Hot Abercrombie Chick!

terrorists threaten behead filipino video

2004-07-07T21:59:00.000-07:00

Terrorists Threaten to Kill a Filipino Worker

It turns out that the execution threat to U.S. Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun may have been a hoax - see Wizbang, Slant Point, and Backcountry Conservative for more on that.

Now, in what appears to be a legitimate video a new terrorist group, 'Iraqi Islamic Army-Khaled bin al-Waleed Corps', is threatening to kill/behead a Filipino Hostage - AP news story. The group claims that they killed Hafidh Amer, an Iraqi security guard accompanying the Filipino, in a video released by Al Jazeera on Wednesday. In the video, the hostage is shown in an orange jumpsuit like that worn by American hostage Nick Berg in the video of his beheading.

banning violent video games hunting

2004-07-07T09:10:00.000-07:00

They're Still After Those Games

I came across an article the other day letting me know that 'they' are still at it - those lawmakers who want to be your mommy and daddy. During the most recent legislative session, lawmakers in seven states went after violent video games yet again, despite the dubious link between violent video games and real violence:

(from the second linked article)

Research by Craig Anderson, an Iowa State University professor frequently asked to file supportive briefs on behalf of legislators trying to restrict the sale of games, generally goes further than other studies in showing a strong link between game aggression and violence.

Anderson frequently measures aggression by the pushing of a button or aggressive play. Game advocates question how that can be equated with real world violence.

I find it greatly ironic that there is a call to ban violent video games because people are afraid that children will, by 'killing' people/creatures in an animated video game, become more likely to engage in real life violence, while it is generally acceptable for parents to take their children hunting with real guns so they can really kill things in real life. If lawmakers are worried that playing Doom will teach kids to kill, what about all those kids out there basically learning how to sneak around undetected in the woods and to be effective snipers from tree-stands? All ethical questions about both appropriate government regulation and hunting aside, I'm more scared of the kid who wants to actually go out there and kill something than the one who is playing a video game.

continuing the discussion...

comment by 'Sharp as a Marble':

Sorry but I have to disagree with you here. Those of us who hunted as children were generally taught respect. Respect of the weapon and the animals. I was taught to never shoot at anything you weren't prepared to eat.

Most of the hunters I know share the same beliefs. Hunting isn't about random killing of hundreds of animals. And trust me, your first kill isn't always a thrill ride. ...

and another by 'David':

The specific example used in this post (hunting) does not seem to be a good example. All the hunters I know (which excludes me) have very healthy views about what it means to wield a gun. Video games cannot get that reality across, so they have at least as much potential to create killers as hunting does.

Response:

If by respect of the weapon you mean treating the weapon in such a way that you don't injure yourself and anyone or anything except the thing you're trying to kill, then yes. But no one has been making the argument that violent video games cause kids to play with real guns and accidently injure themselves - the issue isn't respect of the weapon. As far as I know, the often-mentioned Columbine killers had respect for their weapons as well. Lack of respect for weapons isn't a relevant issue here.

And as far as hunters respecting the animals they kill, I don't see how anyone could take that seriously. Fine, so most hunters don't go out killing hundreds of random animals, and maybe most of them only kill what they plan on eating - you might be able to sell me on saying that they have less disrespect than someone who does randomly kill hundreds of animals. But since when does respecting something involving killing/destroying it? Whatever your views on whether or not it is permissible to kill animals, you can't say that animals have agreed to be hunted, want to be hunted, or enjoy being hunted. Living things tend to want to stay alive, so killing a healthy one for your own purposes is certainly not being respectful of it. And except in cases where a person is perhaps too poor to buy food, the motivations for going hunting almost always come down to the hunter's enjoyment of the hunting, and of the killing.

Now, as for video games, most (with a few exceptions such as the also often-mentioned Grand Theft Auto) aren't teaching anyone anything less 'healthy' than hunting is. In most violent video games, you're killing the bad guys - the ones who are usually attacking you first. If it's okay for kids to learn, by hunting, how to use a weapon in a healthy manner according to the rules of hunting, what's worse about these particular video games? If hordes of murderous zombies ever take over the planet, I don't think wanting to go out and blow them all away is a particularly unhealthy attitude. Same goes if a bunch of terrorists/militants/bad guys take over a city and start shooting at you. So I don't think it could very well be argued that games like Doom are teaching kids anything worse than hunting.

And what about games where you do kill random non-aggressive people? All I can say about that is that actually killing a real live non-human animal is a lot closer to violence against a real live human than holding down the Control key to send a pixel-based image to its animated 'death'.

Marine Wassef Hassoun Beheading Video

2004-07-03T11:57:00.000-07:00

U.S. Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun Reportedly Beheaded
'Ansar al-Sunna Army' claims it will soon release the video

Iraq Militants Claim Marine Beheading from Yahoo News / AP has more information, including a statement from the Iraqi militants who claim to have behead Hassoun:

"We would like to inform you that the Marine of Lebanese descent has been killed, and you will soon see the movie with your own eyes," said the statement, signed in the name of the group's leader, Abu Abdullah al-Hassan bin Mahmoud.

I'll have more on the incident as information becomes available.

My Previous Post on Hassoun.

pictures of Hassoun being held captive:

. .

other blog coverage:

Short Family: Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun Beheaded

Backcountry Conservative: Marine Hostage Murdered?

The Command Post: Report: Marine Hostage Murdered

Outside the Beltway: Terrorists Claim Marine Wassef...

One Fine Jay: Marine Murdered in Iraq

Johnny Never: Marine Beheaded

Dean's World: Marine Hostage Reportedly Killed

Blogs of War: U.S. Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun Beheaded

Petrified Truth: Killed

Brain Shavings: Marine Slaughtered

Intergalactic Capitalist: U.S. Marine Reported as Beheaded

TalkLeft: Islamic Group Claims Beheading of U.S. Marine

Zygote Design: Yet Another One

On the Third Hand: Insane, sadistic fanatics claim to have beheaded...

irony of banned fireworks fourth of july

2004-07-02T22:11:00.000-07:00

The Fourth of July and Banning Fireworks
oh, the irony

The author of USA Today editorial Fireworks illuminate all USA still has to celebrate lists some things Americans have to celebrate, including:

Preserved values. The 9/11 attacks provoked an all-too-human urge to sacrifice core U.S. principles of civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law in the battle against terrorism. Our constitutional checks and balances are helping swing corrections into place, such as the congressional investigations into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses.

John R. Lott Jr. and Ruth R. Smith note the irony of celebrating that whole 'freedom' thing in their Houston Chronicle editorial, Dangers of having blast on July 4th overblown:

As Americans celebrate their freedom Sunday, it will be with a certain irony: Not all Americans have the freedom to celebrate the holiday with the traditional festive bang. Although about 70 million live in states that allow all sorts of fireworks and firecracker use, the 50 million who live in nine states, including New York and Arkansas, need a permit to even light a sparkler. The state of California bans some types of fireworks and allows cities to expand what is prohibited. Safety is the major concern of those who ban our celebratory backyard light-and-noise shows, but their fears are overblown.

After pointing out that on average, only six people each year die from fireworks related accidents, many of which occur at professional fireworks shows and many of the rest occuring when people consume alcohol and useworks, they continue:

Government can protect people from only so much, and if we banned all the products that caused more deaths and injuries than fireworks, there would be virtually nothing left to use. After all, what is the Fourth of July celebrating if we criminalize even the tiny risks associated with fireworks?

Reminds me of the whole California Tan Ban thing.

Actor Marlon Brando Dies at 80

2004-07-02T11:58:00.000-07:00

Marlon Brando Dies

I haven't seen that many of Brando's movies, especially the older ones, but I was always a fan of his performances in what I did see - particularly in Apocalypse Now. I saw him as one of those actors (like Johnny Depp in Secret Window) who could make a mediocre movie watchable - see the 1996 version of The Island of Dr. Moreau. He was one of my favorites, and I'll miss him.

There's more on the Yahoo news article Actor Marlon Brando Dies at 80

Seven Inches of Sense (http://brandotalk.blogspot.com) is also worth a read.

michael moore lies un fahrenheit 9/11

2004-07-01T22:32:00.000-07:00

Opinions on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11?

Is it worth seeing? I might check it out sometime next week if it sounds like it is. I'm no big Michael Moore fan - I saw Bowling for Columbine and didn't really see the point. I did find the style entertaining enough, though not quite up to the Supersize Me (which was similarly entertaining but rather pointless) level.

Christopher Hitchens reviewed the movie in his article Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore, and I also came across MooreLies.com. If anyone can recommend some reading presenting the other side, let me know and I'll check that out too.

(This is completely random, but The Kenya Song may be the best song ever. Period.)

other bloggers' opinions:

Outside the Beltway: Hitchens on Moore

Wizbang: The Lies Of Michael Moore

In Search of Utopia: If Moore is Such a Nut Case?

Poliblog: Hitchens on Moore

mad cow saddam hussein jihad

2004-07-01T17:08:00.000-07:00

Mad Cow Disease Returns, Free Saddam, and Fahmi Mohamed Saeed

Justin Kitzes of Earth Review is studying the "economics of human / environmental conflicts in Latin American" at Stanford. Check out Mad Cow and the U.S. in Baghdad for information on a possible 100 cases of mad cow disease in the United States along with some reflections on Iraq. Crisis in Sudan: Summary also offers a quick overview of the crisis in the Darfur region.

Six reasons to Free Saddam Hussein by J. Stephen Garrett.

Al-Jazeera writer Fahmi Mohamed Saeed tells Al-Qauda members to stop murdering innocent people and actually start engaging soldiers if they want to call their struggle a Jihad in Special article: How Islam views Beheading incidents?:

My simple advice to Al-Qaeda members is to go to either Iraq or Palestine to fight, kill and slaughter American and Israeli soldiers because that would be a real Jihad and they would be labeled as real freedom fighters and martyrs and because the Americans in Iraq and Israelis in Palestine are undoubtedly occupiers, killers, criminals and aggressors.

US Soldier Maupin Executed on Video

2004-06-28T16:16:00.000-07:00

U.S. Soldier Keith M. Maupin Executed on Video

Yahoo News reports that U.S. Army Specialist Keith M. Maupin was executed by Iraqi militants after being held captive for nearly three months.

Al-Jazeera aired part of the video it received, but as with the Kim Sun-il execution video, did not show the part containing the execution itself. It reported that the militants killed Maupin by shooting him in the back of the head.

other blog coverage:

Wizbang: Army Specialist Keith Maupin Murdered

Our Life: Keith Matthew Maupin Suspected Dead

Backcountry Conservative: American Soldier Killed in Iraq

The Command Post: Reports that PFC Matt Maupin Was Killed

Right Moment: Now You Know

Blogs of War: Iraqi Terrorists Murder Soldier Matt Maupin

Dean's World: Looks Like They Murdered Him

Ramblings' Journal: Unconfirmed reports of US G.I. beheading in Iraq

Talkleft: Militants Kill American Soldier

The Bejus Pundit: Hopefully not true...

Sharp Marbles: RIP Keith Maupin

Intergalactic Capitalist: Spc. Keith M. Maupin

Short Family: Keith Matthew Maupin Suspected Dead

Outside the Beltway: SPC Keith M. Maupin Murdered

Marine Hassoun Next Video Beheading

2004-06-28T16:07:00.000-07:00

U.S. Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun - Next Beheading Victim?

I found the following comment on Slant Point after the Kim Sun-il beheading video came out:

One desire of mine, which involves the bizarre irony of requiring additional murders, is that these videos eventually lose their value. Sites will always find the videos and host them, but perhaps less and less people will seek them out.

...

The best thing we can do is surround these atrocities with condemnation and context. To hide access is to drive the value of these videos up. That helps the terrorists.

Some people might argue that people shouldn't see such videos and pictures because they will become desensitized to them - the same things that are often said about fictional violence on television and in movies. But I don't see this possible 'desensitization' as such an obvious negative. I've seen and read a number of violent emotional reactions to these videos that are quite undesirable. Not from the people who are able to keep everything in perspective and become even more passionate supporters of the effort to stop the terrorist murders, but from those who get crazy ideas like "We ought to nuke Iraq!" and the like. For those individuals, perhaps becoming a bit less sensitive wouldn't hurt.

We should remember that things like those we see in these videos happen every day. People are kidnapped and executed all over the world, and not only by Muslim extremists. People are horribly murdered in the United States too. And of course people on both sides of any war are killed, sometimes justly, sometimes not. But there is a huge disconnect between the way people react to these killings and the way they react to news of some other random killings. Are these videos for everyone? I would say not. But for those who perhaps keep news of killings - any killings - out of the sphere of everyday reality, watching these videos might be a good idea. It might help to realize that there is similar reality behind every death, videotaped or not. Before a person recommends murdering every Muslim in the world because a group of terrorists murdered someone in front of a camera, I'd like them to realize that every death they are calling for is just as real as the one they saw on video.

Some pictures:

. .

More blog coverage:

Wizbang : U.S. Marine And Pakistani Contractor Held Hostage

Our Life : Marine Kidnapped!

Sharp as a Marble : Hooray for Iraq!

Slant Point : American Marine Taken Hostage in Iraq

In Search of Utopia : The Hostage/Murder Crises Continues

Drink this... : They're really gonna do the military like this...?

Auterrific : losing/keeping the faith?

Right Moment : Just Shoot the Varmints.

Our Life : Marine Kidnapped?

Ramblings' Journal : AQ has a US Marine, threatens beheading

Backcountry Conservative : Terrorists Claim They Have a Marine Hostage

South Korea Censors Kim Sun-Il Beheading Videos and Pictures

2004-06-26T12:54:00.000-07:00

South Korea Blocking Sites Containing Pictures and Video of the Kim Sun-il Beheading

Short Family Online - Our Life noted that South Korea had apparently blocked their website on June 24th, as they had a sudden, dramatic decrease in traffic. The reason for the censorship is apparently that they had linked to sites offering pictures and video, including this one, though the picture were not (as they now are) available at the Short Family website at the time they were blocked.

I noticed a similar decline in traffic between the 24th and the 25th. This is a standard phenomenon when it comes to traffic from internet users searching for alternative information sources for big news stories, but it may also be the case that this site has been blocked as well. I checked one of my traffic monitoring services yesterday, Extreme Tracking, and noticed that it had recorded about 3,800 visitors from .kr (Korean) domains -- more than from any other country except for the U.S. (or at least from .com domains, which are counted as U.S. domains) or Canada. I think it is safe to assume that most all of these visitors came here recently after searching for information on the Kim Sun-il beheading. Today, the number of visitors from .kr domains is, I believe, exactly the same as it was yesterday. So, aside from the possibility that there was a surge of interest in my Kim Sun-il related posts from South Koreans that suddenly dropped off completely, I'm guessing that I too have been blocked.

I certainly don't intend to force gruesome images on anyone - I decided that a safe policy for providing such pictures would be to include thumbnails only for segments of videos that did not depict violence, while using text-only links clearly indicting the picture content for those depicting images of the beheadings. No one has complained that they accidently came across these pictures. And while I have had a few individuals question my choice to provide this content, it seems that the majority of new visitors came here with the specific intention of finding it. And in particular, the Korean visitors who came wanted to see, or at least read about, the beheading rather than to voice their opposition to its coverage.

I think it is truly unfortunate that the South Korean (and perhaps the North Korean?) government has engaged in this action to take the choice away from individual citizens about whether or not they want to see (and in some cases, even merely read about) this incident. Whether or not you feel that you should view such images and whether or not you feel it is right for others to provide them, I hope that all of us can recognize the importance of allowing open access to such information rather than censoring it.

Video of South Korean Kim Sun-il Beheading Released

2004-06-24T02:53:00.000-07:00

Video of South Korean Kim Sun-il Beheading Released

The rest of the Kim Sun-il hostage video, the part showing his execution that Al-Jazeera earlier refused to release, has appeared online. So far I haven't heard any news about where or how the rest of the video was released. From Interested Participant's South Korean Hostage Beheaded post, I learned that some Koreans have threatened to burn down a mosque and kill Muslims in the country. More on that from Ruminations in Korea's Kim Executed. Body Found. post.

As horrible as the news is, this aggression against Muslims in Korea makes about as much sense as a person burning down churches and 'retaliating' against Christians for the actions of the KKK.

The reaction of another South Korean can be found at Margaret Cho's Kim Sun Il, which I found through Yahoo.

My earlier post about the murder is here.

As usual, Wizbang has a lengthier set of related lengths here.

pictures from the video:

picture 1
description: Sun-il's black-masked killed draws his knife as another terrorists reads a statement.

picture 2

picture 3

picture 4
description: After the statement is read, the black-masked terrorist takes Sun-il by the head and puts the knife to his neck.

picture 5

picture 6

picture 7
description: The terrorist who was reading the statement holds the head up for the camera.

picture 8

picture 9
description: The camera focuses on Kim Sun-il's body and head.

more blog coverage:

Dear Free World notes the video release:
Next beheading video? South Korean Kim Sun-il take

My Pet Jawa wants you to move to Spain if the beheading doesn't make you support the war:
Kim Sun-il Beheading Video Released

Interested Participant notes that the beheading has increased S. Korean support for troop deployment:
South Korean Hostage Beheaded

The Morality of Killing

2004-06-23T16:09:00.000-07:00

(note: For the slew of first-time visitors looking for discussion/news on the terrorist executions, please scroll down to this post)

The Morality of Killing
quick almost-philosophy response to the last discussion

From the last discussion, a comment by Peter Dodge:

The point I was trying to press wasn't so much the validity of Categorical Imperitive, although I used that as a starting point.

As a society we are presented with many conflicting accounts on the morality of violence. Some say it's never right, some say that it's justified SOMETIMES, other's say it's always right. So then what we as a society have to decide, at least ideaologically, which is it - is killing good or bad?

One can work out a middle ground in practical application, but looking at it idealogically, there are only two ways to go.

I don't see the reason why we would even have to make such a distinction even ideologically. Why must we say that killing is either good or bad? I'm not sure that we could even abstract killing from hypothetic conditionals at least.

Generally, if you ask the average person if killing is wrong, they would probably say "yes" with the background assumption that you mean the killing of a person who hasn't done anything that would justify killing them.

But if you ask "Is it wrong to kill someone in self-defense, if they are trying to murder you?" many people will say that it isn't wrong. You could look at that two ways: you could consider situations of self-defense as an exception to some rule (like 'killing is always wrong'), or you could also consider the judgment of whether killing is right or wrong dependent on context. If you take the second stance, then 'killing' in the abstract, free even of the background assumption that it is an innocent person being killed, is either morally neutral or not the kind of thing that could be morally judged at all.

I would go for this latter interpretation; I don't think it is accurate to consider "killing" or any sort of action as a general thing. There are real acts in the real world, and we find certain similarities in some of them that we classify under the general category of "killing". But I'm not a realist about abstract categories like "killing", and I think that when moral judgments about such general abstractions are made, those moral judgments are being made about certain acts themselves.

It is, of course, a completely valid view to say that every real act that falls under the category of "killing" is morally wrong. But because there is robust reality to the category, there is no reason that everyone must accept that as the relevant category for a right or wrong moral judgment.

I doubt most people would argue that "firing a gun" is a relevant category for a right or wrong moral judgment without any context. Firing a gun at a target is not morally wrong, while firing a gun at some innocent person in order to harm or kill them probably is. The same, I believe, goes for "killing". If an individual shoots someone who is trying to murder them, you could describe the action in many ways. "Killing" would work, as would "firing a gun," and so would "killing in self-defense".

Rather than making the same moral judgment for all actions that fall under the label of "killing", is there any good reason not to group them differently? To keep it simple, we could just have two categories: "killing in self-defense" and "killing an innocent person" (assuming, for the sake of the example, that anyone who isn't trying to murder you counts as an 'innocent'). Now we could say that the killing in self-defense is acceptable, while killing an innocent person is morally wrong.

You could break it down even more of course, so much even that each and every act of 'killing' would fall under its own very specific category. I wouldn't go quite that far - I think with a certain hypothetical level of specificity, different types of killings can be broken into categories that can be correctly judged as right or wrong - that is, a conditional, rule-based system is most effective.

But at whatever level of categorization you stop at, whether it be 'killing' in general or 'killing someone who intentionally presents ______ level of threat to your life when you have done no wrong to them' (or whatever), you do need some bit of argument to show why there are no other possibly relevant facts about a situation that you have not taken into account. To say that all killing is wrong would require an argument as to why there is nothing a person could possibly do that would be relevant to a moral judgment of whether or not it is permissible to kill them. I think situations of killing in self-defense would be the number one target to argue down if you think all killing is morally wrong, and I think you would have a tough time doing it.

2004-06-20T18:15:00.000-07:00

Next Beheading Victim? - South Korean Kim Sun-il Video

From Yahoo News: South Korean Held in Iraq Pleads for Life

Al-Qaida is threatening to behead another hostage, a South Korean man named Kil Sun-il, if South Korea does not take its troops out of Iraq. South Korea does not plan on giving in to the demand, and with the history of these Al-Qaida threats it doesn't look good. I can only hope that military and police forces will eventually be able to disable terrorist networks enough that they aren't able to keep this up.

Update - June 22:

As was unfortunately expected, Kim Sun-il appears to have been executed. These beheadings are becoming disturbingly routine news.

images from the hostage video:

from A Small Victory: Hostage Murdered --

Kim Sun-il was 33 years old. He had three college degrees. He had a family and many friends who remember him as a determined, quiet man.

Kim Sun-il was a victim of the war on terror, a victim of the enemy we must defeat. Faster, please.

other blog coverage:

Wizbang: South Korean Beheaded In Iraq

Backcountry Conservative: Kim Sun-il Beheaded

Outside the Beltway: Kim Sun-il Beheaded by Islamists

Ramblings' Journal: Korean Beheaded

Whomping Willow: Sorry, My Ass

The Command Post: Breaking: South Korean Hostage Killed

In Search of Utopia: The Kim Sun-il Execution

Protein Wisdom: Because Abu Ghraib, 2

Suburban Sundries Shack: Another Hostage Beheaded

Classical Values: South Korean Beheaded

Our Life: Kim Sun-il Beheaded

Interested-Participant: South Korean Hostage Beheaded

dcthornton.com: South Korean Hostage Murdered

Drink this...: Untranslate this...

The Galvin Opinion: THE BLOG FOG

Right Moment: Negotiate?

damn the muse: Here we go again

One Little Victory: Do you get it yet?

I encourage you to join the discussion in the Comments section below. But I do hope we all remember that the people who did this do not represent the beliefs of Islam or of all people in the Middle East. Most of them are probably just as apalled as us--they're just more used to seeing it happen to people they know. There are extremists in most every religion or belief system out there. The problem is not any particular ideology; the problem is any version of any ideology that does not respect life and individual liberties, and would have those who hold it use physical force against others to make them adhere to it.

2004-06-18T13:20:00.000-07:00

Incorrect Speculation - Paul Johnson Beheading

After viewing the Robert Jacob Execution Video, I speculated that the people behind these beheading videos/images might be toning down the graphic violence in an attempt to better get their messages across. The production of the Robert Jacob video that was released online included images of injured and dead children, as well as brutality by Western military forces, set in contrast to the execution.

I'd speculated that if more of these videos came out, they would be produced in a similar fashion. However, the pictures of Paul Johnson's body are more in the style of the Berg beheading video, and possibly even a bit more graphic. For now, I suppose I'll just have to keep watching in case there are any new developments.

The Pictures:

other blog coverage:

Wizbang: American Hostage Paul Johnson Beheaded

Classical Values: Paul Johnson beheaded

Rooftop Report: Another Beheading by the religious crusaders

My Pet Jawa: Oh...My...God....Yes, Anger is the Appropriate Emo

Rooftop Report: Nick Berg Beheading Video

annika's journal: Is It Becoming Clearer Now?

The Galvin Opinion: THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO MERCY

Backcountry Conservative: Another Beheading Video?

Ramblings' Journal: AQ beheads hostage Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia

Drink This: Too much naivete on this...

Inoperable Terran: Religion of Peace My Ass™

Judicious Asininity: Another American Beheaded by Terrorists

Dear Free World: Latest beheading video especially graphic

Intergalactic Capitalist, the StarBanker Blog: Saudis Whack Three

Interested-Participant: Paul Johnson Beheaded

The Denrael Project: Paul Johnson

Watcher of Weasels: The Paul Johnson Beheading: Another Zionist...

In Search of Utopia: Not Since 9/11, Has there Been as Much Anger...

Slant Point: Paul Johnson Beheading

Right Moment: Misdirected Anger and Saudi Indifference

Being American in T.O.: Paul Johnson, Jr., RIP

Dizzy Girl: Why Don't We Get Drunk And...

Angelweave: Paul Johnson

2004-06-16T12:24:00.000-07:00

Religious Home Schooling
Some Observations

from Southern Baptists Reject School Pullout:

The Southern Baptist Convention voted down a controversial proposal Wednesday that would have asked parents to pull their children from public schools in favor of religious education.

...

Earlier this year, a statement denouncing "government schools" as "officially Godless" had been proposed by retired Air Force General T.C. Pinckney of Alexdandria, Va., and attorney Bruce Shortt of Spring, Texas.

The meeting's resolutions committee rejected that in favor of a broader and less pointed warning against "the cultural drift in our nation toward secularism."

Pinckney took the floor to move a briefer amendment encouraging parents to provide their children "a thoroughly Christian education" through private day schools or home schooling. That was defeated that by a show of hands after the most spirited debate of the meeting.

Though I'm certainly no big fan of public schools, I find the Christian fundamentalist home-schooling/private schooling movement a bit frightening. In principle it's fine--I'm sure many parents out there could do and are doing a great job of educating their children, and there are many well respected religious schools. I wouldn't have minded going to one of the good ones if I'd had the chance.

But I grew up in a mostly rural area where parents home-schooling their children were not exactly the kind of people who would make the best teachers; most had never attended college at all, and few of the rest had attained a four-year degree. Generally, the mothers would be in charge of educating the children, and they were even less likely to be educated than the fathers because the prevailing philosophy in this particular group was that the woman's place is in the home.

The one actual religious school, affiliated with the major church for this group, was probably a step up from the home-schooling but the academics were well below the public schools (which weren't great anyway). Most of the teachers were female members of the church who more often then not had no college degree--I don't know that any of them would have been qualified to teach at the public schools.

Some of these types of parents did send their kids to the public schools, for a time anyway. This was mostly in the lower grades, and many parents pulled the kids before junior high or high school. The public schools weren't great, but they certainly weren't bad places. There was no gang activity, no real violence. The majority of people in the town were Baptists, though most were not in the more extreme fundamentalist camp, and the public schools were anything but "Godless". But parents still pulled their children out despite the far from adequate educational opportunities elsewhere.

The parents weren't the only ones taking kids out of public schools. Many of girls whose families were members of the most fundamentalist church (they were easy to identify because they were required to wear long skirts and not to cut their hair) began disappearing from school when they turned 15 or 16; they had been married, usually to men who were no younger than their mid to late twenties. I don't know the degree to which these arrangements were consensual, but it was clear that there was a high degree of pressure from both parents and from the church community for the practice. Since the girls had to begin cooking, cleaning, taking care of their husbands and having babies, they had no time to finish high school and most never did.

This is all from my own observation, and since I'm no expert on the Christian home-schooling movement, I won't try to over-generalize. But I think it's safe to say that the views held by the fundamentalists in my town aren't unique to them, nor are their educational arrangements or lifestyle.

2004-06-16T10:30:00.000-07:00

New Site Design

As you can see, I finally have a new site layout. Please let me know what you think of it, any suggestions you have, and any problems/errors that you experience. (note: right now the site I'm using to host my background images seems to be down.)

I'm also looking for a better free image hosting site - I'm using Photobucket for the background images right now, but I'm hoping to find something better. I'm also interested in suggestions for different blog tools and the like that might be useful for the site. Right now I'm trying out Bloglinker for reciprocal linking, and I'm always open for suggestions.

2004-06-13T12:40:00.000-07:00

Another Execution Video?

I first noticed this on Ghost of a Flea, which provided a link to a Wizbang post about it as well as a link to the site posting the video.

Unlike the Berg video, this one has been undergone some production work--it opens to music and some Arabic text along with the name "Robert Jacob" before going into a brief slideshow. A photo of a very young dead child laying on a blanket with a man viewing the body fades into the background, and a smaller picture of another (or perhaps the same) child with a large wound on his or her back moves up from the bottom of the screen to the top. At the same time, another photo of a line of men laying on the ground moves from the top to the bottom. One of the men is in front of the others, and a soldier (an American, I assume) has his or her foot on the man's neck/upper back. It is not completely clear whether the men are dead or alive, but I thought they looked alive.

Next, a photo of the blood-covered face of a child with one eye swollen shut appears in the center of the screen and slowly grows to cover it. The video cuts into a camera shot next--the camera is being jostled about, briefly showing a sandled foot and then being placed on the ground. A man in sneakers and black pants walks to the right, then runs forward while firing a weapon at the victim, claimed to be Robert Jacob. He falls forward in the corner of the screen, then rolls and jerks brielfy as the first man continues firing. Another man in sneakers and white pants joins the first man. It isn't clear if he is also firing a weapon or not.

The video then does a quick fade and comes back in on the two men. This time the second man in white pants is bending over the body and apparently cutting the head off, though the view is blocked. The first man is also bent over the body, and it looks to me like he is pulling the victim's wallet from the back pants pocket. Then another quick fadeout, and a very brief (under one second) shot of the body. Again, it is unclear whether or not it has actually been beheaded because of the angle of the camera. I couldn't see anything that looked like blood on the ground, though if there had been it might have been difficult to see because the camera was on the ground. Next, some fingers appear over the camera lens as it is picked up and moved. Just before the video ends, in the last frame or two, the outline of one of the men is visible. The video then cuts to a small moving logo which finally grows as some Arabic text fades in underneath it.

A New Trend?

This video bears obvious similarities to the Berg beheading video, but is also different because of the production. The video is also clearer, though far less graphic--the most violent segment is relatively brief, and there are no close-ups or any view of actual wounds or blood. I'm no expert of course, but I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of it being a fake--just because it would be very simple to have created the footage with an actor and a gun firing blanks. But so far I've read nothing that would indicate the video was a fake, so I'm still guessing that it's probably real.

Is this a new trend? I don't think that it is yet, though it seems to have the possibility of becoming one. This may well depend on the way the video is covered in the news. The popularity of stories about the Berg video may well have shown that releasing such videos is an effective way to get noticed. This Robert Jacob video seems like an even more calculated attempt to do so. There was a significant outcry against the Berg video, and I would guess that the people behind this video have tailored it to get the message across without causing such outrage: shorter, far less graphic (and thus, less likely to spark outrage), and set in contrast to brutal violence against men who appear to be civilians and children. The producers of the video hope, I assume, that this will serve not only as a warning to Western viewers, but also as an explanation that such violence is taking place in response to equally brutal violence.

Update:

An article related to this killing and extremist activities online just popped up on the Yahoo top news stories - click here.

other blog coverage:

Backcountry Conservative: Another Videotaped Execution

In Search of Utopia: The Murder of Robert Jacobs

Outside the Beltway: Robert Jacob Murdered on Video

Ramblings' Journal: AQ videotapes ANOTHER execution of an American

Poliblog: It Has Happened Again

Slant Point: Robert Jacobs Beheading Video

2004-06-12T14:00:00.000-07:00

Site Updates

My Blogroll is back - I took it down because it was getting too long, but now it's been shortened and won't take as long to load. If anyone has an idea of how to have it only list the first ten or so most recently updated links (aside from paying for Blogroll Gold), please let me know. Blogroll Me!

I'm also fiddling around with a new layout, so if you have trouble loading the blog, just try again in a few minutes and it should work. For anyone who was wondering, the conversion to MT is postponed indefinately. I realized that I'm still pretty partial to Blogger and that it would take quite a while for me to load all of the archived posts onto MT.

2004-06-09T20:42:00.000-07:00

Still Here

I just wanted to let everyone know I'm still here, and I'll be back to posting soon (probably tomorrow). I was visiting a friend last week and was too busy to write anything, but I'm back for a while now.

2004-06-01T15:09:00.000-07:00

Responsibility from Inaction?
response to discussion from previous topic

I agree that choices about how to act make a person responsible for the way that the choose to act--but since when is it my responsibility (or yours, or anyone else's) to try to change every other person's actions to our liking? Why am I obligated to give input just because the possibility to do so exists? How does a choice not to act within a situation that I had no hand in creating give me a responsibility for what occurs in that system? --Me

Because you chose to not act. You seem to believe that the government has an influence on your life. That's true. How does the government guide it's influence? Through elected officials and referrendums. How do those get intoplace? By the voluntary action of all eligible citizens, like yourself. By not volunteering to act, you've not relinquished your responsibility and role, just your influence. The responsibility and role come automatically and irrevocably with your being citizenship, and can only be lost when you lose (or give up) your citizenship.

Your argument implies that non-voters are not subject to the laws or benefits of government, since they never offered up their opinion. Is that really what you mean? --Andrew

You're still not explaining how it could be that choosing not to act to change a situation that you had no part in creating creates responsibility. You say:

"The responsibility and role come automatically and irrevocably with your being citizenship, and can only be lost when you lose (or give up) your citizenship"

as if citizenship was some actual, tangible thing rather than an on-paper status that a certain group of people decide to classify others by.

But how is it that a person can simply be "born into" a responsibility without their having made a choice to freely accept that responsibility or actually do something to come into it? What if you were born into citizenship of a country that demanded one or two years of military service of you as your 'responsibility', and that military service happened to include your participating in genocide? If you can have some 'responsibility' automatically, by birth, just because the people in control say so, wouldn't that mean that you would have a responsibiltiy to do whatever they say?

If you can't come into just any kind of responsibility, how would you argue that you can automatically be obligated to do some things but not others? If morality is more important and you couldn't be obligated to do something immoral (even if it was legal and accepted), then what is the basis for any (even non-immoral) responsibility by birth? Arguing that a person can only be obligated by citizenship to do something if it isn't immoral sounds like a cheap escape from the problem--more like saying "I'm not obligated to do something if I don't think I should". But then, what about people who don't think they should be obligated to fulfill the 'responsibilities' that others have decided to place upon them by no choice of their own?

And what if the obligations placed on you did not force you to engage in immoral action. Perhaps the State decides that every citizen has the responsibility of working in government factories until they are 65--would that mean that you would actually be obligated to do so because you were born in an area controlled by that State? I would think that most people wouldn't agree that you can be obligated to be a slave to the government just because it is demanded of you. But is it possible to draw a line between instances that seem unacceptable, and this grand old American way you're promoting in which I am supposedly responsible to influence the government if I don't approve of what it's doing?

Doing so would require an argument about how some demands would be unacceptable because going along with them would take away too much of an individual's freedom, while other demands don't take away too much. I'm not discussing situations in which a person is actually forced to comply with their 'responsibilities' as a citizen of course. But if you choose not to comply, by Andrew's way of thinking, you are automatically responsible to some degree at least (how much is unclear) for things that happen or do not happen because of your non-compliance. So your options are either to give up some varying amount of your freedom if you don't want to be responsible for bad things that a certain group of people do, or to retain your freedom and then be in the wrong if that group of people does something bad.

I think it is ludicrous to claim that this choice could be forced upon someone. I'm always wary of claims that a person can be responsible for something by not acting--after all, isn't responsibility generally understood as something that comes about when you are the cause of something? You are certainly not the cause of something if you refuse to even become involved in the situation (assuming you had no part in setting up that situation in a way such that your earlier actions were the cause of later occurences). Causing something require action, not inaction.

So when children starve in third-world countries, unless a person has somehow caused the food shortage, it is ridiculous to say that he or she is responsible for their deaths. It might be praiseworthy, even morally good, to help people in such situations. But that does not mean that you have an obligation to help, or that inaction is immoral and responsible. Why should it be impossible for a person to simply live their lives without interfering with the freedoms of others, desiring that their own freedoms not be infringed upon as well, without their being responsible for every act of evil that they didn't try to prevent?

If inaction can make you responsible for something, then all of us are in pretty bad shape because we are automatically responsible for all sorts of evil. You obviously can't try to fix everything that's wrong with the world--even the most active person is only able to use his or her influence in dealing with a very small fraction of the problems out there. So even the best and most active person is responsible for all of the evil he or she chose not to prevent. If you are going to argue that inaction can bring about responsibility, you can't escape this. If you think that doing something can somehow absolve a person of his or her responsibility for the problems that he or she didn't try to solve, you can't hold this view. Rather, you would believe that some general obligation to "do good" or "help others" to some extent might exist, without any specific demands about how that would be carried out. But then you can't argue that people who don't become involved with the government are responsible for its actions unless you can also show that that they don't exercise their "help out" or "do good" obligation in some other way. But if that is your view, questions of specific responsibilities probably wouldn't be coming up to begin with.

So unless you are prepared to argue that people are, through their inaction, responsible for a great amount of evil (far outweighing the good they could possibly do, I'm sure), how can you claim that responsibility can come about through inaction? You won't slip out of the problem by claiming that the government makes it easy for you to have a (small) influence. Lots of people and groups make it easy for you to have an influence--all it takes is donating a bit of money to the scores of charity groups out there, for example. And you could write a letter to any person who might possibly read it to attempt to influence decisions they make in whatever positions they happen to be in. Is there something special about a government that makes you are specially responsible for its actions if you don't try to influence it? If there was, you might be able to argue your way out of the mess of claiming that everyone is responsible for most everything--but unfortunately, there's nothing magical about governments, nothing that gives us reason to consider them as being in some special category.

Feel free to tell me why you disagree, but I think it is absolutely absurd to say that every person in the world bears responsibility for all the bad things they could have tried to prevent or change but did not. If that was the case, we might as well give up on trying to influence anything for the better anyway--whatever small benefit we might bring about is still practically nothing compared to the responsibilities we bear for inaction in other areas.

2004-05-29T10:29:00.000-07:00

More on the California Tan-Ban
response to commentors

from Joseph:

HAC, I have objections to both the structure of your arguement, and the content.

Regarding the content, you are looking only at one side of the issue. While it generally is wise for government to avoid meddling in people's private behavior, government does have a responsibility to make sure that businesses operate in an ethically proper fashion.

Response: 'Ethically proper' is one of those fun catch-all phrases that people love to employ in arguing for a position because it seems that you can throw it out there with no support. But you can't just say "That's unethical" without support. So if you are going to argue that by allowing someone under eighteen to tan, tanning salons are being unethical, it's going to take some argument. In particular, you're going to have to explain why, even though the risks of cancer from tanning are well-known, it is unethical for a business to allow a person to choose to take that risk.

The proposed legislation not only regulates the behavior of teenagers, it also regulates the behavior of tanning salons. These businesses take money from kids and expose them to a risk of cancer. That is a practice that is similar to the practice of selling cigarettes to minors. It is wrong and should be stopped. thus, the legislation is not aimed so much at restricting the behavior of teenagers, but at preventing businesses from predatory behavior.

And what's wrong with selling cigarettes to minors? 'Predatory behavior' is another one of those fun buzzwords, I know--but it's not an argument. You may not like the practice, you might think it's wrong. But no one is forcing you to smoke cigarettes or to go tanning, and you aren't the one getting cancer when other people do it (secondhand smoke concerns aside). Why is it wrong to allow someone to engage in risky behavior? A sixteen or seventeen year old isn't that much dumber than the average adult. Many adults aren't too responsible to begin with; if they were, people wouldn't go tanning and smoke cigarettes to begin with. But these businesses aren't tricking people into taking risks that they don't know exist, or forcing them to do so--even if you like to make up nasty names for the way they do business.

Regarding the structure of your argument, you point out that there does not appear to be an objective standard for deciding the age at which an individual should be able to decide to take on a particular risk. There are two problems with this type of argument. First, just because it is hard to know where the line should be, does not mean there should not be a line at all. For example, it is hard to know what is the ideal speed limit for an expressway. Does it follow that there should be no speed limit? Second, when discussing risk, one also must consider the benefits that can be attained by the risky behavior. Compared to tanning, there is greater benefit to driving a car; thus, a greater risk is acceptable.

I never argued that there should "not be a line at all"--I said that "If, as appears to be the case, there is no real standard of when something is risky enough to ban for people under sixteen, eighteen, twenty-one, or to ban completely, there is a very real danger to individual liberty." The problem is that not only is it difficult to draw a line, but that they are not doing it. The danger lies in the fact that there is no standard to restrict how the lawmakers come up with these bans, and nothing to keep them from this kind of overly restrictive action.

Does a sixteen year old's being able to drive a car really provide a benefit to them? Sure, they like it--a lot of them like tanning too. But in general, most teenagers with cars probably aren't getting much benefit from it. A few might actually get a job and save up enough money for something useful like college, but many also work just to pay for the car and for going out with friends (of those who do use the car for transportation to work). I think the real reason that driving is allowed is simply popular opinion. It's part of the culture that is more accepted for teenagers than alcohol and tobacco consumption, and is allowed for that reason despite the risks--not because of any benefits. It could be argued that allowing alcohol consumption at an earlier age, as they do in some European countries, is beneficial because it allows teenagers to learn to use alcohol responsibly. Or so I've heard from some German friends. But again, the real problem here is that these lawmakers don't seem to be using any actual standard of what makes an activity risky enough to warrant a ban or age-restriction, and that's a danger to individual freedom that we should all take notice of.

2004-05-26T11:40:00.000-07:00

When Will It End?
The California Tan Ban

The California State Assembly has passed a bill that bans people under eighteen from artificial tanning booths. Now California teenagers aren't allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, buy lottery tickets, or go to tanning booths.

Backers of the bill, including the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, blame tanning salons for part of 1 million new cases of skin cancer diagnosed every year in the United States. The group cited 7,400 deaths annually from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

"There is a big difference between going to the beach and a tanning salon," said the bill's author, Assemblyman Joe Nation, a Democrat. "When kids go to the beach they put on sun screen."

If the aim of the bill is to protect teenagers from themselves by preventing them from getting skin cancer, to be consistent, won't they also have to pass a bill mandating sun screen for teens on the beach? Maybe they'll even have to mandate it for teens who are outside for more than an hour at a time.

When I read things like this, I have to wonder how far laws aimed at forcing people to take care of themselves will go. As far as I can tell, the only justification for this law is that artificial tanning booths can cause skin cancer, and people under eighteen aren't old enough to make the decision to take that risk. But what criteria are used to determine the age at which a person can understand the risks of an action enough that he or she should be allowed to do it? For alcohol consumption, eighteen is not old enough--you have to be twenty-one. The same goes for buying a handgun in many (most?) states. I think that in some states, you have to be twenty-one to purchase (and maybe to view) 'obscene' materials like pornography. And of course, no one is ever old enough to use marijuana or other drugs.

Is there any consistent difference in risk associated with the different age requirements? I'm fairly sure that driving is riskier than all of these other activities combined even when the driver in question hasn't been drinking or using drugs, yet many states allow teenagers to drive when they are sixteen. Viewing obscene materials is certainly safer even than going to a tanning booth, as is using marijuana.

If, as appears to be the case, there is no real standard of when something is risky enough to ban for people under sixteen, eighteen, twenty-one, or to ban completely, there is a very real danger to individual liberty. The only thing standing between the under-eighteen tanning ban and an outright artificial tanning ban for all ages is popular opinion--the same thing standing between the age-restrictions on tobacco and alcohol and on the total ban on drugs like marijauana. If tanning was (or ever is) looked upon by the popular eye in the way that drug use is, I have no doubt that the members of the State Assembly would have felt entitled to ban it altogether.

The bill passed despite opposition from tanning salons and Republican lawmakers opposed to "meddling" in personal choices.

"If this bill passes it proves there's no part of somebody's life this Legislature won't stick its nose into," said GOP Assemblyman Ray Haynes.

I would hope that instead of thinking, "Yes, that's dangerous. Let's ban it," lawmakers like those in California would take a look at the bigger picture. Is it really a good idea to start banning things just because they endanger an individual? They could at least set some standard of what level of risk is enough to warrant such bans. If the cancer risk from use of articifial tanning booths is great enough to justify the ban, then there are all sorts of activities of equal or greater risks that could also be made age-restricted or completely prohibited. Perhaps they should just get it over with and pass a "No taking risks until you're eighteen" law.

2004-05-21T14:31:00.000-07:00

More than Humiliation
more details of prison abuse at Abu Ghraib

excerpts from the article:

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

Previously secret sworn statements by detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq describe in raw detail abuse that goes well beyond what has been made public, adding allegations of prisoners being ridden like animals, sexually fondled by female soldiers and forced to retrieve their food from toilets.

...The detainees said they were savagely beaten and repeatedly humiliated sexually by American soldiers working on the night shift at Tier 1A in Abu Ghraib during the holy month of Ramadan...

...Many provided graphic details of how they were sexually humiliated and assaulted, threatened with rape, and forced to masturbate in front of female soldiers.

"They forced us to walk like dogs on our hands and knees," said Hiadar Sabar Abed Miktub al-Aboodi, detainee No. 13077. "And we had to bark like a dog, and if we didn't do that they started hitting us hard on our face and chest with no mercy.

...They also described beatings and threats of death and sexual assault if they did not cooperate with U.S. interrogators.

Hilas also said he witnessed an Army translator having sex with a boy at the prison. He said the boy was between 15 and 18 years old. Someone hung sheets to block the view, but Hilas said he heard the boy's screams and climbed a door to get a better look. Hilas said he watched the assault and told investigators that it was documented by a female soldier taking pictures.

"The kid was hurting very bad," Hilas said.

...Hilas also said he watched as Graner and others sodomized a detainee with a phosphoric light. "They tied him to the bed," Hilas said.

...One day, the detainee said, American soldiers held him down and spread his legs as another soldier prepared to open his pants. "I started screaming," he said. A soldier stepped on his head, he said, and someone broke a phosphoric light and spilled the chemicals on him.

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

I just thought I would share those details for those of you who argued that Sivits was adequately punished because he and the other soldiers "just humiliated" prisoners--clearly, the abuses were much more than that.

2004-05-19T12:07:00.000-07:00

How Harsh
Soldiers Receives the Maximum Sentence for Prisoner Abuse

from the article:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits received the maximum penalty Wednesday — one year in prison, reduction in rank and a bad conduct discharge — in the first court-martial stemming from mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Sivits, who pleaded guilty to four abuse charges, broke down in tears as he expressed remorse for taking pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners being humiliated.

"I'd like to apologize to the Iraqi people and those detainees," he said in his statement. "I should have protected those detainees, not taken the photos."

. . .

Sivits was found guilty of two counts of mistreating detainees; dereliction of duty for failing to protect them from abuse and cruelty; and forcing a prisoner "to be positioned in a pile on the floor to be assaulted by other soldiers," a military briefer said after the court-martial.

. . .

"I have learned huge lessons, sir," he said. "You can't let people abuse people like they have done."

Sivits had been expected to get a relatively light sentence, but prosecutors asked for the harshest penalty — despite Sivits' willingness to testify against others — saying Sivits knew abuse was banned by the Geneva Conventions.

I'm not generally inclined to consider apologies made in the course of a trial (or court-martial) as terribly authentic, and this case is no exception. He claims to have learned huge lessons--the lesson that you shouldn't mistreat people and help others assault them, for example. I do believe the part where he says he shouldn't have taken the photos; in fact, I think the only lesson he learned was that when you're abusing prisoners, you shouldn't take photos so everyone can see what you did.

The two things I find most interesting about this: (1) The harshest penalty only involves one year in prison, and (2) he was expected to get off with less. Now, whatever your view on the purpose of punishment, I think it would be hard to argue that one year is adequate. Will the threat of such punishment prevent other soldiers in the future from abusing prisoners? I doubt it. The publicity will, and hopefully the incidents of abuse will motivation better regulation of facilities where prisoners are held so it won't happen again. But if the media had never picked up the story, Sivits being dishonorably discharged and sent to prison for a year wouldn't discourage anyone from abusing prisoners. At best, they might be less likely to take pictures.

Will the punishment 'reform' Sivits? That's harder to answer, but probably not. The offense here isn't something that happened in everyday conditions--he isn't a juvenile delinquent robbing gas stations who might, after proper punishment, end his life of crime. The discharge will likely prevent him from ever being in the type of situation in which he might act as he did, maybe. But preventing him from that kind of action doesn't mean that the punishment will have changed him or made him any less likely to do the same if he ever was in the same situation. If perhaps he had not been discharged and he was able to resume duty at the prison after his year sentence (assuming the conditions there stayed the same and there was no additional supervision of either him or the guards in general), it seems unlikely that he would 'realize the error of his old ways' and not continue joining in with the abuse.

And the third motivation for the punishment I'll consider--is it adequate as a fitting punishment just for the sake of punishment itself? If the punishment should fit the crime, the answer is definately not. Whatever prison Sivits is in for a year, it won't be one where he is stripped naked, forced into a pile of other naked prisoners, photographed, and assaulted. Not that a year in any prison is a walk in the park of course--but compared to what he and his fellow guards must have put the Abu Ghraib prisoners through, it's not much.

Yet they refer to this sentence as 'harsh', and it was actually expected that he would get off with something lesser. The year sentence and dishonorable discharge should be considered a light sentence for what Sivits participated in--and if I had more faith in the military, I would have expected something much harsher. But I suppose it's better than nothing. At least the military is making the statement: if you abuse prisoners, you will be punished--a little bit.

2004-05-16T20:12:00.000-07:00

Oh No, We're All Going to Hell
is anyone going to heaven?

This is a very amusing excerpt from Trosch.org:

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

How one votes can mean the difference between going to Heaven or to Hell. Those who are not careful about who they vote for rate as being offensive to God.

Those who vote for any of the following and fail to sincerely repent before death--an event that can take place at any stage of life--should expect to spend eternity suffering in hell:

someone who has ever been a pederast, pedophile, or ephebophile (includes anyone who has sexually approached someone under 20 years of age, or, if under 22 then someone more than two years younger than them self).
someone who seeks or gives tacit approval to same sex unions or marriages. Those who seek or approve of such should be recorded for later action should people return to religious sanity.
someone who is known to have ever been homosexually active, or practices or does not oppose the practice of bestiality (a sodomite).
someone who has willingly had, performed, assisted, or been otherwise directly involved with a procured abortion. This includes anyone who has paid for, transported to, legalized, or maintained the legalization of abortion (heads of any level of government, congressmen and equivalent, law enforcement officials, district attorney's, prosecuting attorneys, judges, media producers, directors, publishers, editors, actors, commentators, etc).
someone who has practiced or approves of research or experimentation on a fertilized ovum (egg),
someone who has practiced or approves of in vitro fertilization or any form of unnatural fertilization.
one who has committed an act of murder (murder is the willful killing of an innocent person from conception onward – innocent person excludes anyone involved at the time with criminal activity and those guilty of a capital crime.)
someone who is either pro abortion or pro choice (no difference).
someone who approves of suicide (self murder) – any act that kills oneself while not having the immediate result of saving one or more innocent lives. Included are acts or endorsements of self-killing by any culture or religious belief that encourages or rewards acts of suicide regardless of motivation (Jews who give honor to acts of suicide such as took place at Masada in 73 A.D. – mass suicide of all 400 defenders of a hilltop fortress to avoid capture by the Roman army. This remains as an unparalleled ~~political~~ symbol of Jewish ~~solidarity and resistance~~ preference for humanistic values over spiritual values; Muslims who approve of suicide bombing, etc.).
someone who is involved with or approves of any form of devil or idol worship.
someone who is or has been a member of a Secret Society. This includes all levels of freemasonry, break off or modeled after organizations, such as the illuminati, B'nai B'rith, and others. Every candidate should be required under oath to state that he is not now nor ever has been a member of such organization. Laws should be established that a minimum of a five year prison sentence is mandated for lying under oath.
someone who is known to have ever committed or approved of adultery.
someone who has committed incest or is known not to oppose incest.
someone who has committed rape or believes rape can be used as a means of punishment.
someone who practices bigamy or polygamy, or belongs to a belief system that approves of either.
one who has been divorced or does not oppose divorce.
someone who approves of male and female non marriage live together arrangements or coed dormitories.
someone who has not or will not oppose pornography or public nudity.
someone who opposes the belief that the Constitution only states that government may not form a religion or endorse a particular religion; or opposes the concept that sound Christian religious principals or beliefs in a holy God may not be endorsed.
someone who approves of non murderous forms of birth control or population control.
someone who is a repetitious fornicator (an unmarried person known to have had sex upon more than one occasion with a person of the opposite sex).
someone who endorses socialism (a welfare state).
someone who does not believe in a good, holy, and eternal God.
someone who has ever or would ever appoint any of the foregoing to public service.
someone who is a member of a religion or pseudo religion that approves of any evil acts.
someone who does not hold to a clearly defined doctrine of belief that is available in the public forum.
someone who does not support reasonable religious freedom and evangelization in all nations.

Have you or will you vote for someone whose voting record or platform supports any form of sin?

Do not let politicians or media divert attention to less important issues no matter how important they may seem at the moment. Positions supporting welfare, education, public works and so forth. All of these positions are of non importance when it comes to the question of righteous voting (voting not leading to eternal damnation).

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

If you have trouble remembering that list and/or keeping track of who has violated what, the short of it is this: If you ever vote or have voted for anyone ever, you're damned. Lovely.

2004-05-13T11:01:00.000-07:00

Nicholas Berg Beheading Video Popularity
scattered thoughts

From what I read at WizBang, everyone and his or her mother are searching for the full Nicholas Berg beheading video. I admit to watching it myself at Ogrish.com (the main page contains obscenity, nudity, etc.) (direct video link) the first or second day I heard about it. This is the first time, as far as I know, that there has been any great rush to see something like this (in recent memory of course). And I'm curious as to why people want to see it.

I chose to watch it partly because I wanted to be in the know about what all of the news stories were talking about, and partly just because it was there to be seen. I saw many comments about how disturbingly graphic it was. But it is not nearly as graphic as the violence people are used to in movies and on television. I'm thinking Dawn of the Dead (the new one), The Passion of the Christ, Saving Private Ryan, etc. I'm sure people who have seen more movies than me could name a whole lot more. So what does it say that violence in movies looks more violent than real-life violence? I have no idea. But I would guess that whatever it is that attracts people to those kinds of movies is closely associated with people's motivations for wanting to watch the Berg video.

I also wonder about the motivations of people who show the video. The Ogrish site has the following:

Just like all the other uncensored videos and images previously posted, we feel that its important to show what the human race is capable of in all it's uncensored form. We don't MAKE you watch the footage, we just give you the choice. This is the world we're living in right now, sad but true....Can you handle life?

At first I thought, hey, these aren't your average people. They cater to people who like to regularly see this kind of thing. But when I noticed that other sites, including WizBang also offered the video, I had to wonder about that as well. Not that the Ogrish people are "normal" people--but maybe they're just more comfortable with admitting that they want to see pictures and videos of extreme violence than the average person is. Is their motivation that much different from the motivations of more legitimate news media that offer the video? And what is that motivation anyway? Again, I don't have any answers, but I'm eager to see what other people think.

Update: Berg's father blames whom?

from this story

The father of Nick Berg, the American beheaded in Iraq directly blamed President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday for his son's death.

"My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this," Berg said in an interview with radio station KYW-AM.

Now maybe I am completely mistaken here, but I thought that masked terrorist on the video did it? I'm completely with Mr. Berg on his point about the Patriot Act, and I don't much like Bush. But what's up with the mindless anti-Bushism?

2004-05-13T10:21:00.000-07:00

More Excuses
this time from Philip Zimbardo

Regarding the Iraq prison abuse:

Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford University psychologist who presided over the single most famous experiment in the field, blames the system, not the soldiers, who "were put in a situation where the outcome was totally predictable."

"It's not a few bad apples," he says. "It's the barrel that's bad. The barrel is war. That's what can corrupt, whether it's in My Lai or in Baghdad."

Zimbardo was the designer of the 1971 Stanford prison experiments - there's more information about that toward the end of the article if you aren't familiar.

This is yet more evidence of how prevalent the excuse-making ideology is today. The logic gap here is huge. He's arguing that we should blame the situation, because the outcome is predictable when people are put into such situations. But the mere fact that it can be predicted that some people will behave in certain ways in certain situations does not mean the situation caused them to do so. The situation was such that they were able to act in the ways that they did, and because they were able, they chose to do so. Sure, maybe the fact that outcomes like the prison abuse are predictable in these situations is good reason to try to avoid creating such situations. But that doesn't mean we should blame the situation, as if the situation somehow forced the soldiers to abuse prisoners. Situations don't cause action--people cause action.

But even if you are the kind of person who thinks that people don't actually choose what they do, it would be ridiculous to blame the situation. These types of situations are created by the actions of people. And what causes the actions of these people? Unless you're going to be inconsistent, it was the situation that they were in to start out with. And that situation was caused by the actions of others people, which was caused by their situations, and so on back to the very first people. If the situation is at fault, blame is pointless, and it is entirely hypocritical to blame commanding officers and other higher-ups for creating the situation if the soldiers who performed the acts aren't responsible as well.

2004-05-12T19:24:00.000-07:00

The Culture of Excuses
strikes again

from the article:

The photos of Iraqi detainees being humiliated can't be argued with. But what about these soldiers behind them? Families and friends say there's an explanation, others to blame, orders given.

Others to blame? Aren't there always. England [the women with a leash on a prisoner in the widely viewed photo] "really wasn't involved," insisted Destiny Goin, a friend so close she considers herself a sister. "She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time."

I thought people said that someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time when something bad happens to that person, not when that person decides to do something wrong. But I suppose that's the culture -- no one is responsible for anything, ever. We might as well all choose to become criminals and blame the culture.

2004-05-11T17:56:00.000-07:00

The Berg Beheading
brief comments on the publicity and outrage

I imagine that most people have heard about the Berg beheading video, as it seems to be the hot news item of the day. The hype about this sort of thing always makes me wonder--why does it seem so much more outrageous just because it's on video? The same goes for the Iraq prison abuse photos and videos, though I've only actually seen a few of those.

Nobody takes much notice about things like this until there are pictures. But it doesn't even seem to be the pictures/videos themselves--as far as mainstream news sources, I have noticed a lot getting out. I've seen maybe two or three of the prison abuse photos, and the mainstream sources only show pre-beheading bits of video or pictures. The rest are out there of course, but I doubt that most people go out looking for them. So it seems like all of the general hype is caused mostly just by people's knowledge that these photos and videos exist.

Worse things happen every day, but somehow the fact that these incidents were caught on video causes outrage. And probably the fact that it involves Americans--anytime anything bad happens, U.S. media always notes of the two Americans who died out of four hundred thirty-seven total. I suppose it all makes sense, unfortunately. The common person is comfortable ignoring violence unless it is pushed in front of his or her face, in which case, shock, disgust, outrage, etc., are called for--but if that is not the case, then the violence can be comfortably ignored.

2004-05-08T19:25:00.000-07:00

Long-Overdue Posts

Just so everyone knows, I'm still alive and well and planning to keep on blogging. I've had little online time because of final papers and end of the year activities. But after Monday, when the last batch of my papers are due, or at least by Wednesday when the one final paper is, everything will be back to normal.

2004-04-25T16:12:00.000-07:00

More on Natural Evil
Response to Tina's Comments

from Tina:

Very good, thoughtful objection. A couple things to think about though:

(1) You reason for God wanting order as opposed to chaos. Intuitively, it seems right. Order seems better than chaos, after all - and a chaotic world that operated under no consistent laws of nature surely seems to be a rather aesthetically unpleasing one. But let's look at your specific reasons: If our bodies didn't operate consistently according to natural laws, we would most likely die. Well, God, being omnipotent, could prevent that from happening: so long as he is not violating anything that's LOGICALLY necessary, he can prevent any potential disastors that come from this chaos. So, that bad things happen from chaos, in and of itself, does not seem to be a reason (for God at least) to want natural laws.

(2) So, let's look at another reason you give: We wouldn't be able to get along in a chaotic world. THAT'S true: we rely on natural law in order to make predictions. I couldn't so much as confidently sit down in a chair if I didn't believe that it was made such that it would hold me up. But, the question is: does God need NEVER violate laws of nature in order to assure that we can, epistemically speaking, rely on the consistency of laws of nature? For instance: suppose my child is born with a genetic defect (imagine a really horrible one that entails the child's death after only a couple of years). And this genetic defect, of course, is the result of the operation of certain laws of nature...operating at the micro-level, say. And suppose this genetic defect came about by somethine going awry, at some particular moment during fetal development, at the molecular level. (not a biologist here, so bear with me)

Now, God COULD have tweaked things during that moment, just the tiniest bit, so that this horrible defect never develops...and we would not be the wiser (i.e., we would never know that the laws had been violated, and our ability to make predictions, based on the consistency of those laws, would not be affected.) So, why coudln't God violate the laws of nature, in undetectable ways, while still giving us the ability to use those laws to make the predicitons we needed in order to survive?

Response:

Chaos vs. Order -- It is true that God could sustain some form of human life in a world that was not operated by natural laws. Since it is unlikely that life could form in a chaotic world (or if it did, it might just randomly occur and then end within a short period), God would have to directly control the formation of each human body. And then, through continual direct control, he would have to preserve these bodies--if the bodies were left to operate in their own chaotic way an individual's blood might stop flowing, or every atom in her body might just come apart. But even though this might be possible, it seems questionable at best how human free will could operate under these circumstances.

If all the universe was chaotic, a human being would have no real way to interact with the world--unless God created order in some of the universe. We need solid ground to walk on, gravity to hold us down, solid objects to eat and interact with. But even in this situation, we would have very little freedom. I suppose an individual could technically possess free will even if God directly controlled her body. She could will whatever she wished, though she had no power to bring it about. But free will wouldn't seem to be much good if we had no power to act on it. I don't want to get into the moral evil topic too much just yet; but for now, I will say that I think it is reasonable to suppose that God would want free agents to have as much power as possible to bring about what they willed, without greatly endangering the existence of humankind as a whole. So we don't have the power to will the whole world to explode, but we do have enough to do some amount of harm, or good. For free agents to have the power to do good, they require the power to do harm as well.

Supposing that there is some best possible balance of the power to do good and the power to do evil, I think it is also reasonable to say that an orderly universe is necessary. If only our bodies were orderly and the rest was chaos, we would have no actual power over the world and others. And if only some of the universe was orderly and the rest was chaotic, it is likely that this would (some day, if not now) limit our powers of action more than they ought to be limited in the perfect world.

So in the end, order would be preferable to chaos not just because 'bad' things could come out of chaos, but because nothing would really come out of chaos--including no good. God preserving human life within a chaotic universe would be less of him preventing something bad from happening than it would be him pulling all of the strings, which would leave very little room for humans to be legitimately free agents.

The Genetic Defect Example -- But assuming that general order is necessary, Tina does raise a good question: is absolute order necessary? God could well prevent a genetic defect in a newborn child without us ever knowing about it. The intervention would be small enough that we wouldn't have much worry about free will or human power being limited, and if we never found out about it, our scientific foundations wouldn't be destroyed. I will grant that it is quite likely that God could violate natural law in such a way without any serious consequences.

But then the question would be, why just that baby? If God could do it once, He could do it again. If God only chose to prevent the genetic defect of one baby to prevent its future suffering, wouldn't He have to do the same to every other baby in that situation? If all people are "equal before God," as many believe, then God has no greater reason to intervene to prevent suffering for one person over another.

So let's say that God does intervene to prevent genetic defects in newborns. He does it from the beginning, so no one discovers any defects that later vanish. So far, no problem. But there are a lot of genetic defects--some people are almost guaranteed to develop heart disease, cancer, and any number of other serious problems at some point in their lives because of their genes. So to be fair, God is going to have to prevent all of these until everyone has more or less perfect genes--no one is disposed to any particular health problems. But then, since He is intervening, why not give everyone genes that actually make them resistant to health problems? So not only would we not be inclined to develop heart disease and such, but we would have to really abuse our bodies to ever get it. He could even make us immune to all the germs, bacteria, and viruses in the world too, and we would be none the wiser.

Or would we? The problem of where (if anywhere) God would have to draw the line with genetic intervention is tough enough. But for the sake of argument, let's say that just babies with serious genetic mutations are to be helped. God doesn't have to give 'better' genes to everyone, but He will make sure that nothing serious goes wrong genetically. Still, He is going to have to intervene for all such babies, since there is probably no adequate reason for him to intervene in one case but not in another. But will this still be undetectable?

While we might not notice in a single cause of intervention, it would be sure to draw some attention eventually if nobody was ever born with a genetic mutation. If things started out that way, it would seem normal for a while. But once science was developed to the point it's at now, people would realize that there should be mutations, and yet none were occuring. This could very well have a negative effect on medical science. Not only would everyone be hung up on trying to explain what could possibly be going on, but efforts aimed at curing diseases and such through 'normal' methods might be abandoned in favor of research aimed at discovering how to harnass the mysterious forces at work in the womb and use it in cures. This would of course be unsuccessful and again, no one would know why.

So that's my response to Tina's comments. As always, I welcome any relevant replies:)

2004-04-21T20:11:00.000-07:00

Hoax?
Very Interesting...

Yesterday, after my absence from blogging for a few days to work on the final drafts of some essays, I noticed the whole set of hoax allegations when Kevin from WizBang emailed me. I am thoroughly amused, despite my suspicion that some lonely guy/s cooked up the whole 'hoax' thing in an attempt to get me to send them pictures. I wouldn't be surprised at some "write Hot Abercrombie Chick on your chest, in whipped cream" requests in the near future. Sorry to disappoint.

But I must thank whoever is responsible, along with all the websites that continue to spread the rumors--I appreciate the traffic. I was not the one who sent the email/s that got all of this started, however. I might have been tempting if I'd realized that this hoax of a hoax would draw some much attention. It would have been a genius marketing strategy, and if I was that good I might change my major to business (I finally declared philosophy by the way, so it's official). But it seems that everyone else is advertising for me now, so I suppose I don't have too much to complain about.

The whole 'investigation' did turn up one interesting fact about me, though I would have imagined that it would be obvious to most of you. My real name is not 'Amanda Doerty' -- that's a pseudonym. Doerty; as in, "Doe." Apparently it is a surprise to some people that I didn't want to give a completely open invitation to stalkers, but I'm quite glad I didn't--I have the feeling that some of these people would be showing up at my door.

So keep those hits rolling as long as you'd like, but I have more serious topics to get to. The second half of the post on the argument from evil is still coming, as is a discussion of some of Tina's points in the discussion.

2004-04-21T06:57:00.000-07:00

Post on Moral Evil Coming Soon

My apologies for the delay, and my not being able to get overly involved in the discussion on the last post. These next few weeks are a busy time with essays and the like.

The site update is coming along slowly but surely. I have my MT account and the domain set up, and the design is in the works. Don't forget to email:

hacdesign@hotmail.com

with any recommendations you have for the new layout. And I'm still planning on doing a User Bios section, so email amandadoerty@yahoo.com with the following:

1. Name/s you use in 'Comments' sections
2. A picture if you'd like(try to keep it under 100K)
3. A bio or some information about you--length is your choice.
4. A link to your Blog/site if you have one

I'll try to get a rough sample page up soon, but it will all be pretty simple--just a list of people who have submitted pictures/bios along with the names they use in the 'Comments' section.

2004-04-17T09:08:00.000-07:00

Natural Evil
A response to Tina

(note: see the previous post for my condensed version of Tina's argument, or go to the original on Fidlet)

The argument from evil against the existence of God is usually answered with free will as the justification for evil, which will be the topic of my next post. But as Tina points out, that covers only moral evil--the evil that people choose to do. What about natural evil like earthquakes, floods, droughts, and all other natural disasters? If we (for now at least) grant that free will is a justification for moral evil, wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God prevent natural disasters, since they don't really have anything to do with free will?

Order in the Universe

When creating the universe/world, an all-good God would want to create the best possible one. In doing this, God would have had to create the laws of nature by which the universe would operate. There are different takes on how created and interacts with the world--some believe that he intervenes through supernatural methods (in violation of the laws of nature), while others believe that in whatever interactions God might have with the world, they do not violate natural law. I'm arguing from the standpoint of this latter position.

The reason? First of all, consider the purpose of having laws of nature at all. A universe without laws would be either wholly chaotic, or any order in it would be completely controlled by God. Some order is required in the universe itself, arranged by but not afterward controlled by God, if anything like intelligent life is to develop. We couldn't get around in a chaotic world--a dropped ball might fall downward one day, upward the next day, and explode and destroy the world the next. If the chemistry of our bodies didn't operate consistently according to laws, we would most likely die. But really, none of that would be a problem if the world already lacked order, because we would probably never have formed. So order is good.

In fact, order is really very good indeed--so good that even God will not violate it. To do so could quite possibly throw off the running of the universe, or at least alter the way in which it was running. And since order is so good and so necessary for things like intelligent life (which I take to be good) to form, there would have to be some even better reason for God to violate that order. The oncoming destruction of the universe might qualify, maybe. But something like a natural disaster, bad as it may be, is not nearly as bad as a violation of natural law that would ruin the order of the universe.

The Best Possible World

So we have a pretty solid reason for God not to interfere by any supernatural means to prevent natural evils. And I think it is a safe assumption to say that, with the world being as it is now, there isn't any non-supernatural course of action that God could take to stop an oncoming natural disaster. So then we come to the question: Why didn't God just create the universe in a way that the planet Earth would not have any natural disasters?

Think back to creation, when God is coming up with the best possible laws of nature. Philosophers have said that there would be two considerations that God would have for these laws: simplicity of the laws, and the rich possibilities that the laws would allow. These two have to be in balance--if the laws were too simple, there couldn't be much variety in the universe. Some significant level of variety would be necessary for a form of life advanced enough to possess free will to form, which I am assuming to be better than no such life forming. But while extremely complex laws might allow for a very high level of variety in the universe, this would create a world that was closer to a chaotic one. It would still be ordered of course--but with too complex an order, it is also quite possible that intelligent life wouldn't be able to form. And even if it did, if that life was anything like us humans, we wouldn't be able to get along much better in a super-complex world than we would in a chaotic one. Even if discovering the ultimate laws of nature is difficult, figuring out the practical laws needs to be relatively simple. If we drop an object, it should do the same as most all other objects we drop. If we jump up, we should come back down every time. Our current laws of nature seem to balance simplicity and richness of the world very well--so I think we can safely say that our current laws are likely the best possible laws.

So if God formed the universe according the these best laws of nature, there is only one way that it could have turned out (at least until other beings with free will came about, but that question is for another time). The planets of our solar system formed as they did according to those laws, and taking the entire universe into account, this was the best possible way that it could be. For the planet Earth to not have natural disasters, the laws of nature would have had to be different than they are now. And if they had been different, human life might never have come about.

Also, we should consider the possibility that human life is not the only life in the universe. No one really doubts that this is at least possible--and if you extend the possibility to any time of the existence of the universe, not just the current time, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a good possibility of non-human life. So we might not be the only life, even the only intelligent life, in the game. So even if God could have made the laws of nature differently but in a way that still allowed human life to form (which is probably unlikely), a change might have prevented the formation of some other life that is out there, or was out there a billion years ago, or will be out there ten billion years from now. If the greatest possible good would be for these other beings to exist as well, that good would necessitate the current laws of nature even if the conditions on our particular planet weren't the way we might prefer them to be.

Summary

The best course of action for God would be to create an order in the universe that allowed for intelligent life to form. This order is so important to the continued operation of the universe in a way that allows for intelligent life that God should not violate that order through supernatural intervention. To do so might profoundly disrupt the course of the universe, and would at least make it no longer entirely orderly. So if God does interact with the world, this interaction must be according to the laws of nature. With the world being as it is, no such interaction could prevent something like a natural disaster. So for God to create a universe in which humans, and possibly other intelligent life forms, could come to be, God had to create the universe such that the planet Earth would have natural disasters.

Personally, I would find it to be a better universe if I existed in it, even if existing meant that I might be harmed or negatively affected by natural disasters at some point. So I am willing to grant that God made the right choice in creating the universe as he did. The chance for a particular person or mankind in general to exist is infinitely better than them/us not existing, and this good outweighs the combines harm of all natural evils.

2004-04-17T08:38:00.000-07:00

The Argument from Evil
against the existence of God

I'm using excerpts from Tina's post on Fidlet.com to demonstrate the argument. I'll put the replies up in two sections--one dealing with natural evil, and the other with moral evil.

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

Tina:

1. If God exists, he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
2. If God, is omniscient, he knows when any evil is occurring (or about to occur).
3. If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent all evil.
4. If God is omnipotent, he could prevent all evil.
5. So, if God existed, there would be no evil. (1-4)
6. There is evil in the world.
7. Therefore, God cannot exist. (5,6)

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

HAC:

That's the argument in a nutshell. Tina then goes over several counter-arguments. The first is an argument that this only shows that a certain conception of God--namely, the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God--does not exist. That's quite true, but since people usually like to stick to a God who does have these properties (often called the "Philosopher's God" since this is the way many Western philosophers have defined the term), it brings up the question of whether or not a thing without these three properties would be God. So we can move on.

The second counter-argument she deals with is that evil does not really exist. But I think it does, so I won't pursue this argument either. So on to the third counter-argument, which I will quote in full:

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

Tina:

So, apart from trying to deny these theistic principles that are intrinsic to Judeo-Christian conceptions of God and the world, the most promising premise for us to try to object to is (3) - that if God were omnibenevolent, then he would want to prevent all evil. Perhaps, even though he is all-good, he still wants to allow evil, because it serves some purpose. That seems to be a promising way to go, but here is one stickly little worry here - the fact that he is omnipotent. That is, in most cases in which we think that it is acceptable to allow suffering, that suffering is necessary to attain some better good - so, I cause my child a little amount of suffering by letting a doctor administer a painful shot. But this small amount of pain is necessary to achieve a greater good: my child's health. Thus, I have a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering in this instance. The tricky thing is coming up with a morally sufficient reason for God to allow suffering. That is, if I were omnipotent, I could make my child well without having to give my child a painful shot - and to make my child go through the pain of getting a shot without having to do so is just cruel. So, since God is omnipotent, are there any supposed good things that come out of evil that God couldn't have just brought about without allowing this evil? Coming up with a morally sufficient reason for God is harder than it looks - since he is all-powerful, he should be able to bring all the good things that might arise out of allowing evil with just a wave of his hand (or God-like equivalent), without having to let the evil occur. And if he does let the evil occur even though it doesn't need to, then it looks as if he is just cruel.

But here is a possible way out: presumably, according to many conceptions of omnipotence, although God can make any logically possible thing occur, he cannot do the logically impossible (e.g., he cannot make 2+2=5). So, if evil were somehow logically necessary to bring about some good, then God would be justified in allowing it. One promising canditate is free will: That is, God could not have given us free will without us having the ability to choose to do evil. If he constructed it in such a way that we can only do good things, then how do we really have the choice to do bad? And, since God wanted us to have free will, he had to give us an open choice to do evil as well (although, note that, even if this objection works, it doesn't do well to explain why God allows suffering that arises out of things that humans aren't responsible for - like hurricanes and diseases). So, does this work?

Well, one thing a defender of the argument from evil could say is the following: God could have made us with such good natures that we simply never choose to do bad. We are just naturally filled with such good-will that we just always choose the right thing - even though we could do bad things, if we so chose. After all, part of the reason that we do evil is due to natural tendences - we have natural desires for sex and food and comfort, and the world is made such that we are often deficient in these things, so we are naturally led to do nasty things in order to secure these goods for ourselves. But if God made us without these desires, or made it such that they are always fulfilled, then we wouldn't be tempted to do bad.

But, the objector may say, for God to make our natures such that we always choose the right thing is to deprive us of free will. We can only properly have free will if we can choose to do evil - and if we are constructed so that we never choose evil, then we don't really have free will.

But, something to think about: God never chooses to do evil (if he is omnibenevolent), and presumably he never will. Does that entail that God isn't free? If we want to say that God is free, even though he never chooses to do evil, then surely he could have made us the same way.

[note: the original uses italics on some words, so I recommend looking at the original]

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

2004-04-16T16:50:00.000-07:00

New HAC Blog Design[er]

Amanda,
I suppose I can do it. If you stop bugging me;) I'm probably busier than you are, but I'll be done with the semester in 2-3 weeks. I will have to figure out the MT thing; I haven't looked into it before. I'll let you know. Find out about hosting. I might be able to do it... not for sure though. Have people email suggestions to: hacdesign@hotmail.com (I made it just for you. How special.)
--Daniel

I realized that I'm almost completely lost when it comes to site design, so I conned someone else into doing it for me. I'm thinking that I will start using Movable Type--apparently that's the grown-up way to Blog, lol:) I'm thinking about a layout with a left and a right sidebar, but aside from that I don't have many ideas. If you do, please email them to:

hacdesign@hotmail.com

Would any kind person with an MT server give me free hosting? I'm not just cheap (though I am, partly), but I don't have enough money to pay for hosting anywhere. My wonderful site designer is going to register a .name domain for me, and let me be $8 in debt to him for it. I'll keep hosting my images elsewhere to keep down bandwidth use, but I will need enough for the traffic I get and possibly more if it ever increases. I'd be forever grateful:)

Update:

Thanks to Rob from Say Anything Blog for renewing his offer of hosting my Blog:) I'd forgotten about it, since at the time I thought "MT? No way, I'm sticking with good 'ol Blogger." But now I at least know how to post on MT thanks to WizBang letting me guest post for a week, and my wonderful amazing friend Daniel (thank you!) is going to figure out all of the technical stuff for me. Another quick user poll--should use the Movable Type built-in Comments feature on the new site? I'm partial to Haloscan myself, but let me know what you think:

2004-04-16T16:22:00.000-07:00

Uh-Oh Honey,
I guess we shouldn't have asked for that threesome...

_click to enlarge_

from the email:

Hi,
We are a 28 year old married couple and we just moved to Orange County, NY. We are both very interested in having another girl join us for our first threesome. She has never been with another girl, but is very curious about it. He, of course, is very interested in watching and participating. We are both very laid back and easy to get along with. We like to have a few drinks, but do not smoke or use drugs of any kind. If you're interested please let us know, we have some pics if you want to see them. You can email us at _______@yahoo.com . Hope to talk with you soon!
E&M

Oops: Guess you shouldn't ask me for threesomes--I'm vicious... ;)

2004-04-14T19:24:00.000-07:00

Last Obesity-Related Post
for a long while

a response from Dan:

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

What you have said is true, my friend. But alas, I think you have missed my point. I agree, we are responsible for our own behaviour, and yes, if we allow ourselves to over-eat, we will, indeed, exhibit the tendency to become overweight.

There are, of course, the exceptions, like my friend who eats so much food -- and mostly junk-food at that -- but has a naturally fast metabolism, ergo, he is not fat.

My friend is not overweight even though he CHOOSES to OVER-EAT! If your premise were true, this friend of mine would now be suffering the surmised consequences, namely obesity. As it is, he is not! Therefore, there must be some other reasons for obesity too, not just the cause you offer. I think you are trying to offer a partial reason as if it were the one and only reason. Clearly, the world is a far more complex place than that. Very little is deterministically black or white.

Sure, some obesity might be caused by our poor eating habits. Perhaps most of it is, but we cannot say defiantly (a pun on the word definately) that poor eating habits are the single cause of obesity in the world, and to do so would be naive.

You said: "...attributing the power to MAKE PEOPLE EAT TOO MUCH FOOD to these institutions, though, you're going beyond what can honestly be said about them."

I do not intend to sound offensive, but your field of vision is narrow indeed. We were talking about obesity, and you have made a categorical error in assuming that EATING TOO MUCH FOOD is equivalent to OBESITY, when clearly it is not. Get what we are discussing straight...are we considering the causes of obesity, or are we discussing the effect of eating too much food? These are not one and the same.

Anyway, this is getting long, so here's a summary. You may be right, and I think you are, that many obese people also consume too much food, but I do not believe that all obese people over-eat, nor that all people who over-eat end up being obese. There are other factors, and they all inter-relate, and these other factors must be recognized also.

Just a quick example from genetics, a subject with which I have a passing familiarity, since I am undertaking a PhD in mathematical and statistical genetics. In my PhD research, one of the things I'm looking at is the existence of quantitative trait loci (QTL) for backfat thickness and distribution of intra-muscular fat in the carcasses of beef cattle. (I know, I hate it too, mainly because it is to make better profits for better quality beef, and I'm not in favour of our greedy capitalist society...nonetheless, it is a stepping stone to genetic disease research in humans, which is where I will head upon completion of my PhD.) Anyway, my point is that there are QTL for these things (ie. genes responsible for directly affecting the backfat thickness and marbling distribution in cattle).

It seems reasonable that there would be similar genes in humans which might affect one's natural tendency to gain weight, thus causing obesity in humans, regardless of what and how much they eat. In fact, a little research presents me with the quote: "...appreciating the importance of genetic variation as an underlying cause helps to dispel the notion that obesity represents an individual defect in behavior with no biological basis and provides a starting point for efforts to identify the genes involved." (Gregory S. Barash, I. Sadaf Farooqi and Stephen O'Rahilly, Nature 2000; 404:644-651)

So there you go, there has been some research at least, which shows a significant genetic cause to obesity which should "despel" your idea that it is all to do with an individual's "defective" behaviour.

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

Quick Reply:

I certainly recognize that some people are genetically disposed to having a faster or slower metabolism than others. But over-eating does not denote a fixed quantity of food or caloric intake--a small child eating a normal adult-sized meal is probably over-eating by a significant amount of calories/food. Likewise, a normal, fairly inactive person eating the same number of calories as someone who is fairly muscular and active is most likely over-eating as well.

As much as Omni objected to my use of the term "gorging" and the definition I gave it, I did at least specify that I used it to refer to eating something like 500-1000 more calories in a day than the individual needs. Whatever your view on that term, I think that most people would agree that "over-eating" is relative to how much eating you are supposed to do.

Whether quantity of food or calories should be considered is another matter--I go for the calorie view myself. I think it is intuitively plausible. If food mass was considered, then it would not be over-eating if an individual ate the weight of a normal "healthy" meal in chocolate. I'm not sure what the average adult normal meal weights... maybe 1-2 pounds? Anyway, I think that in that case, most people would say that the person eating that weight of food in chocolate is over-eating, while the healthy meal person is not.

So at any rate, I'm using the term over-eating as relative to an individual's proper caloric intake, considering their age, size, activity level, metabolism, and all of the other factors that have an effect on how many calories you need to eat each day. So in response to Dan's comment: yes, over-eating does cause weight gain. If you don't like that term, just replace it with "eating more calories in a day than your body normally burns." As I've said before, you can be as inactive as you want, but you won't gain weight unless you are eating more calories than you need.

So all in all, I'm sticking to my guns about over-eating (or eating more calories than your body normally burns) being the sole cause of weight gain. Factors like activity level and any genetic factors related to metabolism merely affect how many calories you should eat. Eat that many or less, and you won't gain weight. Eat more, and you will. Is it unfortunate that some people have slow metabolisms and can't eat as much as the average person without gaining weight? Sure, if food is a big deal to them. But it seems completely wrong to say "Well, Nature ought to be fair--so I'll eat as much as everyone else, and if I gain weight, I'll blame it on my genes and say it isn't my fault." While controlling food intake may be tough, especially if you have a slow metabolism, it is certainly not impossible, nor is it unreasonable to say that people simply ought to eat the right number of calories for them if they don't want to gain weight.

Regardless of the question of where to place the blame, I think most of us can at least recognize that any normally-rational adult does have the ability to not gain weight by not eating more calories than they need. It might be unfair to people who don't need very many (or they might be lucky that they can save on grocery bills). It might be tempting to eat more, and hard to not do it when so many other people do. Maybe you even think it is so hard that the individual is no longer to blame for not resisting. But, had they been very determined, they could have.

And this brings the topic to a close for a good long while. Comment away, and I may or may not have a bit more to say in discussion. But no more posts. The argument from evil post is saved, halfway-written. So it is still coming, don't worry. For now, I have to take care of some reading and essays. Enjoy the discussion:)

2004-04-13T18:57:00.000-07:00

Site ReDesign Poll
Post previews?

I'm considering using some sort of post-previews format on the main page of the Blog in the new design. Something that shows the first paragraph or so of the post on the main page, and you can select [more] to see the rest. Would this be a better format?

2004-04-12T15:23:00.000-07:00

More on Obese Young Children II
more replies to comments

To briefly summarize:
In the early 1900s, 3,000 calories were available to each person each day. Now, 3,800 calories are available.

Reply: Yes, more calories are available. You don't gain weight from available calories--only the ones you choose to eat. In the case of young children, only from the calories of foods fed to them by parents.

Milk consumption has declined, while sales of non-diet sodas have risen to approximately 1.2 servings per person per day. (At the serving sizes compared, milk has fewer calories than soda).

Reply: People/parents are choosing to buy unhealthy food and drinks. That is unfortunate, but no one is forcing anyone to buy soda. Why do we do it? It tastes good, like many other unhealthy foods. That doesn't mean that the blame is not our own for drinking/eating too much.

The 'real' price of fat-laden meat has declined, while the price of healthful food has increased. The price differential leads to excess meat (and cheap junk-food) purchases by the poor. Not surprisingly, this directly correlated with striking obesity rates in poor populations.

Reply: You can buy a ten pound sack of potatoes for something like three dollars. A bag of 10-12 oranges, three dollars. Eight or so bananas for about two dollars. Big bags of noodles are cheap. I'm a vegetarian, so I don't know how much meat costs--but "healthful" food sure doesn't seem to cost very much. And many people seem to be forgetting that it doesn't matter how much fat or how many calories are in the meat or in any other food: you can still eat it without getting fat as long as you don't gorge yourself on it. That meat isn't jumping into kids' mouths on its own; parents are serving it in large quantities.

Any parent who is really poor enough to have to buy cheap food is probably going to be shopping for potatoes and Ramen noodles. The price of the food is not the problem. Sure, the super-high-end "health" food is expensive--but "healthful" food like fruits, vegetables, and a variety of bread/starch products are not prohibitively expensive. Look at flour and corn meal and the like. Things used in making food almost always cost less than the pre-made stuff, and the pre-made food is the kind that really has the calories. People aren't forced into buying unhealthy food by poverty.

There is one key factor that is left out of the picture here in comparing obesity rates by socioeconomic level: the value of self-restraint. People in the upper classes tend to value being thin very highly (or so I have always heard--I'm certainly not near upperclass, if you were wondering). A probably explanation I've heard is that because gluttony, the lack of self-restraint in eating, is rampant in the lower classes, and not that much better in the middle classes. So restraint is viewed as a virtue for the upper class. It's not because they can afford fancy health foods, though they can--they tend to be thinner because they just don't gorge themselves. It is a choice they make, and one that anyone else can make as well.

Enter race. Not only are minority children more likely to live in poverty, but they are also more likely to watch television.

Susan Lederer reveals that:
16% of white girls between the ages of 12 and 18 watch greater than 4 hours of television per day.
28% of Mexican-American girls do the same.
43% of African-American girls do the same.

So, minority groups are not only more likely to buy non-nutritive food, but also their children are more likely to stay inside and watch television in lieu of other activities. (The reasons for this are diverse; I won't go into that much detail here.)

So there is a racial/economic factor in obesity. There are also environmental factors as well.

Reply: Enter race? Oh geez, someone always insists on bringing it up--it always has something to do with racial oppression, eh? Sure, more minorities live in poverty. But is there any evidence at all that shows that obesity and television watching correlate with race rather than just socioeconomic class? Is a minority child more likely to watch tv and get fat than a non-minority kid from the same neighborhood, who parent/s have the same income? Is there any reason at all to bring up race?

If there was some difference in statistics between races within the same class/environment, it might be something interesting to consider. Not really relevant to this discussion, but maybe relevant to something. Is inactivity a problem? In itself, no, it's not. You can sit/lay around all day without ever getting fat. Inactive people use less calories, so they need to eat less. But if parents realize that they have inactive children, and they won't or can't make them get some exercise, all they need to do is make smaller meals and allow less snack food. Excess calories make people fat--the right amount for your activity level will not, no matter how low that activity level is.

Although most state governments mandate that no 'junk foods' or sodas may be sold before lunch during school days, this rule is almost never enforced. Never heard of the rule? That's what I thought.

Soda and junk-food manufacturers enter into lucrative deals with schools, whereby they provide schools with money up front in exchange for placement of branded vending machines inside of schools. This happens, not surprisingly, most often in poverty-stricken districts that most need the money.

The downshot of these deals is that young audiences are affronted with flagrant advertising every day. The difference between school advertisement and TV advertisement is the concept of 'choice'. Schooling is compulsory until the age of 18. Therefore, the companies are paying a pittance for a captive audience.

Reply: Those soda and candy machines don't spit out products for free. There's this little trick you have to do that involves inserting a dollar... Now who is giving young schoolchildren these dollars? That's right: parents. Now, part of the earlier argument was that "healthful" foods are expensive. School lunches were somewhere around $1.50 where I came from. Of course, poor kids generally get free or reduced lunches, and since we are talking about the poorer school systems, I think we can safely consider all or most kids as qualifying for that. So what, maybe 75 cents for a lunch, maybe free? If parents didn't give their young kids money to spend on snacks and sodas, those kids wouldn't be getting snacks and sodas. If they use that 75 cents of lunch money, they're going to get one small bag of chips. One small bag of chips instead of a lunch every day isn't going to make you fat--the chips probably have the same or less calories.

I'll grant that snack/soda companies are paying to advertise to children who generally have no choice but to go to school. I don't see much problem with this for two reasons:

1. So kids are subjected to advertising, so what? Advertising doesn't make you buy the product. If you're hungry/thirsty, have a sweet tooth, have the two or three dollars your mother gave you for snacks, and you don't practice self-restraint, you're probably going to buy it. For very young kids, I won't blame them for a lack of restraint. The sweet tooth is partially understandable, but in most cases at least partly due to parents who give out sweets too freely. But there is the issue of the money. If a poor young kid in a poor school can afford the sweets, it is almost without a doubt that a parent has given him or her money for that purpose. At say $2.50 a day (maybe two bottles of soda and a small snack, or one bottle of soda and a few snacks average daily intake), that is $12.50 every week, $50 a month. Young kids aren't getting that on their own. If anything can be accurately said to be causing kids to eat junk food at school, it's the parents giving them the money for it.

2. Poor families don't usually pay much, if anything, in taxes. So their kids are pretty much going to school for free. Why shouldn't schools take money from vending machine companies? Parents still have the ultimate control of whether or not their young child has the money to buy junk food 99% of the time. Where else does a young kid get $50 a month? If McDonald's paid a school to take over cafeteria duties and then gave every kid a free double-cheeseburger with large fries and sodas for free, it would be a different story. Then there wouldn't be any reasonable way the parents could prevent the child from eating junk food. But is there anything unreasonable about a parent not paying $50 a month so the kid can buy soda and chips? I think not.

By displaying just a fraction of the wide range of factors that influence modern American diet - especially the diet of children - I hope to show that the blame does not rest solely upon parents or upon the obese. Indeed, the blame lies in the regulatory, social, and political climate that the food industry has created in order to further its own profits. It also lies in the disparity of wealth and power in this country.

Reply: How does the blame belong anywhere but on the individual putting too much food into her or her children's mouths? The regulatory, social, and political climate created by the food industry? Come on now. By regulatory climate, you mean the fact that the government doesn't step in and prevent you from stuffing your face with food every day? It is a very simple fact that people (or parents, in the case of young children) decide what they will eat. They might not think about it--they might just buy a lot and eat until they can't stomach any more. But that is a lifestyle choice. Since when is the world supposed to play Mommy for you, and be there to say "I think you've had enough soda now, Mr. Smith"? If the food industries actually made people eat, then no one would be thin. But there are plenty of thin people out there who can say "Look, no one is forcing me to gorge myself."

If you're going to argue for the notion that the availability of food and advertising actually make people eat the way they do, then to be consistent you will just have to give up the idea that anyone can ever be blamed for anything they do. Society made me do it, advertising made me do it--anyone but me. If you're into the whole "free will doesn't exist" thing, that's fine by me. But do realize: that can't just be applied selectively. Those big food industry executives can't be blamed either, because something else made them make the decisions they made too. We can just put all of the blame on the universe right now. Unfortunately, the universe doesn't care, and it isn't going to feel bad and make it up to you. So get over it.

As Marion Nestle's 'Food Politics' points out, parallels between Big Tobacco and Big Food are impossible to avoid. Each suggests that use of its product is 'the free choice of individual consumers,' when in reality these companies use every form of manipulation to gain access to greater markets and extract greater profits.

Reply: Well, there is one big difference that has been forgotten here. Tobacco companies used to claim that their product was not harmful, sometimes even that it was helpful. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think that something that made you cough up your lungs was actually good for you--but that's another matter.

But the really important point is this: When these companies say that use of their products is 'the free choice of individual consumers', they are right. Now that everyone knows that smoking is harmful, you have no real excuse if you do it. Same with food. So what that these companies "use every form of manipulation to gain access to greater markets and extract greater profits"? Ooooh, corporate America is the bogeyman. No matter how sleazy anyone tries to make these companies sound, no one has said anything to close the gap between advertising and actual consumption. If you're over ten and don't have a mental disability, my holding up a candy bar and saying "Mmm, good" does not force you to take it and eat it. If you do, it's because you want to.

In the end, I agree that the 'blame-someone-else' attitude is pointless if someone else is not at fault. However, where there is fault, such as in the cases of Big Tobacco and Big Food, those responsible ought to be blamed. Telling over-stressed mothers that it's their fault that their kids are fat is entirely unproductive. Society needs to recognize the problem and work towards changing the social environment of the world that we live in.

Reply: I agree completely that the social environment should be changed--the social environment of a disgusting rejection of personal responsibility for anything. Mothers have been over-stressed ever since mothers and children have existed. Is it hard to raise a child? I'm sure it is--I never said it wasn't. But that doesn't mean that there are not and should not be expectations mothers can be expected to meet by anyone, including me, even if I've never had a baby.

Where is the fault in "Big Tobacco" (considering only the time after which we knew tobacco was harmful) or in "Big Food" (we have always known that eating too much makes you fat)? Just because you give an industry a Big scary-sounding name and talk about how sleazy they are, that does not make them responsible for what you choose to do. Not a single one of the arguments I have addressed does anything to show that someone other than individuals/parents are responsible for their own of their children's eating habits. What have these 'arguments' been? Poor kids are more likely to be fat. Minorities watch more television. The food industry advertises (who would have known?). I don't see anything in those that forces parents to feed their children more calories than the kids need. Did I miss something? I think not. No matter how far you push these arguments, the best that can be done is to get them closer to that huge chasm known as "the part where people decide to eat the food".

Is it unproductive to tell the mother of a fat child that the child is fat because she feeds it too much? I really don't think so. In fact, I think if everyone would start, it would be very productive. By applying good old-fashioned social expectations on parents, they might just start actually trying to raise their children in a more healthy way. That is the reason kids weren't always so fat. Fifty years ago, people would have gasped and looked horrified if they saw some grotesquely obese child walking down the street with her mother. They would have asked "What the heck are you doing to that kid?" Now, not only will no one speak up about it, but some are even convinced that it isn't the parent's fault for overfeeding the child. How could it possibly not be productive to make it clear to parents that some ways of raising a child are not acceptable?

When a parent beats a child, why don't we just blame violence in the movies and ignore it? Or how about the parent who starves their child--maybe we should blame society, because all of the fat people made the parent so frightened that her child would get fat that she stopped feeding it? It it isn't okay to under-feed, why is it okay to over-feed?

2004-04-11T17:37:00.000-07:00

More on Obese Young Children
and parental responsibility - replies to comments

Do you two actually believe that this monstrous boom in the number of fat people is due to some arbitrary change in our parental values?????? Did all the 'rents get together at some national conference and decide on this??? I think not. Why is it so obvious to me the effects of economic exchange on societal behavior, and not so obvious to everyone else?

Reply:
Perhaps that effect is so obvious to you because you're one of those people who has forgotten that people make choices about their behaviors The reason for the boom is obvious: laziness, and lack of self-restraint.

It's not because of capitalism or the food industry. There has always been plenty of unhealthy food available, but as has been mentioned before, parents used to take up the responsibility of cooking for their children, which taught healthy eating habits. Fast food joints don't force anyone to eat there, and advertising doesn't brainwash you into a mindless glutton.

But as long as we have people who see parents doing something wrong and ask "Oh my, what has gone wrong in society?" instead of holding parents accountable, parents will continue to feel that it isn't their responsibility either.

Since when did abuse go from meaning doing direct, demonstrable harm to a child, such as rape or beatings, to meaning ANY action, or lack of action, that leads to a child's life being sub-optimal in any way? Isn't there some gray area where you're not a perfect parent, but not an abuser either?

Reply: When children are so obese as to have health problems, that's a bit more than making the child's life sub-optimal. I'm not referring to slightly overweight children here--I mean those who qualify as obese by, say, 7-8 or so, when they are still young enough that their parents make most of their food choices for them. And I think that continuing to feed children too much food that is too unhealthy when they keep getting fatter is fairly direct, demonstrable harm.

If it's so simple for people to eat only the right foods, and only in the amount that will keep them trim and healthy, one has to wonder why virtually no one is actually doing that...

It's not even that much about the right foods. You can eat mostly unhealthy foods without getting fat--just don't eat too much of them. Why is virtually no one doing that? Simple answer: food tastes good, and we like to give ourselves pleasure despite the negative consequences. Many parents don't teach restraint and moderation in eating, because they themselves don't eat in moderation. But it is a choice, and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise. Since when does the world owe everyone a temptation-free environment? It's sad (and dangerous) that the sense of personal responsibility seems to be so severely eroding...

Once a child is old enough to take food out of the kitchen themselves, the ONLY way for parents to make sure that ALL they eat is "proper" quantities of healthy foods is to have only those foods available in the home (as you can NOT watch them every instant, or handcuff them to the radiator), which is NOT something that can or will be legislated or expected of parents.

Reply:

Sure, when they're older. No one is trying to blame parents for kids that start gaining a lot of weight once they are ten or twelve or fourteen. But before these ages, parents have a lot of control over the diets of their children. What ever happened to kids getting punished for sneaking cookies and candy when they weren't supposed to? Parents should have such foods in small quantities to begin with, especially if they are unable to keep an eye on the kids. Not many kids are going to sneak into the kitchen to secretly prepare an actual meal--it isn't a question of having the right quantities of healthy foods.

Parents can and should be expected to limit the junk food in their homes if it is necessary to do so. If their children aren't constantly snacking on Pop-Tarts or sneaking cookies, then obviously it won't really matter. But if a parent notices the suppy of junk food mysteriously vanishing (and they should be aware of this if they insist on keeping a lot of it), it is perfectly reasonable to expect that they stop stocking the shelves with that sort of food when they know they cannot ensure that it is eaten in moderation.

Keep in mind also that in some cultures, a plump child is considered to be something to take pride in, not cause for medical care... and that it's hard to tell the difference between acceptable childhood chubbiness and a health issue.

Reply: Is it that hard? I'm not saying that if a child is a bit husky, parents should go to the doctor. But they might want to take a look at how much and what the child is eating to make sure that the problem doesn't get worse. Now, when a child falls into the obese category, there usually isn't too much question of whether that is desirable or not. We all are familiar with the health problems obese people face because of their weight. When Little Jimmy has to go to the special store for pants and he can't run for more than 60 seconds in PE, it's a problem. And it's one that parents have willfully refused to address--kids don't wake up 20 pounds heavier. It takes time, and food. Lots and lots of food.

And what about parents who can't bear to have their kids weep and wail and beg for food, and so give in because their kid is miserable? What's really abuse, a happy fat kid or one who is unhappy and desperate and torturing the parents with their suffering if they don't get food? There are alot of gray areas here.

And how about the concept that many low-cal, healthy foods just plain don't taste good? "You didn't gag down only healthy foods in front of your kid, and didn't force-feed them those same foods and deny them all others, so now they're fat and you're a bad parent and an evil person"? HUH?!!

...

And one final point about kids; if a child goes to school crying because they're hungry, and tells the teacher that mommy wouldn't give them any food even though they begged for it, don't you suppose that child welfare might be called? And even if the child is NOT crying, and assuming that they DON'T just acquire the extra food at school to make up for what they were deprived of at home, how well will they perform in class if they're hungry? How much will they learn, how well will they behave, what will their test scores be? If parents send kids to school hungry and cranky, have they not caused new problems while trying to solve another?

Reply:

What about those parents... you mean those who fall into the category of "Bad Parents"? Kids cry and whine about all sorts of things--only bad parents give in to everything. If you can't handle saying "no" to a kid, do everyone a favor and don't have any.

But really, how many kids who are fed normal diets go around crying that they are hungry and that their parents don't feed them? And how many school officials are going to contact the authorities when Little Jimmy whines "My mommy only feeds me healthy food, I want some double cheeseburgers!"? Parents don't get accused of child abuse for not feeding their children when the child weights exactly what he should at his age/height/build.

So what's really abuse, the parent who fattens up his or her child so the child has health problems, or the parent who is willing to say "no cookies"? I'll risk stating the obvious: the one who won't say no. But I don't know where all of these healthy, "miserable" children are. Responsible parents teach children to eat right by making them healthy, well-proportioned meals. People aren't born with an insatiable hunger for cheeseburgers; when kids are fed proper meals from the start, they don't suddenly become miserable and hungry all the time because they aren't stuffed with food until they're sick. Kids learn to want more food than they need when parents start feeding them more than they need.

It may be true that "healthy" low-cal foods don't taste good. But strangely enough, those foods haven't always been around. Before the fat-epidemic, people ate normal food. You know, fruits, vegetables, breads, meats. Same stuff they have in grocery stores today. It wasn't special low-cal healthy-label food. Sure, it doesn't taste as good as foods that have been packed with fat and sugars--but that only holds for people who are accustomed to junk food.

Kids might not always like all normal healthy foods--that's why you tell them "No dessert until you finish your vegetables." But kids do start liking vegetables eventually. There have been studies on how many times a new food has to be introduced to a child before the child starts liking it; I think it was somewhere between 10-20 times for the "worst-tasting" vegetables. Parents used to be expected to do that. It's not any harder today.

Look around at American adults; about 2/3 are fat, and most of them have kids... and most non-fat parents aren't eating perfect diets or being physically active either... so, what % of parents are you willing to call "reprehensible"? At what point does behavior cease to be "reprehensible" and start to be NORMAL?

I'd forgotten than "If everyone else is doing it, it's okay" had become the new rule of thumb. So if I can convince 2/3 of parents to start beating their kids, can we call that acceptable too? Come on now, "normal" doesn't matter. Even most overweight people know that; if they all just thought "Hey, everyone else is fat too, it's all good," then you wouldn't hear about all of those crazy diets and see all the low-cal food in stores. No matter how many people are overweight, we know it isn't good. We know because these people keep dying of heart disease and suffering from other health problems.

So if it is so crazy to think that parents ought to be responsible to teach their children healthy eating, who's going to do it? If we keep promoting the blame-someone-else attitude for everything in life, we are all in trouble--we're going to run out of people to blame.

Send me Pictures!

I'm starting a user/commenter bio page

Email amandadoerty(at)yahoo.com with:

1. Name/s you use in 'Comments' sections
2. A picture (try to keep it under 100K)
3. A bio or some information about you--length is your choice.
4. A link to your Blog/site if you have one

2004-04-10T14:42:00.000-07:00

The Fat Cat and Child Abuse

Fat Cat Hunger Strike After Meat-Feeding Owner Goes (Reuters)

The fat cat was back in the news--he didn't like his new diet, so he has gone on a hunger strike. The quick version of the story is this: A 41 pound cat was taken from its owner and placed in a Berlin animal shelter. Normal cats weigh between 6-12 pounds, so this cat is huge. To big to walk more than a few steps, in fact. His owner fed him around 4 pounds of meat a day--normal cats eat no more than 10 ounces a day.

The first article about the cat said something about this being a case of animal abuse. It turns out that the owner was elderly, and was taken to a nursing home after the cat was taken. So he might not have been intentionally fattening up the cat. Who knows.

But all other things being equal, if a cat owner knowingly fed his or her cat enough to make the cat mordibly obese and at risk for many health problems because of it, I think we could legitimately label that as animal abuse. Which made me think: What about those parents who keep buying their young obese children more junk food, candy, soda, etc., and making huge meals to keep making the child gain weight?

Put aside cases of children who have some serious medicial problem that makes the weight gain inevitable even when the parents prepare healthy, appropriately-sized meals. While that situation may exist for some families, it surely doesn't in most cases of very obese children--millions of genetic mutations didn't just start occuring in the past 50 years or so. Many times, children are obese because their parents feed them too much. So should that be considered child abuse? I'm leaning toward yes, but I'd be happy to hear alternative views.

The problem of evil post is still in the works--but I thought I'd throw this in first.

2004-04-10T11:38:00.000-07:00

Site Updates
new chronological archive directory

Archive of Posts arranged by date. It isn't pretty right now, but it has a list of posts by name and subtitle grouped by week. So if there is a certain post/topic you're looking for, it should be much easier to find now. I'm going to do an archive by topic when I get the chance, and eventually I will also write some quick descriptions of each post to make it easier to find what you want.

Review My Site for -- I really appreciate any quick reviews you can give. It only takes a few minutes; just rank the site 1 to 10 and write a few sentences.

New Layout

I'm not up to the point where I'm ready to move off of Blogger yet, but I do need a new layout. Anyone have any suggestions? Just give me a link to the skin/site that you think would work well for the Blog. I'm looking for something that has both a left and a right sidebar, but doesn't look too messy. Preferably something that looks best on a 1028x764 screen resolution, but is also readable on 800x600 (about 15% of site visitors are at 800x600, the rest 1028x764 or higher).

Send Your Picture!

I'm starting a Users/Commenters section. Email me: amandadoerty(at)yahoo.com with:

1. Name/s you use in 'Comments' sections
2. A picture (try to keep it under 100K)
3. A bio or some information about you--length is your choice.
4. A link to your Blog/site if you have one

I won't put your email address on there unless you want me to. As soon as I get the section started, I'll post it.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated, as always:)

2004-04-09T23:52:00.000-07:00

Moving On

Next topic is going to be the problem of evil in Christian theology. I'll be responding to a post from Tina at Fidlet in which she gives her argument against the possibility of an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God based on the fact that evil exists.

Back to essays for now--I'm trying to get a head start so I don't get swamped at the end of the semester.

Blogroll Me!
I'm hoping to get in the Blogrolling top 100 list some day. I only need 60ish more people to Blogroll me... ;)

2004-04-07T07:49:00.000-07:00

Forget about Terrorism...
Ashcroft goes after the Porn Industry

from The Baltimore Sun:

In a speech in 2002, Ashcroft made it clear that the Justice Department intends to try. He said pornography "invades our homes persistently though the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV and the Internet," and has "strewn its victims from coast to coast."

Yikes!

If pornography has been "invading" our homes, the government has led a full-scale military invasion of them.

"They are miscalculating the pulse of the community," said attorney Paul Cambria, who has gone head to head with Taylor in cases dating to the 1970s.

"I think a lot of adults would say this is not what they had in mind, spending millions of dollars and the time of the courts and FBI agents and postal inspectors and prosecutors investigating what consenting adults are doing and watching."

Quite true.

I thought Ashcroft was concerned about keeping terrorists from blowing us up? Let's take care of that little issue before we start telling adults what they should be watching on television, eh?

2004-04-05T16:31:00.000-07:00

Tax Protests
Some interesting websites I've come across:

April 15th: The Fear Factor

Bob Graham's Blog

Both are related to what appears to be a growing movement of people who are making the claim that the IRS is deceiving the public into paying more tax than is actually required by law. I don't know enough about tax law to comment--but check it out.

also of interest:

Allah on, among other things, Muslims and The Passion of the Christ.

2004-04-05T06:55:00.000-07:00

Affirmative Action News
update from a friend in St. Louis

The Center for Equal Opportunity, a group based in Virginia, along with the American Civil Rights Institute both oppose scholarship, internships, and summer programs that are only available to minority students. They have filed complaints with the U.S. Deparment of Education and urged over 100 universities to either open such minority-only programs to non-minority students or to shut them down. The Department of Education has in turn requested that a number of universities review their scholarships and programs that are available only to minority students. Several St. Louis universities have determined that such programs are in violation of anti-discrimination policies. St. Louis University ended its African-American scholarship, and Washington University in St. Louis dropped the race requirement from its formerly minority-only John B. Ervin scholarship. The school is also reviewing a number of other race-based scholarships.

2004-04-04T17:52:00.000-07:00

Other-Blogs Update
some posts to check out from fellow Bloggers

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

Big Pink Cookie:

"On that note, a remake of that movie [Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory] is just WRONG. I don't care if Johnny Depp is in it. I don't care if Tim Burton is doing it. It is wrong, wrong, wrong."

I have to disagree with this one. I saw "Secret Window" last weekend. Not the best movie--very much a Stephen King story, and a seemingly recyled one at that. But Johnny Depp was incredibly entertaining, and I'll be looking forward to the Willie Wonka remake.

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

A Small Victory:

"You are a GRAMMAR GOD!

If your mission in life is not already to
preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!"

I can't help taking those silly online quizes from time to time, and I wanted to see how well I'd score on this one. I was quite happy to also attain "Grammar God[dess]" status (though I don't think it's too difficult).

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

Amish Tech Support:

"The only major newspaper in the city with the largest and most prestigious medical center in the Western Hemisphere sent a reporter to Espinazo, Mexico - a hotbed for faith-healing quackery.

...

"Whatever malady of the brain ails the Chronicle editorial staff, neither the Houston Medical Center nor faith-healing charlatans have the cure for. I think at this point they ought to just grab some cordless drills, pop in the longest bits they've got, and then drill for the angry dwarves in their skulls that cause them to think such pandering, pathetic garbage is worthy of a major-market newspaper's news section."

Interesting article. I might have to take up the faith healing topic myself sometime. The response to the article seems a bit strong for me. People enjoy reading that sort of thing, and thousands of people are going to this faith-healing hotspot--I was fine with the article not pushing the skeptical stance. Worth the read though.

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

Rightwing News:

"The Soviet Union is no longer a threat, it doesn't look likely that Western Europe is going to start slugging it out again in the near future, and certainly Europe can afford to defend itself. So why in the world do we still have 150,000 troops in Western Europe?"

More tax money wasted. I'm not terribly anti-war or anti-military myself, aside from my general aversion to government and taxes of course. But couldn't they learn to knit sweaters for the poor when they aren't engaged in any military action? It would save some on welfare...;)

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

2004-03-31T16:56:00.000-08:00

Hornung, Notre Dame, and Affirmative Action
Hornung Regrets Remarks About Notre Dame

Former Heisman Trophy winner Paul Hornung expressed regret Wednesday for saying his alma mater, Notre Dame, needed to lower its academic standards to "get the black athlete."

"We can't stay as strict as we are as far as the academic structure is concerned because we've got to get the black athlete," Hornung said. "We must get the black athlete if we're going to compete."

Affirmative Action Connection?

Obviously, this sort of comment offends people. Hornung was "flooded with telephone calls from friends and media" after his radio interview in which he said that standards had to be lowered to make sure black athletes would be able to play on the school's football team.

But isn't this pretty much the same thing affirmative action does - lowers the standards for minorities so they "have a chance at getting in"? Although Hornung's motivation was to improve the football team and he didn't promote lowering standards only for minority applicants, he made it clear that minorities, specifically black athletes, were the reason the standards should be lowered. If it is offensive for him to say that black people won't be able to get in to play football unless standards are lowered, isn't it offensive to say that minority applicants can't get in if they are held to the "white" standard?

2004-03-30T15:58:00.000-08:00

Is Taxation Slavery?
The Christian AntiCommunist Party

from Pastor Gene Chapman:

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

If a 100% tax on labor is absolute slavery (cut and dried), then wouldn't it stand that a 1% tax on labor is a degree of slavery? And if property is the physical manifestation of labor, then isn't a tax on property "slavery" in it's end? And for one to impose slavery to any degree upon a free person is "andrapodistes" (I Timothy 1:10): "one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery." Right out of the Greek lexicon.

"The extraction of a tax on labor is slavery; only degree is in dispute. Such is as Anti-Christian a concept as any in human history and must of necessity be opposed by every free born and free now Christian upon all the face of the earth, even unto death. Those who resist a labor tax unto death show the Lordship of Jesus Christ and purchase for themselves both the crown of righteousness and the martyr's crown. 'Be not ye the [slaves] of men'" (I Corinthians 7:23). -- Gene Chapman.

"Enslaver" (I Timothy 1:10): (Greek word: andrapodistes) One who imposes a taxing of labor (ie. income tax) upon an uncondemned free person; thus, under the judgment of the Moral Law of God.

"Slave" (I Corinthians 7:23): (Greek word: dulos) One whose labor and/ or benefit thereof is claimed by another.

Free Christians paying a property and/ or income tax are in violation of God's Word. Greek translation: "You [free Christians] be not the literal, figurative, involuntary or voluntary slaves of men" (I Corinthians 7:23).

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

Sounds good to me. Any of my Christian readers agree, disagree?

2004-03-29T15:59:00.000-08:00

Reparations
Slave Descendants File $1B Lawsuit

Descendants of slaves filed a $1 billion lawsuit Monday against U.S. and British corporations [including Lloyd's of London, FleetBoston and R.J. Reynolds], accusing them of profiting by committing genocide against their ancestors.

I'm still thinking about this one. On the positive side, they are going after corporations that were (technically, anyway) involved in slavery. So at least they are not demanding that the United States and Britain themselves pay up, which would involve the money of people like me and you who had nothing to do with slavery. I find this targeted approach far less objectionable, since it is at least an attempt to place responsibility on an entity that might deserve it.

But I'm still not sure about holding corporations responsible for acts committed by individuals hundreds of years ago. Many, maybe most, of the current stockholders of these corporations, the ones who would suffer if the lawsuit was successful, have very little if any connection to the slave trade. It's a tricky issue since corporations are not real entities in the way that people are--and individuals were responsible for the slave trade, not (directly and literally) the corporation.

Though I feel that individuals who can actually prove that a relative was somehow harmed in the past might be entitled to some compensation, at the same time it seems that there may be no living people who could be said to rightfully bear the responsibility of recompensating them.

I'll have to say more on this issue later--feel free to comment, as always.

2004-03-28T07:47:00.000-08:00

Aren't We All Just Little Satans?
smart move, Rantisi

The new Hamas leader, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, has declared:

We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. . . . America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon.

I'm all for living by your principles of course. But I would think that if you had an actual political/military goal, one that was your primary focus, you might consider going about it in the most effective way possible. So when the Israelis kill the last leader of your group and there are a few signs of unease about that killing in the United States, you just might want to play on people's sympathies a bit, try to make Israeli look bad. Support for your position, or at least less support for your enemies, from big military powers is always a good idea. Pseudo-threats and condemnations of such big military powers is probably a less than ideal response--especially when the real fight (as they say) is only with Israel.

In any case, if I was the leader of Hamas, I would be very interested in encouraging the U.S. to make it clear to Israel that assassination was not the way to go. For my own sake. Despite the emotional appeal of martyrdom, isn't a live leader usually more effective at getting the job done than a dead one?

And speaking of effectiveness--suicide bombing? I read reports of the lone suicide bomber who only manages to kill a few people (and once or twice, one who only manages to blow himself up). I'm not in any way promoting terrorist actions of course. I just have to wonder, wouldn't it be more effective if they used non-suicide bombers? It can't be that much trouble to put a short timer device on a bomb, right? The bomber could carry it in strapped to him/her, set it, drop it, and get out of there. And he/she would be far less likely to die.

There is of course the scariness factor for suicide bombings. But it seems to me that the effectiveness of non-suicide bombing would outweigh the added terror benefit of suicide bombings. More people would probably be willing to do it, and the average bomber might be able to get 2-3 or more bombs off before getting caught/blown up/shot by police. Sometimes I think that the people who are willing to "die for the cause" are putting the dying before the actual cause. Isn't martyrdom a bit less heroic when the 'martyr' could have accomplished the same task without dying?

This could be why...

2004-03-27T09:50:00.000-08:00

New Posts?

Yes, yes, they're coming. I promise. Really.

I've been fairly busy with essays and such, so I apologize for the lack of new posts. Some news: Site updates are still slowly under way. I'm going to do my best today to come up with a listing of all the old posts, so you can access the archives by topic. I've received a few emails from people interested in what I had to say about various topics that I'd touched on before, so hopefully that will make it easier to find.

Also, I have had the honor of being asked to serve as a guest poster on Wizbang. So any of you who are readers will be able to read some from me:) I'll probably be doing mostly short-type posts on there, but if there is anything that also would fit in with the type of posts I do here, I'll double post it.

--Amanda

2004-03-22T15:31:00.000-08:00

Faulty Arguments
from a recent discussion

In a recent discussion regarding drug use and addiction, a reader of mine tried to argue that she could make an argument as to how we ought to treat drug addicts that was based purely on facts and logic, and did not appeal to values at all. A purely scientific explanation, even. I tried to explain how this is impossible, but she refused to acknowledge it. So this is my attempt to give a better explanation--I hope other readers will weigh on in the subject as well.

Facts/Logic vs. Values

What sorts of things are facts? The answer is pretty simple. A fact is "A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred" (WordWeb definition). Values are judgments about a thing/action/person that are NOT the type of thing that can be proven.

For example: If you say that something is "good" or "bad", "holy" or "evil", "nice" or "mean", you are making a value judgment about it. It isn't necessarily a moral judgment, but you are saying that the thing is good/bad/whatever FOR something, or in service of something--a particular end that you value.

Factual descriptions are things like "The chair is green" or "The floor is wet." Facts are not your own personal opinions about something. Scientific facts in particular are facts about the world that are publicly observable and can be verified as being true.

The particular claim of my reader was that she could argue that is was wrong for us to stigmatize drug addicts, scientifically, and without using any values. This is of course impossible--how could science do that? What sort of experiment would come out with the result "Thou shalt not stigmatize drug users"? Science can only tell us about things, about what they are, how they work. Science (and any purely factual inquiry) make no judgments about how something should work.

The very phrases "should" or "should not", "ought" or "ought not" are value judgments. Science and facts tell us how things are, makes predictions about how they will be. Science and facts simply are not the kinds of things that tell us what we "should" do.

Common Mistakes?

It's easy to make mistakes of course, to say something like "Addiction is an illness, so we shouldn't stigmatize addicts because they just have an illness," is based only on scientific facts. That is precisely what my reader tried to do. But when you think about it, it is pretty easy to see the value in there--"We shouldn't stigmatize addicts because they just have an illness." Why shouldn't we? Science doesn't tell me I shouldn't. Heck, science doesn't tell me I shouldn't go out and rob, plunder, and murder people. VALUES tell us that. But my reader continued (and continues--thus, this post) to insist that you can say something like "Illness does not reflect badness" without involving values.

(note: For those of you who didn't follow the debate, I don't disagree with this statement. I simply recognize that it is based on a value, not on fact.)

But how can you prove that illness doesn't reflect badness? Perhaps some people believe that illness does indeed reflect a person's badness. Can you prove them wrong with science? Certainly not--science doesn't even deal with terms like "good" or "bad." This is not to say that scientists don't believe that "good" or "bad" exist, but no scientists tries to say that claims about "good" and "bad" are scientific or factual claims. These terms are outside the scope of science and factuality.

The Point?

The point of this post is not just to point out error. I took the time to write this up not just because my reader was wrong about the matter, but because she claimed that her own arguments were purely factual, and were thus superior to my own arguments that were "merely based on values." This is not only wrong, but dangerous for people who don't think about the distinction between fact and value. When someone makes a scientific/factual claim, we are inclined to believe them if they have evidence that shows that the claim is correct. So some unscrupulous people try to mask their value-based arguments about what is 'right' or 'wrong' as purely factual arguments, thinking that they can better convince people if they pretend they aren't relying on values, since everybody disagrees about the right set of values to have.

But now you know;)

2004-03-20T14:20:00.000-08:00

Whites-Only scholarship Back in the News

The application for the $250 award required an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness."

"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," read the application.

Mattera, who is of Puerto Rican descent, said the scholarship was a parody of minority scholarships. Mattera himself was awarded a $5,000 scholarship from the Hispanic College Fund, he said.

"Those who come from white (descent) are left to find scholarships on their own," Mattera said.

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

I caught this one the first time around, but it came back up on the news and I thought it was worth another post. I have a great deal of respect for Mattera--too many people only stand up for the causes that happen to benefit them, and would never do so for a cause that might actually lessen their own benefits.

Do private groups have the right to give out race-based scholarships? I suppose they do. Whether or not they should is another matter, but I don't see how a person could find it acceptable to give scholarships based on certain racial requirements, but not to give scholarships based on certain other racial requirements. How would a person argue otherwise?

Discrimination -- 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners. (from Dictionary.com.)

It is not possible to argue that particular view based on the belief that racial discrimination is inherently wrong. If you believe that, you are obligated to reject any racial criteria for a scholarship as wrong--to do otherwise would be hypocritical.

How else could the argument go? If you think that a whites-only scholarship is wrong but a minority-only scholarship is not, you must first admit that there is nothing inherently wrong with racial discrimination, and then argue for what other factors make it wrong in the case of the whites-only scholarship but not minority-only ones.

If there is some other alternative method of argument, I'm open to hearing it--but I can't think of any alternatives that would seem legitimate. You could say that minority scholarships are wrong but necessary of course, but that would have to be accompanied by an argument as to why immoral actions can be justified in pursuit of certain ends, and what it is about those ends that makes them so desirable as to overpower the need to act morally. If that was the case, is there any limit to what immorality can be justified in pursuit of such an end, or are certain acts still impermissible?

2004-03-18T20:23:00.000-08:00

Addiction
quick commentary

excerpt from Legal Drugs Pose Greatest Health Threat, WHO Says:

The first report of its kind by the global body found that dependence on alcohol and cigarettes has a much greater cost for societies than illegal drugs like cocaine and crack.

...

There are about 200 million illegal drugs users worldwide, or 3.4 percent of the world population, it said. Illegal drugs contributed 0.8 percent to global ill health in 2000, while alcohol accounted for 4.1 percent and cigarettes 4 percent.

I thought that was interesting enough to repost. Might be useful in an argument in support of drug legalization (though my arguments are purely rights-based). But I found another part of the article fairly disturbing:

Health experts need to consider a range of factors in treating drug dependence because it is a disorder caused by genetic disposition, as well as psychological and cultural factors, it [the WHO report] said.

...

Any person can become a drug addict and that dependence is a disorder, making it crucial to eradicate the stigma suffered by drug users that can make treatment more difficult, the report said.

Did they forget...

It almost sounds as though the writers of the report are totally oblivious to the fact that a person can only become a drug addict if they use drugs. Sure, some people are more genetically prone to addiction, and many drugs themselves can cause addiction--and I'm all for recognizing that.

But saying "Any person can become a drug addict" is way off mark. They make it sound like a disease you simply catch. It is ridiculous to try to absolve addicts of any responsibility for their addiction, because if they had just abstained from drug/alcohol use, they never would have become addicts. And I see absolutely no basis by which to argue that the "stigma suffered by drug users" ought to be eliminated. Maybe stigma insofar as that which is completely based on the addiction itself--but a great deal of the stigma attached to drug addicts is due to the fact that they use drugs. Many people see something wrong with that, even if they don't think drug use should be illegal, and it is ridiculous to claim that these people are not entitled to their opinions about drug users/addicts.

2004-03-17T23:11:00.000-08:00

Utilitarianism
the attack continues

Earlier quote from me:

Pure utilitarianism is of course impossible--you can't know what serves the 'greater good' unless you have some conception of what that greater good is ... The difficulty of deciding how one would measure such things is problematic enough for the utilitarian route, and there is always the question of why a certain criteria should be used.

From Box Mansion:

"i am no utilitarian, but i find the objection to be rather weak. just because it is difficult and controversial to determine a criterion does not mean that there does not exist one. quality of life has long been used by various international organizations, and i think that is a fairly decent indicator. "

Reply (slightly expanded version of my comment on the site):

The problem with establishing an absolute value for which utilitarianism would strive is that such moral absolutes are the very thing utilitarianism is trying to get away from. It is saying "No, absolute moral standards about individual rights don't exist -- but this other absolute moral standard does." Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily have to deny absolute moral standards, of course (it actually has to take on at least one: its goal). But its spirit seems to be against these types of standards, and one of the stronger arguments for it would be to try to refute the notion that there are absolute moral rights of the kinds posited by individual-rights theorists.

It makes sense to do morality on the individual level -- individuals are the only agents that actually make decisions. 'Group decision' is a figurative term, and is merely used as a convenient way to speak of the decisions of a group of individuals. Since the ability to make decisions is necessary for an individual to be a moral agent (according to most all moral systems), it is reasonable to believe that a moral system should focus on individual moral agents as its members rather than on some figurative 'group agent.' Shouldn't a moral code be in service to its actual agents rather than some figurative 'group' conception of them, since this group is not making moral decisions>

When utilitarians admit that some absolute moral standard must be made (what exactly the 'greater good' is, for example) for utilitarianism to work, they lose the ability to object to individual rights-based moralities on the grounds that such absolutes don't exist. As I said earlier, though this isn't the only argument to be made for utilitarianism, it certainly is one of the better ones that could be made. If no absolute rights exist, that certainly refutes individual-rights based systems that depend on such absolute rights. But since utilitarianism can't actually escape these absolutes (you can't argue that we should act to benefit the 'greater good' if everyone gets to decide what that good is for him or herself), utilitarians are left with the task of explaining why the actual moral agent--the individual--should not be the object of moral standards.

The point of my objection to utilitarianism was not that we should reject it because it is difficult to come up with a standard of what the 'greater good' is--only that it requires the use of absolutes that, once recognized, make what might be the best argument against personal rights systems unusable.

2004-03-14T19:55:00.000-08:00

Welfare Revisited
because it came up in the Voting discussion

I always enjoy discussions on welfare--particularly when silly people say things like "if you were needy you wouldn't think that way." If I was a murderer I might not think that killing people is wrong either, but that's not an argument in favor of murder. Maybe that line of reasoning works if you are the sort of person who just believes in whatever most benefits you, but I am not, and neither are other people who are really concerned about doing the right thing.

Disclaimer:

I would hope that most people realize that a person's being against government welfare programs does not mean the person is anti-poor, greedy, selfish, evil, or any of the other insults people use when they can't come up with an argument as to why the government should force us to give money to what ought to be voluntary charity. These are baseless and silly accusations, and I hope that at least some of us are able to make decisions and arguments based on reason instead of knee-jerk emotional reactions.

The Intrinsic Immorality of Theft

Common arguments in support of welfare often say something to the effect that the needy require assistance to live, state welfare programs serve the greater good, etc. And of course there are others--maybe not better arguments, but still others. This is a general counter-argument that will probably cover most common arguments in favor of state-supported welfare, and is made under the assumption that we find theft, burglary, and destruction of others' properties to be somehow immoral.

The question is this:
If, in any situation, we find it justifiable for any person or group to take the property of any other person without the consent of the other (whether by force, or threats of jail, etc.), we cannot argue that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that act. On what, then, do we base our objections to theft?

Utilitarian Solutions?

Pure utilitarianism is of course impossible--you can't know what serves the 'greater good' unless you have some conception of what that greater good is, and it obviously won't work out too well if every single person gets to decide what he or she thinks the greater good is. 'Happiness' is often proposed, or 'life,' or something similarly vague. The difficulty of deciding how one would measure such things is problematic enough for the utilitarian route, and there is always the question of why a certain criteria should be used. Not only that, but for those people who do not personally benefit from serving the greater good, there is no compelling reason to do it anyway.

In any case, you can't really hold on to a utilitarian ideal if you believe that individuals have certain unalienable personal rights, since those rights will likely be often violated if every one always acts for the 'greater good.' For those of us who want to hold on to the idea of individual rights, that is probably enough reason to stay away from utilitarianism.

If Theft is Okay in One Situation...

How much is acceptable, and how much is too much for the government to take from the middle-class or the wealthy to give to the needy? Should they be given the bare minimum of housing, food, clothing, healthcare, etc., that they need to live, or should they have a little more? Maybe enough for a few televisions, a little nicer of a place to live, a little extra food...

How do you draw the line? The utilitarian argument probably pushes us into socialism--the 'happiness' or 'goodness' of 50 families being raised up to middle-class status probably far outweighs the negative effects of a very wealthy family being pushed down to middle-class status, so if we are only looking out for the 'most good,' that's where you end up.

But if not socialism, how do we define the cut-off point of what a person/family is entitled to if they can't attain it themselves, and what they aren't entitled to? I won't venture an answer to that since I don't think anyone is entitled to have anything they can't get on their own.

If we believe that people have a right to not have things like their lives, properties, freedom, etc., taken from them, we have a much easier time explaining the immorality of robbery and the like. But again, if we give that up, what are we left with? If it is okay for the government to take people's money to support welfare and other social programs, is it okay for a poor person to steal from Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart has plenty of money, and the poor person probably needs that pair of pants a lot more than a huge corporation. So why would we send such a person to jail for stealing? How can we justify the government doing something that we would find it immoral for an individual to do?

note: Although my line of argument against welfare can be applied to taxes in general, I'm just sticking to welfare right now. Taxes spent on the military and security can be argued as necessary for the existence of the country as a whole at least (though I don't think this is a particularly good argument, but better than nothing), while the nation would not be overrun by terrorists and foreign armies if welfare was ended. It can also be argued that taxes for police, roads, etc., go to things that generally directly benefit everyone. Although I still disagree with the forcible nature of taxation in general, at least for these things, people are being given something for their money. But in the case of welfare and other social programs, people are required to give money specifically to benefit others and not themselves. You could argue that these programs are somewhat like insurance, since it is possible that a person might benefit from them someday. But this is much less direct than some of the uses for tax money that I would consider somewhat less misguided, and is still something that the majority of people will never benefit from.

2004-03-13T17:12:00.000-08:00

Back at School
The Vacation has Ended...

I'm back, so I'll be more or less back to my normal routine. With the addition of the ingenious Presidential campaign that I came up with;)

Are any of the people who offered me some free web space still reading? If so, I could use it now--the banner ads and popups on Tripod are too annoying for me to do anything on there. Email me or let me know in the 'Comments.' Thanks!

2004-03-11T12:57:00.000-08:00

That's It...
I'm running for President!

After the last discussion, I've realized that I have no choice. There are no candidates worth my vote, so I'm running as a write-in. Visit the new campaign site:

Hot Abercrombie Chick for President!

for more details. And don't forget to vote HAC in November!

2004-03-10T16:35:00.000-08:00

Voting Is For Old People!
the 'picking the lesser of two evils' strategy

I read a news article not so long ago about a T-shirt slogan that read 'Voting is for Old People.' The shirt, from Urban Outfitters, bothered a few people at some Harvard pro-democracy group that encourages people to vote. I assume they saw it when they took a break from all that political activity to go spend their parents' money at the Harvard Square Urban Outfitters in Cambridge, but I can't confirm that. Another article reports a complaint from a group (PunkVoter.com) "that encourages young (anti-Bush) voters to go to the polls."

Jurgensen's [PunkVoter guy] letter to Hayne [Urban Outfitter Chairman] begins thus: "How can you possibly rationalize that selling a T-Shirt stating: 'Voting is for Old People' is not a political agenda? As an artist, I appreciate expressions of outrage. I understand rebellion, and respect the use of irony and sarcasm to prove a point in public speech. But as a board member of Punkvoter.com, I find your T-shirt 'Voting is for Old People' to be an anti-American abomination."

The original article, which I couldn't find, said that the 'Voting is for Old People' slogan was meant to be a statement about how the agendas of most politicians often don't cover issues that concern young adults.

Lesser of Two Evils

I've heard many people talking about how they want to "vote Bush out." Many of them are not especially fond of Kerry, but they seem to be willing to vote for anyone who isn't Bush, because he is just that bad. But I have to question this kind of voting strategy. People have told me that your vote is your voice in government, and that you bear responsibility for much of what the government does since the U.S. is a government "of the people, by the people," etc. But I don't go in for this ridiculous extended responsibility that some people like to posit. It would be different if a certain issue was put to a vote, I voted for it, and then someone felt that I was partially responsible for the consequences of that vote if it came out the way I wanted. But what about voting for senators, representatives, or presidents when you don't particularly like or agree with any of the candidates? I feel that if I did vote for a certain candidate and he or she won, a person could legitimately say that I have some responsibility for their actions. Not a lot, but some.

So I don't vote. And I'm not going to vote unless there happens to be a candidate that I very much agree with, enough that I wouldn't mind taking some measure of responsibility for his or her actions. Do I like Bush? Not particularly. But I don't like Kerry either. I have quite a few disagreements with both the Republican and the Democrat side, and I can't honestly say that I think one is worse than the other. I don't think I should be paying tax money for us to go off to fight wars and keep military bases all over the place, nor do I think we ought to spend it on social programs. I completely support gay marriage, and I am completely opposed to affirmative action. Even if I was able to decide that one side was a little worse than the other, I'm not comfortable with the 'lesser of two evils' strategy. Should I bear responsibility for voting for a party that refuses homosexuals the right to get married, or should I bear responsibility for the government taking money from people who have worked for it to give to those who haven't?

I don't mean to start a debate about the issues in question--just to ask, what is a person to do when there is no one worthy of his or her vote? I get the impression that quite a few people are in that situation with the whole "vote for anyone but Bush" strategy. I remember people complaining about those who voted for Nader in 2000, because they "cost Gore the election." Hey, what if they didn't like Gore? What if the only person you can feel right about voting for is one who you know won't be elected? Is it wrong to not vote for someone you don't like just because you might dislike someone else a little more? I might vote for a Libertarian candidate... I would probably be far less opposed to that in most cases (although I'm sure I have a good number of disagreements with them as well), but I know it wouldn't have any affect on the outcome of an election. Which makes me less inclined to go vote--it would be a "throwaway" vote, after all.

Conclusion? I'm not completely sure--but I know I won't be voted for Kerry or Bush.

2004-03-09T09:13:00.000-08:00

Parodied!
by NOT Abercrombie Chick

I must say, I'm impressed. I suppose it wouldn't be a great deal of trouble for someone who has experience with web design, but this person, "NOT Abercrombie Chick," has copied and modified not only my Blog's template, but also my title bar. Thanks to John B for sending me the link.

I may attempt to contact the person responsible for the parody by email sometime in the near future as he or she seems to have a valid email address listed... or I may just wait to see if he or she posts anything new. The Blog says it is "a friendly parody" of mine, and I am eager to see how true this is. Even if it is less than friendly, I still feel special:)

2004-03-08T20:35:00.000-08:00

New! Site Syndication Feeds

Enjoy:)

2004-03-08T09:11:00.000-08:00

(note: This is a re-post of an older post that someone requested.)

Some Blog-Customization Resources

1: Comments Section

go to http://www.Haloscan.com

Register for an account and log in. It will give you the
html/javascript to add to your page. Open your Blog
account in another window and go to 'Template'. Copy
and paste the first line Haloscan gives you in the 'Head'
section. Then copy and paste the second part from the
Haloscan page somewhere in the 'Blogger' section. I do
it at the end, right before the '/Blogger'.

2: Guestbooks, Hit Counters, Etc.

go to: http://www.Bravenet.com

It will work pretty much the same was as adding the
comments section--register, log in, pick the stuff you
want, and the Bravenet site gives you the code to copy
into the 'Template' section wherever you'd like it.

3: Changing the Layout

go to: http://www.Blogskins.com

You can look at all the sample layouts they have, and if
you find one you like, you just copy the entire html code
for it and replace everything in your 'Template'
section with it. You might want to save the old template
in a text file in case you want to go back. Also, if you're
doing comments/guestbooks/etc, you should do this step
first, since it completely replaces your old Blog template.

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

Hope that helped:) If anyone else has any general questions
I'll try to add answers here. I can't tell you how to do
anything much more complicated than what I have here
though, so if you want to make major, personalized changes,
you will probably need to ask someone else or learn a little
html.

2004-03-07T19:02:00.000-08:00

Thank Yous and Upcoming Topics

Thank you to everyone who has Reviewed My Site for . I'm happy to say that I am the top listing on their 'Highly Ranked' Blogs section. Special thanks to the following reviewers:

Rated 10 on Monday, 08 March 2004
As much as I hate to admit it, since this blog knocked me out of the top spot in Blogarama's "Highly Rated" section, this is definitely a high quality blog. Whether its popularity is based on ingenius marketing or not is irrelevant, because while advertising works well for getting attention, it's the content that keeps people's attention. And girl, you've got mine. Beauty, brains, and maturity. Damn. I've got my work cut out for me if i want to be at the top again...
Rated By: Beasta - http://beasta.blogspot.com

Rated 10 on Friday, 05 March 2004
HAC (to use the acronym) is the perfect representative of its blog genre. Well written, coherently argued with plenty of scope for debate and discussion, its become the only book-marked blog I have. Agree with her or not, the site will always leave you coming back for more, and more, and more. Thats probably a good thing, as it'll mean one more person to cross swords with. See you there...
Rated By: Ishan - www.grey-hairedteenager.blogspot.com

Thanks to everyone who Rated my Blog for Blog Hot or Not as well- The current rating is 9.9 with 37 votes.

New Topics?

Some people have commented that my Blog has been "strange" lately--my apologies for this. The whole getting link by Boobdex and the Brazilian girly pictures site was unexpected. I chose not to spend the time erasing indecent messages in the 'Comments' sections, partly because I just skip over them and am not particularly bothered, and partly because there were just so many. Again, apologies to anyone was was offended. If such comments continue during more serious discussions, I will try to ban the posters as I am able.

I am currently visiting my parents for a week for my all-too-short Spring Break, but I will do my best to write enough posts to keep the Blog interesting. I spent a few days before Break started mostly doing site promotion, which consisted of registering in every Blog database I could find and adding that Blog Hot or Not thing, as well as registering with an ad-trader site that will supposedly show my ad on some other Blogs in the program (I'm still waiting to see about that). Just trying to make sure I'm out there:) So don't worry--no Paypal donation buttons. I wouldn't donate money to a Blog, and I wouldn't expect any of you to either.

So anyway, possible topics for posts:

1. Social Security - I had planned on doing this sometime but never got around to it. But I will, sometime.

2. Obesity Issues - The rise of low-carb diets like Atkins, large people being charged for two seats on certain flights, whether or not soda and snack companies are responsible for making kids overweight, what else might be justly blamed, etc.

3. Gun Control - What sorts of weapons might justly be banned, who should be prohibited from owning weapons, concealed gun carry laws. 4. Gay Marriage - As interesting new developments come up, I probably won't be able to resist more posts about this one. Sorry if it's a bore to my dedicated readers; I'll do my best to go into some aspects of the issue that I haven't yet dealt with.

That's all for now. Be on the lookout for new topics/posts, and small or large site updates. Don't forget to Blogroll Me. Getting a Blogroll is quick and easy, and is a great way to put your favorite on your site. (Sorry to keep plugging them - if I get 70ish more people to link me through Blogroll, I'll be on their top 100 list.) Once again, thank you to everyone who has made my Blogging experience so enjoyable:)

2004-03-05T18:13:00.000-08:00

Interesting Email I Received...

This is a picture of me and my current girlfriend, but I'd be willing to substitute you for her.

--Marc

I wonder what his current girlfriend would have to say about that... LoL!

2004-03-04T14:45:00.000-08:00

Done With Essays!
time to sleep...

Yes, I'm done. Just a bit of reading for tomorrow, then a week off for Spring Break. But for now, I am off for some extended naptime. Thanks to everyone who participated in the recent discussion, and my apologies to those of you who were offended by the obscene-commenting Brazilians (not that some of them didn't actually engage in the discussion).

For those of you who do post obscene comments... well, I'm not going to complain. I do tend to skip over them to read the more thoughtful comments, though, so you might be wasting your time.

Of course, you could not waste your time by doing the following:

Go to http://www.blogroll.com, sign up for a Blogroll, and then click on: Blogroll Me! to add me to your list:)

and I always appreciate anyone who will: Review My Site for
I always enjoy hearing what people think:)

2004-03-03T17:58:00.000-08:00

Legalize Child Porn?
quick post on the criminal penalties for possession of child pornography

note: I must offer my humble thanks for the porn sites that have linked me, Boobdex and the Portuguese Dedada Digital. I find it greatly amusing - so much that it's inspired this new topic.

I am quoting the following from Recovery from Child Pornography Use:

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

The three below sample cases provide information on federal penalties for possession and/or distribution of child pornography. This page is not a substitute for expert legal advice but it is based on federal law and federal sentencing guidelines.

Case A

Description of Case: The violator has no previous criminal convictions. He downloaded child porn images onto his computer, but did not upload child porn images or otherwise distribute child porn images to others. The images were only those of teens (children past puberty and under the age of 17) and totaled around 100 in number. There were no sadomasochistic images, and there was no evidence of actual sexual contact with minors. He accepts responsibility for his actions and demonstrates remorse for them.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines: level 16 = 21-27 months imprisonment

Case B

Description of Case: The violator has no previous criminal convictions. He downloaded child porn images onto his computer and also uploaded child porn images to others. The images were only those of teens (children past puberty) and totaled around 100 in number. There were no sadomasochistic images, and there is no evidence of actual sexual contact with minors. He accepts responsibility for his actions and demonstrates remorse for them.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines: level 21 = 37-46 months imprisonment

Case C

Description of Case: The violator has no previous criminal convictions. He downloaded child porn images onto his computer and also uploaded illegal child porn images to others. The images included prepubescent children and totaled around 100 in number. There were no sadomasochistic images, and there is no evidence of actual sexual contact with minors. He accepts responsibility for his actions and demonstrates remorse for them.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines: level 23 = 46-57 months imprisonment

If violators possess images depicting sadomasochistic acts, have a record of child abuse or previous convictions, or have sold or produced child porn, the penalties are even more severe.

In every scenario listed above, an actual prison sentence is required. There is no allowed “probation” in lieu of prison at these offense levels. Furthermore, the time actually served is close to that sentenced. Only 54 days per year is allowed off for “good time.”

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

What the heck?

This actually shocked me when I looked it up. I mean, yes, child pornography--bad. But two years in prison for someone who only downloads pictures, no uploading, no "sadomasochism", no evidence of sexual contact with minors? So this means the guy who comes across some European site with a 16 year old girl posing nude...

Again, I'll make it very clear that I think child pornography is wrong. But I think we need to ask ourselves, what is it about child pornography that makes it wrong? For the people who make it, that question is easy. In many (maybe most?) cases of child porn production, the child is actually being raped, forcibly through violence or through actual or practical enslavement/exploitation. But like I said, that's the easy part, lock those guys up, they're harming a child.

What about possession? Sure, in the whole picture of things it promotes the kinds of activities that I just described in the production of child porn. And some people who look at child porn might be more likely to engage in illegal sexual acts with children. But then again, there are people out there looking at pornography that may have been made willingly by some 16 year old girl, maybe even pictures she took herself, who enjoys having men look at her for whatever reason. Aren't we supposed to hold people who do the harm (the pornographers) accountable for their crimes, not just the people who might have indirectly, in a roundabout way, promoted the crime without specific intent to do so?

Punishment

The only criminal thing about possessing child pornography (assuming it was just downloaded and looked at, and the person was not involved in production or in direct contact with the people producing it, etc.) is that it is a violation of the rights of the child in the pictures. If someone forces you to let them take naked pictures of you or somehow sneaks/steals naked pictures of you, it's a violation of your privacy for anyone to see those pictures. That's why celebrities are able to sue magazines that publish stolen/sneaked pictures like that. But jail time for viewers?

It certainly should be illegal to possess nude/sexual pictures of individuals who have not and/or could not have consented to the pictures being taken. But, aside from any other actions than downloading such images, it is ridiculous to impose prison time on someone for doing so. Fines, yes. Prison, no. Although it of course sounds much more monstrous than downloading illegal music, it is still the same sort of violation--a person has taken a copy of something of some information that they have no legal right to own. Law enforcement and the courts have every right to make sure that such people have to get rid of that information, and to collect monetary damages (that should ideally be given to the victim, since it was her privacy being violated).

But the individual viewing these images is not doing any actual, physical harm to anyone. I strongly oppose the kind of people who think that you can hold someone accountable for an action/crime just because they might have done something far removed from the actual act that might have encouraged the criminal to act as he did. Do people who buy clothing made in sweatshops bear responsibility for the sweatshop labor? Absolutely not--we need to put blame on those who actually do these things. The only blame that should be assigned to viewers of child porn is for the violation of privacy, and since it was done indirectly through downloading pictures, nothing more than a fine is warranted. Make it a high fine, I'm okay with that. But not imprisonment for two years minimum. For distribution through trading but not producing these pictures, it might be a little different. For serious distribution without production, some prison time might be warranted--but certainly not for mere possession.

Don't forget to Blogroll Me! and Review My Site for

Comment as much as you'd like--and feel free to say that I am an awful child-hating Satan-worshipping libertarian. If you must. But intelligent discussion is always appreciated:)

2004-03-03T07:47:00.000-08:00

So How About That Pornography?
upcoming discussion

I must thank the fellow from Boobdex for the link and the 2000+ hits I've gotten from that in the past 10 hours. After waking up to that pleasant surprise this morning and checking out the Boobdex site, I decided that it was about time that I brought up the always captivating issue of pornography.

Seeing as how I have two essays to do tonight (one 5-6 page, one 10 page), which I naturally haven't started, I won't have time to write up the traditional longer issue post until tomorrow night. But for now, feel free to comment (especially you Boobdexers) to kick things off.

Don't forget to Blogroll Me! and Review My Site for

And as always, Comment as much as you'd like--I always appreciate the discussions. Thanks:)

2004-03-01T23:53:00.000-08:00

Update on Site Updates

For those of you who noticed, my Blogroll list is gone. But don't fear, it will be back--when I have the chance I'm going to try to put all of my links on it, and have it randomly pick 10 or so to show on the main page. If I can figure out how to do that.

As you may have noticed, I've always been adding little things here and there. The different updates with links and such, the photo album, the posts of course. Also just random different things for site promotion, registering with different Blog databases and the like. If you are so inclined to spend a few minutes helping to help me out, here are a few things you could do:

1. Blogroll Me! If you use Blogroll (a convenient way to keep track of favorite links and post them to you Blog/site if you wish), add me to your list. If I manage to get on 70-80 or so, I'll make it to the top 100 list.

2. Review My Site for - Thanks to Rob for being the first. I'm always happy to hear what you think (unless it's bad... then I might be less happy - but say it like it is), and if enough people give me good reviews I think it lists me on some 'best sites' page.

3. Link Me - Just good old-fashioned linkage. As with the Blogrolling, I'll return the favor if you mention it - just use the latest 'Comments' section. For now I'll put it on the Links Page, but I'll get that on the Blogroll thing soon.

Also, if you have any suggestions for improvements to the site, please let me know. Also feel free to suggest any kind of Blog directories/services/whatever that I might find useful (assuming they are free). Thanks!

So that's it for now. Yes, shameless promotion, I know. But I can't argue with people if no one comes to the Blog;)

2004-03-01T12:04:00.000-08:00

Do Video Games Encourage Violence?
from the article Video Games Make Kids Fat, Violent-Swedish Experts

What do you think about this?

Video games can make children fat and, in the case of violent games popular among teenage and younger boys, aggressive and even criminal, Swedish experts said on Monday.

...

"It's concerning because they (video game players) are rehearsing scripts of behavior that will possibly play themselves out in real life," Michael Rich, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics who has studied the effects of entertainment media on the physical and mental health of children, was quoted as saying in the 45-minute "Deadly Game" documentary.

...

Monday's preview of the film, due for prime time broadcasting on Swedish TV4 television on Wednesday, was followed by a panel debate, which concluded that scientific findings of the effects, if any, of violent video games were scant.

"But it has been proved beyond dispute that people who watch a lot of violence on television develop aggressive behavior," said Frank Lindblad, a child psychiatrist at Sweden's Karolinska Institute university hospital.

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

I haven't seen any of the studies that have "proved beyond dispute" that people who watch violent television develop violent behavior... though I am of course sceptical of whether or not this would imply causation even if the studies were accurate. There's always the old reply that perhaps the kind of people who enjoy watching violent entertainment already have violent tendancies, and that if they did not have violence on television to satisfy their urge to, they would do it through books or some other means.

Anyway, the drug legalization discussion kind of died on me--I guess this site attracts too many libertarians who don't have much to argue with me about, perhaps? So I thought I'd get in on this topic when I saw the article. Comments/references are welcome and encouraged, as always.

2004-02-29T18:58:00.000-08:00

Would More People Use Hard Drugs if They Were Legal?
a continuation of debate

I'm not the best at predicting the real-world outcomes of actual social or policy changes, so perhaps some of you who are better at it can weigh in on the discussion. But I'll do my best.

Part of me says no--if a person believes that it is okay for him or her to use hard drugs and wants to do so, it probably makes little difference whether or not these drugs are legal. How many people who think that there is nothing wrong with downloading free music from Kazaa choose not to do so just because it is illegal? A few maybe, but probably not many. We tend to commit crimes we can get away with if we don't think they should be crimes (and sometimes even if we do). People didn't stop downloading when it was made clear that doing so was illegal--downloads only decreased when they were shown that they might actually get caught. Any person of at least average intelligent has the ability to use drugs in a way that won't get them arrested (which is not to say that they always use that intelligence). And it also seems that most adult people have, or could find if they wanted to enough, a way to purchase hard drugs. So this part of me thinks that everybody who wants to use and can afford hard drugs is probably already using.

But then another part of me thinks well, maybe some people who wouldn't normally use hard drugs would if these drugs were legal and easy to access. There would be less fear of impure drugs, drugs being laced with others, and accidental overdose from drugs of unknown potency. There might be less social stigma for hard drug use (though not necessarily). So maybe those people who are somewhat in between the people who think drug use is okay and those who think it is wrong for their own reasons would be more likely to use. Even if drugs are relatively easy to come by, there is still more in between wanting to use drugs and actually buying them since it is illegal. If you can buy heroin at the corner store instead of driving down to some scary part of town, that's one less excuse not to do it. (Not to say that there aren't 'high-class' drug dealers, of course--but I mean for your average Joe.) But then again, with prevalent drug use at parties (in colleges, at least), access can sometimes be very easy.

So where do I come out on this? I'm still not entirely sure. I'm inclined to think that whether or not people use any drug is more of a choice made according to personal values, but I can also see how people who were 'in the middle' about the issue might be more likely to buy and use drugs if they were legal. One question that plays a big role in this is where most people would fall in the spectrum of personally opposing drug use (for themselves anyway) and finding it completely acceptable. I don't know the answer to that. I wouldn't use any kind of drug even if all of them were completely legal, because of my own preference, but I don't know how many other people are as decided about it as me. As a parting thought, though--most 'undecided' people do seem to try drugs when they are in college, at least, where drugs are often accepted and easily acquired (even encouraged sometimes). So maybe of the 'undecided' population that has been or will go to college, drug legalization would not actually provide any more incentive than they already have.

2004-02-29T11:49:00.000-08:00

More Reasons for Drug Legalization
quick summary of one or two points from discussion

Note to new readers: I very much welcome your opinions in the 'Comments' section--we usually get a pretty good debate going in there (see Dude, we should, like, totally Legalize Pot and other posts).

Saving Money
on the drug war--all the money spent on extra police officers and prison terms for the many nonviolent drug offenders would be saved. This would more than cover the costs of extensive drug-education programs that would actually keep people off of drugs, since it seems fairly obvious that police enforcement never will.

Less Violence
from criminal gangs who exists because of the underground drug market. Since gangs sell drugs for the majority of their incomes (which they use to buy things like assault weapons to shoot up 'competition'), the legalization of drugs would most likely eliminate these gangs. The incentive of joining a gang for profit would disappear, and those people already involved in gangs would be out of a job. Existing gangs would have little reason for violent gang wars, since these disputes are usually about territory, and territory is only valuable as the locations in which illegal drugs can be sold.

Probably Less Death
from drug-overdoses, as many overdoses are caused by people using one drug that is 'laced' with another, more powerful drug, or from people using drugs of unknown strength. Legal drugs could be regulated and clearly marked for what they are and how potent each dose was. Also, HIV and other diseases associated with needle-drug use would likely be reduced, since legal needle drugs would be regulated and the needles kept sterile.

note: This is an argument in support of legalizing not only posession, but also distribution--companies should be able to sell currently illegal drugs just as they do alcohol. I see this as both a matter of freedom (they have a right to do so), and as a practical necessity for at least the second two above benefits to fully occur. I would also oppose any lawsuits against companies selling these drugs--people are smart enough to know drug use is harmful.

If you use Blogroll, Blogroll Me!

Check out My Photo Album.

2004-02-29T07:56:00.000-08:00

The D.L. on Drug Legalization
by loyal reader AL caholic

(begin paper by AL Caholic)

Note: Hot Abercrombie Chick in no way shares the views or opinions of this post.

The only three reasons I could think of for drugs to be illegal are:

1: Most likely reason:

It makes the most money for the local court systems out of every civil and criminal offense combined. In New Orleans Around 50 percent(or more) of all arrests are drug offenses,and those have steep fines, not to mention property confiscations. I bet Robert Downey Jr had to pay huge fines. Thus, it supports goverment.

2: The best reason I could think of for criminalizing drugs:

People become crazy when under the influence. If you were ever around a friend on LSD who started saying he saw god in a campfire sadly, you know true this is. And that leads to the issue of how can they be held responsible for their actions while intoxicated? If I was a family man I wouldn't want a minibus full of tripping hippies on the interstate next to me on my families roadtrip to disney. They're totally unpredictable and could try to fly their bus over my car. The best response for this is alcahol's use and abuse. It's regulation and penalties seems to work as well as possible, certainly enough to compensate for the lack of alcahol related gang wars, like during prohibition.

3: The kids as victims:

Bad point because kids are victims of all kinds of learned bad behavior from crappy parents. i.e. violence towards women has a serious family component.That's a parenting problem not a drug problem.

Why drugs should be legal:

The reason most people think drugs are wrong is because the media and our parents have told us forever that drug use equals failure. You're gonna be homeless, toothless, and talking to an invisible person on a park bench the minute drug smoke gets into your lungs. Unfortuneately, this is the marvelous result of years of spin. I would bet alot of money that most people have experimented illegally with drugs. And also that they believe themselves successful at whatever they do in their adult life. Drug's aren't as bad as percieved, they're just demonized. Every drug commercial and movie have always shown drug users as shifty eyed loosers smoking weed in their parents basement. You never see a commercial with the brilliant actor Robert Downey Jr. in his million dollar house, head in a scarface size pile of cocaine, saying "Kids drugs will get you nowhere" or Rush Limbaugh on his way to pain med rehab in his BMW saying "Drugs will screw up your future." The nobel prize winner Kary Mullis (discovered pcr) was into drugs, making LSD influenced him towards a science career. Not to metion the random dentist weed smoker, wall street coke brokers, ecstasy buisnessmen, and your average college student who does things most people wouldn't believe. So obviously there's no way drugs are causing people to loose all sense of reality and make their lives spiral wildly out of control. There's just more to it. Drugs don't make you poor, or ruin your dreams, or take your future away. Drugs reach into all walks of life, all classes of people,and touch everyone. Bad parenting, poverty and addiction are the real future killers. Drugs are just an easy target.

Addiction: If it's understood that Schitzophrenia is truly a physical brain disease (even though there's no absolute proof) then it's reasonable to believe that addiction could be the same thing. Plenty of evidence, no hard proof, though there's a serious genetic component seen. And like a schitzophrenic needs medication to function, so does an addict. Remember in the dark ages when we used to labotomize or burn people who claimed to hear voices or see nonexistent things? That's the similar irrational demoniztion approach taken by todays society towards addiction instead of looking at it from a cold hard clinical approach, it's stigmatized. Drugs are wide spread and these addicts are helpless but are called loosers and failures and rejected so they hide and do illegal criminal and life threatening shit to survive. It's a public health problem not a war. The only so called loosers who are seriously unable to function without drugs are the addicts who with drug legalization could lead better lives with access to health care and less fear of retribution in coming clean, while the rest of us could take it or leave it while benefitting from things like: decreases in crime, lower taxes due to less prison inmates, and the new drug sales tax(which could fund prevention programs). And here's a secret: the addicts are out there, right now, doing it anyway and will again tommorrow....

Links:

http://dir.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/29/mullis/index.html
Info about Kary Mullis (as my genetics teacher put it: a "free thinker")

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/smoking_factsheet99.html
Cigarette addiction info. (especially the statistics in the last bullet)

http://www.familywatch.org/library/inwaondr.011.html
Awesome article on drugs as Public Health issue

http://www.ukcia.org/research/DutchPolicyAndCrimeStatistics.html
Interesting Amsterdam vs New York crime statistics

(end paper by AL caholic)

2004-02-28T16:52:00.000-08:00

Dude, we should, like, totally Legalize Pot
let the drug legalization debate begin

I've been hitting religion and gay marriage pretty hard lately. So hard, in fact, that both Religion and Gay Marriage have asked me to stop so abusing them. Time for a change--so break out your soiled two-sizes-too-big marijuana-leaf T-shirts.

(note for newer readers: I'm not a hippie. In fact, I think hippies are smelly and disgusting people who should get jobs and grow up [kidding]. I've never used drugs of any sort, nor do I ever intend to. You shouldn't either--drugs are bad for you. I am not particularly liberal either. See posts like: Supporting the War in Iraq, Why we Should Abolish Welfare, and the like.)

My basic position is pretty simple: We should legalize drugs, as a matter of personal freedom. All of them--marijuana, crack cocaine, heroin, PCP, etc. If a person wishes to harm themselves, then so be it; I am not one say that we ought to make legal mandates to keep people safe from themselves.

What I do suggest: Tougher penalties for crimes committed when a person is intoxicated/high. No leniency because a person was too drunk to know what he or she was doing. No lessening of blame because a person did not make a 'rational' choice to commit a certain crime. In fact, I advocate more than just 'equal punishment' for a crime committed by an intoxicated person and the same crime committed by a sober one; the penalty should be greater when the criminal is intoxicated. When a person chooses to become intoxicated without knowing or despite knowing that he or she will behave in ways that harm others, I think this constitutes a rational choice and acceptance of whatever results from that intoxication.

There's much more to be said, but I wanted to keep this short to get discussion going (and because I have studying to do). So post your own views, argue/support mine, whatever you want to do.

2004-02-28T15:33:00.000-08:00

New: Photo Album
Good wholesome fun or clever marketing ploy? ;)

As part of the ongoing (though admittedly slow) site update, I've created a small photo album. It has one of the pictures from the original titlebar that elicited such heated discussions about how I was an inane, vacuous, corporate puppet (or some derivation thereof). Ah, the good old days.

2004-02-27T12:17:00.000-08:00

Hey, why not?
another one on gay marriage.

There have been a great number of discussions on the Biblical question of same-sex marriages on here lately, but I want to ask a different question now. Not the most original question, but one that I'd like to ask to those people who do believe that such marriages are fundamentally opposed by Christian belief.

"It's against nature," Angelo Da'Quaro said. "It's against religion, it's against all of that."

(from Mayor of N.Y. Town Marries Gay Couples article on Yahoo.)

So for the sake of argument, let's say that this Da'Quaro lady is right. Christianity opposes same-sex marriages. But coming from this Christian religious standpoint, can you also argue that such marriages should be prohibited by the state?

I am of course inclined to say no, surely not. Even if it is sinful according to Christianity, a good Christian shouldn't argue that it is the place of the state to prohibit it. Priests/pastors and the like won't perform such weddings, that's fine. But should the state be an instrument of enforcing your moral/religious preferences? I asked a Catholic friend of mine what the Catholics thought, and she told me that after Vatican II it was established that it was fully acceptable for members of the Church to believe in and stand up for religious freedom, including the freedom to not follow any religion at all.

The job of the state is to promote the general welfare, preserve individual rights, and the like. Do Christians argue that it should be made illegal to smoke cigarettes (in the privacy of one's own home, let's say), overeat unhealthy fast food, and the like? Insofar as these activities harm the individual's body, the temple, these practices are sinful. But should we legally mandate that people do not sin when that sin does not harm other people?

It seems that those Christians arguing against the allowal of same-sex marriages based on the grounds that is is 'wrong' and 'sinful' are pulling up the wrong arguments. That may be an argument as to why the Church should not perform these marriages, or why Christians should not participate in them. But unless they are willing to argue that the state ought to legally prohibit every sin, even when that sin does not harm others, this argument has no bearing on whether or not the state should permit same-sex marriages.

Shouldn't they be arguing instead that it somehow harms other people for this practice to be allowed? What other reason does the state have to prohibit something, aside from its harming others? Homosexuals are going to continue living together and having relationships whether or not they are permitted to marry, so what more harm could be caused by allowing official same-sex marriage?

Added: One counter-argument and a reply. Courts exist to protect rights, but no right to marriage is violated, particularly since marriage is not a right but rather a state-licensed privilege contingent on legislatively-defined conditions.

In addition, there is no discrimination within the application of the conditions of the grant of marriage license. Gay persons who are denied licenses for marriage are denied not on the basis of identity as gays or lesbians but rather because they are co-applying for a marriage license with another person NOT of the opposite sex.

by Ken Shephard (in 'Comments' section)

Reply:

The gist of this counter-argument seems to be that it is acceptable for the government to grant liscenses for various things that are privileges, not rights people are entitled to. And also, it is acceptable that we have a tradition about the conditions under which such privileges are granted, and we can refuse to give the privilege when those conditions do not fit into tradition.

So let's think about business. Particularly, corporations. I think there is some similarity with marriage in that corporations as an abstract entity have no physical existence--'corporation' is just a label granted and recognized by the government, and on which decisions/privileges are granted with regard to taxation and such things. Much like marriage I think--the business/relationship can exist without being called a corporation/marriage, and the only difference that comes with the label (practically speaking) is the way in which the government treats things based on whether or not they have that label.

So what if we had a tradition that defined a corporation in such a way that only a white person could start one? No one has the right to form a corporation, so we are not taking away any rights to deny a black person the opportunity to form one. And, it could be argued, it is not discrimination--the government isn't obligated to recognize a 'corporation' founded by a black person because that just isn't what a corporation is, by tradition, by definition.

Of course in this situation, we would see that the practice is clearly discriminatory. Despite its being a privilege to form a corporation, that does not mean that it is acceptable to deny the privilege to a person because of their skin color, even skin color was originally part of how we defined a corporation. Functionally, it makes no difference, so skin color is wholly irrelevant to the conditions under which the government should grant a person the privilege to form a corporation.

Even though 'marriage' has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman, it does not make a functional difference. Child-bearing capabilities are not functionally necessary to a marriage--if they were, we could not grant the privilege of state-recognized marriage to infertile couples.

Functionally, marriage generally consists of two people who share an intimate (ideally) relation with each other. One spouse trusts the other to make medical decisions and the like if he/she is unable to do so for him/herself, wants the other to inherit property when she/he dies, often shares in his/her finances, and the like. Children cannot be a necessary part of a functional marriage, again, unless we deny the privilege to infertile couples. So functionally, there is no reason that two men or two women could not marry each other. From the perspective of the state, a same-sex couple marriage would function in exactly the same way as would the marriage of an infertile man and woman.

So the only argument against the exlusion of same-sex couples is based on tradition, since same-sexness does not affect the ability of a couple to engage in the same kind of marriage as an infertile couple would have. And tradition without any other basis, as I think my earlier anology shows, is not enough justification. Refusing the privilege of marriage to same-sex couples is clearly discriminatory, and is discrimination without any legitimate basis from the state's standpoint.

shameless plug: Link me (and let me know if you do on the 'Comments' section or through email, I'll return the favor, or Blogroll Me! if you have Blogroll, recommend me to your friends, post lots of comments.

Traffic seems to have been growing slowly but steadily, and more readers mean more viewpoints and better discussion. Support your local HAC Blog:) (end of shameless promotion)

2004-02-26T21:51:00.000-08:00

Taking Discussion Requests

I used to get such fun, heated discussions. Did I scare people away with all the religion topics? I'm still in a fairly busy period for schoolwork--essays and such. That will all be over, for a while at least, in a week. But I'm still taking requests for new topics, hopefully something that will be of broader interest. Any suggestions?

2004-02-26T09:01:00.000-08:00

Ridiculous...
Gibson's 'Passion' Opens Amid Controversy article on Yahoo

According to the article:

Jewish and other religious groups held small, scattered protests later in the day. A couple dozen Jewish protesters wore concentration camp uniforms outside one Upper West Side theater as they sought to link the film's portrayal of Jews to the sort of hate that led to the Nazi Holocaust.

... "People are being too sensitive about it," said Elsie Figueroa after a morning showing on the Upper East Side. "The Romans are the ones who nailed him to the cross and the Jews helped. It was everyone."

Sometimes I think that people are just looking for something to protest.

Blogroll Me!

2004-02-25T17:33:00.000-08:00

Anti-Semitism
in The Passion of the Christ?

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I was hoping to get some commentary from those of you who have. Specifically, I'm interested in the allegations of anti-Semitism--do they appear to be well founded?

Movie critic Phil Kloer says:

"Gibson does emphasize the role of the Jewish high priests, led by Caiaphas, and portrays Pilate as an almost helpless innocent, manipulated by Caiaphas much more so than other recent movies on the subject. His interpretation lines up well with what the Gospels say, although historians say Pilate was actually a brutal ruler who had no qualms about crucifying uppity Jews."

"But only someone who's already anti-Semitic -- who doesn't really understand Christianity at all -- could come out of 'The Passion' 'blaming the Jews.' "

Just from what I've heard, I'm inclined to agree with Kloer. I haven't heard anything, even from those who claim that the movie is anti-Semitic, that seemed like a good reason. Most of the arguments I've heard center on the fact/opinion that the movie stresses the role of the Jews in the death of Jesus.

But I have to wonder, is that enough? Christian teaching usually stress that all people are responsible for Jesus's death--he died because of our sins. Even if he didn't though, even if the Jews specifically were responsible--so what? None of those people are living today. Should we blame the descendents of a group that, 2000ish years ago, contained some individuals responsible? We don't blame the descendents of members of the Nazi party for the actions of their ancestors, and I doubt that anyone really would hate a Jew today for the death of Jesus. It just doesn't make sense. What is more plausible, I think (as does Kloer), is that people who already have anti-Semitic feelings will use this as an excuse to justify those feelings. But they've been doing the same with the Bible story already, and people don't accuse the Bible of anti-Semitism.

Is it possible that the movie might play some role in the increase of anti-Semitism? I doubt it. There have been other movies about the same thing, and other movies that actually were anti-Semitic. It might intensify the feelings, for a time, in people who already have them, but I see no reason as to why it would bring in any new converts. I'll have to comment further when I see it, though in the meantime, let me know what you think:)

2004-02-24T22:04:00.000-08:00

Quickie Post on Knowledge vs. Pragmatic Value

I have been and still am bogged down with mid-semester essays and it's late and I'm tired. But I wanted to do a quick post since I haven't for a while. Also to move away from the religious topics to keep some variety. I lifted the following quote from 'Intel Snob' in the last discussion on religion:

"I don't care about what parts of reality are knowable or not, I care about what is best for man." (link to discussion here.)

As one keen commentor replied: But how do you know what's best for man?

This reminded me of the reaction I've had to some recent feminist 'philosophy' reading I've been doing. Most of these 'philosophers' seem to be presupposing that whatever social changes (etc.) that they would like to see are 'right,' and their philosophy is tailored to support those presuppositions. This could, I suppose, be argued of most any philosophy--but what makes these distinct is that they are usually also ready to reject a view, not by any logical refutation or argument, but just because it seems to clash with their version of what is 'good for women.' One, for example, rejects Kantian ethics not because of any inconsistency or actual problem with his philosophy, but because in other writings he displayed a bias toward women, and this particular author things somelike like "If he had been more open to women's experiences, he might have incorporated more emotion into his ethical system."

My inclination is to cry "bunk" any time I encounter such supposed philosophy. Philosophy used in service of promoting certain beliefs or intuitions is one thing, but it seems to be quite another when someone explicitly states or shows "I don't care about the truth, I just care about _________ ("What is best for man," "What betters the condition of women," and so on)." Going about in this manner seems not only (almost always) inconsistent logically, but also totally outside of what philosophy is.

Anyway, like I said, time constraints. But as always, discussion/criticism is welcome. That means you, 'Intel Snob.'

(unrelated note: The Permalinks actually work now, so feel free to use them. So does: Blogroll Me.)

2004-02-24T19:44:00.001-08:00

PermaLink and Trackback

Revisionist Reese's Blog informed me that there was a 'Trackback Bandwagon.' Being a fan of bandwagons, I thought I'd better get in on it. So I added TrackBack, and went ahead and did the Permalink thing too. I didn't bother to investigate exactly what they do.. but enjoy! :)

note: I also did a Blogroll thing, so you can Blogroll Me.

2004-02-24T05:53:00.000-08:00

Response, Courtesy of Thewhitedwarf, to:
"Biblical marriage: a bad source for debate" by Vaughn Roste"

I'd like to thank Thewhitedwarf for his response to the article I posted a link to several days ago. I said I would give him the floor for a response if he wanted to write something up, and he did. So read:

Biblical marriage: a bad source for debate"

And here is the response by Thewhitedwarf:

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

Christianity is often assaulted by the zeitgeist, and Vaughn Roste's "Now Testament" is no exemption. The article is loaded with errors--exegetical, historical and confessional. This brief article will demonstrate those errors. One problem with Roste's article is authority. In a single breath he says the Scriptures are central, but we then need to listen to the Now Testament. The Now Testament is simply the invention of Mr. Roste to justify behavior that is rejected by the Scriptures. The Bible declares that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, but some how through the Holy Spirit Mr. Roste sees God changing in comformity with the today's spirit.

First, Roste's "Now Testament" is in clear violation of his confessional standards. The article says that he has worked in Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches, but the Now Testament is in distinct violation of the principle of sola scripture that both of these confessional churches hold. He says, "To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possiblity that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 AD." (It was actually 367, but...). Yes, but the nature of the Covenant and your confession says as much. It says he now labors in a United Church, but I'm not aware of their doctrinal standards. If it is the United Church of Canada, then he is in violation of their confessional standar as well.

Second, Mr. Roste is totally arbitrary in his treatment of Scripture. The minute he said he pulled out a concordance and lumped the Scriptures in different categories should've been our first hint. He starts the article off by saying, "I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage...exempting the references which are narrative or metaphorical." One can only wish he lived by his own methods. Principle 1, 2, 7, and 9 are all derived from narratives, so we can throw this out to begin with according to his own standard. This leaves us with principles 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12, but most of the references in these principles are from narratives as well. We must then ask why he was seeking to reject narratives and "metaphors"? There is also a glaring ommission from Mr. Roste's arbitrary treatment of Scripture that shall be dealt with in a minute.

Principle 3 is predicated upon silence and violates principle 7 and 8 (and these two can be blended), so I'll strike that off the list. I don't see the purpose of principle 4. Why is he objecting? Principle 5 doesn't comprehend the nature of justice and "victim's rights" in the Israel, and is rather selective in its interpretation of that section. Principle 10 is still good and every Christian I know seeks to obey this. Principle 11 is only partially true, but he doesn't include adultery somehow, and, again, every Christian and Church I know rejects divorce (the exceptions for adultery and "abandonment", i.e. abuse and the like). Principle 12 is clearly set in the context of the crisis at Corinth ("due to the present situation"). So, what we find is Mr. Roste simply arbitrarily taking verses out of his concordance and putting them in categories of his liking and seem made to create the most dissonance with his readers. As a confessional Christian I hold, like the catholic (meaning univesal not Rome) Church always has that the Scriptures are clear for those things necessary to salvation, namely repentance and faith in YHWH. There is, however, sections that are difficult to grasp due to the nature of the subject and cultural changes. This doesn't lead to linguistic nihilism, but recognized the necessity of putting things in their historical context. I realize many Christians take an approach similar to Mr. Roste, and believe that the Bible is an abstract set of propositions ripped from any cultural context. The Bible is God's story of redemption where he deals with His people and speaks to them in a specific historical setting, and this is of utmost importance to understand when interpreting.

With Mr. Roste's sliding scale are we guaranteed that today's "Now Testament" will be the same as tomorrows? Is this "Now Testament" the same in Islamic nations as it is in the west? For Mr. Roste the answer is no, because he is completely arbitrary in his understanding of the world and his agenda.

Now, a brief treatment of two glaring ommissions of his treatment of marriage. One, he conveniently ignores the creation account. But I simply ask, why? I suggest the answer is that it completely undermines his presuppositions. The "narrative" tells us, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Creation clearly establishes that the idea is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. There is no hint that he will take on extras or that God created extra wives for Adam. This interpretation is supported by the words of Jesus, in response to the Pharisees on divorce, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his fatehr and his mother and hold fast to his wife (NOT WIVES), and they shall become one flesh'? So they are not longer TWO but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Biblical ethics is predicated on the nature and character of YHWH. He is faithful to His people, who are often spoken of as His Bride. This love is particular as should a man's love for his wife. God doesn't go adulterating himself with those that are not his and the Christian should do the same. The Bible also clearly establishes that a man and woman BELONG to one another. The two are one, so they are no longer their own. Mr. Roste's suggestion the woman is piece of the man's property is only a half truth, but since it is presented as the whole truth it is a lie. This is the problem of Mr. Roste's article. It is selective for his own purposes. The Scriptures teach that marriage is to be established between one man and one woman. There are several other fallacies in his article, but I will address those if need. Until then, Mr. Roste may want to get himself a new "fact checker", because Mr. Spencer failed him terribley. He should also learn to do a little exegesis rather than a concordance exposition of Scripture."

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

2004-02-22T13:09:00.000-08:00

Best Free Hosting Site?

I've been using Tripod for my extra pages, but I don't like the popups and big banner ads. Does anyone know another (free) hosting site that would be better? Banners are are okay as long as there aren't any popups - the smaller the better though. Thanks!

Also - I came across this:
Biblical Marriage

(Thought that link might be of interest to some people following the earlier discussions about the topic. I might do another post on it later.)

2004-02-21T15:51:00.000-08:00

Link Exchange Page

As promised, I(finally) got up the Link Exchange page. So everyone who posted their site under my post calling for links should be up. If you've linked my site on your Blog or website, post here with the address of your page and its name, and I'll get it up there. Let me know if yours already is up but the link/title is wrong--I haven't had the chance to check them all out yet.

Link Exchange Page

As I have the time to look through them all, I may try to write a short review/description for the page. Also, as promised, I'm starting the daily/weekly/some-length-of-time feature. The first site:

Veggie Chica

There will be more to come in the future. If I update the featured link daily, I will keep it at one or two Blogs/sites, or more if I leave it up for a longer period of time.

2004-02-20T17:29:00.000-08:00

Why the Humanities are Better than the Sciences

note: I thought I would take a break with a slightly less serious topic, so this is all in good fun. (though we all know the humanities really are better)

1. Focus

By 'Sciences' I am referring to, for the most part, hard sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry, and the like. And specifically these fields when the emphasis is on 'practical application'. I am less opposed to pure mathematics/physics pursued principally for purposes of knowledge rather than usefulness, though fields within the humanites are still superior (remember - all in good fun). The problem with science for the purpose of 'practical application' is its focus--the practical application part. While science applied to practical endeavors is by no means bad or useless, its scope is limited. This kind of science can aid our comfort, productivity, and even health, but does not make our lives better per se. That is, it does not add to the content of the human experience in the way that literature or philosophy does. The humanities are, as the name implies, human-focused. Science, especially practically applied science, can improve our lives only if we find something about life that makes it worth living.

2. Lasting Importance

How many scientists do we remember from one hundred or more years ago? Probably not too many. But even more importantly: of those scientists that we do (or will) remember now and in the future, will we actually study their work and gain something from it? Except for those interested in the history of science, very few to none. Science moves on--sure, the work of earlier scientists is needed for science to progress, but it is a stepping block that usually gets kicked to the side. The old theories that seemed revolutionary become the norm, and are finally disproved and replaced by better ones.

But this is not the way of things in philosophy or literature (my two favorite areas in the humanities). Yes, most of the work of a certain era is eventually forgotten, but the greatest works live on and often become more respected with time. People still read Aristotle's philosophical work, Homer, Kant, Shakespeare--and they still get something out of it. Modern day work is still often directly influenced by the greats of the past because they offer something timless and central to the human experience--something practically applied sciences fail to do.

(note: Mathematics is the exception here - that's why it is the superior science)

3. Pure Intellectual Snobbery
(my favorite)

In addition to the far more important focus and the inclusion of work that is relevant beyond its own era, the humanities are just plain harder than the sciences. Is something inherently better because it is harder? Probably not (maybe, though), but it sure doesn't hurt the self-esteem to work in an area that is more taxing to the intellect than other areas--especially if you believe there is some inherent value to intelligence.

What's harder? Compared to the (non-theoretical level) sciences, one important element that makes the humanities harder is that the subjects being dealt with do not usually have objectively standard methods for working within them, nor do questions/problems have objectively true, concrete answers. Not to say that there are not real truths about the world and humanity out there--I firmly hold that there are. But whether or not we have the capacity to access those universal truths is another question, and one that many people would answer with 'no'. Even if we did believe something that was a deep truth of reality, could we ever actually know that we knew it? Maybe, maybe not--but whatever evidence we might offer, there will surely be many people who disagree. Since the humanities, especially philosophy, deal with questions that push the boundaries of human capacity to even think about, it is far more difficult to work with them.

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

Disagree with me? I'm open to hearing some good reasons as to why I'm wrong, so post it to the 'Comments' section. Agree? Then check out the discussion and tell all the people who disagree how wrong they are. ;) And don't forget to keep it all in good humor.

2004-02-20T06:42:00.000-08:00

Why the Humanities are Better than the Sciences
coming soon to a Blog near you

Delays, delays - Sorry about that. I was reminded by a loyal discussion participant in the 'Comments' section of the previous post that I'd mentioned this topic before and have yet to deliver on it. So be ready, the pickup is ordered, the tracking number is 29B309JE334, and the package will arrive this evening after my classes. Signature required on delivery, so be home...

2004-02-19T07:13:00.000-08:00

Time for a Change

I've greatly enjoyed all the discussion in the recent debates on religion and racism/discrimination. To keep things moving along before it all gets old, though, tonight it will be time for something new. Possibly something related (since there has been much quality debate going on about these subjects), maybe not. As always, thank you to everyone who has continued to contribute to the Blog discussions. :)

There are still site updates on the way--coming slowly but surely. Tonight I'm going to get the links page up. If you've linked to my Blog from your site/Blog, remember to scroll down and post the name and link of your site in the appropriate 'Comments' section so I can be sure to put you up on the Links Page.

2004-02-17T20:43:00.000-08:00

More on the Bible's Stance on Homosexual Acts
the supposed condemnation of homosexual acts in Romans 1:18-32

note: This is a continuation of the previous discussion on homosexuality--I thought it warranted another post. Be sure to check out the previous discussions in the 'Comments' sections of other posts if you are interested.

I'm going to defer to the theologian Father Daniel Helminiak on Romans, as written in his book What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. He draws on the work of John Boswell and L. William Countryman to conclude that in Romans, Paul is actually arguing that homosexual acts are not morally wrong, but rather, they are morally neutral (like other sexual acts) and can be used for either good or evil.

Referring to Romans 1:18-32, he says:

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

"First, The Vocabulary Paul Uses describes homogenital acts as "impure," subject to social disapproval, but not as ethically wrong.

Second, The Structure of the Passage sorts out and separates the impurity or social disapproval of the homogenital acts, on the one hand, from real wrong or sin, on the other.

Third, analysis of The Overall Plan of the Letter to the Romans shows why Paul mentions homogenital acts even though he does not think they are wrong. His purpose is to teach that in Christ the purity concerns of the Old Law no longer matter and they should not be dividing the members of the Christian Community."

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

end note: I certainly don't mean to imply that just because Bible Scholar X or Y have reasonable arguments that the Bible does not oppose homosexual acts, then their position is right. I happen to believe it is, though I realize that there are probably equally good arguments in favor of the opposite view. What I do mean to show, however, is that answer to the question is by no means obvious or clear-cut, and that there are persuasive arguments that homosexual action is not condemned by the Bible.

I do find it rather disturbing that some individuals would claim that a person is 'not really a Christian' if they approve of homosexuality. Scholarly work on the Biblical issue of homosexuality show that it is not appropriate or honest to speak as though the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. People should be able to respectfully disagree with other opinions, especially when those opinions are just well thought-out and Biblically-based as their own, without resorting to attacks on 'how Christian' their opponents are. We should all realize that it is extremely unlikely that we have a complete and fully accurate understanding of anything in the Bible or any religious truth--humans are too prone to error for us to act as though we have all the answers, while everyone else is just plain wrong and unchristian.

2004-02-16T21:03:00.000-08:00

Link Exchange
as part of the (in progress) Blog re-design project

I'm going to set up a 'Links' page to return the favor to all of those people who have linked to my Blog on their Blogs or websites. So I don't get swamped with email, please post to the 'Comments' section of this post:

1. Your Website Name

2. Your Website's Address

I'll be picking a number of these websites for a daily/weekly feature on my main Blog page. I haven't decided exactly how I'll do it yet -- I might do a daily feature or one or two sites, or I'll do three or five if I do it for more than one day.

I'll give preference to sites that I find personally interesting, and/or that I am getting a lot of traffic from - discussions are always better when a variety of people post their opinions. So if you've given me a link, let me know in the 'Comments' :)

2004-02-15T17:31:00.000-08:00

Whites-Only Scholarship
at Roger Williams University

What is Roger Williams University? Until now, I'd never heard of it, but now the school's College Republicans group has landed the University on Yahoo's top news stories by offering a Whites-Only Scholarship to protest minority-only scholarships that are denied to those of caucasian ethnicity.

The group's president, himself of Puerto Rican descent, said "We think that if you want to treat someone according to character and how well they achieve academically, then skin color shouldn't really be an option," and explained the scholarship as a parody of minority-only scholarships. He continued to say, "Many people think that coming from a white background you're automatically privileged, you're automatically rich and your parents pay full tuition. That's just not the case."

This reminded me of one of the earliest dicussions on this Blog, in which 'reverse discrimination' was discussed. The debate started after complaints were raised that the company Abercrombie and Fitch was racist because they targeted a mainly white audience. I raised the point that if this is unacceptable, then so to is the brand FuBu, which is explicit in its target of African-American customers.

I must say, I support the point the College Republicans of Roger Williams University are trying to make. If we are outraged at a whites-only scholarship, shouldn't we also be outraged at those scholarship that specifically exclude whites, regardless of their economic status? Although I don't think that either kind of scholarship should be prohibited, I certainly think it would be better if an individual could not be excluded from such an award based solely on her or his race. While minority-only scholarships are accepted, we ought to also accept this whites-only award.

2004-02-15T15:45:00.000-08:00

"Special Revelations"
from God to people

Due to that unfortunate 1000 character limit on the 'Comments' and because this is in itself an interesting topic, I thought I would do a post about it. The following quote comes from a participant in the recent discussion on whether or not Christianity and/or the Bible fundamentally oppose homosexual activity:

"I didn't become a Christian until a few years ago, early on in my undergrad years. Before that, I didn't think there was anything wrong with homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, or even drugs."

"But when I was faced with reality of Christ, there was no denying those things were wrong, and I had to change my entire world-view to bring it into accord with the word of God."

Although I do not doubt the possibility of God choosing to show a person 'the light' so they can see the error of their ways, I think we should consider how many people make these sorts of claims, and how different their views are on what God revealed to them. While on person's apparent God-given revelation might let them in on the fact that homosexual action is sinful, another person might be equally convicted that God revealed to them that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual activity.

This puts a person claiming such a revelation in the position of having to say that their revelation was a true God-given revelation, but that other people making claims to have had revelations (with different, contradictory messages) are wrong. Which always makes me want to ask, "Well, why you? What is so special about you that God would choose to give you a 'real' revelation' of the truth, while he allows other people to be mistaken about the truth in their inauthentic revelations?"

It seems a bit presumptuous that a person would think that God chose to show them, individually, 'the light,' while allowing others to be deceived and to go on living in 'darkness.' Isn't it more plausible to think that, although these people might indeed be experiencing some sort of intense feeling of connection to God, they are still on their own to interpret exactly what they believe about what God wants and does not want? Even the most spiritual of Christian thinkers disagree on a wide range of topics after two thousand years of scholarship, revelation, and debate. Perhaps it is time at least admit that most people are going by their intuition rather than 'proof,' and to admit that this intuition may not necessarily lead them to the truth.

2004-02-15T13:02:00.000-08:00

Invites to Team Blogs

Just a note to people who have sent me invites, since I've had a few lately: Please email me before you send the invite, or be sure to leave your email address in the message that goes with the invite. Those invites expire pretty quickly, and when I don't get to them in time I usually don't have an email address to ask for a re-send.

I'm happy to join most any team blog, so feel free to send me the invites. If I don't join or respond within a day, send the invite again until I do respond--I don't check my email as often as I should.

2004-02-14T09:38:00.000-08:00

Homosexuality and Religion

Just an observation post for now. From the recent discussion about gay marriage and the morality/naturalness of homosexuality in general, I was reminded of an intuition I've had before: Perhaps many (not all, of course) of the people who object to homosexuality, supposedly on religious grounds, are merely trying to justify a previously held opposition to homosexuality with their interpretations of religious texts, rather than coming to believe that homosexuality was wrong because of religious texts.

Alternatively, perhaps the general anti-homosexuality beliefs of many religious groups came about by people who already thought homosexuality was wrong interpreting religious texts to support their belief, and the influence of these groups helps to instill the idea that homosexuality is wrong in their members.

Since there are mainstream Christian churches that do not oppose homosexuality, and many individual Christians in other churches who also do not, a person cannot make a good argument that Chistianity is fundamentally opposed to homosexuality. Indeed, a good many people hold that the few passages in the Bible that have traditionally been used to condemn homosexuality have been grossly misinterpreted to favor the meaning that upheld what they already believed. I recently purchased a book called What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. I may post a review or take a look at some of the critical points after I've read it, if the topic is holding people's interest.

2004-02-13T14:07:00.000-08:00

Score One for San Francisco

Just a quick note tonight. For anyone who hasn't heard, San Francisco has allowed 87 gay marriages, despite a California ballot measure passed in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'll be looking forward to see how this turns out.

Many thanks to all the participants in the use-of-lethal-force debate. Stay tuned for more topics, and some possible site additions over the weekend:)

2004-02-12T16:43:00.000-08:00

Self-Defense in the Home
when is one justified in shooting an intruder?

It's 3am, Tuesday morning, and you wake up to some strange sounds. Your husband/wife/significant-other is still in bed and you have no children or pets, so you don't know what the sound could be. Suddenly, you hear a sound you recognize - the breaking glass of your living room window. Your house has just been broken into.

What do you do? Because you live out in the country, you know that the police would take at least fifteen minutes to get there. Is the intruder violent? Will he or she just steal some of your belongings and then leave, or will he or she break into the bedroom? Having considered the possibility of such a situation before, you purchased a handgun, which has been stored for easy access if you decide to use it. Should you hide and call the police, or should you take matters into your own hands?

*

That's the setup I'd like to use for the question. What would you do? Would a person ever be justified (morally, not legally) in shooting the intruder? If yes, is the breaking-in enough reason, or is more required - perhaps if the intruder enters the bedroom? Would you have to know that the intruder was armed or capable of violence, or would the suspicion be enough?

the argument:
In most cases, it is acceptable to shoot an intruder.

In a situation similar to the example I have given, I hold that it is acceptable to shoot an intruder. I am working under the assumption that using potentially lethal force in self-defense is justified, so I will be arguing that self-defense can extend to situations where the possibility of violence against an individual is uncertain.

In the situation I have given, the individual must estimate the level of threat to her/him and to her/his loved one or spouse, and judge when that level is high enough that taking a sort of pre-emptive defensive action is warranted. To avoid making the situation overly complex, I will assume that the individual will most likely be successful if she/he decides to go after the intruder--she/he knows the home very well, could approach the living room without being noticed, and is a good shot with the gun.

I believe that generally, the likely level of threat from an individual breaking into a home at night is high enough to warrant the use of potentially lethal force. The primary reason for this is that a night-time intruder will most likely be aware that a house's occupants will be home at night. Though it may not always be the case, it is a safe assumption that an intruder knowingly breaking into an occupied dwelling is prepared to do harm to its occupants (perhaps regardless of whether or not they try to interfere with the burglary or whatever else she/he might be doing), and may well have some sort of weapon for that purpose.

There will always be exceptions of course--the intruder might be hoping to get in and out unnoticed, and she/he might run rather than fight if encountered. But an individual must weigh the cost of potentially killing an intruder who would have done no violence with the cost of not taking action and being injured or killed because of it. Because this event is taking place in the individual's own home, I hold that the estimated likelihood of the intruder being violent can warrant potentially lethal self-defense measures at a much lower level than in other situations for three reasons: (1) if the intruder does intend violence, an individual must make a quick decision about her/his course of action to effectively defend her/himself, (2) there is probably little to no chance of safely escaping from the home once the intruder has entered, especially if that escape must be made quickly, and (3) because by entering an individual's home with at least the potential threat of violence, an intruder has surrendered her/his right to not be acted on with force except when her/himself posing an immanent threat to another, so the mere reasonable belief in the presence of the threat is enough justification for force.

Exceptions?

In consideration of the given situation (and not taking into account other possibilities, such as the intruder calling the individuals beforehand and promising to come in unarmed and to not do any violence), I would only grant one exception to my assertion that an individual would be permitted to shoot the intruder. This would be if, for whatever reason, the individual somehow discovered with reasonable certainty that the intruder did not intend to do her/him any harm. If, for example, the intruder was clearly unarmed and did not move to attack the individual when an encounter was made. More on this:

In Between Cases?

What if the individual decides to use force against the intruder, gets and loads the gun, and comes upon the intruder with her/his back turned? Assume that it is not clear whether or not the intruder is armed, but the individual can at least see that the intruder is not currently holding a weapon. As long as the individual is strong-willed enough to pull the trigger when the need arises, she/he has at least some measure of safety when aiming the gun at an intruder when the intruder's back is turned and there is no weapon in hand. So can she/he go ahead and shoot?

In this case, I would say no--not if the justification is to be self-defense, anyway. The proper course of action would be to say something like, "Freeze, I have a gun!" If the intruder cooperates, she/he could be instructed to raise her/his hands and to turn around slowly (at this point, assume that the significant other/spouse has been instructed to call the police), and kept at gunpoint until the police arrive. If the individual was to shoot the intruder when her/his back was turned and no weapon was in hand, self-defense could not be the justification because of the relative safety that the armed individual would be in, again assuming that she or he was willing to use the weapon quickly if it became necessary.

If the intruder did not cooperate as instructed in any way that might indicate the risk of her/him drawing a weapon or attacking, it would be permissible for the individual to shoot. This would include any sudden movements (if the individual waited to try to figure out if it was an escape or an attack, she/he would probably be dead before having the chance to react if it did turn out to be an attack), or a refusal to cooperate--if, for example, the intruder would not raise her/his hands or turn around as instructed, it would be a reasonable assumption that she/he was planning to draw a weapon.

*

As always, I welcome any and all discussion. Please remember the assumptions of my argument (such as the permissibility of using force for self-defense), or be clear in specifying that your argument is not sharing the same situation and/or assumptions. Thanks!

note: Although it's out of the range of the direct topic, I am interested in what sort of use of force against home intruders is legally permissible in different states, so feel free to post if you have any knowledge about that.

2004-02-10T18:56:00.000-08:00

Moving On

I was very happy with the amount of discussion the issue on abolishing welfare got - thanks everyone:) I think it's time to move on from that, so I will post a new topic after dinner and some studying.

In the mean time, I'd like to recommend a band that was recommended to me - Cradle of Filth. Some of the music is a bit heavy for me, but it's still pretty good. They sure are a funny looking bunch, though I like the artwork on the website.

2004-02-08T22:10:00.000-08:00

The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
a misinterpretation of these rights, and why we ought to end welfare

note: Thanks to everyone who helped the pre-post discussion of this issue become the greatly entertaining semi-melee that it was. To get myself back to a solid argument, I'll be considerably narrowing the focus here, but I hope it is still of interest.

1. People have a right to life, a right to basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter.

I will be focusing my attack on the argument in support of welfare based on this assumption, when it is derived (and misinterpreted) from the famous "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." My arguments will be directed at those individuals who claim belief in freedom or liberty of some form that involves a definition similar to "the right to do whatever I want, as long as that does not infringe upon the rights of others."

A distinction needs to be made in the idea of what a "right" is. The notion of "the right to have something" and "the right to not be deprived of something by other people" are very different. It is a misinterpretation of "the right to life, liberty..." to read it as "all people have the right to have life, liberty..." That would imply that, if a person does not have one of those things, it would be a violation of their rights for it not to be given to them.

But this doesn't work. Suppose we consider that people have the right to "the pursuit of happiness" under this interpretation. If an individual feels that they cannot pursue their happiness unless they have two sports cars and a yacht, are we obligated to give it to them, and is it a violation of their rights if we refuse? Of course not. How about a more modest example: an individual is employed as, say, a writer for a medium-sized magazine. Let's call him Bob. After some calculation, Bob realizes that he and his wife could move into the absolutely perfect house for them if he made a mere $5,000 more a year. In fact, Bob and his wife Betty will both be perfectly miserable if they don't get this perfect house. So Bob approaches his boss and immediately demands a raise on the grounds that he has "a right to the pursuit of happiness," and if the raise is refused to him, the boss will be depriving him of his right to pursue happiness. The argument just doesn't work, does it? Just as a reminder: In examples such as the ones I have given, the likelihood of such a situation ever actually existing is not relevant to the point being made. Somewhat inflated situations are used to make the point clearer, but that does not invalidate the underlying argument.

2. The Proper Definition of 'Right'

The interpretation of a "right" as the "right to have something" even if that something must be provided by an outside source results in mandates that just cannot be accommodated. The proper definition is more like "the right to not be deprived of something by other people."

According to this definition, "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means that no one has the right to take your life or liberty from you. It does not mean that other people are obligated to procure these things for you if, for whatever reason, you are unable to achieve them yourself. This definition is in harmony with the kind of freedom thought of as non-interference.

3. Why We Should End Welfare Programs

According to the interpretation of "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that construes of a "right" as something that we are entitled to not be forcibly prevented from pursuing, we are not obligated to provide food, shelter, or clothing for those who cannot procure these things themselves. People do not have the sort of "right" to these things that means they must have them or their rights have been violated; the right to life is violated by things such as murder, liberty by things such as false imprisonment or theft (including the forcible taking of money for redistribution to the 'needy'). This kind of welfare as 'forced charity' does not protect the rights of the poor - it deprives everyone who has no choice in financing it of their liberty to not donate to charity if that is their wish.

4. Disclaimers

This argument is not class-biased, as someone in discussion claimed that all anti-welfare arguments are. It is not based on a dislike for the needy. It does not devalue them, nor does it elevate the status of the 'productive.' It is not in opposition to voluntary charity, or even to the idea that we might have a moral duty to help the needy--only to the idea that this belief, which is certainly not held by everyone, should be imposed on all people. It is based purely on a certain, and I would argue proper, idea of what the definition of a "right" is, and what "freedom" is.

I support the idea of charities. I think that if an individual or family is judged as truly in need from circumstances that they are not responsible for, it would be a good thing for an individual or charitable group to provide them with assistance. But this is a personal belief about what is commendable, maybe even morally good. But I do not in any way hold it to be a moral mandate that we act this way.

5. Letting a Person Die vs. Killing a Person

Although some people would object, I think most will accept this distinction. For example: In some African country, right now, there are children starving to death. People are dying from hunger and disease. We, you and I and everyone else, could all chip in maybe $100 each and prevent a great number of these deaths, for some time at least. But we aren't doing that, and as such, we are not doing something within our power to prevent them from dying.

Is this the same as going over to impoverished countries and murdering people with automatic weapons, rockets, bombs, and whatever else you might employ in doing such a thing? I think it is obvious that it is not. But what are the consequences if you deny this? Okay, fine, you send your $100 on over, let a few families eat for a month or two or three (I don' t know their food prices). But couldn't you have done more? If it had been $150, you could have kept another family from starving to death overnight, or next week. Or a few more for $200, or $250.

At what point do you stop? Surely you don't need everything you have. You could live in a much smaller house, take the bus to work instead of driving, be a little more thrifty in shopping for food, get your clothing second-hand. Then you could send all of that extra income to the people who need it more than you. Is it killing them if you don't? Should we all just keep what is absolutely needed to subsist and give the rest to the starving?

But wait, what if you had studied a little more in high school, partied a little less in college, and ended up getting a better job? Had you made different choices, you might have a substantially higher income, and then you could give even more to those who need it. Was it wrong of you to not try harder so you would have more to give?

And so on and so forth - you get the idea. Where do you stop? Can you argue that it's okay for you to enjoy a little bit of the money you'd earned even though that money could mean the difference between life and death for someone in dire need? This problem doesn't just apply to those who believe that it is the same as killing a person if you do nothing to prevent their death - it also applies to people who recognize the difference but still maintain that we have a responsibility to ensure the well-being of the needy.

6. Welfare Supporters

People who support welfare because they believe everyone has the right to have their basic needs met have some serious challenges before them. They need to answer:

A. Shouldn't we provide for the basic needs of people in other countries too? Sure, get everyone in America back on their feet first if you want, but there is surely enough money going around to keep people in Africa from starving. They are people too, after all, and if we believe that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is inherent in all humanity, they have the same right to assistance if we can give it to them.

B. Are we obligated to give every last penny we can spare to those who need it more than we do? If not, what is the justification for spending money to make our own lives more enjoyable when that money could prevent others from starving to death?

7. Conclusion

I think I've weighed in as much as I'm able to on the issue for now. Hopefully I've limited the scope of the argument enough that the fruitless clashing of people with completely different base positions won't occur too often. If need be, I may try to add more at a later time.

2004-02-08T13:42:00.000-08:00

First Topic Chosen
In Support of the Abolition of Welfare

This topic seems to stir up some great debate, so I've decided to do it first. It will have to wait until tomorrow, when I have the time to do it, though. For now, I'm doing some more reading in the Philosophy of Mind - "The Causal Theory of Mind" by D.M. Armstrong. Also read Donald Davidson's "Mental Events" on his 'Anomalous Monism' version of Identity Theory. I'm still very convinced of the flaws in Identity Theory, however. (And no, for whoever mentioned it, I'm not parroting the views of my professors - philosophers seem to be of the materialist mindset far more often than not.)

note: The position I'll be arguing against is that we ought to have welfare because people have a right to food, shelter, clothing, etc., and thus we need a system to provide it for them when they cannot provide it for themselves.

also: I will also mention why I do not blame the the people on welfare for the problem, and why I find it acceptable that they choose to receive it even though I oppose welfare programs themselves.

2004-02-07T19:55:00.000-08:00

A Break from the Strictly Philosophical Issues
for now - returning to some more grounded topics.

Although I have enjoyed the discussions with other philosophy majors and otherwise informed individuals, I would like to go back into some more general issues for a while. The philosophically-inclined are certainly welcome to keep commenting of course:) But I also enjoy hearing from people on social, political, and general interest topics. Some potential posts I'm mulling over:

Why the Humanities are Better than the Sciences
(or: Why the Humanities are Better than "Practically Useful" Fields)
(or: Why the Pursuit of Knowledge for the Sake of Knowledge is Better than the Pursuit of Knowledge for Practical Ends)

Should Social Security be Phased Out?

Supporting the Abolition of Welfare
(Probably focusing on welfare as "government-provided economic assistance to the needy," though I might mention so-called 'corporate-welfare' since it came up in discussion.)

I'm hoping to get to all three of those topics, and any others that strike me as something that might lead to some involved debates. For now, I'm off to study for my classes - but feel free to offer your thoughts on any of these topics:)