tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-344273422024-03-14T00:38:45.216-07:00According to Who?The way things are, and the way they should be.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-34815934775480944742010-02-09T02:17:00.000-08:002010-02-23T01:01:15.014-08:00The Insentient Watchmaker<blockquote>You say that...<br />If I...<br />Stumbled on a watch I'd assume it had a watchmaker,<br />That a muffin presupposes a baker,<br />So you must agree sooner or later, <br />That this proves that there's a creator.<br />So if I put my foot in a stinker,<br />You'd assume the existence of a sphincter,<br />Thus you don't need to be a great thinker<br />To coclude that God's a bum,<br />...<br />--Exerpt from "Ten Foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins" by Tim Minchin</blockquote><br /><br />William Paley first posed the question of whether, if you found a watch on the ground, you would suppose that it had always been there, or that its complexity and apparent purposefulness implied that someone had made it. Would you assume that the watch had a watchmaker?<br /><br />Well, I think most watches are made mostly by machines these days, but if you're asking if I would think it was the result of a series of improvements upon the designs of less sophisticated timekeeping devices leading back to something that I would not have recognized as one or if I would assume that it only existed by fiat of some magic man in he sky for whose existence I have no evidence, my answer would have to be the former.<br /><br />Modern clocks are derived from sundials, which meter time using the motion of a shadow cast by a gnomon onto a dial. Anything that casts a shadow can function as a rudimentary gnomon, and any landmark that the shadow moves across can be used to measure its movement. I can just imagine a cave mother telling her cave children that they can play outside, but they have to come inside the cave when the shadow of the big mountain reaches the tree line. This type of primitive timekeeping system can be augmented with additional landmarks to measure a the shadow's movement with a finer gradation, and the addition of an artificial scale with regular intervals makes the measurement more systematic. Simple mechanisms can be added to continue measuring time when the sunlight is not available, and many types of minor improvements can be made to keep time in a way that is more precise, efficient or convenient. Moderns clocks are the result of a series of many such minute improvements, as well as many dead-end modifications to clocks that were not worth repeating, and may not have ever been built before that fact was determined. <br /><br />This is a process of evolution. Memes arise as random thoughts and chance occurrences. Some are absurd and dismissed immediately, others are tried unsuccessfully, but only those that work are repeated and become the basis for further improvements. Evolution isn't a process of design that doesn't require intelligence, design is a process of evolution that does.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-75261165142636833552007-11-17T10:31:00.000-08:002007-11-17T20:10:59.157-08:00Maybe Intelligent Design Does Have a Place in Science ClassYou'll probably be shocked to hear me say it, but I think that Intelligent Design should be included in science classes. In fact, I think ID could play a more important role in science class than evolution. You see, most current science classes are a big fat failure. They teach many things that we have learned through science, but they generally do a piss-poor job of <em>defining</em> science, which is why so many of the products our public school system (or worse, homeschoolers) think that ID is science.<br /><br />But wait, didn't I just say that ID belongs in science classes?<br /><br />Intelligent Design belongs in science class because it is a consummate example of what science <em>is not</em>. Children are leaving school thinking that science is a body of knowledge that includes categories like physics, chemistry and biology. Under this definition, an argument could be made that if the Intelligent Design hypothesis were true (which many already assume to be the case), that it would be scientific.<br /><br />Science, however, is not a body of knowledge. Science is a methodology for attaining knowledge about natural phenomena in the material world through observation and experimentation and, by extension, a standard for evaluating that knowledge. Our science classes attempt to teach the scientific method, or at least to pay lip service to doing so, but they put far more emphasis on memorizing formulae and the names of anatomical structures. These classes would be better termed "History of Science". A true science class should not teach the fruits of science, but rather the methodology of science and the value of scientific scrutiny of ideas rather than the dogmatic acceptance or rejection of them.<br /><br />Intelligent Design is an untestable postulation of an immaterial being acting upon the physical world by supernatural means based on claims that have not and could not be observed to be true, and nearly every word of that description contradicts the definition of science.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-92205464765326629752007-09-01T08:04:00.000-07:002007-09-01T08:04:26.610-07:00Islam BashingI find the Islam bashing -- both around the intertubes and in traditional media -- increasingly irritating. The Christians who partake in this are generally hypocrites of the worst kind (I saw a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avNITnU-bnM">video</a> today in the last minute of which Sean Hannity demonstrates <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law">Godwin's law</a> with a level of hypocrisy that demonstrate's <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's+Law">Poe's law</a>), but it's atheist Islam-bashers who really annoy me. Don't get me wrong, most of what they say about Islam is true of Islam, but it's also true of Christianity, and aiming your rebuke at the religion that is primarily practiced half a world away instead of the one that's most likely practiced by your next-door neighbor, or even others in your own home, smacks of xenophobia.<br /><br />Let me say this very clearly, Islam is no worse than Christianity.<br /><br />It may be true that <em>proactively</em> violent fanaticism is more common among Muslims than Christians today, but an honest look at the religious beliefs of the members of the US military would surely call even that into question. The real difference between the two is that there are currently no serious Christian theocracies. Vatican City may technically be a sovereign state, and the vestigial monarch of the UK may also have some ceremonial authority in the Anglican church, but there is no Christian state where a predominantly lay population is held to Levitical law or any other possible analog of sharia. Ironically, some of the most vocal critics of Islam would love to see the United States become just such an oppressive theocracy.<br /><br />Here in the United States, Christianity is a far greater threat to our rights than Islam. Patrick Henry once famously said "Give me liberty, or give me death." Some Islamic extremists may want to give us death, but their Christian counterparts want us to have neither. More importantly, the Christians are in a better position to attain their goals on a national scale. There is also far more military and economic power among <em>so called</em> "Christian nations" than in the Islamic world. Conditions seem to be different in the UK and possibly elsewhere, but in the US, the threat of the intolerance and batshit-insane ideas of Islam doesn't compare to the threat of the intolerance and batshit-insane ideas of Christianity.<br /><br />Criticism from within always bears more weight than criticism from afar. We have plenty of Christians and Muslims complaining, often hypocritically, about one another. We need more Christians and Muslims speaking out against more extreme versions of their own faiths, and atheists speaking out against religions with which they have to live, and of which they may have been members. This is one area in which mormonism is a good example for the rest of us, and I would like to take a moment to congratulate and to thank all the former mormons who have spoken out against the LDS church.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-942080865558755642007-08-25T00:53:00.001-07:002007-08-25T00:53:48.672-07:00Am I too rational for my own good?In the second episode of Richard Dawkins' new show, The Enemies of Reason, (which you can watch below) Dr. Dawkins takes on "alternative medicine", and pays special attention to homeopathy. In case anyone reading (if anyone is reading) is not familiar with this particular flavor of bullshit, homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine in which substances -- and it truly makes no difference what they are -- are diluted to the point that "in order to get one molecule of the active substance, you'd have to imbibe all of the atoms in the solar system."<br /><br />Dawkins correctly notes that the only possible use for homeopathic "medicine" -- which, amounts to so much water, exactly as pure as that used for dilution -- is as an expensive placebo. The placebo effect is well-documented and supported by scientific evidence. The psychological effect of believing that a treatment will work causes the body's self-healing mechanisms to function more effectively. In short it only works if you believe it will work. I don't believe that ignorance is bliss, but it's undeniable that under certain circumstances, it can be healthy.<br /><br />I also considered this some time ago, a few years before I realized that the god that I had heard about all my life could not possibly exist. Before this realization came the realization that prayer could not possibly be efficacious. An all-knowing and unchanging god with an all-encompassing plan would necessarily have decided whether or not to do something long before it is requested, before the birth of the requester, and indeed, before the dawn of time itself. It could not be possible to sway the will of such a being, therefore prayer is useless. My pastor did not know how to respond to this conclusion, except to subtly scold me for thinking that way. Pastors are not, after all, paid to think. My mother, the theologian, told me that the purpose of prayer is not to change God, but to change yourself, which I immediately recognized as the placebo effect.<br /><br />Of course, knowing the nature of a placebo negates its effect, which at first made me reluctant to share this knowledge. It was a moral dilemma: on one hand, telling someone that prayer is a placebo would make it as useless to them as it was to me, but on the other hand, keeping someone uninformed is always a disservice. This, to me, is perhaps the most important moral question, and it took several years for me to come to the conclusion that sharing the truth with someone is always the moral thing to do, no matter how unwelcome it may be. Each person has a right to their own beliefs, but that includes the right to base those beliefs on the best information available. By giving a person incomplete or false information, you deny them the right to believe what is true, and I can thing of no worse affront. This is why it is considered unethical in scientific medicine to prescribe placebos except in cases such as clinical trials where patients may be in the test group or the control, and thus know that they <em>may</em> receive placebos, and agree to be temporarily uninformed so that the placebo effect can be tested.<br /><br />For doctors, it would be unethical to do any more than <em>allow</em> a patient to believe that a placebo will be efficacious, whereas religionists and practitioners of "alternative" medicine are free free to employ lies, dogma, and obfuscation to sell their snake oil. Deceiving anyone, yourself included, is harmful, and individuals only have the right to choose that type of harm for themselves. I prefer to rely on my body's own defenses whenever it is reasonable to do so, but I also avoid these types of self-deception that could enhance those defenses, so it is likely that I would be at least marginally more healthy if I were less rational. Perhaps I am too rational for my own good.<br /><br /><embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4720837385783230047&hl=en-GB" flashvars=""> </embed>whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-26334288064518957252007-08-11T02:42:00.000-07:002007-08-11T03:07:56.842-07:00Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager states that it is logical to believe in God based on a cost/benefit analysis. According to the wager, belief costs nothing, but the potential reward is infinite, as is the potential penalty for disbelief. If there is no god, nothing is gained and nothing is lost whether you believe or disbelieve. This, of course, neglects the value of a belief being true, presumably because it assumes that the chances of being correct in either situation is 50-50 and that no further study can significantly alter these odds.<br /><br />There are many counter-arguments to Pascal's Wager, and I won't address nearly all of them here, but perhaps the most obvious is that it is a false dichotomy. There are many mutually-exclusive beliefs about the existence of a god or gods, and even if one chose to be a theist, one would still presumably need to choose the correct religion in order to gain the reward. Most people would then start by placing each religion on equal footing with one another and with atheism in terms of probability, but this is already mistaken because there is a true dichotomy between theism and atheism (when defined simply as a <em>lack</em> of theism). Religions posit a god, then make further assertions about that god, so the 50% probability that there is a god must be divided among them. At this point, it becomes clear that, in the absence of evidence either way, the atheist is more likely to be right than a member of any given religion, but this counter-argument misses the point a bit, because in this case it could still be desirable to forego all likelihood of being correct (a finite benefit) for the chance at attaining an infinite reward. This is a much truer wager, and resembles a lottery with a small buy-in for a small chance at big rewards, but in this case there is not only a huge pot to be won, but an equally huge penalty for not winning. You have to play to win, but you don't have to play to lose. Under these circumstances, it still makes sense to pick a religion and believe.<br /><br />The real problem is that people assume that even if there's a 50% chance of a god, that god must resemble the god of some religion. It's tempting to divide the god side according to the world's religions, or even the individual (and unique!) concepts of god that each believer holds, but without consistent revelation, these gods are no more likely than any other conceivable gods. Herein lies, I believe, the real achilles heel of Pascal's Wager. <br /><br />Let's assume that there is a god that is aware of you, gives a damn about what you believe, and will punish you for believing the wrong things with regard to its own existence. The probability of this is already far below 50%, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume that these are necessary properties of a god, and ignore deist gods who don't care or those who value other properties such as your taste in music, your favorite color, whether you donate $5 to this website, whether you have a cute mole on your ass, etc. etc. ad infinitum. This god is at least as likely to value skepticism, evidence-based belief, and critical thinking as it is to value blind faith. Add the fact that if there is a god, it goes to great lengths to hide its presence (as evidenced by the fact that we have to ask the question), and the benefit of pleasing the skepticism god is better than that of the faith god, as the latter would obviously be a sadistic psychopath who wants to punish more than to reward. Who would want to spend eternity with a jerk like that? In fact, in the watered-down theologies in which the punishment is only annihilation or separation from the god, I'd say that the punishment is better than the reward. <br /><br />When you look at it this way, the greatest benefit possible comes from pleasing a god that values skepticism. Skepticism also offers the greatest chance of a benefit because you would have a 25% chance that you will be wrong but will gain the favor of a god that values skepticism on top of the %50 chance of being correct but receiving no further benefit, therefore skepticism is the only logical choice. Of course, adding gods that don't care about belief back into the equation significantly diminishes that 25%, but it diminishes the chances of having the correct theistic belief equally.<br /><br />Sure, some would argue that a god that values skepticism is far less likely than one that values faith, but what evidence do we have that this is the case? Only the word of theologians who have no more evidence than you or I, can't agree on anything else, and would have to go get a real job if people didn't believe. That, <a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/pascals-wager.html">Mr. Adams</a>, does not "pass the sniff test".<br /><br />Of course, it would be stupid to disbelieve in a god that probably doesn't exist simply for the purpose of currying favor with it, but I think I've demonstrated that it doesn't make any more sense to believe for the same reason.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-85672986149430384372007-07-30T10:10:00.000-07:002007-07-31T10:55:40.159-07:00Defining godSome theists try to define their god into existence with prevaricatory bullshit like "God is love." The problem with this is that we already have a word for love. It's called "love". Saying that god is love makes the word useless, not to mention the fact that people who say this invariably have a concept of a god that includes supernatural powers, more than a few idiosyncratic moral precepts, and masculinity, none of which is mentioned next to love in any dictionary I've ever seen. These people -- one would hope -- were conceived in love, but even so, its clearly a stretch to claim that love is their creator.<br /><br />There are some who say that a volcano or a totem pole is their god. I can see and touch these gods, so I would be forced to admit that they exist. Despite the claims they make about these inanimate objects protecting them from evil, claiming them to be higher beings is clearly daft. These objects have naturalistic origins that we are capable of grasping, and we are far more likely to bend them to our will than they us. You can worship a rock 'til you're blue in the face, but it's not going to know or care, much less have the will or ability to reward you for doing so, nor to punish you for doing otherwise. These gods too are completely useless.<br /><br />So what would make a god useful? A useful god must have some kind of power over the physical universe, but this alone is not enough. Clark's third law states that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, yet an advanced alien species would not be gods, however tempting it may be to call them such. A god does not have naturalistic origins or exert its control through purely naturalistic means. Without naturalistic means, though, the effects of this control would be distinguishable from what would happen in the absence of the god only by the intention behind it. In order to exhibit this intention, the god must have a will, which implies a mind, and presumably one at least as smart as our own. A god would not be very useful if it was dead, or not yet alive, so it would be expected to be uncaused and immortal, and because a physical brain is vulnerable to damage and entropy, we can assume that a useful god would be immaterial. A useful god is usually also considered to a creator, even though our scientific knowledge explains our existence as the result of naturalistic processes.<br /><br />So, here is my definition of a god: a god is an eternal, non-corporeal, intelligent agent imagined to be the cause of natural events. I say imagined, because those events that are attributed to a god are invariably found to have naturalistic causes upon close enough inspection, thus the ever-narrowing "gaps" into which believers are constantly wedging their gods. A god that is only imagined does not actually exist, so you see, just as theists attempt to define their god into existence, I have defined him out of it.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-62299759855297366522007-07-29T09:05:00.000-07:002007-07-29T23:27:44.077-07:00What would it take?I was thinking about what it would take to convince me that there was a god. This is a question that theists seem to like to ask, so I thought I should have an answer.<br /><br />Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and they don't get much more extraordinary than the claim of an all-knowing, all-powerful being that's everywhere at once and cares what I do while I'm naked. It would require a demonstration that included a verifiable violation of the laws of physics, and in order for that violation to truly be verifiable, we would need a complete understanding of those laws. Is there a deity out there just waiting for us to stumble upon a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything">Theory of Everything</a> before it makes its presence known? I'm not holding my breath.<br /><br />Theists often assume that if we had proof of a god, we would have no choice but to bow down and worship. This is not the correct response. If we met a non-human intelligent being, we should treat it the same way whether it was a god, an alien or some kind of super-chimp. The correct course of action (after learning to communicate) would be to invite the being to join our society as an equal. As a person, human or otherwise, it would have "human rights" (I don't like that term) and the obligation to afford other persons the same rights. If the god agreed to abide by our laws, we could get along amicably, and I would enjoy watching its party tricks, but if any appreciable portion of the Bible is factual, it would not accept. This is understandable, as it would need to immediately be brought up on charges that would result in imprisonment for innumerable consecutive life sentences, assuming the death penalty was not feasible.<br /><br />Of course, an omnipotent being could not be forced to comply with our laws, or any punishments we deemed necessary, but if it refused to do so, it would certainly not be a being to be worshiped, but one to be hated and resisted in any way possible. Only a tyrant would demand worship, and it is the duty of any thinking person to resist tyranny.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-59698303087651625632007-07-24T10:20:00.000-07:002007-07-24T10:20:31.528-07:00Thoughts on morality.I was thinking about morality today, and it suddenly dawned on me what defines what is and is not moral. I was thinking that despite differing opinions of individuals on what <em>should</em> be considered moral, it's pragmatically a society's consensus on morality that matters. Then I realized, morality isn't what each individual thinks it to be, or even what society agrees it to be, and it certainly isn't what some invisible man in the sky says that it is. What defines morality is what it <em>will be agreed to be</em>.<br /><br />I don't just mean that the morality of an action must be decided after the fact, what I mean is that what is most moral is what will be considered moral in the future. In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGod-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins%2Fdp%2F0618680004%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1185294894%26sr%3D8-1&tag=whatsisnet-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">The God Delusion</a>, Richard Dawkins discusses what he calls the "changing moral zeitgeist". This is the phenomenon by which morality evolves (so to speak) through time. Prime examples of this are racism and slavery, which have been the norm until very recently in our history, but are abhorred by anyone we would consider civilized today. I admire Thomas Jefferson, but Jefferson was a slave owner. We all hate Hitler, but the racism that fueled his genocide wasn't nearly as far behind the moral zeitgeist as we would like to believe. The trick to being as moral as possible, I realized, is to be ahead of the curve. Don't try to do what people consider right today, do what will be considered right tomorrow, or next year, or in a thousand years.<br /><br />Of course, without precognition, it's difficult to know what direction the moral zeitgeist will take. Short-term changes can be sometimes be predicted based on other recent changes as a natural progression, such as the acceptance of homosexuals following from recent moves toward race- and gender-equality, and those who are slightly ahead of the curve already vehemently oppose homophobia and campaign for gay rights. Long-term changes are harder to predict, and even the most progressive among us surely hold beliefs that will be considered appalling within a few generations, but we don't see anything wrong with them today. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to be far enough ahead of the zeitgeist that our posterity will recognize our good intentions, and as with Jefferson, chalk-up our failings to the times in which we live.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-28931987871976043082007-07-24T09:03:00.000-07:002007-07-25T11:00:50.481-07:00Hey, look, it's a blog!As my regular readers will know, if I ever had any, I've been away for some time. Posting became difficult when one thing in my life after another began to change. Some of these changes you will definitely hear about, others are none of your business. The most significant of the changes that I will be talking about is my apostasy and deconversion.<br /><br />I spent most of my life as a moderate/liberal Christian, but as a few of my later posts may have hinted, I was struggling with the issue, and I'm proud to say that for the last eight months or so, I have been a godless heathen. I was raised as a Christian and always took it for granted, but amusingly, christianity is far more interesting to me from the outside, and I have much stronger feelings on the subject now.<br /><br />I've been doing a lot of thinking on the subject, and I recently found myself wanting to write down some of my thoughts again, so I decided it was time to dust-off the blog. I'm not planning on going back to daily posting, and I'll probably be focusing less on news and politics than before, but you can expect some new posts here soon.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-38904411511675957812006-12-12T17:28:00.000-08:002006-12-12T17:38:32.101-08:00HiatusI'm still here, I've just been busy. I just got a new job and there have been some other distractions as well. Posting may be scarce for a while.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-33378435272589007632006-12-06T23:56:00.000-08:002006-12-06T23:55:53.446-08:00The 110th Congress: The Congress that DIDN'T do Nothing<blockquote>"I have bad news for you," Hoyer told reporters. "Those trips you had planned in January, forget 'em. We will be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th."</blockquote>January 4th happens to be my birthday, and I can't think of a better gift -- save the impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney -- that the 110th Congress could give me than sacrificing some vacation time to begin to fix what the 109th broke.<br /><br />Republicans have been quick to bitch and moan about the new schedule, which will require them to work 5 days a week:<blockquote>"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."</blockquote>This congress will have to work nearly as much as the majority of their constituents. How sad for them.<br /><br />The 110th Congress has not even convened yet, and it already has a far better reputation than the 109th.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501342.html">read more</a> | <a href="http://digg.com/politics/Congress_Will_Actually_Work_5_Days_A_Week">digg story</a>whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-125703033386836192006-12-05T23:49:00.000-08:002007-07-29T23:46:34.086-07:00A few moreA few more points to add to the new constitution:<ul><li>Term limits for everyone, but with a twist. Limits are only placed on <em>consecutive</em> terms, so a candidate who can win re-election after reaching the limit without the inertia of incumbency can be re-elected after sitting out a term.</li><li>Shorter terms for all offices and annual instead of bi-annual elections. This would make bringing back officials who had reached their term limits easier.</li><li>Perhaps the cabinet should elected rather than appointed, and should have more direct power rather than advising the president. This seems the most obvious way to break up the presidential power, can you think of a better one?</li></ul>I'm still looking for recommendations, and I've also posted this on <a href="http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Thought_experiment:_writing_a_new_Constitution" title="Forum:Thought experiment: writing a new Constitution">Campaigns Wikia</a>.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-31527740116024363472006-12-04T18:39:00.000-08:002006-12-04T19:02:54.209-08:00A New Constitution<blockquote>Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it... We might as well require a man to wear the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.<br />--Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>Our founding fathers did some brilliant work, but with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that there is room for improvement. The framers foresaw the need to update the Constitution, and created a process for amending it, but what would it look like if it was written today? I thought it would be a fun thought experiment to write a new one. Here are some points that I've come up with so far:<ul><li>In the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments. This conveys the message that these rights are an afterthought. In this constitution, the Bill of Rights will be Article I. This should include, among other things, an assurance of equal rights for same-sex and opposite-sex couples, probably by privatizing marriage, and increased protection for free speech and against censorship. The bidirectional separation of church and state must also be clearly declared.</li><li>I think that trias politica -- the separation of power among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches -- is a very good idea, but it's clear from presidents like Dubya and Nixon that clearer limits on the branches' powers need to be defined, particularly when the branch is so centralized. In practice, the US presidency resembles a constitutional monarchy. Those powers should have additional checks, and possibly be divided among several individuals. The need for a single figurehead leader, be it a president or a prime minister, is a throwback to traditional monarchies that modern governments may be better-off without.</li><li>No increased per-capita representation for less-populous areas. Red-staters may not like this one, but I think that the Senate and Electoral College are terribly un-democratic. Bicameral legislature is a good idea, but assigning Senators by state with no regard to population is un-democratic. With the current state of technology, there's no reason not to offer a more direct democracy, with less emphasis one outdated state boundaries, and there must be better ways to <em>fairly</em> represent the interests of smaller populations.</li><li>Speaking of technology, it also creates other possibilities that would not have been feasible when the Constitution was written. Perhaps one house of Congress should have proportional representation, and there's no reason not to use instant runoff voting. It's crucial, though, to provide for protection against electronic vote fraud.</li><li>Certain clauses, notably references to "free persons" and the three-fifths compromise, are concessions to the culture of the day an no longer hold any relevance. Many such clauses have been nullified by amendments, and such amendments should be rolled into the original version of this new constitution, but similar concessions to today's culture should be avoided where possible to create a document that would require as little amendment as possible.</li></ul>Those are the points that I have thought of so far. Can you think of any others or any other nations whose constitutions with aspects that improve considerably upon that of the United States? Does anyone know of any similar projects?whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-32235728756587249322006-12-01T19:33:00.000-08:002006-12-02T20:21:03.039-08:00Free Speech for the Terrorists in D.C.Last night, Keith Olbermann delivered another in his series of special comments, this one in response to Newt Gingrich's assertion that it was necessary to curtail free speech to fight terrorism.<blockquote>"We will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find," Mr. Gingrich continued about terrorists formerly Communists formerly Hippies formerly Fifth Columnists formerly Anarchists formerly Redcoats.<br /><br />"….to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech."</blockquote>Free speech is free speech for <em>everyone</em>, and is our single most fundamental freedom. Gingrich -- like with the president, vice president, and the rest of their ilk -- claims to want to protect America, to protect our freedom. They invoke images of terrorists who hate us because of that freedom, and want desperately to take it away from us. Then, in order to protect us from these alleged freedom-haters, they propose <em>taking that freedom away</em>. These charlatans either don't notice the contradiction, or hope desperately that no one else will.<br /><br />We do.<br /><br />You -- Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush... -- you are the terrorists. You are the ones trying to take away our freedom, and you are doing so far more effectively than anyone with a bomb-belt or a box-cutter could ever dream. What's more, you are using fear tactics to do it, which is the very definition of terrorism. I do not agree with a word you say, Mr. Gingrich, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qfwthwqVyGE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qfwthwqVyGE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br /><br /><a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/30/olbermanns-special-comment-on-gingrich-we-fight-for-liberty-by-having-more-liberty-and-not-less/">read more</a> | <a href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/Keith_Olbermann_We_fight_for_liberty_by_having_more_liberty_and_not_less">digg story</a>whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-4229054683707420102006-11-29T22:20:00.000-08:002006-11-29T22:23:26.423-08:00Proof<blockquote>Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.</blockquote>I knew it all along.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ctnow.com/custom/nmm/newhavenadvocate/hce-nha-1123-nh48bushbash48.artnov23,0,1695911.story">Correlation between mental illness and GW Bush voters</a> | <a href="http://digg.com/politics/Correlation_between_mental_illness_and_GW_Bush_voters">digg story</a>whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-36110177934944790242006-11-28T23:13:00.000-08:002006-11-28T23:19:20.660-08:00Faith != God(For those that don't know, "!=" is a common programming operator for "not equal".)<br /><br />There was a recent <a href="http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/monday_why_are_atheists_so_angry_sam_harris">debate</a> between conservative radio host Dennis Prager and atheist author Sam Harris. There were many interesting points in this debate, and I may discuss it again, but one subject that particularly stood out to me was Prager's attempts to confuse the <em>existence</em> of God with the <em>belief</em> in God. This is especially apparent in this embarrassing paragraph from his closing statement:<blockquote>You write: “If humanity can’t survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn’t, even remotely, suggest that God exists.” This statement is as novel as the one suggesting that Stalin was produced by Judeo-Christian values. It is hard for me to imagine that any fair-minded reader would reach the same conclusion. If we both acknowledge that without belief in God humanity would self-destruct, it is quite a stretch to say that this fact does not “even remotely suggest that God exists.” Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?</blockquote>This argument is so profoundly stupid that I had to ask a friend to verify that I had read it correctly. Prager repeatedly states -- even after Harris clearly and specifically points out the logical fallacy -- that the essentiality of the belief in God is a strong argument for the existence of God. On the contrary, as Harris states, this simply proves a point that no rational person would agree with: that <em>belief</em> in God exists. This fact that they both agree on in no way suggests that that belief is at all <em>accurate</em>, as Prager claims that it does. The last sentence clearly shows that Prager considers belief in God (something that Harris at least hypothetically agrees is "essential to human survival") to be the same as God ("one thing that does not exist"). I can only conclude that this is an attempt on Mr. Prager's part to make readers dismiss the debate as unfair by painting himself as a complete and utter moron. I guess that means that I'm not a "fair-minded reader" that he can easily imagine.<br /><br />Belief in God has tangible benefits -- particularly for more primitive, unenlightened cultures of the past -- that few rational people would deny, but faith -- as a belief that can be neither proven nor disproven -- is utterly indifferent to its own accuracy. In the absence of the potential for proof, faith can only ever act as a placebo for the believer. To anyone who did not realize that, and for whom the placebo effect will no longer work due to the revelation, I apologize.<br /><br /><a href="http://richarddawkins.net/article,372,n,n">read more</a> | <a href="http://digg.com/politics/Atheist_Sam_Harris_Destroys_Conservative_Talk_Show_Host_in_Debate">digg story</a>whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-52409547411532631452006-11-22T19:05:00.000-08:002006-11-22T19:05:57.377-08:00Dirty wordsI began work on this post some time ago, but in light of <a href+"http://digg.com/videos_people/Seinfeld_s_Kramer_Racist_Tirade_Caught_On_Tape_YOUTUBE_LINK">current events</a>, I thought it would be a good time to finish it up and get it out there.<br /><br />Dirty words are stupid. I don't just mean the unnecessary use of them is stupid (which it is), I mean that the idea that certain words are vulgar or offensive and should not be used is stupid. Words are, by definition, simple linguistic constructs that have no meaning unless one is agreed upon. All of these words have definitions -- often sexual, racist, scatological, etc. -- but these meanings are barely understood anymore due to the stigma of their use. Many of them are also used figuratively to provide pejorative emphasis, and can be an effective and valid means of conveying ideas in such context, and to remove them from the permissible vernacular is no better than diluting their meaning through over-use. The use of censorship, even self-censorship, rather than one's own judgement in communication only causes problems.<br /><br />Another oft-ignored meaning that they have is what they say about those who use them. While their use alone doesn't make an individual stupid, inappropriate or excessive use certainly demonstrates a lack of eloquence. Some are virtually meaningless beyond demonstrating the prejudice of the speaker. Epithetical remarks such as those for which Michael Richards has been receiving flak could just as easily be cognitively replaced with the phrase "I'm a racist". Beyond that, all that he stated was that the individuals that he was addressing were black, a fact of which I'm sure they where aware, and their <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15855423/">reported</a> attempt to extort money from a man who pointed out that they black and admitted to being racist is no less shameful.<br /><br />Words have meaning because we give them meaning. They have no meaning that we don't give them, and we have no power that they don't give them, and it's foolish to give them the power to harm us.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-55493628187556167752006-11-21T22:10:00.001-08:002006-11-21T22:10:18.631-08:00The Disinformation Show<blockquote>Now Fox News Channel, a primary source of material for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, is teaming with the exec producer of "24" to try its hand at a news satire show for conservatives to love.</blockquote>The Daily Show has often been derided by conservatives who claim that it encourages people to be uninformed, despite <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_show#The_Daily_Show_as_a_.22news_source.22">studies</a> showing The Daily Show to be at least as substantive as other cable news sources and more informative than most news sources, but now the conservative propaganda machine seems to be changing its tune.<br /><br />The problem with this tactic, of course, is that a Faux News clone would only be so much disinformation, just like most of the "fair and balanced" network's other programming. The Daily Show is an equal-opportunity satirical mockery, and conservatives only feel singled-out because it has been true in recent years that, in the words of Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent Dinner, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias," such that his own show is as close as anyone can honestly come to a conservative counterpart to The Daily Show. There's a reason that Colbert's conservative talking points are so amusing, and shows like O'Reilly's would be almost as funny if the audience knew that he didn't believe them.<br /><br />Satire is only funny if it rings true, so FNC will never air anything humorous... at least not intentionally.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2006/11/20/foxnews-conservative-satire-tech-media-cx_1120varietytv.html">read more</a> | <a href="http://digg.com/politics/Fox_News_Preps_Daily_Show_Knockoff_for_Right_Wing">digg story</a>whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-32776828025745211752006-11-20T21:32:00.001-08:002006-11-20T21:32:37.019-08:00Depends on What Your Definition of "Succeed" IsRecently, when asked if there were lessons about our situation in Iraq to be learned from the Vietnam War, Bush once again embarrassed us all by saying that "we will succeed unless we quit."<br /><br />What's going on in Iraq is not a war, and it's certainly not something that we can win. It would be so much simpler if it was a war, because we could just complete the genocide and leave... or more realistically, we could finish the genocide and pave the land with oil pumps. Obviously, Bush would never be allowed to get away with this, so what are his goals? What would a "clear military victory" be? <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c2daddb2-7822-11db-be09-0000779e2340.html">Kissenger interprets it</a> as "an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control," which he doesn't believe is possible. Someone will need to explain to me how an independent government fitting that description could be brought about by any amount of military force.<br /><br />Republican senator John McCain <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acYxu.6V2FjA&refer=home">says</a> that we're "fighting and dying for a failed policy", but this is wrong. We're fighting and dying for absolutely nothing. There isn't a plan. There isn't even a goal. If there was, we'd have to weigh whether it was worth the losses that we are suffering to eventually achieve it, but there isn't. We've passed the "quit while you're ahead" point, but we can still cut our losses. We can continue sending our brothers, sisters, parents and children to die while we search for a reason to do so, or we can admit our mistake and leave before more of us die. <em>That</em> is the lesson we should have learned from the Vietnam War.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-68136714870186254822006-11-15T21:21:00.000-08:002006-11-15T21:20:56.913-08:00Still sickI'm still sick. Go listen to what this insightful 8-year-old has to say:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k8x14cLGh5o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k8x14cLGh5o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-733950955771731092006-11-13T21:23:00.000-08:002006-11-13T21:24:54.232-08:00Sick dayLeave me alone, I'm sick.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-29467519290215831852006-11-10T17:08:00.000-08:002006-11-10T17:22:57.132-08:00Not-so-lame DucksI don't like the term "lame duck". "Lame duck" implies that a person is ineffectual and can be ignored. This does not take into account the fact that such politicians often have all of the authority or their office, but lack the accountability of an official seeking re-election. This can make an individual extremely dangerous. This is evidenced by the unpopular pardons, appointments, and legislation that these "lame duck" periods are known for.<br /><br />I think a better term would be the "kamikaze period". During this time, when officials hold offices but do not need to worry about keeping them, they can concentrate on doing as much damage -- or furthering of their own and their party's goals -- without worrying about the ramifications, like a kamikaze pilot or suicide bomber attempting to do maximum damage to the enemy without worrying about his own survival.<br /><br />I have some personal experience with this mindset from playing Halo online. In these games, I frequently kill enemy characters driving vehicles using a well-placed grenade thrown right before they run me over. Because my character will respawn a few seconds later, I don't have to worry about my own death, and when the character in the vehicle is carrying the flag in an attempt to score for his team, it's well worth standing still to aim my grenade -- ensuring my own death -- to ensure that the flag carrier is also killed. In the same way, an outgoing politician -- voted out of office to be replaced by a member of another party -- is willing to damage his own credibility to to ensure that his successor will be unable to "score" for his party. This, of course, is bad because it is the incoming politician who represents the will of the constituents.<br /><br />The democratic Senate and House majorities may have been elected, but we're not out of the woods yet, and things are likely to get worse before they get better.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-17619233054262012002006-11-09T19:25:00.000-08:002008-08-27T10:47:53.991-07:00The Racist Club: You may already be a memberA 15-year-old girl at Freedom High School in Oakley, California is trying to start an ethnic club for caucasians. The school, which already has similar clubs for Latino, Asian, and African-American students, has been unsurprisingly resistant to the idea. Some are saying that such a club would promote racism, while other argue that disallowing the club would be "reverse racism". I believe that both of these views are stupid and, ironically, both racist.<br /><br />Racism is racism, no matter what racial group is being discriminated for/against. The idea of racism against whites as "reverse racism" is racist because it assumes that racism is characteristic of whites. In junior high, I was once accused of being racist by a classmate (who may or may not have realized the irony of his statement ahead of time). When I, hurt by the accusation, asked him why he thought that, his only response was "Because you're white." It is this mindset that is arguably the most prevalent form of racism in the United States today, and the belief that racism against whites is any different from any other form of racism is, itself, racist.<br /><br />Some caucasians in the United States -- a few of whom may or may not have been my ancestors -- have done some terrible, racist things, but to assume that I am racist because of that is no less racist.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030922-115056-2744r.htm">read more</a> | <a href="http://digg.com/world_news/15_year_old_Girl_Starts_Caucasian_Club_at_her_High_School">digg story</a>whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-54119990107166653422006-11-08T17:06:00.000-08:002006-11-08T18:20:09.947-08:002006 MidtermsWell, I was hoping to sum up the election for yesterday's post, but Senator Allen has yet to concede the loss of his seat, the last of the six that the democrats need -- and the only one for which a winner has still not been declared -- for a Senate majority to compliment their already-guaranteed House majority. With 100% of the vote now counted, the only thing Allen could be waiting for before conceding is a recount, which he cannot even request for nearly three weeks under <a href="http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Misc/Election_Laws.html">Virginia law</a>.<br /><br />This majority, of course, is technically a 49/49 split, with independent candidates filling the remaining two seats. The first of these is Vermont's Bernard Sanders, a self-described socialist who who beat his Republican challenger by a margin of more than two to one and who caucuses with the Democrats. The second is famed Democrat-in-name-only and former vice-presidential candidate, Joel Lieberman of Connecticut, who lost the democratic nomination to Ned Lamont, but ran as an independent democrat. The two finished the race with 50% and 40% of the vote, respectively.<br /><br />Counting both of these senators with the Democratic caucus, the Democrats are now the majority party in the Senate. Only one is required for a plurality, but both would be required to prevent tied votes, which would be broken by Darth Va- I mean Dick Cheney. This of course assumes party-line voting, which may not be the case with so many Republicans as disgusted with the President's actions as everyone else, and the Republicans' <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/1">dirty tactics</a> for maintaining control of the 109th Congress will be much more difficult without a majority behind them.<br /><br />As I've been typing this, media outlets have finally begun declaring Democrat Jim Webb the winner in Virginia, with Republican Incumbent George Allen expected to offer his concession tomorrow. Allen is not expected to request a recount unless the margin somehow decreases in the meantime.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34427342.post-24662975601946098592006-11-06T19:11:00.001-08:002006-11-09T18:21:54.260-08:00SymbolsI spent several hours today permanently transforming my hair into a knotty, matted symbol of rejection of "the establishment" and traditional values. I must admit, though, that creating this symbol feels a bit hypocritical, as I consider emphasis on symbols to be part of what I'm rejecting. In many aspects of our society, far too much emphasis is placed on symbols, often to the detriment of what they are supposed to symbolize. Update: The dreadlocks fell apart when I tried to wash them, so I'm back to my regular, long hippie hair.<br /><br />This is especially true for religions. I am frequently disgusted to see borderline idol worship directed at crosses/crucifixes by those who claim the Holy Trinity as their one true god. This type of prayer by proxy, at best, shows an individual lack of understanding by those who engage in them of their own religion's principles. While I have problems with the way Christianity defines its deity as a trinity so that it can technically qualify as monotheistic, I don't buy the Catholic variant -- with all of its saints and symbols and superstitious rituals -- as monotheistic for a second.<br /><br />This hypocrisy is not unique to religion, though. The recent attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to abridge our freedom with a ban on the burning of the American flag, which proponents of the amendment loved to call a symbol of freedom. This clearly shows the problem with putting too much emphasis on a symbol: When reverence for a symbol is used to harm that which it symbolizes, it's obviously gone too far.<br /><br />Both of these types of symbols have been abused by the current administration to further its own goals, to the detriment of what they symbolize. Symbols, without knowledge of what they symbolize, are meaningless. The use of a symbol is little more than an invitation for its meaning to be misconstrued, and given the danger of a misconstrued symbol, it's a risk that's not worth taking.whosawhatsis?http://www.blogger.com/profile/12792264289634575186noreply@blogger.com0