt need you after all braaa brraaack (makes like a chicken)

B...(more bombs and bullets fly more people get hurt)sure you did... infidels.

C...ok see i told you guys what a mess.

A...(waves flag patriotically) ok boys lets go kick some B.ass

B...die infidels!

C...mon ami
From: LilyVon
Sent: 11/9/2004 7:35 PM
good to see you
active
and
here
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/9/2004 9:33 PM
Thanks.

Active on and off and about. Spreading my drivel around. Poor world.
f14d
From: ziigzaag
Sent: 11/10/2004 3:59 AM
Isn't A also claiming some moral high ground?
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/10/2004 6:46 AM
A would probably claim its action is moral and being done in the interest of many; that the "sacrifices" of those who must implement its strategy are acceptable because it is, at minimum, trying to stop what it calls a qualifiable evil. There is a question of moral consistency for A: Is its action in the best interest of its supposed primary concern, that of defeating what it perceives as a threat? While it might turn out that A has no option but fight B, it does not necessarily follow that its methods need inevitably lead to chaos and turn or allow B to become liken to Hydra. If B becomes unstable and others follow, domino chaos, how much use good was A's war againt B? A might not need to war against B, but if it does, that does not excuse mismanagement by A.

On the other hand, C does not have the questionable element of necessity for an action as A believes itself to. C does not claim to be under any threat, or at least to need to be in defense of itself in the manner A chose. C's decision is based solely on its philosophy. A claims to base its choice on both morality and necessity.
From: UnFrozenCavemanPirate
Sent: 11/10/2004 10:41 PM
A:"a, b c-in d golfish?"
B:"L, m n no golfish."
C:" O S M R, C M P?
From: Ramona
Sent: 11/11/2004 12:00 AM
I think C has to consider what A means when it says B is "dangerous." C has an obligation to it's own citizens, and perhaps the world, to make sure said danger is real and of a magnitude that justifies a war. This should also be true of A.

Additionally, A must take responsibility for any casulties in its war that occur on either A or B's side that are the result of a poorly planned or executed assault. One of the ways of preventing that is to listen and weigh the advice of knowledgable others, even if they disagree, say for example one's own generals, or even (god forbid!!) C! I know it's hard for bureaucrats to fathom, but technology alone does not win wars and a little bit of consideration before the fact works better than a lot afterwards...
From: F14_D
Sent: 11/11/2004 8:55 AM
From: Ramona
Sent: 11/11/2004 12:00 AM
I think C has to consider what A means when it says B is "dangerous." C has an obligation to it's own citizens, and perhaps the world, to make sure said danger is real and of a magnitude that justifies a war. This should also be true of A.

It should, but A also has the responsibility to sincere acy in the best iterest of its citizens, which could necessitate a lower standard than what C finds acceptable. While reason might forgive A for not acting, its people might not, or at least might not understand if A's suspicions comes to pass with terrible result.

A is vague in its claim of danger, so if you would like to address A's responsibility of proof and necessity for threats it claims exist against itself and to the world, that is fine.

Additionally, A must take responsibility for any casulties in its war that occur on either A or B's side that are the result of a poorly planned or executed assault. One of the ways of preventing that is to listen and weigh the advice of knowledgable others, even if they disagree, say for example one's own generals, or even (god forbid!!) C! I know it's hard for bureaucrats to fathom, but technology alone does not win wars and a little bit of consideration before the fact works better than a lot afterwards...

A and anyone in its position should absolutely listen. It does not have to follow the advice given to it, but listening at least shows respect and gives some comfort that their opinions and data might have been considered because they at least got to speak to A.

But the primary question still remains, but I do like your post on this issue, as well as RubyTuesday's at Philosophy4Everyone (she presented another version of my hypothetical moral question): With the war already underway and A apparently unable to deal with it on its own, is C following its principle or acting against it by not being present in the combat, or in a still more dangerous to itself C predicates its belief on its, for lack of a better term. humanitarianism, desiring as little death as possible. With it presumed that C's involvement now would cost less lives than its nonparticipation, should C consider that when trying to adhere to its principle instead of the deaths it believed would occur as result of the war, which was a major reason for its opposition to the war?

Breaking.

2004-11-09T11:08:00.000-05:00

I shall post no more, with the possible exceptions of adding comments to my previous post and replying to comments made to me by someone, until next year or later.

War and Moral Consistency.

2004-11-08T09:04:00.000-05:00

Largely inspired by the Iraq war debate, I have a very simple hypothetical scenario and question for anyone willing to answer it.

Suppose that there are three entities.

The first entity (A) claims that the second entity (B) is dangerous and must be dealt with.

After much diplomatic wrangling between entities, A wages war on B; the third entity (C) was and remains opposed to the actions of A on strategic and moral grounds.

Suppose C's primary reason for not supporting A is the moral one, that of being opposed to all war or accepting of war only in limited and necessary (which is often subjective, I suppose) circumstances, and that this morality is predicated on C's high regard for life and empathy for victims of violent harm and death.

By not assisting either A or B in their war, is C remaining true to its moral principle, or acting against it?

Some arguments for consideration:

The deaths from the war are A's responsibility. A started the war.

C's resistance to war would have meant more death had others acted in agreement and did nothing, such is the evil of B.

A exacerbated the death toll with the war.

C's interest is in being a neutral party and therefor cannot meet the obligation of support that A claims C owes it.

C is and has been an ally of A for a long time, and what C is doing is disrespectful, by not giving the benefit of the doubt to A, and disloyal.

C is bound only to unquestioned loyalty to itself, those under its charge, and select, overriding principles.

The war against B was inevitable, C's refusal to help is based on meeting impossible standards, therefor C is being stubborn and unfairly punishing A

By not assisting A or B, C is being true to its principle. It is not engaging in a war it opposed, and not directly taking sides in the war. It is being consistent.

C is being stubborn; allowing more deaths. C knows its absence is worsening the death toll, yet it does nothing because of its principle or pride. C is inconsistent because the predicate factor of its stance against the war, human life, is being taken away at terrible rates.

I hope I have not over simplified this and been fair.

Which side'(s) right?

Rather productive

2004-11-06T17:19:00.000-05:00

Quantity if not quality, I sure have talked a hell of a lot. Yes, at least a third are just test results, but it's still unusual for me here. Hmmm, a break may be in order.

Heck

2004-11-05T21:35:00.000-05:00

The wretched King Minos has decided your fate. His tale wraps around his body 6 times.

The sweet light no longer strikes against your eyes. Your shade has been banished to... the Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis!
Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You approach Satan's wretched city where you behold a wide plain surrounded by iron walls. Before you are fields full of distress and torment terrible. Burning tombs are littered about the landscape. Inside these flaming sepulchers suffer the heretics, failing to believe in God and the afterlife, who make themselves audible by doleful sighs. You will join the wicked that lie here, and will be offered no respite. The three infernal Furies stained with blood, with limbs of women and hair of serpents, dwell in this circle of Hell.

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Moderate
Level 2 (Lustful)	High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	High
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	Moderate
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Very High
Level 7 (Violent)	High
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Moderate
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	Low

Take the Dante's Inferno Test

Ha ha.

2004-11-05T13:20:00.000-05:00

You Are a Pundit Blogger!

Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read.
Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few.

What kind of blogger are you?

You Are a Little Scary

You've got a nice edge to you. Use it.

How scary are you?

Mystical; magical; most fantastical

2004-11-04T07:26:00.000-05:00

Your Q Score is: 12

The Q score ideally should be as small as possible, indicating maximum agreement among elements. However, even a tiny Q score may not mean optimal functioning, since all four elements may in fact be relatively undeveloped.

Your Primary Mythical Creature

Air TypesThe main strength of the Air types is intellect. The second element indicates the most probable focus for this intellectual activity.
PegasusAir and Earth

Astrologically associated with Libra and the Seventh House
Pegasus types are theorists who aim to achieve in reality what they conceive with the mind. They are perfectionists who strive to produce order from what they regard as the chaos around them. They detest disorder and ugliness and have a particular flair for creating beautiful surroundings in which to live. They can be highly original and possibly eccentric. They are curious and open-minded but will require convincing evidence to back up ideas. They show exceptional organizational ability. Although they are among the least outgoing of the types they are very concerned with promoting social harmony. Their ability to be objective and impartial makes them popular as fair-minded arbiters of disputes. They are extremely independent and can seem emotionally distant.

Your Shadow Creature

Fire TypesAll the Fire types have problems relating to anger and aggression. The weakest element indicates the main focus of these problems.
WyvernFire and Water

This shadow is both insensitive and hypersensitive. They are unsociable, emotionally illiterate, and mean-minded. Relations with others are characterized by conflict and calculated reprisals. Passive aggression is used to full effect. These types seem to dislike other people. They are plagued by powerful emotional undercurrents and they blame their discomfort on others. They appear cold; their emotional expression, when it is given vent, seems immature. They exhibit a sense of entitlement and do not think that they should have to earn what they get. They are poorly motivated and prone to bitterness. The biggest obstacle of weak Water is to overcome insensitivity and alienation; the biggest obstacle of weak Fire is to overcome anger and aggression.

EV stuff

2004-11-04T01:22:00.000-05:00

http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

California's comparitive power.
Minimal tie: Texas + Illinois or Pennsyvania
Minimal surpass: Texas and Florida
Maximum to tie: all states with 3 (Alaska, Delaware, D.C., which is not a state, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming) and 4 (Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island) EVs, 8 and 5 respectively, and one 5 ( Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and West Virgnia) and one 6 (Arkansas, Kansas and Mississippi) EV state.
Maximum to surpass: Same as the maximum to tie accept the one 5 and one 6 EV states are replaced by 3 5 EV states.

Illinois (mid of country) and Pennsyvania (north east of country) lean Democrat. Texas (mid south) leans Republican.

Florida (south east) is a swing state.

Alaska (north west) leans Republican. Delaware Leans Democrat. D.C. (east) leans Democrat. Montana (north west) leans Republican. Both Dakotas ( mid north) lean Republican. Vermont (north east) leans Democrat. Wyoming (north west) leans Republican.
Hawaii (south west) leans Democrat. Idaho (north west) leans Republican. Maine (north east) leans Democrat. New Hamphire (north east) leans Democrat. Rhode Island (north east) leans Democrat.
Nebraska (mid country) leans Republican. Nevada (west) is a swing state. My basis for these is not very scientific, so these are contestable. New Mexico (south west) is Democratic. Utah (west) Is Republican. West Virginia (east) leans Democrat..
Arkansas leans (mid south) leans Democrat. Kansas (mid country) leans Republican. Mississippi (mid south) leans Republican.

Mid counry: 2:1 for Republicans.
North East: Democrat sweep.
Mid south 1:1
South east: 1 swing.
North west: Republican sweep.
East: Democrat sweep.
Mid north: Republican sweep.
South west: Democrat sweep.
West: Republican and 1 swing

California is a Democrat state. So here is some look at Republican balancing and surpassing of Cali's power.
Mid country gives Republicans 11 EV
Mid south gives them 34
North west gives them 10
Mid north gives them 6
West gives them 5.

If Republicans did not do well in the north west, near California, too, they would be severely weakened.

Or so it appears.

Evil? Take sides?

2004-11-02T01:21:00.000-05:00

The effecting question is not who is more evil; whose argument is more just; whose actions are more appropriate. What matters most is which side benefits society more by a win if a draw is unfeasible. I do not focus much on every given tactic of a terrorist, whether that is a label applied to a Muslim man or George W. Bush, etc., accept in extreme cases. Faults abound, but alternatives to the supposed evils of the weak and the powerful are nothing without cause to believe in the people who must join in these "peaceful" alternatives. If I am to abandon one side for another, or to pick a side, I need to be convinced of there is strong resolve in it, and that it has the capacity to do what it promises.

People can argue about propaganda, fear mongering, and so on, but to little avail. And precedent often trumps moral and statistical comparisons. That many died in act act that cannot be accepted is what gets the greater attention and always will. In part it is due to the difficulty one has in seeing his own faults, but it is also our nature to be selectively sympathetic. Conspiracy theories, presumptions, character attacks and condesending behavior does not persuade me much, even if they are right.

Ahem: Matter Splatter

2004-11-01T11:13:00.000-05:00

For all the matter
Of worth of blood spatter
For kings and queens doth not
Nay even for that jovial lot
Be not silly
Tis best to die for Billy

See? I finally thought of one thinking about it for a minute or so. I have been up for almost a day, but who can tell?