The Black Hole of Missile Defense

According to President Vladimir Putin, Russia has developed a new missile.

“These missile systems don't represent a response to a missile defense system, but they are immune to that. They are hypersonic and capable of changing their flight path.”

Putin said that the new missiles were capable of changing both the altitude and the direction of their flight, making it impossible for an enemy to intercept them.

“A missile defense system is designed to counter missiles moving along a ballistic trajectory,” Putin was quoted as saying. - From Reports: Putin boasts Russia has missiles capable of piercing missile defense By Vladimir Isachenkov ASSOCIATED PRESS

Congratulations to everyone who is reading this post! You have just found out another reason why the U.S. government is wasting your money. I suggest you write your congressman and tell them to vote to end funding for the missile defense program. The money would be better spent securing our borders against terrorists.

Source

Focus: The People Sent To Fight For Us

The following is an excerpt from an article I found. I think it deserves more attention so I am posting it. The focus of media on casualties in Iraq should be all people not just one. You can find the complete article here.

"'Why do you think this is such a huge story?' wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. 'It`s a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you`d think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.

'There`s a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That`s a really impolite and impolitic thing to say ... but it`s what you would hear over here.'

At least 2,242 troops have died in Iraq since the war`s start, 1,753 of them killed in action. Another 16,000 have been injured, half of them seriously enough to require evacuation from the battlefield. According to the Pentagon, 60 percent of the deaths are the result of IEDs. IEDs have injured more than 9,200 troops, nine times more than gunshots.

'The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks,' a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday.

The unavoidable consequence of war is this: People are savagely wounded and killed. Soldiers in Iraq watching the coverage on satellite television and reading the news on the Internet are getting the impression that the press has only just discovered this fact." -Excerpt from Some US troops question Woodruff coverage By Pamela Hess Feb 1, 2006

Danish Fleas and Arabian Sledgehammers

It seems to be almost an understatement to say that much of the Arab/Islamic world is illogical. Recently, a Danish newspaper ran cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. Some of them in a less than good light. This has led to some very illogical and disgusting behavior by many Arabs.

"The backlash led to street protests, threats to Scandinavians in the Palestinian territories and a boycott of Danish goods, including Lego."- Danes face fury over cartoons of Prophet
By David Rennie in Brussels Source

Sending death threats to the cartoonists and even people who have nothing to do with these offensive cartoons is like hitting a flea with a sledgehammer. It seems like this is a standard reaction by Arabs to many similar events. Whenever a film comes out that is in opposition to their ideology they send death threats to the producers. If the Arab world acted logically they would have just demanded an apology from the newspaper, which published the cartoons. This is what a European country would have done. What I find even more amazing is the lack of conceptualization of the idea that these cartoons were created and published by an independent news agency. It seems like Arabs think that one newspaper printing insulting cartoons is the equivalent of an entire country doing so and treat both the same when they are not the same at all. I suppose that I can't blame Arabs for being ignorant of the idea of free press. I just hope a few read this and spread the idea that one newspaper does not equal an entire country. The most important thing I wish the Arab world would learn is that if someone picks a fight with you in words then you should end it with words not sledgehammers.

Executions Allowed At Any U.S. Army Installation

I got this from http://www.germanforeignministry.blogspot.com/ and the writer's source is given here source. It is apparently now allowed, by order of Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker, that prisoners can be executed at any U.S. Army installation not just Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The writer's analysis of this information appears to be the logical conclusion:

"Analysis: It is highly likely that the U.S. military changed this rule for the sole purpose of authorizing executions at Guantanamo Bay or other oversees prison facilities due to the fact that very few U.S. servicemen are currently awaiting execution. With only 7 military inmates on death row at Fort Leavenworth, there isn’t a clear domestic benefit to this new regulation in the U.S. (Analytical Confidence: 9)"-unknown writer http://www.germanforeignministry.blogspot.com/

An Aborted Thought

I believe I promised an in depth writing on abortion early on when I first created The Edge of Forever. I think I removed that short post when I reorganized this blog. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

I support Roe vs. Wade. I believe that abortions should not be performed except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. This belief appears to be at odds with the Roe vs. Wade decision but it is not. I will explain why. Roe vs. Wade allows abortions to be performed under conditions other than the ones I stated. So why not narrow the law to only these exceptions? It would not be practically moral. I am an Idealistic Realist. I ripped this term right off the top of my head. Basically, it means I look for the Ideal situation, the best possible solution, and believe that everyone should strive toward such goals. However, I am also a Realist this means that while I believe in striving for the ideal I understand it is not always possible to apply the ideal standard to the world and get the best possible result. By applying a stricter law on abortion to fit my narrow definition of what I consider its acceptable use I would be causing others harm.

Take for instance a rape victim who is attempting to get an abortion. The victim has no evidence to prove to the doctors that she was raped and under the law is not allowed to get an abortion. She is forced to live with an uncomfortable reminder of that evil event for nine months. Practical application of the ideal through the law causes this individual harm. The ideal state of law is not to cause anyone harm and therefore such a law is immoral. One might argue that the absence of law in this case causes harm to individuals. Acknowledging that fetuses are individuals I do not believe the absence of law is the cause of the harm. As an example we must look at the ideal state of society in relation to reproductive matters. Ideally, no one would be raped and people would use protection when having intercourse or abstain entirely. The percentage of unplanned pregnancies would be extremely low if this were the case. The abortion issue in this instance would be virtually nonexistent save in the case of the mother's life versus the child.

From this concept of the ideal it is easy to see where the harm originates. Rapists and careless individuals who engage in unprotected sex and have abortions as cleanup so they can continue their careless lives. It becomes apparent that in application it is impossible to stop people from getting abortions since some would do so illegally. It is also apparent that not imposing a strict anti-abortion law keeps people like the example rape victim from suffering more harm than she is due. Knowing where the harm comes from one can understand that establishing a law, which will not stop many careless people from receiving illegal back alley abortions while compounding harm to rape victims who cannot legally get an abortion is not an ideal law. Staying consistent with the moral premise that one should strive never to cause and to minimize harm to individuals when possible, it is logical to refrain from imposing a strict anti-abortion law.

One could argue here that it is in the interest of the whole that such a strict anti-abortion law is passed and that the majority's benefit outweighs the possible harm to the minority. An example demonstrates the problem of the concept that the good of the whole outweighs the good of the few. You are a rescuer on your way to save five drowning people. As you are driving you come to a man trapped under debris in the road. If you stop to help him the five people will drown. However, due to his position in the road you will have to run over him to get to the five other people. You cannot drive around him since the edge of the road is steep and leads into a ravine. By driving over this man you would be committing the immoral act of murder.
The definition of murder is taking an individual's life against his/her will. The individual has a right to life that cannot be overridden against his/her will. This is the reason it is immoral to have a law so strict that abortions are illegal period. It is immoral to deny an abortion and cause the mother to die in cases in which her life is in jeopardy from the pregnancy. One might object by saying that it is immoral to kill the child since his/her life cannot be valued more than the mother's. In many cases in which the mother's life is in jeopardy the child will not survive birth either. In such cases this objection is a mute point since it is only possible to save the mother's life or no life.

In cases where it might be possible to save one or the other examples illustrate that abortion is acceptable. Take for instance a man who is attempting to kill another man. Is it within the second man's rights to defend himself by killing the first man? I would say yes because it is illogical for the second man to allow himself to be killed. If he were to do so then on a large scale evil would dominate everything because immoral people would kill the good and control the world without anyone being morally able to raise a finger to stop them.
In cases where an individual is harming another individual it appears to be morally acceptable to act harmfully in return because the first person must have waved his/her rights by committing it. By causing the death of its mother the fetus is relinquishing its right not to be harmed.

There is a possible distinction between the fetus and the first man. Unlike the man the fetus may not be actively willing harm to its mother but causing it nonetheless. A giant is walking around the woods one day as he normally does. As it so happens the giant is quite blind and cannot see what is below him. He happens upon a village of little folk and walks through it squashing many of them. The little folk army gathers together its most powerful weapons and kills the giant as he is making his return pass back to his home. Just like the fetus the giant is unintentionally causing harm to people. Lets say he's even a nice guy who would be horrified if he'd known what he was doing. Is it still morally wrong to kill him? I would again say no since the little folk have a right not to be squashed by giants and they didn't go and try to kill him first. The distinction of intention seems irrelevant to whether or not one can defend oneself from an individual attempting to cause oneself harm.

I believe I have satisfactorily explained my position and the reasoning behind it. If something is unclear please comment and I’ll try to do better.

Foodstamp Reform: A Response To The Don

The Don has made some interesting points about the Foodstamp Program, which I feel is worth discussing here as well. Don’s first two complaints about the program are concerns I’ve had about it for a long time.

“1.The Foodstamp Program is outdated because it has no restriction on items: Customers are free to buy any cold food item, including soda, candy bars, gum, potato chips, etc.

2. The Foodstamp Program is wasteful of tax payers' money: Customers are free to spend funds however they wish, in which they tend to buy expensive items (such as made to order sandwiches) rather than basic foods (such as flour, bread, packaged meat) for wholesome meals.”

The system is wasteful because it allows people to spend money on foods that are expensive rather than more basic necessary foods. People are also allowed to buy unhealthy foods. To me this seems unacceptable since the program was intended to help people. Don’s third point is that the stamps are abused on non-food items such as cigarettes and alcohol. I seem to remember some fraud cases involving the sale of alcohol in exchange for food stamps. This is illegal but a certain amount of corruption is involved in any program this size since there are quite a few evil individuals in the world.

“4. The Foodstamp Program sets no goal: Foodstamps customers are given no incentive to get out of this Foodstamps-dependent state. On the contrary, it encourages customers to remain in this state.”

Any welfare without a limit is bound to have a number of users who see no reason to better themselves when they can get a free ride. This is another form of corruption and these people have as much a share in evil as the others.

“5. The Foodstamps Program rewards immorality: People who have premarital sex and get pregnant are easily eligible for Foodstamps. This mindset in a way rewards premarital sex. Only those in financially desperate situations should be eligible for Foodstamps.”

Point five I disagree with. Unlike Don, I am not convinced that premarital sex is immoral in all conceivable cases. I could provide examples I think explain this position here but that would be going off topic. This said I would not engage in premarital sex because of the risks of unplanned pregnancy. I do not believe that food stamps themselves are sufficient incentive to convince people to get pregnant out of wedlock.

To begin with, unplanned pregnancies cause extreme emotional strain, which is aversive enough that I doubt any benefit from the stamps would be seen as a reward. Also, raising the child itself would be even more emotionally and financially straining even if one has food stamps to alleviate some of that. The problem here is not with premarital sex but with sexual promiscuity. Those who engage in unprotected sex repeatedly and get pregnant many times over are a drain on the system. I believe these individuals are evil or immoral because they ensure almost beyond doubt that their many children will grow up in poverty and will likely not get out of it.

I am sure it is unintentional but Don seems to lump all premarital pregnancies into the category of needing the assistance of foodstamps. I can see how teenagers and younger couples might need the assistance since they are the least likely to be financially secure. However, there are many individuals who are in this situation that are financially capable of supporting themselves and do not use foodstamps.

With a time limit imposed upon use of the system and the help of someone like a social worker as Don suggests I would expect a decrease in the waste of taxpayer money. The downside is a time limit might also increase the number of abortions since unwed or even wed couples may choose to abort rather than bear the great expense of raising another child. At the very least the poor may be forced to put the children up for adoption, which would actually increase the burden upon the state. A time limit may also drive some couples to be more responsible and use protection or abstain from intercourse. I think a majority of people would use the options of abortion and adoption since there is a deficiency of self-control and responsibility in many individuals. The good news is if the children are given to the state for adoption it is possible they would be raised to be more responsible than their parents. But that would require an overhaul of an entirely different system, which is already strained and does not do a good job for the majority of unfortunate children. It should begin to become obvious here that the problem is not all with the system but with people themselves.

Don’s ideas for reform are good but I would make a few suggestions. Make it a food card system instead of a food stamp system. Instead of just restricting the food items have set standard meals that all users receive weekly. The meal size would be based on the height and weight of the individuals receiving the food credits. It would be enough to keep them healthy but not allow them to over indulge since it is only meant to keep them from starving. The cards would have a limit of three meals a day given out weekly. Using cards would have the added benefit of allowing the government to track expenditures and make oversight a little easier. I think someone would still come up with a way to abuse the system for profit, but like I said before some corruption is unavoidable. Until we change people we will never have a truly efficient system.

Frosted Window

I originally wrote this short for my creative writing class. I've expanded upon it a little. I chose to present it in that class because I think it brings to mind interesting thoughts.

The wind swirled the snow outside as the man stared through a frosted window of his small home. It was dark. He could barely see the shadowy trees as they swayed lightly in the frigid gusts. He wondered how long he could stay here, in his comfortable home, before they found him. He did not think about this with any sort of alarm, only with curious uncertainty. The man stood from his seat by the window and walked to a small counter, which served as his kitchen. As he prepared some hot chocolate for himself, he continued to think about the people searching for him. He had caused them a great deal of pain and embarrassment over the few short years he had been at war with them. He had exposed their endeavors and assassinated many of their people. Yet he had been unable to win his war. There were simply too many of them to shine light on or eliminate. He took pleasure in the thought that he had caused them to feel, in their own way, the pain they inflicted upon others. His hot chocolate prepared he returned to his seat by the window. He waited and thought. He still wondered if he was a good person anymore now that he had done so many of the evil things they had. He decided he wasn’t but he was still better than them and on the right side. He had tried eliminating their vile existence in another manner, a peaceful manner. But he could not convince the vileness that it was indeed vile and needed to go away. The man sighed thinking that his attempt had been about as useful as petting a porcupine the wrong way. It not only was an unreasonable creature but had also decided to leave him with several painfully well-placed barbs. At least he had tried. He continued to wait and stare out the frosted window at the snow-covered landscape until they came and made him disappear.

A Quote of Wisdom

Here is a quote that I think has an important meaning.

"Evil men obsessed by ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply,"- George W. Bush

We'll Trade You Pat Robertson for the Journalist

Well, it's been a long time since I've posted. I'm sorry if anyone was reading and was disappointed that I haven't continued. I had all of my wisdom teeth extracted and didn't feel like writing. So I'm kicking off the New Year a little late with another post on Pat Robertson.

In his statements on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson alludes to Ariel Sharon's stroke as being "divine punishment" from God for splitting up the holy land.

“The prophet Joel clearly says that there is enmity for those who –and I quote: “divide my country”. God feels this is His land. Read the Bible, where he says : “It is my land”. And regarding any Israeli Prime Minister who decides to divide it and give it away, God says : “No. It is mine”. Ariel Sharon was a very nice man, a person whose company was wonderful…I prayed with him in private. And now he is about to die. He was dividing God’s land and I would say: poor any Prime Minister who takes the same path to relieve the European Union, the United Nations and the United States of America. God said: “This land belongs to me. Leave it alone!”-The 700 Club, Pat Robertson.

I restate what I've said before, is there no better way to use network airtime than allow Pat on to damage foreign relations?

On another note, Jill Carroll, a 28 year-old freelance reporter for the Christian Science Monitor was captured by an Islamic terrorist group who threatens to execute her if the U.S. does not release all Iraqi female prisoners. Hopefully, an American Muslim advocacy group traveling to Iraq can secure her release. We wish them the best of luck.