The Edge of Forever

Star Trek: A Review

2010-03-03T14:45:00.003-05:00

I must admit I didn't go to the theater to see the new Star Trek movie when it came out. This is not uncommon for me though as I don't often see movies when they are first released. Since then I have had the opportunity to view it on DVD. I have my share of complaints but first I'll speak to the good stuff that was done.

The special effects are way over the top. You get the impression you are watching Star Wars rather than Star Trek. However, this is not a bad thing. It keeps one visually interested in the movie as Star Trek's new feel is supposed to be an action packed trek through the stars. The pace is fast and quite right for the movie. Anyone expecting long psuedo-scientific explanations of how temporal physics works is going to be sorely disappointed.

For many years I have wondered how ships in the Star Trek universe get by armed with only one or two phasers and a torpedo tube. Finally, someone fixed the inconsistency of these giant ships only having/firing one beam at a time. Despite the overly artistic sweep of the nacelles and curves of the ship itself the new Enterprise actually looks more realistic in combat than any Star Trek ship before it. My feeling is that if anyone says the new ship looks too unrealistic 'why not?' If your civilization is advanced enough to build something like that then surely it can take the time to make it look cool not just functional.

Aside from all that is new and good the movie still has plot holes you could fit a borg cube through. Just like the franchise since the beginning of Voyager and a few of the previous films there is a distinct lack of thought put into the writing. For those who haven't seen the film yet turn back now. I give you spoilers!

For as nicely designed the exterior of the Enterprise is its engineering section looks like a plumber's nightmare. Industrial pipes are everywhere and the entire area is so cluttered with industrial backdrop one can't even identify where the reactor powering the ship is. While the industrial look is an interesting take on the engineering section and visually stimulating it clashes horribly with the sterile white environment of the rest of the ship as well as its sleek exterior. The set designers should have hired someone to put up dry wall to hide the plumbing.

Due to a change in the time stream Kirk grows up without a father and ends up as a punk kid. What is horrible about the way they introduce this aspect in the film is he doesn't even appear to be an exceptional punk kid. The scene I refer to is when the young Kirk steals his uncle's car to go joy riding. He speeds down a long flat road in Iowa before encountering a highway patrolman who resembles robo cop. After a short chase sequence he is captured. This scene is completely pointless because one gets the intended idea that Kirk in this new universe is nothing more than a punk in the very next scene Kirk has at the cliche bar fight. The makers of this film would have been much better served by showing the real Kirk shining through allowing him to ditch the cop at the end of the chase scene. I personally expected him to pull a quick breaking move and watch the cop on his hover bike go sailing into a nearby canyon unharmed but unable to get back up the cliff to continue the pursuit. Unfortunately, this Kirk appears far too common an individual for such clever tactics.

Another blip on the plot hole radar is the Enterprise being assembled in Iowa. This does serve a useful purpose in allowing Kirk to see and connect with "his ship" which inevitably leads him to take Captain Pike's advice and join Starfleet. It unfortunately does so at the expense of believability. How is one going to get that gigantic thing into space? Did anyone stop to think that's why we have the shipyards at Utopia Planetia? The writers/director could have just had Kirk spend the scene gazing up at the stars in contemplation since one would surmise the adventure they offered would be attractive to someone of his character.

Rather than a Kirk who is successful with the ladies we get a Kirk who strikes out with Uhura and gets beaten in the race for her affections by Spock! The only redemption Kirk has in the love department is a slutty Orion girl. The romance scenes between Spock and Uhura come out of the blue and are paced the same as the action sequences. This doesn't really give you the sense of how the romance developed or the time one would want in revealing those deeply hidden Vulcan emotions. The whole idea reads as an attempt to throw Spock fans a bone. Hey Trekkies, you can be a logic geek and lucky with the ladies too!

Poorly developed romances aside the most glaring problem with the plot is how it all wraps up. Kirk and Spock fail to fix everything that changed and the old Spock didn't even return to his own time. This is a glaring problem because Spock is a master of time travel. It should have been easy for Spock and Kirk to use the time traveling ship with its red matter to go back, head off the Romulans before they could change anything, and put things back pretty much as they were before. They could have even had the young Kirk returning to the future with Spock with an explanation that his universe that branched off no longer existed when things were put right but he was protected from the change by being in the time ship when it happened. This would have allowed the reuse of a great character for future movies and left the time stream relatively intact.

Unfortunately, it appears to me Paramount wants to break from cannon so they can have an easier time writing scripts. They seem to view all the depth and history that makes Star Trek such a rich universe as baggage dragging down the franchise rather than their poor writing and ideas. I think if one wants to change cannon then one should do it on meaningless stuff like how many weapons a starship has or what it looks like rather than destroying entire planets and changing major characters into that which they aren't.

Despite all the things which could be better with the plot Star Trek makes a wonderful film as a remake loosely based on the concept of Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry. Watch it, enjoy the action, and if you are familiar with Star Trek try to suspend disbelief when the plot defies all logic.

Why All Religions are Wrong, Atheists have Faith, and Agnostics don't Know Jack

2008-12-10T15:06:00.003-05:00

The following article is a philosophical walk through faith and religion, or lack thereof. Many things I write and post here I am not completely happy with like the Art of Violence and Justice Series among others. I feel when writing many of these articles that I haven't fully done my job and found the complete answers to the questions posed. I always feel like I've found some though. The same may be said for this article and what I like about all my work is that it promotes thought on these subjects in others. We all have many questions in life that need answering even if we may not be fully aware of them all the time.

Why All Religions are Wrong, Atheists have Faith, and Agnostics don’t Know Jack.

Humanity throughout its existence has believed many things. There have been sun gods, gods of the underworld, spirits of good or evil, concepts of karma and reincarnation. Many religions have risen and fallen across humanity’s existence. What is constant from religion to religion is the belief of the people of each religion that their own is the one true belief system. It is a frustratingly complex task given the sheer number of religions and their varying denominations to choose among them the one true belief system.

What makes all religions wrong is this overwhelming belief by all of humanity that their religion is the only true religion. It is the arrogance and vanity of such belief that shows religions could only be created by humanity and not of divine origin. Only humanity would put forth the idea “that I, because I believe, am more worthy than the non-believers”. Religions claim the unreasonable.

Many people in the new world died without ever knowing of Allah, God, the Jews, Jesus, Zeus, Osiris, or Satan. Yet to not believe in Christian doctrine, among others, is to be damned. These individuals had no knowledge of the beliefs of the religion yet would be punished by such contrived rules of divine morality. Limbo was brought into being by an inspired mind as the waiting room of God for individuals so unfortunate as these. Still limbo did not and does not exist in many religions. The idea one should be punished for lack of knowledge and even opportunity to believe is in total opposition to the concept of an omni-benevolent deity.

The odds that one’s religion is the one true religion are extremely small when given all the varying beliefs that exist and have existed in the world. To have to choose between them is as good as saying “damn yourself with your choice”. Whichever one you pick you will likely pick the wrong one.

In reality very few people even have the opportunity to make a choice such as the Native Americans before Columbus’s time. In other places one either believes what they are told or dies. It is in complete opposition to the idea of belief to deny one a free choice of their faith. Such a choice is not a choice at all and the forced belief merely the shadow of faith. These individuals go through the motions without ever choosing. Are they damned by their lack of options like the Native Americans?

How many people even question their beliefs even if given the option? We are born into the societies we are by fate or chance. What beliefs are there we are taught and they become our own beliefs. What our parents believe we generally believe. We never set out to decide from the start what our beliefs will be. It is by happy chance that a human ever decides to question and then make a choice as it generally goes against everything one is taught.

What makes one so fortunate as to be born in such a situation that one is given the opportunity to know of God and the one true faith from birth or even to hear of it, learn it, and believe it later? A truly omni-benevolent God would want all to benefit so such a God is in complete contradiction to reality. An omnipotent God would have the power to make it happen yet it is not so. If a divine being exists then it must not be what many religions teach for such a being and our reality do not lend themselves to be compatible. Such a being is either not omni-benevolent or not omnipotent. If not omnipotent why call him God, if not benevolent then why worship him?

The best chance one has of choosing correctly is to say that all religions are wrong. There is good evidence that they are all contrived by humanity and to choose one among many is an exercise in futility. Religions go far beyond the belief and concept of a divine being they outline scores of rules and ways of behavior. Unlike believers of many faiths philosophers are not fools they do not attempt to argue over which brands of meat God views as abominable. They may argue over God’s omnipotence, his omni-benevolence, his omniscience but they know enough to say that it is completely arrogant and impossible to determine what God would have on his deli sandwich or which hole God prefers to stick it in. Taking a look at the odds there is a fifty-fifty chance of God, an all powerful being, existing. Also by the odds there is an astronomically small chance that God, an all powerful being, enjoys being addressed with male pronouns, prefers beef to pork, decided to take six days to make the world instead of one or maybe a billion. Each addition is just another coin to flip and continually adds to the improbability of the claim. When faced with choosing between the impossible and choosing against it we are better served if we choose to say that all religions are wrong for in each case non-existence/non-belief is always the alternative, we have a fifty percent chance of being correct.

Those that are atheist constantly claim that they have lost faith and no longer believe in God or an afterlife. The problem is that they fail to justify a disbelief in both. Every reason for becoming an atheist I have read has always been in objection to the religion not to the existence of God or the existence of an afterlife. There is a distinct difference between a religion and God. There is a difference between God and there being an afterlife. Atheists, on the whole, fail to use reason and philosophy to argue against there being a God. Even in rejecting all religion one does not have to reject the existence of God or an afterlife. God is not inextricably tied to religion nor is the concept of an afterlife to God.

Atheists fall for the same poor reasoning that believers of religion do in their belief. They attempt to claim more about the divine than they reasonably can. It is simple to reject religion for it can be shown to be nothing but the desires and arrogance of man. It is another step and another thing entirely to say that an omnipotent being does not exist. There is no way to disprove such a belief beyond doubt and in an existence of limitlessness, in time or space, one, the other, or both, it is reasonable to say that one has existed, does exist, or may exist in the future. On the other side of the coin, the one atheists blindly leap to without due consideration of the former consideration, there appears to be no indication that such a being is actively doing anything involved in our existence in the present.

It is the same with the idea of the afterlife. Atheists seem to leap to the conclusion that their existence will enter a permanent state of cessation just because there is no God. It apparently never occurs to many of them that there does not need to be a God for there to be an afterlife. In an existence of limitlessness it is arrogant to say that you will never be, never exist, again.

Before I get accused of leaping to a conclusion like atheists and believers let me say that there is no reason not to believe in the limitlessness of existence. This is not the same as ceaselessness as one may cease yet one may also come into being. I exist now, I continue to exist, I have evidence which suggests many things existed before I became aware, I have every reason to believe I, the parts of me, shall continue to exist even after I cease being aware. If the universe had a beginning and will have an end then I see no reason another could not begin or ours begin again. I may yet still exist as part of that universe or one of the many after. If the universe is continuous, without end, then I will without a doubt continue with it. The form in which I do so is irrelevant and in a limitless existence one may have many, similar, and the same form or forms. In these forms I may be aware, or not, yet it is a distinct possibility that in some I will be aware.

At the same time there is no argument to refute beyond a doubt that everything simply ends at some point. I can reasonably argue that believing everything comes to nothing is futile because in believing and arguing for such a thing one’s argument is pointless. The believer, belief, and argument will end up not existing and there is no logic in believing in something that isn’t there, like a mirage. But on the coin of reality existence and non-existence are equal fifty-fifty chances.

When the coin comes into play, then so must faith, in order for one to believe in either the existence or non-existence of something since there is nothing to recommend one choice over the other. Hence, all atheists have faith they merely choose to believe in the non-existence of things rather than in the existence of them. In reaching this faith they commit the same type of errors as believers in leaping to say “since my belief in this religion is wrong then my beliefs that there is/are a God, gods, or an afterlife is/are wrong as well” and in so doing believe unreasonably.

Given what we know, that those of faith, whether of religion or atheist, believe unreasonably it seems reasonable to adopt an agnostic stance to existence, or lack thereof, of the divine. When the answer is admittedly beyond our determination, withholding judgment, suspending belief, and striving to come to a better understanding from which to make a determination is the best we as human beings can do.

In reality agnosticism means “we don’t know jack”, we can never know. That is something that human beings cannot possibly accept because of our nature. We must come to an understanding at some point if we merely collect enough information. It does not factor into our drive for understanding that there may be no way to collect enough information or analyze that which we have thoroughly enough to reach an answer. It seems absurd to us that we could live in such a universe where not all answers may be obtainable.

For salvation from this unceasing cycle and feeling of being trapped where we are in our understanding we turn to faith. We choose to believe in something rather than to withhold belief. Faith is by no means a wrong to have as it can by chance lead to the right answers but it is wrong to take a leap of faith. To take a leap of faith is to choose faith over knowing the possibilities and the likelihoods. If we ignore them then we limit ourselves to being unreasonable. When the possibilities and likely hoods have ended we can choose between agnosticism and faith. But when doing so we do not forget that our faith is merely faith and not truth. It is important that our truth be only what we can reach through logical thought for otherwise we have rejected what we have learned and all reason. It is a human thing to be unreasonable but it is not a desirable thing.

In summation, all religions are wrong, atheists have faith, agnostics don’t know jack, and its ok to believe in something as long as we don’t take ourselves too seriously.

The Desk

2008-07-18T22:40:00.001-04:00

More to the surface than meets the sense of touch.
More that is not seen.
We do not know what.
The shine of metal gleams
and emptiness presides through time.

-The Major

The Art of Violence and Justice 3

2008-05-22T15:02:00.001-04:00

If you have not read at least the second post on The Art of Violence and Justice then please do so before reading this or you will be lost.

In answer to the first hypothetical scenario of my last post the prisoner would always be morally right in not killing the guards in his attempt to free himself. Such an individual would be a martyr of a sort. If the prisoner kills the guards then it is my belief that he does not become evil even with the fact that the guards are good individuals. The reason for this is when one does evil then one’s right to not have evil inflicted upon one in return is nullified. The guards, even unaware of this, have opened themselves up to the possibility of retaliation against themselves by their actions and choices i.e. holding an innocent man captive. The prisoner is, of course, taking his own chances in this moral system by escaping. In the guards’ reality the prisoner is the evil one forfeiting his right not to be harmed by what they believe he has done and by inflicting harm upon them in an escape attempt. So in the end no one is doing any wrong here as far as the prisoner and guards are concerned.

While I do not make the claim that killing is purely good in this instance of the guards and prisoner I do make the claim that it is morally acceptable or neutral. Killing in self-defense I should think would be viewed in much the same way as the defender does not likely enjoy having killed his/her attacker but deemed it as necessary to his/her wellbeing and in line with an individuals moral rights.

The essential rule of this moral system is demonstrated in the following example. Suppose one is attacked by another individual and that individual is intent on killing you. You would be on sound moral ground if you killed that individual. Now suppose that you had the option of instead of killing this individual in return to merely subdue him with a reasonably high chance of success say around 99.99%. By taking the action he has this attacker has forfeited his right to not be killed but the defender has the option of killing the attacker or sparing his life. So killing the attacker would be a neutral action because he has forfeited his moral rights but sparing his life would be a good action because it was not necessary but went a step further.

Acts considered evil in one instance and neutral or good in another lead us to the conclusion that it may possibly be that the end justifies the means. This is not supported at all as the moral system here is situational but also governed by a rule system. When one is committing evil acts one is morally open to them being inflicted upon oneself. While those acts may become neutral and forgiven in the end (or after the fact) when the results are clear the present shows them to be immoral and unjustifiable. It may be entirely up to moral luck as to whether or not the end result comes out as something good as well. So when one does evil one is essentially taking a gamble with one’s essence as to whether or not one is good or evil in existence and not just taking one single wrong action. This brings in the situational aspect. When one has other options it is inherently wrong to do evil therefore the ends do not justify the means as long as there are other means.

Now as to the second example the person involved is free. As such this individual has other options than to initially kill the guards and help the prisoner escape. Following this moral system the individual should exhaust all other means to free the prisoner before killing the guards. Though if all other means are exhausted then such an action would be acceptable.

These examples unlike in the original post of The Art of Violence and Justice do follow true justice as all actions happen merely to establish equity and give those wronged back what they had lost or were threatened with losing. The original post dealt with an example of a person without options other than vengeance and possibly vengeance with equity. I’m not entirely sure I made that distinction well but it was meant to be there as that individual was meant to be recouping loss rather than merely inflicting it back upon others.

I believe I have sufficiently answered these moral dilemmas and introduced the system of moral rights. I intend to go more in depth with this system in later posts.

The Art of Violence and Justice 2

2008-05-22T15:00:00.000-04:00

In my previous post The Art of Violence and Justice I discussed a hypothetical scenario involving an individual who was in an irreconcilable situation from which there was no apparent escape without the use of violence. In the end of the line of thought I found that violence was unnecessary even in that airtight hypothetical situation. However, I also found that the individual was left with the options of defeat or committing illegal acts. Illegal was found not to be the same as immoral. I also wrote that even though this hypothetical situation did not pan out to leave the individual with a violent option as the only recourse to extricate one from one’s problems, it was conceivable that there were other situations in which one might be forced to do violence without having violence first done to oneself. Since writing that post I have continued to think on the subject and have come up with a couple more hypothetical situations.

The first situation is one in which an individual is falsely accused of murder, tried, convicted and imprisoned. The individual is not on death row as that would mean the possibility of violence would be visited upon him first and doing violence in self-defense to escape that would make a certain moral sense. The question in this case is if a person has a right to harm or kill others to secure one’s own freedom. Most specifically when one has done no wrong yet has been imprisoned. We’ll say that in this hypothetical society in which he exists he has no hope for an appeal or chance to be proven innocent and released. Suppose that this individual is held in a maximum security prison yet one day finds himself in a position with the chance to escape in a transfer to a new facility of equal security. The only problem is that to do so he would have to kill a couple of guards. In other words, he won’t get as lucky as Harrison Ford in The Fugitive and have them die of their own accord. This presents something of a paradox since in order to escape he must become a murderer even though he wasn’t a murderer to begin with. One might question whether or not killing these guards would be murder since they are in fact serving an immoral justice in keeping this individual imprisoned. But that begs the question of whether these guards are evil or not. It is not immoral to destroy evil so if the guards are evil then they may conceivably be killed without tarnishing one’s soul. It leaves the prisoner with having to judge the moral fiber of the guards. In this case, I will simplify the situation and say that one can be good and still serve evil though I think one would have to be almost totally deceived by it to do so. So the guards appear to be good individuals who have wives and go to see their children’s school plays. Our prisoner is not going to be able to get out of this one and still remain a good person. He is left with either suffering in his existence or becoming a murderer. Yet this again confuses our problem entirely because the individual is only seeking something good for himself and if anyone knew the truth of his predicament they would most surely seek his release. Yet we also are saying he cannot do it because by committing one (or two evil acts if you count it separate for the death of each guard) would make this individual evil. Maybe he escapes to a tropical island and has a pleasant existence for the rest of his days and isn’t caught during his escape attempt. It may very well be that after killing both guards the individual escapes and never kills/murders anyone ever again. So we are brought back to the problem of the guards committing evil acts without knowledge of doing so. We are working from the premise that one can be good even while one is or has in the past committed evil acts so that would mean that it is entirely possible our individual could still be a murderer and a good person. The other option is that acts matter and if you engage in certain ones then you are automatically evil. In the first case the individual could get away with murder because he isn’t evil though he might feel deep regret over doing so and in the other case he could kill the guards without pangs of conscience because they are evil by the fact they are committing evil acts. It seems that in this case violence is unavoidable save the individual taking upon himself another’s punishment till the time at which his dismal existence ends. This problem is deeply complex and I am unsatisfied with any of the options available.

The second situation is one in which an individual knows another is being held against his/her will yet to free him/her one would need to kill many innocent people. We’ll say there are guards at the prison who think this second person has committed murder. The guards are merely doing their jobs but they are undoubtedly committing an evil act by keeping this individual imprisoned. The free individual has a moral obligation to see that the other individual is not imprisoned against his/her will. Yet to carry out on that obligation one is forced to commit seemingly evil acts. As you can see we are left with the same quandary in this situation as the first one. The answer to these situations is in the distinction between evil acts and evil existences as well as good acts and good existences.

Finding the difference between these things is a complex task which I have set for myself. However, it is a vital question to morality and yes I have come to some conclusions about it. I ask that anyone who reads this thinks upon the problem of these hypothetical situations and once having given it some thought, then read my next post.

My Pro Obama Thing

2008-02-27T15:55:00.005-05:00

Why not Hilary? White Water, has already failed to get one health care bill passed, voted to invade Iraq(then tried to rescind vote), I don't buy the experience thing(the first lady picks out china doesn't decide foreign policy WITH China), anyone notice how much Hilary likes to say she's for change AFTER Obama said it?, the crying thing was as phony as Guilliani's phone calls from his wife(put it on vibrate), did you ever plan to win any of the last 8+ states?(play it down play it down), wow she's really lucky to have avoided all that sniper fire, five letters supported by Hillary and destroyed the US economy Answer: NAFTA(I guess Ohio likes being in the rust belt), I don't want to hear another 4-8 more years of Monica Lewinski jokes on SNL.

Don't Kiss in India... they might arrest you.

2007-06-30T14:58:00.001-04:00

This is an old story but still worth commenting on. It is safe to say that Richard Gere will not be invited back to India anytime soon after he kissed actress Shilpa Shettyat an awards ceremony. It, of course, caused cries of outrage from many Indians because such public displays of affection are frowned upon. Gere has apologized for offending those who watched the awards ceremony. One Indian province actually issued an arrest warrant for both Gere and Shilpa! This incident makes India the laughing stock of the western world for sure since FOX broadcast two women kissing here in the states and no one got arrested. I take offense to this sort of behavior coming from a supposedly civilized democracy. It is ridiculous and to put it mildly, impolite to arrest guests of your country for making social gaffes. Gere, like most Americans, I’m sure had no clue about the no kissing in public taboo of India. On top of that he apologized, yet they went ahead and issued a warrant anyway, though a higher court canceled it later. Punishing someone from a foreign land who clearly is unaware of certain cultural niceties is horribly unfair. Heck, I think punishing someone who is unaware of a law in general should be unconstitutional. Such laws place the entire burden on the individual to know everything about the law, or in this case society, no mater how obscure or face punishment. Society has a duty to be understanding to the circumstances of the individual. We do not execute our mentally challenged individuals for murder in this country because they are unaware of the wrongness of their actions. I have problems with the court ruling that decided this since I feel the level of incapacity of the individual in that case wasn’t enough to justify commuting his sentence but I still feel the general principle of forgiving those who know no better holds true. The Indian courts and public have certainly been less than understanding to the circumstances of Ms. Shetty. While Mr. Gere has been somewhat forgiven, at least enough to not face further legal action, Ms. Shetty still has a court battle ahead of her. Amazingly, the geniuses behind issuing the arrest warrants think that just because she got kissed by Mr. Gere the offense to there overly sensitive sensibilities is her fault. I’ve seen the video footage, she was as surprised as everyone else. These officials should be ashamed of themselves blaming this on the poor woman when it was Richard Gere who did the grabbing and kissing. All I see from this fiasco are a bunch of vindictive and by American standards prudish individuals who are trying to punish whoever they can to save face because they can’t punish who they really want, Richard Gere. If anyone knows anything about the evolution of Indian culture I would sincerely like to know how kissing in public came to be considered public indecency. Please post up in comments if you have them.

The Student's Paradox

2007-06-30T14:52:00.001-04:00

The Student’s Paradox

1. If you know a subject (S), then you waste your time going to a teacher of S in order to learn S from her. [p(remise)]
2. You shouldn't waste your time (i.e. do less valuable things when you could be doing more valuable things). [p]
3. Therefore, if you know S, you shouldn't go to a teacher of S. [1,2]
4. If you don't know S, then you take an unreasonable risk (of acquiring false beliefs) in going to a "teacher" of S in order to learn S from her. [p]
5. You shouldn't take unreasonable risks. [p]
6. Therefore, if you don't know S, you shouldn't go to a teacher of S.
7. But there are only two possibilities: you either know S or you don't know S. [p]
8. Therefore, either way, you should never go to a teacher of any subject. [3,6,7]

This paradox is an old favorite of mine since it proves why one should never attend class. It was part of the first lesson of my ancient philosophy course. Fortunately for my professor everyone still attended pretty regularly for the rest of the semester so he still gets paid. This paradox works well enough that my entire philosophy class failed to refute it and we moved on to other things later in the week. For my part, I haven’t really tried since I was amused the entire time watching my professor argue with his students about why they shouldn’t attend his class. So I think I’ll take up refuting this paradox now. 1, 2, and 3, are all fairly reasonable arguments since if you know something you’d be wasting your time going to a teacher to learn it. The key to the paradox is in part 4 where learning from a teacher is put forth as an unreasonable risk of being taught something which is false. If risking learning a false belief is unreasonable then the paradox is true. If the risk, however, is reasonable then it fails to be a paradox. The problem for the student is that in going to a teacher to learn a subject, he places himself at risk of learning false information. The student has no way of judging the validity of any information from the teacher because he has no prior reference from which to judge the truth of the information. It seems to me that in order to be taking an unreasonable risk the student would have to be learning from an individual who has shown no prior indications of trustworthiness, or worse, indications of being untrustworthy. The student could judge whether or not to believe what the teacher tells him based upon what the teacher tells him about what he already knows to be truth. A teacher who is in agreement with the student about what the student already knows to be truth is thereby trustworthy and learning from him/her is not an unreasonable risk. Another method might be to compare the instruction of several scholars who claim to know the truth. If they agree then they are either all right or all wrong but one has a 50/50 chance to learn true beliefs from them. This is better odds than visiting a casino (unless you are betting on black or red at the roulette table or card counting at Blackjack) so I wouldn’t consider it an unreasonable risk to learn something from a teacher when all teachers are in agreement. In the case where teachers do not agree on the truth then the safe bet is to bet against all of them that they are all wrong and to not learn from any of them. There can be only one truth but there may be many falsehoods. Out of 30 different answers from 30 different scholars only one may be right i.e. 1/30 chance of picking the right one to learn from. This leaves 29/30 false beliefs one could acquire. Trying to find the one true belief out of 30 scholars is an impossibility with no prior knowledge of the subject. This leaves us with what we do know for certain and that is 29/30 have to be wrong. Also, it is a possibility that even 30/30 could be wrong since we have no way to judge the validity of the 30 different truths. I think this satisfactorily demonstrates the difference between unreasonable risk and reasonable risk. While writing this I’ve thought about its application to religion. It could be said that it is entirely unreasonable to believe in any religion because there are many, many different religions each with its own truth. The person trying to decide which religion to believe in has no prior knowledge of the truth of any of them. This is why in order to believe in a religion one is said to have faith. To a mathematician this mean, you are taking your chances. By my calculations those are probably something like 1?/2600 the question mark meaning that with no prior knowledge to judge even the one religion that is supposedly right could really be wrong. So lets make it something like 0/2601. That is as good as saying the truth, if such a thing even exists, hasn’t been found yet. Which makes the agnostics right, so far. Good luck, in your own searches for truth. Until next post, keep thinking on this.

The Songbird

2007-06-30T14:51:00.001-04:00

Like a songbird he lies
In his nest, in his cage
Protected from the world outside
From anger, hatred, and covetous crimes.

Does anyone hear the songbird cry?
The despair and anguish floating from his cage
Through the woven wicker bars he cries
As the seasons slowly change.

Finally, the songbird rests
Trapped behind thorny vines
Waiting for the light of day
As darkness smothers his heartfelt cries
Enfolding his song until it dies.

No one listened from outside.

The Art of Violence and Justice

2007-05-08T00:36:00.000-04:00

The key question to any philosophy of morality is "When, if at all, is it permissible to do violence to others?"

In one of my earlier posts I discussed the idea of self-defense as being a reasonable instance in which one can morally do others harm. When one attacks another physically one is breaking the compact of "do no harm to others" and therefore leaves the protection granted by that moral clause and can be harmed in turn.

What I failed to discuss in that writing was any sort of case where an individual is harmed not by physical means but by social, economic, or bureaucratic means. In such a case would it be permissible to resort to physical violence? Most people would probably answer no, but then no one would think that it would be impossible to solve such problems by non-violent means.

However, let us make an example of such a case where communication and bargaining will not work. Let us say that there is an individual who's boss hates him. This could be for a variety of reasons, perhaps he is of a different race, perhaps he is gay, or perhaps he simply refuses to cover up a mismanagement of funds by the department(not embezzlement just poorly managed). Suffice it to say that the man is hated by his manager to the extent that manager makes his work a living hell and will eventually fire him if he can't force him to resign. The man has clearly done nothing wrong to the company but he is none-the-less at the mercy of his manager. Because he is such a hard working individual he will put up with all the indecencies of being moved to the office by the toilets and getting stapler stolen. In the end he is fired. The higher ups he appealed to were all friends of the manager and ignored his please that he had done nothing wrong. They had trumped up charges of insubordination and lack of positive work ethic to fire him on. The next day he sets out to find a new job and in the coming weeks realizes that his previous employer has spread his name around town as someone who is not to be hired. He can't find a job and in the meantime the rent is coming due. He has no money left with which to hire a lawyer to fight his employer in court over his unfair firing. He is up a creak and will have to move elsewhere to find a job probably in a city several states over and he will have to sleep in his car until he can afford to pay rent again. Those who did him wrong get off without so much as a filed lawsuit.

So there is our conundrum, what is our individual to do? Should he go do some massive property damage to their vehicles? Or maybe rough one up in an alley some night for payback? Perhaps he should stick to non-violent means and spread vicious rumors about his employer to get him fired? But what about the lawsuit that is sure to follow since he has no proof that his employer did anything wrong... they'd end up taking his car and the shirt on his back too. Our options seem to come down to some sort of vengeance.

Most people would likely say that vengeance is wrong, an eye for an eye leaves all men blind etc. etc. But in the end there is no justice left for our poor evicted employee. Sure some might say that there will come a final justice after death but I'm not one for counting on that. After all we didn't wait for Hitler to die to try to make him pay for his crimes why should we wait for someone much easier to punish? Just a few slices of some tires or maybe a baseball bat and our dear friend will have taken back his loses or well... at least inflicted them equally upon those who have done him harm. This seems to be the key difference between vengeance and justice. Vengeance inflicts similar harm upon others while justice lends itself to retaking that which has been taken. So for our dear individual in order to engage in justice would need to do something other than bash in a few windshields.

While vengeance can be somewhat cathartic what seems to make it immoral is that one is not trying to achieve equity but instead inflict the same inequity upon others. This can be a difficult distinction for one to make especially in moments of injustice being inflicted upon oneself. One's anger can often get the better of one. This brings us back to figuring out what options our homeless individual is left with that do not lead him down the immoral path.

The answer I have come up with is quite simple but may be difficult in execution none-the-less if one wants justice sometimes one cannot follow the letter of the law. The law and justice do not always coincide as many unfair convictions of people who were thought to be rapists attest to(Thank you DNA testing). Essentially, our man would have to commit grand theft auto and take his employer's vehicle to the local chop shop. Upon his arrival he will be paid a sufficient enough sum to move to another town pay for an apartment with his restitution money and find a new job. Hopefully, it will be one with a kind individual as a boss. This is justice and not vengeance for the pure reason that our man takes no violent action against his employers or their property. In stealing his boss's car he gets restitution for the harm that has been done him not some cheap thrill of merely bashing a few windshields. All in all, it is the round about way of getting what would have come to him if he would have had a lawyer to fight his employers in court and a fair trial which would have seen through his boss's underhanded dealings.

So my answer is that there seems to be ways out of impossible situations of injustice without resorting to violence. Such situations may only be solved by violating the law but are none-the-less just in their outcomes. Perhaps, there is some impossible situation I haven't thought of where there is no way out but vengeance yet I do not think that is the case. One just has to think outside the box and outside the rules sometimes.

Another case which comes to mind is that of our forefathers. When Britain began overtaxing Americans and violating the property of the colonists they felt it necessary to break away from the mother country and say no. One might think that they could have waged a war of civil disobedience instead of one of guns but the British weren't adverse to making examples of those who disobeyed them. This being the case I have to conclude that outright war was inevitable since defending oneself while being disobedient might have required offing a few redcoats in self-defense. This would have lead to outright war or cowering colonists taking the abuse they were given and probably eventually giving in. It seems to me that civil disobedience while proven relatively effective in the past when demonstrated on a united front has lead to many individuals being sacrificed as examples. This is why I'm not a pacifist. If someone is beating you then you should beat them back. Turning the other cheek while still resisting peacefully only gets you hit again, probably harder, and most likely until your skull fractures and you die. My point, I guess, is that when violence is finally used by one party then the time for peaceful resolution is over.

Thank you for reading. I'd love to hear any impossible philosophical problems you guys can come up with where pure vengeance is the only option left. Good night.

MySpace Police

2007-05-01T21:11:00.000-04:00

For some reason I have a difficult time coming up with titles for my articles on the stupidity and deplorable behavior of others. Every time I try to write a good one I end up thinking of titles involving what I would like to do to the ignorant jerks. Usually, these involve various forms of telling them to do anatomically impossible things combined with veiled threats that they should suffer physical or mental harm. I have another article to write on that later but suffice it to say I'm going to keep my titles rather bland so as not to risk disturbing people at first. Hopefully, they might care to read further and discover why I would want to write such titles. If so maybe they'll be convinced my feelings would make better titles than what I'm using.

Stacy Snyder a 25 year old woman who attended Millersville University was allegedly refused her bachelor of science in education degree and a teaching certificate after the University administration found a picture called "Druken Pirate" on her MySpace. She has filed suit in federal court.

You will notice the picture below:

She was apparently accused by the University of promoting underage drinking. In my opinion, the University's actions against Ms. Snyder are ridiculous. Not only is she of legal drinking age(25) but they can't even prove there was an alcoholic beverage in the cup! I'd really like to know how these bloody Nazis of University officials can get off saying someone is promoting underage drinking by wearing a party hat!

To the best of my knowledge the majority of individuals on my freshmen hall drank underage at least once. With the exception of myself and a couple other nerds I'd say around 90% had done so at least once and 50% had done so multiple times. Guess what folks? People drink. Its bound to happen at any University because access to alcohol at Universities is open door.

Millersville should be happy she was well over the legal drinking age and stayed the hell out of her private life. I'd bet half those jerks that denied her her degree drank underage at least once. From all indications Ms. Snyder had completed all her coursework with a good GPA. If drinking legally is encouraging underage drinking then we should probably fire most University professors staff and elementary through high school teachers. I know dang well most of them have consumed alcohol at least once and I'm sure there are more than a few of them who have been in a picture while their blood alcohol content was higher than normal. Eggnog at Christmas anyone?

Getting a degree is about grades not one's personal life. The fact these people make it about that is disgusting. I've seen far too many of these social police actions by employers and schools in the news not to be angered by the pettiness of people in power. So I hope you'll forgive me for suggesting the anatomically impossible in this case.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 2 continued

Personal Account: The Virginia Tech Rampage

2007-04-16T21:11:00.000-04:00

I'm sure everyone has already seen the news coverage of what the major channels are calling "the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history". It's a tragedy that will likely stay with people here for a long time to come. Its one of those events like 9/11 which demarcates the before and the after in people's lives. In this case it is the before and after for people here at Virginia Tech and their families not the before and after for the United States. That makes it no less significant for the people here.

My own story of this day begins at 9:00AM. I got up and began to prepare for class. I had a quiz this day. Sometime between 9:15-9:20AM I check my e-mail. I continue with my morning routine and leave for class around 11:50-11:55AM, it is in a building behind Buruss Hall. As I reach the drill field via a route beside Slusher Hall I notice a line of cars blocked by police further up. I assume like many that the police are responding to another bomb threat since we've had a couple the last few days. I proceed to cross a fourth of the drill field and I am yelled at by the police and told to turn back. I do so just to appease them but I don't feel alarmed(considered it just another fake bomb threat) and kind of wonder why if I can't cross the drillfield on that side if they haven't bothered to block it off. I overhear a couple of guys talking, as I get back to the sidewalk, about someone being shot in Ambler-Johnston and that classes are canceled. Seeing that there is no point in continuing to class I return to my dorm. From there I learn that there is a mass shooting in Norris/Holden Hall. Before this I was operating under the impression the situation was similar to the escaped killer William Morva we experienced here last semester. It turned out to be much, much bloodier.

Well, as you can see I missed all the relevant e-mails due to my routine and nearly ended up walking across the drill field because it wasn't blocked off fast enough, or at least not at the end I was crossing. I've found out I'm not the only one who missed these e-mails so I don't consider myself particularly unlucky. I mentioned before the bomb threats from the previous week. Below is the e-mail I received the day before pertaining to those events:

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:01:48 -0400
From:
To:
Subject: Engineering Buildings to Reopen Monday

To The University Community

Three university buildings, Torgersen, Durham, and Whittemore Halls, have been closed since Friday because of a bomb threat. Police have swept the buildings with search teams and deemed the buildings suitable for use beginning 7 a.m. Monday, 16 April.

The university has posted a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons involved in either bomb threat incidents occurring April 2 or April 13. The university encourages anyone with relevant information to contact the Virginia Tech Police Department at 232-TIPS (8477) or 231-6411.

Virginia Tech Police, in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies, continue to investigate both incidents.

What I do know of events so far is at around 7:15AM the shooter killed both a girl and an Resident Adviser who supposedly showed up to break up/mediate an argument they were having. The building was swarmed and sealed off by police who conducted searches for the suspect and secured testimony from witnesses. The did not find the shooter. The search for the shooter proceeded and no e-mail notifying students was sent out until around 9:25AM. I do not know when the campus authorities responsible for sending such e-mails were initially informed of the incident. The first e-mail I received is as follows below:

Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:26:24 -0400
From:
To:
Subject:	Shooting on campus.

A shooting incident occurred at West Amber Johnston earlier this morning. Police are on the scene and are investigating.

The university community is urged to be cautious and are asked to contact Virginia Tech Police if you observe anything suspicious or with information on the case. Contact Virginia Tech Police at 231-6411

Stay attuned to the www.vt.edu. We will post as soon as we have more information.

There was no indication from this e-mail that anyone should stay indoors or that the shooting was lethal. It does not specify that there were multiple victims. It was released roughly two hours after the first shootings took place.

After returning to my dorm I checked my e-mail and in addition to the first e-mail I found the following e-mails. This is the second:

Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:50:07 -0400
From:
To:
Subject:	PLease stay put

A gunman is loose on campus. Stay in buildings until further notice. Stay away from all windows

Nearly two and a half hours after the first incident it is decided to have the students stay inside their buildings. This e-mail appears hastily typed and the final period after "windows" was left off originally.

The third e-mail:

Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:16:40 -0400
From:
To:
Subject:	All Classes Canceled; Stay where you are

Virginia Tech has canceled all classes. Those on campus are asked to remain where there are, lock their doors and stay away from windows. Persons off campus are asked not to come to campus.

This message was received 25 minutes after the second e-mail. It reaffirms the directive to stay inside and appears more calm and collected.

The fourth e-mail:

Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:52:45 -0400
From:
To:
Subject:	Second Shooting Reported; Police have one gunman in custody

In addition to an earlier shooting today in West Ambler Johnston, there has been a multiple shooting with multiple victims in Norris Hall.

Police and EMS are on the scene.

Police have one shooter in custody and as part of routine police procedure, they continue to search for a second shooter.

All people in university buildings are required to stay inside until further notice.

All entrances to campus are closed.

Nearly 45 minutes later this e-mail confirms a second shooting and incorrectly reports that the police have a shooter in custody. I had already been informed by watching the local news reports that a second shooting had occurred.

The following is a fifth e-mail I received from housing and dinning services of Virginia Tech. At this point I was kind of wondering what I would be doing for food since I'd run out of snacks in my room the other day.

Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:33:09 -0400
From:
To:
Reply To:
Subject:	Housing Notice: Dining Operations

Residents:

First and foremost, stay indoors and away from windows and doorways
until you receive the all clear from the university.

D2 will remain open this afternoon once the all clear has been announced
through dinner time for students to get a meal.

Kenneth E. Belcher
Associate Director for Occupancy Management

I have edited out the lower part of this fifth e-mail so as to protect Mr. Belcher's contact information. The main bodies of all the previous e-mails are intact and I only edited the TO: and FROM: headers to protect the listservs.

The following is the sixth e-mail, this one from our university president:

Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:41:44 -0400
From:
To:
Subject:	Statement by President Charles W. Steger

Shooting at Virginia Tech / Statement by President Charles W. Steger

The university was struck today with a tragedy of monumental proportions. There were two shootings on campus. In each case, there were fatalities. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I want to extend my deepest, sincerest and most profound sympathies to the families of these victims which include students There are 22 confirmed deaths.

We currently are in the process of notifying families of victims. The Virginia Tech Police are being assisted by numerous other jurisdictions. Crime scenes are being investigated by the FBI, University Police, and State Police. We continue to work to identify the victims impacted by this tragedy. I cannot begin to covey my own personal sense of loss over this senselessness of such an incomprehensible and heinous act The university will immediately set up counseling centers. So far centers have been identified in Ambler Johnson and the Cook Counseling Center to work with our campus community and families.

Here are some of the facts we know:

At about 7:15 a.m. this morning a 911 call came to the University Police Department concerning an event in West Amber Johnston Hall. There were multiple shooting victims. While in the process of investigating, about two hours later the university received reports of a shooting in Norris Hall. The police immediately responded. Victims have been transported to various hospitals in the immediate area in the region to receive emergency treatment.

We will proceed to contact the families of victims as identities are available.

All classes are cancelled and the university is closed for the remainder for the today. The university will open tomorrow at 8 a.m. but classes will be cancelled on Tuesday. The police are currently staging the release of people from campus buildings.

Families wishing to reunite with the students are suggested to meet at the Inn at Virginia Tech. We are making plans for a convocation tomorrow (Tuesday) at noon at Cassell Coliseum for the university community to come together to begin to deal with the tragedy.

The final e-mail after the shooter was confirmed dead is as follows:

Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:31:29 -0400
From:
To:
Subject:	Campus Update on VT Shootings

Virginia Tech remains closed on Monday, April 16, 2007. Vehicular entrances to campus are severely restricted to essential personnel only. Additional security remains on campus as the investigation continues.

Counseling assistance for students in available at West Ambler Johnston and McComas Hall until 9 p.m. tonight. Students are encouraged to utilize these services. Counseling for faculty and staff is available at the Bowman Room in the Merriman Center (athletic complex). Student may also be together at the Old Dominion Ballroom at Squires Student Center.

The university will also close on Tuesday, April 17. Essential personal are to report for work. Classes will be canceled.

A public gathering will be held Tuesday, April 17 at Cassell Coliseum at 2 p.m. (a time change from the originally scheduled 10 a.m. gathering).

All students are urged to contact their parents as soon as possible to let them know individuals are safe.

Students, faculty, and staff who may have any information related to the incident at West Amber Johnston Hall and Norris Hall are encouraged to go to the Blacksburg Police Department to make statements, or call 540-231-TIPP (8477), or 231-6411

Parents with concerns are asked to call the Dean of Students Office at 540-231-3787.

Individuals injured in the two shootings have been taken to area hospitals.

The restrictions on traffic allowed into campus prevented anyone from ordering out for food. That was annoying tonight but the on campus food services staff were brave enough to stick around for us. More than just D2 opened up again after the all clear was signaled. What I know at the moment is 33 people including the shooter are dead and 15 more injured. He used two 9mm handguns and committed suicide. The identities of the shooter and the most of the victims have not yet been released.

I would like to thank our medical professionals at the regional hospitals for doing there best to help during this crisis. It couldn't have been easy to deal with the flood of casualties especially when the high winds prevented more critically injured patients from being airlifted elsewhere. Our local law enforcement officials also did what they could to stop this tragedy and I thank them also. Good night folks. I'll update this when I can.

Update: Well the shooter is Cho Seung-Hui. Also, as a correction he used a 9mm and a .22 not two 9mms as previously stated. As it happens he also lived in my dorm, Harper Hall. I'm fairly certain he lived on one of the upper floors but I don't have any information yet as to what room or who his roommate was. Odds are I could have passed him the hallway sometime event though he was probably on the other side of the building. Damn, that is kind of disturbing. Also, I'm fairly certain Virginia Tech removed his name and room number from their online person search to make it difficult to learn anything. So I guess I'll just have to talk with people.

Bush Supports Gay Rights... sort of

2007-03-18T15:54:00.000-04:00

As much as I've criticized the conservative anti-homosexual groups in some of my other writings I have to give credit to President Bush in appointing General Peter Pace. If anyone is sure to work hard at keeping homosexuals out of the military its him. I have to applaud our country's efforts since 1994 to throw out close to 10,000 able bodied soldiers for their sexual orientation. Just think that by continuing this policy President Bush not only sacrifices more upstanding, moral, straight soldiers in the Iraq war but is willing to bite the bullet and accept lower numbers of troops than necessary to complete our mission there. He could easily have used thousands more to get the job done. By continuing this policy President Bush is doing an excellent job to support gay rights by saving hundreds of homosexuals who may have died had they actually been sent to fight for this country in Iraq. Its wonderful to know that even in these times conservatives do their best to save the lives of citizens in America's minority groups.

If the above paragraph doesn't sound ridiculous to you for a variety of reasons then there is something seriously wrong with you. If you are a conservative who hates gays then logically you should support them serving in the military on the front lines. Not only would their deaths help save the moral straight soldiers in Iraq but would help to keep control of a worsening situation in that destabilized country.

On the other hand if you support the rights of homosexuals to not be penalized for their orientation then you should support their sacrifice for the benefit of this country that allows them such freedom of choice.

Really, its absurd that during wartime our country does not use every able bodied soldier who has volunteered to server his or her country. Removing soldiers from the ranks for things that don't conflict with their ability to fight is retarded. Sun Tzu would be rolling in his grave at the idiocy of it. As for my personal opinion I don't think giving homosexuals a disproportionate number of dangerous assignments so they die in combat is fair either but thats just another problem to overcome in gaining some much deserved acceptance and respect for homosexuals. Seriously, as long as the guy or gal isn't grabbing you constantly you shouldn't give a crap if you have to bunk with them.

No longer having 10,000 more soldiers that you could have used is just another thing that adds up to how to lose a war. Maybe President Bush will think about it when chaos breaks out in the green zone sometime.

Source

Texas Against Public Health

2007-03-18T15:34:00.000-04:00

Isn't it wonderful that this day in age the government won't even look out for the welfare of its own people by helping everyone get vaccinations? Or are they planning further ahead and hope that a bunch of women dropping dead of an entirely preventable cancer will reduce our ever growing population and stave off overcrowding and mass starvation?

Forgive me for being so blunt, but it seems like the Texas House of Representatives are a bunch of morons. They stop mandatory vaccinations which would save thousands of lives and the only excuse they make is that they think the governor has a vested interest in requiring it because he has ties to drug companies. Well yes, the drug companies are going to make money off of it but thats what they do and it still benefits the public not to die of cancer. Basically, all they are doing by blocking vaccinations is being jerks for their own political reasons.

My parting advice to Texas is, get rid of the jerks next election. Maybe then people won't have to die of cancer.

Source

A Comedy of Errors

2007-03-18T14:43:00.000-04:00

Some of you may be familiar with this story but for those of you who are not, a substitute school teacher is facing a considerable amount of prison time because she is clueless about technology.

It is incredibly stupid that prosecutors charged Julie Amero with anything. The investigators failed to check the computer for spyware and malware which could have directed it to porn sites creating the prior search history she was convicted on. The poor woman has been criticized for failing to protect the children from seeing the pornography on the computer even though witnesses have testified that she not only pushed them away and tried to block the screen from their view but ran to get help to remove the pop-ups because she didn't know how. Considering her lack of knowledge she did everything right that she could do except lock the door when she left to get help to keep kids from wandering in.

I don't know about everyone else but I can forgive her for that one mistake when she is obviously so frantic to get rid of the pop-ups and concerned for the wellbeing of children that it slipped her mind.

If she is at fault then the school system must be doubly so because due to not keeping their security updated the pop-ups were allowed through their filter. The point is this sort of thing can happen because there are dirty people out there who make these kinds of spyware and malware programs. The prosecutors should spend their time charging them instead of a clueless substitute teacher.

I have had a similar experience with pop-ups on my home computer years ago. I was visiting a site totally unrelated to pornography and a pop-up came showing porn. When I hastily clicked the X to remove it about a hundred other pornographic pop-ups began flooding my computer screen. I ended up having to unplug the computer because its was locking it up.

My father has also had a similar experience at our public library when someone who had previously been using the computer left pornographic pop-ups on the screen. He tried clicking X and more pop-ups flooded the screen. He ended up going to find one of the librarians who took care of turning off and restarting the machine. He may not have been as clueless as Mrs. Amero but he certainly didn't want to damage or violate library policy by turning off the library's computer himself.

Julie Amero obviously felt the same way about respecting other people's property so instead of unplugging it and chancing that she would damage it by doing so she got someone who would be qualified to make such a decision. She clearly didn't know if it would hurt the computer or not to turn it off and did the only thing she could reasonably do, get help.

Yet these idiotic people want to punish her for it.

Source

The Third Question Answered

2007-02-09T13:31:00.000-05:00

In an earlier post I discussed the nature of God. There were three main questions/objections posed to his existence. I answered the first two then but left third for a later time. The problem of evil is what I will discuss here in this post.

How can God allow evil to exist and even be responsible for its creation if He is an omni-benevolent God?

A common response to this question is that God did not create evil but Satan did. The classic comeback to that statement is God is omniscient and would have known that Satan would create evil and, therefor, by proxy be party to its creation.

This thinking that God could do something evil is wrong headed. I originally thought this problem would be much more complicated but it is not. God could not have committed an evil act when creating evil because it doesn't follow logically. If God created evil then the act of doing so would predate evil's existence and therefore not be subject to being considered an evil act.

That solves the part of the question involving the creation of evil but now we are left with, "Why would God allow evil to continue to exist?"

The answer to this seems a little more complicated. The simplest explanation would be that it is required for evil to exist in order for there to be such a thing as good. Without evil humanity could not recognize the good. This is slightly problematic thought since now that evil exists the question becomes "But isn't God committing an evil act by allowing evil to exist?"

The answer to that is much more difficult. I would think that the answer is no. Otherwise we are all committing an unbelievable number of evil acts by not helping others simply because we have the ability to. The U.S. has the amount of wealth necessary to end starvation and cure disease in Africa but in order to do so we would have to give most of it up. The average American is not willing to do this. U.S. citizens are, for the most part, not responsible for all the evil things happening to others around the world but we refrain from interfering to stop them from occurring. This is in the same vain as God not interfering to end all evil even though he has the ability to. There seems to me to be more to the world than just good and evil or there are maybe more types of good and evil. Not causing evil could be said to be good but interfering to stop evil can also be said to be good. The question here is "Is putting an end to evil a greater act of good than simply refraining from committing evil acts?"

If the answer is yes then while God is good allowing evil to continue to exist is not the greatest possible good act available to Him. However, it is not evil so He can still be considered to be omni-benevolent. One would like to think that God exemplifies the highest possible good and allowing evil to exist when there is a greater possible good in eliminating it makes Him seem less great. However, evil is necessary for good so it may be that He is justified in not eliminating it and is thereby engaging in the greatest possible good by allowing it to continue to exist. Humanity on the other hand has no possible objection on the grounds of necessity to not choose the greater of the two goods and help others as much as they possibly can. The only answer to humanity's faults is that we are human and not angels or God. There is a good argument here that we should try to be though. There does not seem to be a straight answer to why God or humanity should not do the greatest good possible. It is also conceivable that there is nothing in this universe but good and evil and I am wrong in assuming that there is something other or more than one type of good. If this is the case, then I see no way to say that God is omni-benevolent since allowing evil to exist does not seem to be an act of great goodness and more closely resembles evil if there is no neutrality.

What can you expect from people who threw perfectly good tea overboard?

2007-02-03T09:35:00.001-05:00

Its amazing to me just how stupid people can be when they are fed propaganda day and night instilling an unreasonable fear of terrorism. Take a look at the things that caused all the problems in Boston this week. Link

It doesn't look like a bomb to me. Besides, what terrorist is stupid enough to put flashing lights on his IED (Improvised Explosive Device) to attract attention to it? Surely, any good terrorist wouldn't want people to notice that he's placed a bomb so that no one tries to escape it. On a more interesting not the media is editing the image of the cartoon in the pictures so as to make it more presentable to the public. I find this highly unethical. If you show an image it should be as it originally was or you are distorting how the public sees reality. Its just wrong to do that. If you'd prefer not to show it period thats fine but if you show it it better be unchanged.

The supposed "bombs" were placed two to three weeks ago in ten cities including Boston and only just late this week got noticed as suspicious. Obviously, no one thought they were a problem for a few weeks and the other cities didn't consider them a threat at all. This whole mess is a result of overactive imaginations on the part of Boston officials. They should just admit they made a bad judgment call and leave the poor guys who set up the cartoon billboards alone. Its really nice that Turner Broadcasting offered to pay for the city's expenses since I don't think they are liable for a public official's stupidity.

The lesson to take out of this is cartoons do not equal bombs. Stop being paranoid, accept your mistakes, and move on. Good Luck to Peter Berdovsky, 27, and Sean Stevens, 28, in getting the charges dropped. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Link

The N Word

2006-11-29T23:11:00.000-05:00

Before I launch into discussing the topic I'd like to make excuses for my long absence from writing. I have been busy for a while now but in addition to that I haven't felt it was worth repeating myself again and again in response to new world events. Much of what is going on in the world is still more of the same as it was the last time I wrote. I've also been having a bit of writer's block and several things I've started writing I haven't finished. If you are easily offended by bad words you may wish not to read this. I've refrained from using the main work in question out of courtesy to others who may be sensitive even though this righting is strictly academic. There are several other words I use in full which may or may not also offend but are also discussed in a strictly academic manner. You have been given warning. Now on with the real topic.

As I'm sure you all know Michael Richards made racist remarks to some people while performing at a club. This sparked some justified outrage among other people as it very well should. The patrons to which Mr. Richards made his comments were disrupting the atmosphere surrounding his performance. This quite justifiably was upsetting to him but does not justify the comments he made. However, it does make logical sense that if someone makes one angry enough that one would wish to say something to that person which would hurt them as much as is possible. Hence, why it makes sense that to insult and demean a person of African origin one would call them the N word. Just because it follows logically to use racial slurs does not mean it is right to use them. What interested me the most after watching a segment of the video of this scene was that one of the individuals who Mr. Richards had referred to by the N word responded to him by using a racial slur for someone of Caucasian origin, Cracker. One might be inclined to view this individual as no better in behavior than Mr. Richards. But surely he was only responding in kind because he was angry. Then again that was Mr. Richards' excuse. So it should be said that no racial slur is justifiably appropriate at any time. An eye for an eye solves nothing even if it is logical.

Another subject of related interest is the use of the N word by individuals of African origin referring to people like themselves to which it would have once, and still sometimes is, applied. It is unfathomable to me why one would use a derogatory word to refer to oneself but be outraged when someone of a different racial background uses it. No one should use the N word if only to keep people from demeaning themselves.

Why do we display such anger towards racial slurs and not nearly so much towards other derogatory terms? Words like bastard, asshole, jerk, nerd, geek, bitch, and slut. There is really no difference between the N word and these words when used in anger to demean someone. The N word demeans a person by stating their race is of less worth. Bastard demeans a person by stating their family lineage is of less worth. Asshole and jerk both demean a person by stating their personality and behavior is of less worth. Bitch demeans a person by stating their personality, behavior, and sex is of less worth. Slut demeans an individual by stating that person is of less worth because she engages in a large quantity of sexual behaviors with many individuals. Make no mistake it was made to demean one sex, females. Men get by with the same sort of behavior and no negative social repercussions. Nerd and geek are demeaning to individuals who look and dress a certain way and who may have certain hobbies. Each term is equally demeaning to the group of individuals to which it is applied as the N word is to the group of people it was created to demean. It is inexplicable that the repercussions for using these words to make people feel as if they are less are infinitely less severe. It would be good if the next time everyone hears these words used by someone to hurt others if you were to all ask yourselves "How is the basic behavior behind using these words any different than using the N word to describe a different group of people?"

Xfire for Mac

2006-08-24T21:05:00.000-04:00

Its been a long time coming but there is finally Xfire for Mac. Just follow these instructions at your own risk.

1. Get Adium version 1.0b8 Note: the newest version is 1.0b9 but it may cause errors with the plugin.

2. Get the plugin here http://www.kaintek.com/?page_id=18

3. If after downloading the plugin it appears as a folder instead of a plugin just make a duplicate of it and rename the duplicate to how it looks without the word copy after its name. It should now appear as a plugin.

4. Double click on the plugin to install it.

5. If you get the (null) (null) error then right-click on the plugin and show package contents. Then follow the folder path Contents/MacOS/ and then right click on xblaze and open with the terminal. This will likely give you an error message but you should now be able to run the Xfire plugin in Adium without getting the (null) (null) error.

6. Enjoy Xfire and your Mac.

Anyone ever wish the Senate was comprised of pregnant school girls?

2006-07-26T19:52:00.000-04:00

What a wonderful day it is today that we should see the senate pass a bill which would throw a person in jail for helping a girl escape abusive parents. This crap abortion bill passed in the senate fails to provide any exemption for anyone helping a girl get an abortion whose parents have abused her. This would stop a girl's grandparents from helping her. The bill does provide a means by which a girl could petition a court to allow her to have an abortion without notifying her parents but this is utterly ridiculous. How is a girl of 13-14 going to get to a courthouse to file any sort of petition? Even if she could walk there in a small town odds are her bloody parents would find out about it. All this bill does is stop anyone from helping someone who has been abused by her bastard of a father/other relative. Who do you think is going to be better at deciding whether or not a girl has abusive parents and should be allowed anonymity? A judge who has never seen her or her grandparents who actually are around at least some of the time? The exemption that was drafted to protect those who help abused girls in these cases was shut down because of evil people who know that since the Judge has no clue what is going on he/she will always decide the parents should be informed. Adults have an unerring propensity for believing in other adults over whatever children have to say. There is simply no good reason why people who help others should have to face criminal charges for doing so.

Reference

What is it worth to you not to have bombs dropped on your head?

2006-07-24T20:17:00.000-04:00

People never cease to amaze me with their idiotic behavior. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you hold two people capitive that their government is going to do everything it can to release them. Most likely this involves beating you into submission by any means possible. Hezbollah are a bunch of idiots and should be looked upon with disgust. They could end this war in Lebonan right now if they'd hand over the two soldiers they took prisoner. Instead they still keep the soldiers prisoner and kill Israeli civilians while letting lebanese civilians die because their hideouts are mixed right into populated areas. I sincerely hope people supporting them figure out that it really does more harm than good. It'd save a lot of lives.

Searches without Warning

2006-06-15T20:17:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court decided today that it is ok for Police to search homes without knocking or giving some form of warning before entering. I am perfectly ok with this since I don't think this violates the Constitution as a form of unreasonable search. In the case in question the police did have a warrant. Throwing out evidence from cases in which the police failed to announce themselves is absurd because it has nothing to do with whether or not a suspect committed a crime. I do wish to point out that this ruling may cause future problems when the police barge into someone's home unannounced. Suppose the police have the wrong house and just run right in and the homeowner thinks he is under attack and kills a police officer in what he perceives to be self defense. I can envision lawsuits where the police have shot an innocent man dead because he was defending his rights. It may be useful to police to sometimes not knock before entering but they should in most cases still do this anyway and be very sure of what they are doing when they use this new freedom of theirs.

Only Partially Free Speech

2006-05-30T20:21:00.000-04:00

"A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that government whistle-blowers are not protected by free-speech rights when they face employer discipline for trying to expose possible misconduct at work."-UPDATE 1-U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right By James Vicini

"Adopting the position of the Los Angeles prosecutor's office and the U.S. Justice Department, the high court ruled that a public employee has no First Amendment right in speech expressed as part of performing job-required duties."-UPDATE 1-U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right By James Vicini

So this would mean that everyone has protection from being fired under free speech but only when it is not related to their speaking about their work. It seems to also mean that anyone who works for the Justices can be fired simply because they use their free speech to disagree with the court's decision. After all, its work related. Speaking of misconduct at work this is the second time in recent history the Supreme Court has let down their fellow human beings. The other case was the recent one where they ruled it was ok for the local government to take your land, paying you a sum that is likely less than what you could sell it for commercially, and then giving it over to industry for development. Don't you just love this country where the average citizen's rights are so well protected?

Source

Learn English

2006-05-23T23:29:00.000-04:00

I cannot fathom why anyone would be against requiring immigrants to learn English. If someone comes here and doesn't learn the language then they are forever in a huge sea of the unknown as people converse around them. It would be a great idea, though by no means a should be a requirement, if they could learn it even before they come. It would make their lives a million times easier. I heard some liberals crying out that the bill was based on prejudice towards illegal aliens and even legal immigrants from Mexico. You can't change your ethnicity but you can learn English. It makes no logical sense to call it prejudiced when one can actually change something about one's self and learn the language. It isn't logical to move to China and expect them all to learn English for you either. Its even a bit arrogant and insulting if one believes everyone in a country should learn another language for one's self. America is a meltingpot of people who all have shared two things throughout history. That being a common language which brings them together and a desire for the rights and freedoms of this country. Having more than one language is devicive. This bill helps ensure Americans all understand each other in a mutual language and become united in that understanding.

The Great Wall of Mexico

2006-05-10T00:23:00.000-04:00

There seems to be a growing debate about what should be done about the growing number of illegal aliens in the U.S. There are two ways to fix this. The first is to let them in and the second is to keep them out. I personally would prefer that they be allowed to stay on the provision that they are all accounted for by having records, paying taxes, etc. I'm happy with such an open door immigration policy. What I can't stand for are unregistered illegal aliens. They work here, don't pay taxes, and undercut the salaries of legal citizens who work here. Essentially they are stealing from the government and the citizens of this country. I realize that even allowing all of them to come here legally likely won't stop them from coming here illegally anyway. Any illegal alien who becomes legal is likely to get fired by the greedy scum employing them and replaced by another illegal. What is needed is strict penalties for employing illegals to stick up for their rights and the rights of our citizens to be treated fairly and given proper salaries. By this I mean forget just fines and go with jail time. The best way to enforce fair salaries and ensure people aren't fired for doing the right thing and becoming legal is to make sure the only way into this country is the legal way. That means guarding the border. Too bad President Bush sent all our troops to Iraq to guard its border instead of ours. The more of the Guard that is Guarding our border the better. The more illegal aliens we keep out the more likely we'll be able to keep out any terrorists trying to cross the same way. What's the argument about defending people's rights to fair wages and not to be blown up by terrorists? Defend the border and let everyone in the only way, the legal way.

What? Did Someone Make a Caricature of Him too?

2006-05-08T21:52:00.000-04:00

Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian who was considered a candidate for pope last year, made his strong comments in a documentary called "The Da Vinci Code-A Masterful Deception."

Arinze's appeal came some 10 days after another Vatican cardinal called for a boycott of the film. Both cardinals asserted that other religions would never stand for offences against their beliefs and that Christians should get tough.

"Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget," Arinze said in the documentary made by Rome film maker Mario Biasetti for Rome Reports, a Catholic film agency specializing in religious affairs.

"Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others," Arinze said.

"This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected," he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.

- Cardinal urges legal action against Da Vinci Code By Philip Pullella

For some reason the way this cardinal reacted to the Da Vinci Code reminds me of a bunch of Muslim's after those Muhammad caricatures were published. I absolutely love how he professes that it is a fundamental human right not to have one's Christian beliefs questioned. The only fundamental right that remotely comes close to what he professes is in the first amendment and that only allows for the free exercise of religion. There is nothing in the first amendment that says one has to respect another religion only that the believers of it are allowed to worship. For instance, suppose there is a mosque of Muslims who believe the people murdered in the WTO got what they deserved because they were infidels. Am I going to respect their beliefs? Hell no. Do I believe they still have the right to worship Allah since they as of yet haven't gone out and martyred anyone? Yes they may worship Him as they see fit. The most idiotic statement this cardinal makes is that Christians shouldn't forgive and forget. If I remember correctly there is a whole lot of advice in the Bible professing forgiveness. I think the cardinal needs to read through it again before he opens his mouth and makes himself look foolish a second time.

Source

Teaching Creationism: Listen to Europe and Just Say No

2006-03-21T22:30:00.000-05:00

"The Archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes that portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it,"- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

"For most of the history of Christianity, there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time," - The Archbishop of Canterbury from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

Apparently, certain American Christians do not have this awareness the good Archbishop speaks of. The Archbishop is correct that by making the Bible a theory it is downgraded. A theory in science can be disproved and is constantly open to questioning. This is not the realm the Bible should be in. It should stay in the realm of religion. So to all those who want to teach it in public schools I say "No".

If you happen to be Catholic please listen to the Vatican: "In January the official Vatican newspaper said a decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution was "correct.""- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

I hope the other Christians in America see the logic in keeping the Bible in the realm of religion and not as questionable scientific theory. Just say no to creationism in schools.

Source

Does Anyone Think they Fired the Wrong Guy?

2006-03-01T22:50:00.000-05:00

"Ray Nagin, New Orleans mayor, said on Wednesday night he was shocked by video showing President George W. Bush being told the day before Hurricane Katrina hit that the city’s protective levees could fail. The tape contradicts the president’s statement four days after the hurricane struck: “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.”- Reuters: Bush ‘warned day before Katrina struck’

"Trent Duffy, White House spokesman, said the tape was misleading. 'It seems to me to suggest that the president was not fully engaged in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The president was fully engaged and involved in meetings on the response,' he said."- Reuters: Bush ‘warned day before Katrina struck’

If the President was fully engaged in the meetings and the mess that was the response to Katrina why did we fire Mr. Brown and not Mr. Bush?

Source

Once Upon a Time on a Field

2006-03-01T21:10:00.000-05:00

Once upon a field many years ago I was running the miles as all school children do for P.E. As I was running I can't seem to remember much of what I was thinking. Quite possibly, I wasn't thinking much of anything at all. Whenever I run these days I rarely think of much other than where I'm running to or maybe the feel of the breeze blowing over me as I run. But the story I'm telling begins when I stopped running. I had reached the last stretch of the mile around the field we were using as a track. It was early morning and cool. It was what I consider the best weather one can run in. I was one of the first few people to reach that stretch though not the very first. I slowed my pace and came to a stop. Then I knelt down on the ground staring at the grass in front of me for an instant before looking up and around at the field. I was thinking then just how easy it would be to keep going. I could have just continued and placed high in the rankings. I continued to kneel on the ground and watch the other runners for a couple minutes. During this time the coach and one of the other students came up to me to make sure I was ok. I was fine. I told them as much several times having to reassure them. Then I continued on my way running the last quarter of the last lap of the mile. At least two people passed me probably a couple more but I can't remember for certain now. That didn't bother me though. It still doesn't. The reason was I realized that I could easily outrun them and it just wasn't important anymore after that. I suppose the reason I stopped was to simply take in the moment. It was a very nice morning after all. A possible moral of the story if there is one is that one should not judge a person who appears to fail. The coach and the student both thought I had stopped because I was exhausted or something of the sort. Their assumptions were not accurate. So whenever you see someone who appears to have reached their limits it would be a good idea to realize that they may be capable of much more but simply have lost the desire to do more.

No... Not Embarrassing At All...

2006-02-21T00:06:00.000-05:00

"The Energy Department said it has come up with $5 million to immediately restore jobs cut at a renewable energy laboratory President George W. Bush will visit on Tuesday, avoiding a potentially embarrassing moment as the president promotes his energy plan." - Jobs cut at energy lab restored before Bush visit By Tom Doggett Reuters Monday, February 20, 2006

No that isn't embarrassing at all except that they were caught restoring cut funding and it has been published. I think this shows exactly how seriously George W. Bush believes in cutting our energy dependence on oil.

Just as a note to everyone: Articles like this don't usually make it to the front page of Google News. Sometimes you have to click on the U.S. button on the sidebar to find something interesting.

Source

Why be Concerned by Homosexual Marriage?

2006-02-20T22:45:00.000-05:00

I've always wondered why so many people get so worked up over homosexual marriage. Every time I've asked someone who is against it why they have their position I never get a satisfactory response. The best answer I have received is that marriage is something that is between a man and a woman. This answer is completely unsatisfactory in defending the argument because their position is reduced to arguing over the definition of a word. I have no problem with calling homosexual marriage civil unions for the sake of progress towards decency since the whole purpose of homosexuals being allowed to marry is for them to have the same legal rights contained in the legal definition of marriage as heterosexual couples. It is exceptionally cruel to deny someone’s partner the right to be beside his partner's deathbed just because they are not legally married. In many instances homosexual couples have been together just as long or longer than many married couples. Yet we as individuals, a society, and country do this to people. Homosexual marriage will end this cruelty to people. Denying someone basic decencies such as this over the use of a word makes one a representative of evil. My best clue to a better reason for the position against homosexual marriage is that it is religiously offensive to them. It is conceivably possible that those with this position see homosexual marriage as an offense against God. However, this does not adequately explain why one should oppose homosexual couples having the same legal rights in their unions as heterosexual couples. The rights in question are legal rights not religious ones. The act of marriage that could be construed as offensive is homosexuals performing the marriage ceremony with the Bible and everything. Denying homosexuals legal rights does not stop them from performing this ceremony since they have done it without getting marriage licenses for years. Under the constitution of this country it is unconstitutional to stop homosexuals from taking part in a marriage ceremony with their partners because such a ceremony falls under the jurisdiction of religion and freedom to worship as one sees fit is a cornerstone of this country. All denying homosexuals the legal rights under marriage does is punish people who haven't caused anyone harm. Those seeking to deny homosexuals the right freedom of religion are no better than the clerics in the Arab world who tell their followers to go out and burn stuff because they won't allow freedom of speech when it has to do with their prophet. The advent of homosexual marriage in no way changes anyone's marriage or makes anyone's marriage less strong in the eyes of God or the law. I suggest to all those who are against homosexual marriage that you should go home and spend some quality time with your spouse and children instead of trying to make people who are different suffer. Maybe then the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

Sayings Again

2006-02-15T14:27:00.000-05:00

I am what I am.
-The Major

Reality is rarely how you feel about it.
-The Major

Iran, Nukes, and Hamas

2006-02-15T00:20:00.000-05:00

Much of what I read in the news these days centers around Iran and their uranium enrichment program. I have a hard time understanding why Americans should be very concerned about it. Iran insists that it is developing the process for the purpose of cheap abundant energy and not for nuclear weapons. As they have stated before they do have a right to do such a thing. The U.S. telling them not to is arrogant and violates the fact that Iran is a sovereign nation. If for some reason Iran chooses to develop nuclear weapons even though they claim they will not then the U.S. has perfectly good reason to take decisive action. Rather than being arrogant and insulting it would be a much better policy to state that if Iran ever does develop nuclear weapons that those weapons and the facilities for making them will be destroyed in airstrikes. Add to this economic sanctions and everything should work out fine. If for some insanely foolish reason Iran should choose to use a nuclear weapon the U.S. should make it very clear that Iran will be annihilated from the face of the planet by our nuclear weapons. There is no need to take any action now when the U.S. can dictate the necessary consequences for such dangerous behavior in the future.

On another topic, Hamas still refuses to recognize that Israel has a right to exist. This isn't really surprising but I would have hoped that they'd care about their people who will likely end up starving without Western aid. One really has to wonder why Israel and the West fund people who enjoy blowing themselves up in the streets to murder others. I suppose I can't hope that the Palestinians will realize that the aid is long standing proof that the west is actually nicer to them than they think. Is it really too much to ask that they stop the murdering in return?

Two of the Three Questions Answered

2006-02-08T19:09:00.000-05:00

I am taking a philosophy of religion class. So far, we are going over the three main traits that God is generally thought to possess: omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence. We've covered some of the problems with each of these and a few possible answers but none of the answers have been satisfactory. Eventually during the class I want to get up yelling "No, no, no. That is not how you should think about it! Look, try this." It doesn't take me long to come up with solutions for the drawbacks to each answer. I don't like in class speaking so I'll just write my solutions here. Maybe I'll print it off and hand it to her one of these days.

The first problem is the nature of God's omnipotence. The classic question about this is "Can God create a stone so heavy even He could not lift it?" The answers given to this are generally paradoxical. Consider that God did make such a stone in our universe. It would have to have some sort of infinite force to oppose whatever force God uses to attempt to lift it. Since both forces would be infinite the stone cannot be lifted. Simple physics. However, God could just change the rules of the universe and make the stone possible lift again. The argument is that since God could lift it by doing this then there is something he cannot do; make an stone He cannot lift. Hence the paradox since omnipotence means He is all-powerful. I disagree with the direction of thought on this. It seems that omnipotence also has a component of will to it. Without God's will no such stone would come into creation in the first place. Until God takes an action that negates his own omnipotence he is omnipotent. Saying he could not negate His omnipotence would mean He is not omnipotent. If he were to commit an action, which negates his omnipotence, then he would not be any less powerful. The stone is a bad example since it does not specifically account for God changing the rules. Lets consider that He makes the rules in such a way that He cannot change them and creates the stone. Is the stone any greater than God who is omnipotent? No, the stone can never be more powerful than God because even with its infinite force it is no more than equal to God's infinite power. By refraining from creating the stone God is merely maintaining his omnipotence. So the definition of omnipotence should mean He could do anything He chooses to.

The second problem is that of omniscience. How can God be omniscient and humans have free will? Being omniscient means He is all knowing. The accepted definition of knowing is to have a justified true belief. Omniscience follows easily from omnipotence since He is all-powerful it would be possible for Him to be omniscient. The answer here is simple. There are a multitude of possible universes. Humans are free to choose so at each decision point they change the universe making it into one of the possible ones. The supposed catch is that if God is all knowing then He must have known which one you would choose. I reject this as foolish thinking because it relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a future. I propose that the only time that exists is the present. The future by its very definition does not exist yet. If something does not exist then there is nothing to be known about it other than its nonexistence. When a person makes a decision God knows what that decision is. There is nothing further he needs to do to show that He is omniscient since there is no future to know. But wait what about the past? If there is a past then we are that past’s future so doesn't that show that a future exists? No, because there is no past. The universe only exists in the present. The memories we have of what we call the past are formed and maintained in the present. They reflect states and changes to those states of the universe. Time equals change. So there is no past and no future only the present and change. God has an infinite memory by virtue of His omnipotence. End of story.

The third problem is the problem of evil. I think I'll wait to discuss this one. It’s a much longer subject than the first two.

Peon Part IIa: Life would be Simpler if Carriages Lacked Breaks

2006-02-08T00:40:00.000-05:00

This is about half of the second part of Peon. I keep delaying on releasing the complete Peon since I've been going back and editing/adding to it. I'm going to start editing and posting it in smaller sections. Enjoy reading.

Peon Part II: Life would be Simpler if Carriages Lacked Breaks

The town was as an amazing site for Peon to see up close as it was from the top of the hill. Townspeople went quickly about their business here and there as a steady traffic of mover drawn carts hauled merchant goods down the main thoroughfare. Peon followed the merchant traffic along the muddy road towards the market at the center of town. As he walked he saw children running between the many mover carts playing or maybe lifting a few items here and there as they occasionally had been known to do. As the path neared the market it became a paved cobblestone street. He saw many more people crossing the path now on their way to and from local shops. A woman was sweeping off the stoop of a little shop off to his right. It was in a nook shoved between the much larger Golgameshe’s Chamber Pots and Alagan’s Wooley Woolerby Rugs. The small sign above the door said Yed’s Assorted Things. Peon took no interest in these stores but noticed the fine quality of the broom the woman was using to sweep the stoop. The handle was made of a sturdy red wood which Peon thought could be from an Yllian tree. Carved in it were beautiful scenes of flying birds and falling leaves. The bristles were tightly packed and wrapped to the handle by a fine red string. As he was about to call out to the woman and ask where he could get such a broom for himself one of the children still playing around the carts bumped into him. Momentarily startled he looked down to see a small brown-eyed child glance up at him then push off and rush into the stream of carts once more. When Peon recovered his composure he turned back to face the stoop only to find that the woman with the finely crafted broom was no longer there. He glanced around him for any sign of her but was disappointed when he could not find her in the mass of carts and people. With a slightly disappointed sigh he continued on his way towards the market to acquire some delicious berries and secretly hoping that he might be able to find one of those brooms there as well. A few short parts of a moon later he reached the market and began perusing the various goods for berries. He saw many interesting things including: glowstone necklaces, a multipole, invisible thread, Salt Coast wine, one merchant was pedaling magic spoons that could shift into forks or maybe it was the other way around. As he continued to search for berries Peon came upon a animal keeper selling rarer fare than one might normally see in such a town. Peon noticed a bird perched on a stand that was changing its colors every few seconds.

“Come closer my friend and have a look at these wondrous creatures. Just make sure not to touch. Some of them can be fairly intolerant at times,” said the keeper as he took a beetle from a bowl he held and dropped it into a cage nearby. Squeaking and squawking sounds emanated from the dense foliage within then the cage shook violently with a few piercing shrieks before going quiet.

“Feeding time,” said the keeper turning to him and smiling broadly.

Peon had read many articles about exotic creatures from his subscription to Palladium magazine and was interested in getting a good look at the selection before him. He approached the keeper’s alcove and peered down at one of the creatures on display. This one was a small lizard lying out across a bed of hot coals. Its scales were a dusty orange color. The lizard did not seem to mind the heat from the coals and even seemed to be enjoying itself. As Peon stared at it intently it raised and cocked its head to the side. Blinking slightly it stared at Peon with a fiery golden eye then turned its head toward him flicking its long wisp of a tongue to taste the air. Peon and the creature stared at each other in this fashion for several more seconds. With a flick of its tongue the lizard shot forth a plume of flame. Being possessed of quick reflexes especially when his life was in mortal danger Peon ducked in time to avoid the majority of the flame. He backpedaled away from the lizard patting franticly at the hair on his head to extinguish the tufts which had caught fire. The keeper looked at the lizard and shaking his head said, “Uh oh looks like somebody has a cold. Maybe we had best put you away for a little while.” The keeper picked up the stand the lizard rested on and moved it to the back of the alcove covering it with a glass bowl. “Every time I bring him here he comes down with something. It must be a bit too drafty even on the coals salamanders prefer lava, you know. If I could just get him some Alchemist’s Fire,” he said turning back to Peon he continuing, “Could I interest you in some of my other creatures. Flick makes a great show item in warmer weather but you wouldn’t want him sitting around your house with a cold. Maybe you’d like a little coo cat? They make excellent pets!”

“Ummm….no, no…no thank you….I’m afraid my house isn’t big enough for another creature.” Responded Peon shakily. With that Peon turned away and continued searching through the market for berries. Peon had no idea how much sense his comment made. Having never seen a coo cat or read of them in Palladium Magazine he would not know that coo cats can grow to a rather large size. In fact, the average fully-grown coo cat could reach a couple times the size of peon’s small house. Coo cats are known for making a distinct cooing sound that is very pleasing for people to hear. Many traders sell kittens to unsuspecting patrons though these traders seldom every trade in the same area again. A trader who returns usually finds an angry mob of villagers complaining of how he sold them cats that ate them out of everything they had. A returning trader may also find that the villagers had found an inventive use for their overly large pets.

One such merchant, by the name of Bartholomew Woodard, sold a number of kittens to the town of Waterman’s Knoll in the fifty-first Moon Year of the Wintry Moon; while passing through on his way to the capital city of Iron Holm. Upon his return voyage in the spring he made a second stop at Waterman’s Knoll with the belief that he could charge whatever he wished for the food stores he possessed. At the marketplace the town’s mayor greeted him and demanded that he make restitution for the expense of feeding the gigantic coo cats. Bartholomew Woodard was not a simple trader but owned a large merchant fleet and had several guards to ensure that he and his precious cargo made it safely to and from his destination. Not afraid of a few angry villagers he refused the mayor’s demands. It came as a complete surprise when the mayor gave him a little smile and then whistled a high-pitched note. What followed was the demise of Bartholomew Woodard and the destruction of a great merchant fleet as two-dozen coo cats rushed out from behind the town’s buildings trampling Woodard and his guards. The cats then proceeded to play in the harbor with Woodard’s fleet. The surprised merchant captains attempted to flee but unlike normal felines coo cats enjoy water. Each ship sank with all hands due to the coo cats pouncing on them as if they were giant floating mice.

It so happens, that while Bartholomew Woodard had been in Iron Holm selling his goods the townspeople of Waterman’s Knoll had been starving to death as the growing coo cats had eaten all their winter stores of food. Having no other choice the townspeople began sending parties to hunt the local forest for any creature that would pass as edible. On one expedition a coo cat had followed one of the hunters out into the forest. The hunter had tracked a small herd of wild woolerby to a clearing and was about to shoot one with his bow and arrow when the coo cat lumbered out of the forest and swatted the woolerby breaking its neck. It then set about to eating its meal as the surprised and frustrated hunter looked on. The hunter stormed out of the bushes he was hiding behind and yelled furiously at the coo cat to get away from his woolerby. The coo cat looked up at the hunter then slowly backed away. The hunter surprised the large beast had listened to him stood there stupidly for a few small parts of a moon. Once he recovered his wits he quickly grabbed the woolerby and dragged it back to town with the coo cat following serenely behind. After returning to town and sharing the woolerby meat with the other townspeople the hunter began to think about the strange way the coo cat had responded to him. An idea occurred to him that it might be possible to train the coo cats to help with hunting. It was soon realized, once a few attempts to train the cats had been made, that they were very intelligent and learned quickly. With the help of the coo cats the village hunted a steady supply of food for the winter and in the spring were able to deliver the merchant Woodard’s comeuppance.

Peon passed more colorful stalls filled with goods as he searched the market for berries. He was extremely glad to be away from the fire breathing lizard and quixotic animal keeper. The crowd was becoming thicker in the section of the market he had just entered. He had to push his way through the throng of people to continue onward, hoping to find what he was looking for at the market’s center. After what seemed like several parts of a moon longer than it was Peon broke out of the crowd of people. Peon stood where he was taking in the wonderful sight he had come here to find. Across from him and the gap in the crowd was a stand covered with every kind of berry imaginable. There were blueberries, red berries, white berries, orange berries, blackberries, multihued berries, and the shapes and sizes varied from tiny to the size of Peon’s fist. It was while standing there struck dumb he had found what he was searching for, that a passing mover cart passed over his foot. Peon let out a bloodcurdling scream and began hopping around wildly. Heads turned in his direction to see what all the commotion was about. The onlookers were perplexed to find a peon holding his foot while hopping up and down in a lane of traffic as a mover cart prepared to make him a useful roadway. While continuing to hop away the reawakened pain in his right foot Peon noticed all the people staring at him and behind him. Curious to find out what was of interest behind him he hopped around and noticed the fast approaching mover cart. Having no intention becoming a new coating of pavement Peon made a large hop to the side and rolled out of the way just in time to avoid the mover cart. Unfortunately, as the mover cart passed leaving Peon unscathed it hit a badly placed pothole and kicked up muddy water drenching him to the bone.
The onlookers laughed at the soaking wet peon still laying in the road holding his foot, and went about their business. Peon climbed to his feet gingerly setting his throbbing right foot on the ground. He decided that he would not let being in pain and soaking wet ruin the moment. He proceeded to hobble toward the merchant stand with the assorted berries. The shopkeeper, an old woman with frizzy white hair and inordinately large spectacles, looked at him giving a slight grimace at the sight of a muddy peon visiting her establishment. But being the successful business woman she was she asked “What can I get for you today, sir? I have this fine collection of berries available here before me and a stock of preserves in back.”

“I’ll have some blackberries, blueberries, red berries, orange berries, and some multihued berries…..ummmm…..make that a double helping of the multihued,” he replied.

The shopkeeper quickly put the berries Peon selected into a complementary basket and extended it toward him. She then asked, “What do you have as payment, sir?”

Peon quickly dug in his pockets for the watch he was carrying and handed it to her smiling. The shopkeeper looked at her hand and scowled then flung the ball of mud Peon had handed her to the ground saying, “I’m afraid mud doesn’t cover the cost of delicious berries such as these.”

Startled, Peon looked at the ground where lay the ball of mud he had mistaken for the watch. “I’m terribly sorry madam I thought that ….well….. it was something else….just a moment….” He said digging through his pockets once again.

But try as he might he could not produce the watch. The shopkeeper a bit miffed at receiving no payment withdrew the basket full of succulent berries saying, “Well, I thought my berries were worth more than mud to you but I can see that I was wrong. Come back when you have something that isn’t dirty. That includes yourself!”

Peon stunned and defeated wandered away aimlessly from the berry stand eventually sinking to the ground. Having come so close to his goal and failed he laid there for many parts of a moon pondering how he could have lost the watch.

THIS WORK MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION OF THE
AUTHOR(S). PLEASE CONTACT THE AUTHOR(S) FOR REPRODUCTION RIGHTS.

The Foolish Cleric

2006-02-08T00:27:00.000-05:00

"This is not violence, this is the right of every Muslim to fight for the prophet," said Ali Allameh, a bearded cleric whose hair was tied back with a bandanna. "Those who insult the prophet are not people, are not human beings. They're pigs and chimpanzees. Even pigs are better than these people."- From: Beirut Rioters Attack Church By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer

Notice the absurd and utterly vile nature of this man's words. He and those like him are the reason the cartoons depicting Muhammad were printed in the first place. For a cleric he lacks wisdom. Even animals strike back when they are attacked.

Source

Ideology Is Less Flammable Than Flags

2006-02-04T08:47:00.000-05:00

This idea comes from a comment Tom made regarding flag burning under the previous post. Here in the U.S. there is a divide between those who support flag burning as freedom of speech and those who find it offensive and think it should be illegal. I do not find flag burning the least bit offensive. I can understand that to certain people the flag represents what they have fought for or believe in in other ways. To some others it represents things they wish to change. The burning symbolizes the doing away with the old order. If your church burns down, do you lose your faith? One would hope not or else your beliefs are very weak. I think of flags in the same way. If one's beliefs are so weak as to be challenged by the destruction of a material thing then one should not have those beliefs. It is foolish to be concerned over the burning of a flag itself but far more logical to be concerned with the reasons and ideology of someone burning a flag. On an end note, according to the U.S. regulations regarding proper disposal of the U.S. flag the accepted method of destruction is to burn it.

Unreasonable Gunmen

2006-02-02T21:50:00.000-05:00

I think it is unusual that I have to write an update to a post so soon but for the sake of keeping up to date and furthering my points I will do so. In another bout of complete lack of reason, masked gunmen surrounded the European Union offices in Gaza on today. This is in reaction to a French newspaper publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad to remain in solidarity with the Denmark newspaper, which published a selection of cartoons earlier this week. I have to say that it is completely absurd to involve something that represents the entirety of Europe in a threatening demonstration when only two newspapers are involved in the offensive behavior. What could possibly be going through their minds that lead them to believe all of Europe is behind the publication of two newspapers? That question isn't really relevant anymore since because of this demonstration of force they've caused even more European newspapers to publish the cartoons that were offending them. I have often wondered what leads people to such senseless courses of action. Fortunately, I think I've got my answer.

"We are angry — very, very, very angry," said the legislator, Jamila al-Shanty. "No one can say a bad word about our prophet."- From Temperatures Rise Over Cartoons Mocking Muhammad By CRAIG S. SMITH and IAN FISHER

This seems to be a philosophy that would lead to many conflicts since the majority of the people on Earth do not follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Since they do not follow his teachings it is logical to assume they do not hold him in any great esteem. Therefore, they have valid reason for saying less than flattering words about him, if they say anything at all. Waving guns around at those who do not believe the way you do is a very poor way of convincing others that they should follow your beliefs. It is more likely to make them angry and do the same to you, in turn. This is another reason the Muslim world is submerged in illogical thought. Maybe if Muslims or at least their leaders were more reasonable people and did not anger so easily there would be less negative cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Source

No Freedom of Speech In Congress

2006-02-01T23:31:00.000-05:00

Note: This post contains some carefully chosen strong language. You have been warned so read at your own risk.

At the State of the Union address Cindy Sheehan was arrested by capitol police for wearing a shirt with the number of people killed in Iraq on it. Beverly Young the wife of Florida Representative C.W. Young(R) was also removed from the visitor's gallery for wearing a shirt with the slogan "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom."

The capitol building is the one place in this "Land of the Free" where we should have "Freedom". I would have whole-heartedly supported both of these women if they had grabbed the security guards' balls and twisted. They are deserving of the pain for their unpatriotic actions. This is a case where the capitol police should have stopped "just doing their jobs" and started being people again. When and who wrote this unpatriotic law that says the police could do this? If it was congress, which it probably was, I suggest the next time they are all assembled the police should manhandle them out the door and toss them on their fat behinds. It is time those who are sent to the capitol stop thinking they can get away with violating the rights of those who sent them there.

The Black Hole of Missile Defense

2006-01-31T22:14:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-31T22:08:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-30T21:35:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-25T00:30:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-23T22:43:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-20T00:01:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-18T23:13:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-18T23:09:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-18T22:16:00.000-05:00

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.

Update: The Real CIA

2005-12-05T21:35:00.000-05:00

I saw this statement by Condoleezza Rice while browsing the news today.

Throughout Monday, Rice refused any outright answer to the underlying question European governments have asked: Did the United States run clandestine detention sites on the continent?
"Were I to confirm or deny, say yes or say no, then I would be compromising intelligence information, and I'm not going to do that," she said on her plane to Germany. -source can be found here at the time of writting http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/06/content_500870.htm

This seems to be more proof that the prisons exist or existed at one time since something that does not exist cannot be compromised.

The Reason of Existence

2005-11-30T01:57:00.000-05:00

I hope to recieve a great amount of feedback on this so that I might improve the argument and/or make it easier to understand. This is the first part of a larger work.

To start off on this philosophical writing I think I shall begin with the beginning. The first question is: Does anything exist? One might wonder whether an answer to this question can ever really be obtained. I can’t give a definitive answer other than we must operate on the premise that ourselves and the universe exist. In explanation, existence is a state of being and for something to have value/meaning it must first exist. In order for an action to take place something must commit the action. Nothing refers to that which does not have existence. Something is the opposite of nothing therefore if an action is committed that which commits the action must exist. No actions can be caused by a state of nonbeing or nonexistence if you prefer. If I did not exist then I could not be committing/have committed the action of writing this. Continuing this argument from a different angle: If the universe we perceive does not truly exist then it cannot have value. The same can be said of ourselves if we do not exist. Even if I am incorrect in believing that for actions to be committed something must first exist to commit them I prove my point here that we must operate under the premise that we and the universe exist. This is because if nothing exists then nothing is of value/meaning. I would be curious if anyone could come up with a convincing argument from the premise that nothing exists to explain why anyone should or should not do anything or why things appear to be as they are. I believe from my previous argument I have shown our universe exists or rather that we have no choice but to believe it does but I think I have left out showing how value follows from existence. This brings me to my second question: What is value? Value is made up of properties. As an example of something that exists and has value let us take a piece of printer paper. We can identify an object as printer paper or as not printer paper by perceiving its value in the form of properties. The paper is thin, has four sides, is smooth, and is the color white. All these properties make up the paper’s value. We perceive these things about a piece of printer paper as necessary to it being a piece of printer paper. The properties are intrinsic to its existence. We attach instrumental value to the piece of printer paper because it has the useful purpose of being able to be used as printed media for reports. One might argue that these properties are merely based upon our perception of them and our perception may be false. I contend that one cannot reasonably make this argument since it is essentially the same as believing that nothing is what it seems. If one believes that one’s perception is flawed then that which is perceived could be an infinite number of other things. If one believes a single object to not be as it appears then it is possible that all other things perceived are not what they appear to be either. An infinite number of unknowns issues forth from this argument and just like the argument for the existence of nothing one cannot operate under the acceptance of this argument and find any value/meaning. Thus we are forced to accept our perception of the universe as “real”.

A Response to The Don

2005-11-16T23:59:00.000-05:00

Before I get into the philosophical discussion here let me tell you a little about how I stand as far as theology goes. I am NOT an atheist. I wish to clarify that since Don's chosen opposing viewpoint to his argument is atheism. I am not really an agnostic either though I generally claim to be whenever I am asked. My basic viewpoint is Not that God does not exist or that no one can know. I believe that God does exist. I just happen to believe He is not like what many people believe Him to be. More specifically I am against taking the Bible as absolute truth. This is where I pick up with disagreeing on the foundations of The Don's argument.

The Don's examples of negatives to the position q are as quoted:

"Position q faces some existential negatives:
1. Lack of moral law - moral relativism in which right and wrong are indeterminate.
2. No meaning - life loses meaning without some greater purpose, i.e. a theos directing things.
3. No hope - the atheist is unable to cope with evil and death, because there is no higher answer.
4. Pascalian wager - the Christian, if wrong, has fulfilled the atheist's test of life: happiness and fulfillment. The atheist, if wrong, has not fulfilled the Christian's test, and is subject to eternal judgment."

Part one is incorrectly conceived since moral relativism is not the belief that right and wrong are indeterminate. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no objective morality. Therefore the only determinable right and wrong that exist to moral relativists is subjective. It does however make one blanket law: Any system of ethics, which claims to be absolute truth, is incorrect. For a moral relativist there is no absolute truth. They follow moral rules simply because they have chosen those as the ones they value. They can still view other systems as evil or opposed to their system especially the ones who believe there is an absolute truth. Also it does not follow that a person who is an atheist is a moral relativist. Atheists can believe that there is an objective morality even if they don't believe in God. For instance if an atheist believed it was always wrong to cause others who have not attacked him physical pain. Pain is an objective stimulus that one can observe. If this statement did not have the always in it then it might be made by a moral relativist but it does and it is based on objectivity and the reason that one should adhere to it to create a stable society of people who don't hurt each other. Believing in an objective without action is good and evil is against everything a Moral Relativist stands for.

It is incorrect to think that atheists do not have a higher purpose. They may not believe in God but they can believe in higher values (i.e. courage, honor, justice etc.) whether or not those values coincide with the morality of the Bible. In essence they can choose or create their purpose. I am a firm believer in creating one's own purpose in life even though I do not believe in atheism. In order to keep this point one would have to objectively prove that God's values are the highest values regardless of God's existence and only by following them can a person live a fulfilling life.

It is wrong to suppose that atheists lack hope. Just because one lacks faith in God does not mean one lacks faith in other things. I would think a person could have faith in their fellow human beings since not all are evil. Humanity having been around a long time should continue to exist for quite some time to come this could be a comforting thought. In order for it not to be one would have be a pessimist and think of humanity as mostly evil. Coping with death without God or by that means an afterlife is not a problem for the atheist since if you cease to exist at your death you have no need for benefits afterward. Also a person would need to fear nothing afterward since one will feel nothing. With this outlook the only thing that matters is what one does in life. I shall write more on the idea of humanity as good or evil later.

Part four the Pascallian wager is wonderful in demonstrating the benefits of believing in God. However, it does not tell us what sort of God we should believe in other than one should believe in a God who provides infinite benefits in the afterlife. There are many Christian denominations with variations in their beliefs. Which version of worshiping the one deity that can provide these great benefits is correct? It cannot answer that for us.

The Don goes on to attempt to establish that the one true morality is that which is found in the Bible. He does so in three ways the first he maintains that the Bible is logically consistent and contains no contradictions. I disagree with this completely since the Bible does indeed have contradictions. One of which is the following:

"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." 2 Sam 10:18

"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."
1 Chron 19:18

This contradiction can of course be explained as an ERROR in transcription. There are other errors of this nature in the Bible. Although it may not be possible that God can make mistakes humans certainly can. The Bible carries the transcribed word of God not the uncorrupted word written down by His own hand. Now that I have shown that the Bible does indeed contain errors I will continue to attempt to show that it contains ones, which make it questionable as an only unquestionable source of truth.

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Isa 14:21

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Deut 24:16

This contradiction refers to the idea that children bear responsibility for the sins of their fathers. This causes a problem for the idea of original sin since if the second line is true then no one bears responsibility for the first sin of Adam but Adam himself. But if the first line is true then the second line false since something cannot be both true and false at the same time according to the law of noncontradiction. Another problem with the idea of original sin is that it relies on value being intrinsic. The idea that man is evil not by his acts but of his existence itself is unreasonable. Original sin proposes that evil can exist as a characteristic of something without a standard of value to judge it by. Therefore, it does not have a reason for why something is evil. According to original sin humanity just is evil.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Ephesians 2:8,9

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James 2:24

This is a very obvious contradiction. One line rejects the idea of works as being a way to salvation the other does not. I believe these examples to be sufficient to show major philosophical and theological contradictions. If not I do have more examples that I will gladly provide.

The second argument given is that the empirical evidence supporting the argument is overwhelming. I would have liked Don to go into further detail explaining the cosmological and microbiological evidence. However, I will make do with the mere mention of them. I disagree with this argument since the fossil record gives a great deal of evidence to support that the Bible is incorrect about the time man has spent here on earth. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record but these gaps are not any greater than the contradictions and errors I have shown to be in the Bible. It follows that it would be illogical to trust either the Bible or the fossil record as being unquestionable truth. Scientists are still questioning the fossil record today. New methods of DNA testing have shown that species thought to have once been related are not as close as appear and are in fact related to creatures of different sorts. Given its logical fallacies it would be logical read the Bible as valuable document of learning but not to view it as unquestionable infallible truth.

Continuing on this brings me to Don's third point that the Bible has experiential relevance. At the end of my last paragraph I do not completely disagree with this statement but continue that from the problems with the first two points it would be wise not to view its relevance as complete, unquestionable, or infallible.

I believe this satisfies the argument that Christianity cannot be seen as logically sustainable while viewing the Bible as the completely infallible truth. I hope my argument did not confuse anyone. If you have questions or comments please make them as I will be happy to answer.

God Abandons Dover Pennsylvania!

2005-11-13T21:38:00.000-05:00

The following quote is from Pat Robertson on the voting out of all Republican School Board members in Dover Pennsylvania.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city... And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," Pat Robertson The 700 Club.

It seems, according to Mr.Robertson God is equivalent to eight Republican School Board members. I seriously hope God isn't so capricious as to reject an entire city based on election results as Mr. Robertson seems to think. If He is then He certainly isn't worth following.

In Answer to a Question

2005-11-13T19:51:00.000-05:00

In answer to a question posed by The Don I reply that I do not believe all prisons to be immoral. I believe the CIA's prisons to be immoral because they are secret and on foreign soil so as to avoid the Geneva Conventions. The CIA could very easily be torturing people in these installations since there is no one to oversee that the prisoners are being treated properly. In addition to this the United States is a country that believes strongly in justice yet we do not appear to believe other human beings should have the same rights as ourselves. We deny the people being held in places like Guantanamo the same basic rights to trial as we possess. Whether or not these people are guilty of causing us harm we are giving them good reason to do so by viewing them as something worth less than our own human lives. If we granted them the rights we give ourselves giving them fair trials and decent treatment then I would have no problem with holding the ones found guilty in prisons that would have no need of secrecy. Such treatment guarantees the best we can do to ensure fair punishment of the guilty and minimization of harm to the innocent. The problem of treating prisoners as less deserving than of human beings is something that we do to American citizens not just those of other nationalities. Those who are convicted of felonies are denied the right to vote in many states. Instead of including people we reject them. This gives these people no reason to listen to us or change since they have no say in their government. Who would pay taxes if they had no say in how those were spent? Who would obey a law when having no say in its making? As human beings we should be better people than to strip the rights of others away. This is my answer.

The Real CIA

2005-11-04T01:06:00.000-05:00

Well if anyone didn't already know the Washington Post reported that the CIA has allegedly been keeping captured terror suspects in secret East European prisons. Suspected locations of these prisons are in Poland and Romania. The EU and human rights organizations such as the Red Cross are investigating. Such prisons are illegal and in my opinion immoral. I don’t really have anything more to say about this other than a request to anyone out there. If you know where these prisons are located please spread your information online. Blog about it or something so that everyone knows. The sooner the locations are exposed the sooner these prisons can be shut down. Hopefully, some of the bastards who are operating them will be tried for it too. To hell with the damned CIA and their classified information.

The Words Are Written

2005-10-11T22:45:00.000-04:00

The words are written
And magic flows
Running in rivers of black
A mix of colors light the mind
An imagination born
Winds twist through the lines
Pushing imagination inexorably forward
Guiding it through perils
Impressing in the mind ideas
Lives are lived in minutes
Worlds are built in hours
Memories live for years
The river flows from hand to hand
As the winds blow the colors change
Perils increase and diminish
In the depths of black they stay the same
In the mind’s eye they live again.

Two Different Questions

2005-09-28T23:53:00.000-04:00

I have been reading quite a few articles on the court case in Pennsylvania regarding intelligent design's place in the classroom. The book Of Pandas and People, which was in the school board’s statement, sparked my interest so I decide to look it up. On Amazon.com I read the book's description and then the comments several people made. Most of these comments were less than favorable, one even being sarcastic. The main complaint I garnered from the comments was there was little evidence given supporting intelligent design. This didn't come as a big surprise since intelligent design is not considered a theory and evolution is. Based on the lack of scientific evidence for intelligent design it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. I fail to see how intelligent design is an alternative to evolution not because of the lack of evidence but because it doesn't deal with the same questions. Evolution describes the process, backed up by evidence, by which life changes over time. Intelligent design claims that because of the complexity of life an intelligent being must have created it. Evolution tries to explain how and intelligent design tries to explain what or who. There really is no reason an intelligent being could not have created and changed life through using the process of evolution. One comment I found in favor of the book was of interest to me.

"Put your faith in the Big Prankster. He's just messing with you. He created the fossil record at the same time he created all the living beings on this planet. This is a test of faith.

Doesn't it comfort you that God would play such a joke on mankind? He gave us the intelligence to figure out the logical progression of life from clues he planted intentionally to fool us, then he gave us a book whose wisdom challenges the logical progression he laid out and told us to believe in it, or else.

Now he's waiting to see whether he can float us on a cloud or roast us on a spit for all eternity based on our decision.

These thoughts are what help me to sleep peacefully at night." quoted from Tony P. Konig on Amazon.com a review of the book Of Pandas and People

I fail to see why Tony's argument that an all powerful being, who plays games with your immortal soul by creating false evidence and telling you to believe otherwise, should be comforting. If anything it should be very scary. Tony's argument also brings into question whether such a God could be considered good since he is lying to us by fabricating false evidence. I prefer to think that God isn't lying to us through fossil records and other evidence. It seems better to think that we are lying to ourselves by seeing conflicts where there really are none and that we are misguidedly trying to convince ourselves otherwise by looking to sources with little evidence.

Walking Alone

2005-09-28T23:11:00.000-04:00

A person walking alone may trip.
A person who trips falls.
A person walking with friends may trip.
A person with friends has someone to catch him.

Wisdom I acquired from a road sign.

Should we Quarter him with Arabian Horses?

2005-09-28T00:21:00.000-04:00

I find it utterly amazing the statements Michael Brown made to a House committee. He laid the blame for the slow response to Katrina on the local government. It is absurd to blame local officials for a slow response to this disaster since any local aid was blown away by the gigantic hurricane. Read below the wise words of the former FEMA director and former counsel for the International Arabian Horse Association.

"If I, Mike Brown, individual, could have done something to convince them that this was the big one and they needed to order a mandatory evacuation, I would have done it."

Dude, you were the head of FEMA you could have at least tried going on television and telling people how dangerous this hurricane was before it made landfall.

"I don't have a clue how many [people] were truly in the Superdome," Said Brown.

Brown was asked if he was still a federal employee to which he responded, "You know, I don't know."

Sadly he still is a federal employee.

"feeble," "clueless," "shocking" and "beyond belief." "I'm happy you left, because that kind of . . . look in the lights like a deer tells me that you weren't capable to do the job." Rep. Christopher Shays (R) Connecticut on Michael Brown's remarks.

Brown said the White House "was fully engaged . . . behind the scenes,"

"They had to be behind the scenes, because I think we didn't see anything out front." Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R) Virginia.

All I have left to say is I have to agree with the Representative from Connecticut.

More Reasonable Capital Punishment

2005-09-27T23:57:00.000-04:00

The use of the death penalty in this country seems to spark much debate. Many people believe that the death penalty should be abolished because it could execute innocent people. Others argue that the death penalty is a necessary tool to deter criminals. I am not opposed to the death penalty itself but I am opposed to the misuse of the death penalty. The main problem with the death penalty today is the uncertainty that the person convicted committed the crime. Courts sometimes deny DNA testing on evidence, which may rule out the defendant as a possible perpetrator. I find it illogical to not test any DNA evidence available. The goal in prosecuting a person under the death penalty is to make sure that the right person is punished severely for their crimes. One argument I have heard regarding why not to test this type of evidence is that the defendants are only using it as a delaying tactic when they know they have no other options left. This argument is illogical because it is irrelevant when a guilty person is executed. Common wisdom suggests that if the person is guilty he/she will spend an eternity in hell. What is the difference between eternity and two weeks versus eternity and two month or even two years? The answer is none. I believe it is a distinct possibility that the government has already executed at least one innocent person in the last twenty years. I base this on the fact that the courts in Virginia have ruled to not allow DNA testing on evidence after a person has been executed. There is no other logical explanation for this ruling than the government does not want old evidence tested which might show it was wrong and executed innocent people. As to the question of whether or not the death penalty is morally right I would have to agree that under some circumstances it is. A circumstance under which I believe the death penalty to be right is one in which there is no doubt an individual is guilty. These circumstances include: self-defense when a person is actively trying to kill you, serial killers, and murders in which a person leaves evidence of his/her presence at the scene and has been video taped or there are many credible witnesses in broad daylight. All of these situations have in common an overwhelming certainty that the identity of the perpetrator is known. One more circumstance I will add to this list is in the event a convict kills a guard or another inmate. I add this circumstance because if I did not there would be no further deterrent to prevent inmates serving life in prison from killing again. Many years ago an inmate escaped from a prison in which he was serving a life sentence. He was cornered in a house in Michigan City holding a family hostage. He surrendered to the police after killing the hostages. He received no further punishment because the courts had abolished the death penalty around that time. The problem with the death penalty is not that it exists but that both those who support it and those who want to abolish it apply it improperly.

The Flame

2005-09-25T23:38:00.000-04:00

The flame that forges anger
Resides within the heart
Giving strength to the poor
Giving power to the wronged
Giving weakness to the ambitious

When anger feeds upon itself
It consumes a piece of the heart
Weakening one's control
Clouding one's thoughts
Erasing a person
Leaving only a feeling

A strong heart contains the flame
Keeping it from spilling out
And burning the one who forges it
In this way the forger shapes the outcome
Directing what is made by his soul.

Does the Antichrist Pay for Broadcast Time?

2005-09-19T23:46:00.000-04:00

After publishing the post on Pat Robertson's comment a week or two ago I decided to look up some quotes of other things he has said. At this time I would like to retract what I said in my previous post and state that the 700 Club should be boycotted as long as he still appears on it. I consider him to be a very dangerous person to America if anyone watching his show starts believing in what he says. Below are some quotes I find particularly enlightening.

"We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over." - Pat Robertson a speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally

That’s right he wants to take over the country.

"We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA." - Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991

He is creating an army and infiltrating the political system. Before anyone calls me paranoid let me point out that these are actual things he has written or said. My personal estimate of this is his grasp is greater than his reach.

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." - Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993.

Pat is, in fact, correct. There is no mention of the words separation, church, and state in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. However, he most likely failed government in high school because it does state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This clearly means the government isn't supposed to make rules and laws which help establish or favor a particular religion.

"Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985

Didn't he at least forget Hindus and Buddhists? I'm not keen on having Islamic clerics in power myself but that’s because I'm not sure they'd uphold the Constitution any better than Pat.

"I never said that in my life ... I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that."
- Pat Robertson, Time magazine

Either he is a hypocrite or has a very poor memory, or maybe both.

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."" - Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 218

And here I thought America was supposed to be governed by the people in general when all along it was really Christian and Jewish people only.

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991

That’s right according to Pat love isn't the same thing as being nice to people. So much for Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists in Pat's new government. I wonder who the Methodists think is the Antichrist?

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

There really isn't much I can say to this. I think the parts about "kill their children" and "destroy capitalism" speak for themselves.

"[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism -- everything that the Bible condemns." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, April 9, 1991

Wow. Not only do they teach about STDs and how to use a condom. According to Pat you can take classes on how to have sex with animals too.

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992

This is probably why Pat Robertson lost his campaign for the presidency. Half of America read this and didn't vote for him.

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993

I have it on good authority that the Nazis were equally ruthless in killing homosexuals and Jews.

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 1998

Way to state the obvious Pat. But I don't think not waving a flag is going to keep hurricanes from hitting Florida.

"I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, October 29, 1982

Well I guess I know whom to blame for canceling Halloween at my elementary school. Dear Trick-or-Treaters please send Pat's family all the candy you can afford to part with. I have a feeling his children need it badly.

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." - Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.

There are quite a few more quotes from Pat I could add but I'll spare the readers. This is too long already anyway. I think I'll call it a night and go round up some Christians for our local concentration camps and maybe test out my homemade gas chamber.

Not Very Christian Of Him

2005-09-19T23:38:00.000-04:00

U.S. relations with the rest of the world are bound to take another plunge due to Pat Robertson's recent comments. For those of you who are unaware he made a statement that the U.S. should assassinate the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. This statement is something that is very hypocritical for a person who would claim to be a good Christian. Stating that the United States should coldly murder a man shows that Pat Robertson is not a good Christian since the Bible expressly forbids murder. I'm sure most people understand this basic fact from the Bible but I am concerned about those individuals who would trust the judgment of a man who calmly makes such statements. I call for a boycott of the 700 Club until Mr.Robertson publicly asks for forgiveness from God and his fellow Americans who he has wronged. Normally I would call for his removal from television but I've decided to give forgiveness a chance. Please write Mr.Robertson and encourage him to seek forgiveness and God more fully.

Peon Part I: Green Berries, Grunts, and Frogs

2005-09-19T23:29:00.000-04:00

This is the original part one of my story Peon plus what was supposed to be part two. I condensed them into one because they fit so well. I know this has been long awaited. Sorry for the inconvenience of waiting.

Part I: Green Berries, Grunts, and Frogs

In a time there was a place not unlike our own. In this place there were many kingdoms each of which had its own set of rules and customs and each hated or liked each other accordingly. In one particular kingdom there lived a peon. The peon was a normal peon not standing out in any way and living up to his name, Peon, in every possible way. Peon had a normal existence. Every day he would leave his cabin and travel through the woods to cut down trees for firewood, hunt, fish, pick any berries he came across, and return to his cabin at the end of the day. He really liked berries. The problem he had was that the weather had not been conducive to berry growth this year and so no berries had grown for him to pick. Liking berries as much as he did he decided that he could not go without and so packed his gear and set out on a hike to the nearest town. Traveling through the woods Peon behaved like the average everyday normal peon he was. He hunted, he fished, he cut limbs off trees for firewood, and he thought about berries. In fact, the better part of the time he spent hiking he would think about berries. He thought of blueberries, redberries, purpleberries, orangeberries, yellowberries, blackberries, whiteberries, and even greenberries, which he new would ripen into any of the former kinds of berries. As he was thinking about berries on the third day of his journey to the nearest town to purchase berries he failed to notice two things. The first thing was that he had left the forest and was now walking down a large path, or rather a dirt road. The second was that on the dirt road headed toward him was a very fast moving mover drawn cart. Fortunately for Peon the peon in the mover drawn cart was very observant having had several points previously removed from his mover’s license. Not wanting to accidentally loose the aforementioned license due to the removal of more points he asked the movers drawing the cart to stop quickly. It is worth noting that this was impressive not because the movers stopped but that they did so quickly in compliance with the peon driver’s command. It is a well known fact throughout the kingdoms that movers possess two qualities. The first quality is supreme stupidity in every possible way. A mover can be given two instructions: stop and go. A specific direction is usually determined by which direction the mover is facing when the command is given. The second quality is supreme stubbornness, which accounts for why it was impressive that they did as the peon ordered. A mover told to hurry so that its driver can be at his desired destination on time almost always chooses its own pace. This speed is usually either so mind numbingly fast as to leave the driver retching his guts out on the pavement or so slow as to take three moons to reach a desired destination normally located a good trillionth moon walking distance away. Peon was very fortunate that the movers obeyed their driver and stopped quickly on top of his right foot. At first Peon was so absorbed in his thoughts of berries and various methods of berry preparation that he felt no pain coming from his crushed foot. The mover standing upon Peon’s right foot was more than happy to provide the necessary stimulus of licking Peon’s face with its giant slimy tongue to facilitate the proper pain response. Peon after yelling, gibbering, whimpering, and attempting to dance in place with one free foot, set about to telling the movers to move off his foot in the opposite direction as forwards. As previously mentioned movers only know two commands and reverse was not one of them. Realizing that the movers were uncooperative or simply too stupid to move to a location more suitable for his comfort Peon irritably asked the driver to help. The peon driving the cart stared blankly at Peon for a moment before stepping down from the cart and moving to search it for something useful in removing movers from peon feet. The peon rummaging through the cart found the only tool useful for removing the movers and walked to Peon to set about freeing him. This did not agree with Peon’s desired possible courses of action at all. The tool considered the only useful tool for freeing a peon’s foot from that of a mover was an exceptionally sharp axe. Seeing the peon brandishing this axe was not at all reassuring in that there was no possibility that it would be used on the offending mover. Such an axe would most certainly be used upon Peon’s foot as the peon with the axe deemed it easier to replace than a useful mover if movers could be said to be useful. As the peon came within a suitable cutting distance and began to raise the exceptionally sharp axe Peon took the only course of action he could think of. He punched the peon square in the jaw as hard as he could and watched his eyes roll up into his head. This is not what actually happened. Peon’s attack on the axe-wielding peon did not result in the desired result of unconsciousness for that peon. Instead the peon staggered backward tripped over a rock and fell over the embankment several feet into the ditch by the side of the road. After several infinitesimally small and yet infinitely long seeming parts of a moon Peon came to the conclusion that the axe wielding peon in the ditch was not going to come back up the bank and somewhat angrily resume his work of cutting off parts of Peon. Peon returned his thoughts to the problem at hand or rather at foot. The mover still standing on Peon’s foot showed no sign of moving anytime in the next three moons. Peon was thinking of a way to move the mover off his foot when a magnificent transporter drawn carriage trundled passed him. For a few more infinitesimally small yet infinitely long seeming parts of a moon he was too stunned by the beauty of the carriage to say anything. Then coming to his senses he began yelling at the carriage to stop and help him. The carriage ignored him and continued on its way toward town. Peon decided that this annoyed him very much. For awhile after the carriage passed he continued to think of ways to convince the mover to move off his foot but none of the ideas he tried worked. Finally becoming frustrated he gave up and took his bubbler out of his pack, closed his eyes, and commenced to bubbling. The bubbles were having a relaxing effect on Peon and he had almost forgotten about that annoying carriage when he noticed he could move his right foot, although painfully. Curious as to why he could commence in this painful activity he opened his eyes. What he saw when he opened his eyes was a mover very distressed by the bubbles bubbling into its nose and that the mover had lifted its hoof off his foot in its attempts to sneeze. An instant later Peon received a front row seat to what happens when a mover sneezes. When a mover sneezes it has the unpleasant tendency to expel large quantities of mucus in an extremely messy form, which covers just about everything in an arc in front of it. The wad of mucus that hit Peon in the face and, pretty much everywhere else, made him topple over backwards on the ground where he sat for several trillionths of a moon. After coming to his senses he wiped the dripping mucus off his face and slowly stood up being careful not to put too much pressure on his crushed foot. After standing for several more trillionths of a moon he started hobbling to the edge of the embankment. He peered down the embankment to where the peon laid motionless then ever so slowly slid down to where he laid. After kicking the peon in the head three times, rather harshly as he was still sore about the whole cutting off parts of Peon thing, Peon determined that the peon was already dead from the fall. Peon then picked up the exceptionally sharp axe and after examining it determined that it was indeed an exceptionally sharp axe, a far better one than he had been carrying. Peon crawled back up the embankment to the road and began limping to town.

Upon reaching a hill overlooking the town Peon was stunned silent for several parts of a moon. Being from a rather poorly developed kingdom and living in a forest he had not seen such a large town before or in fact ever. The closest he had ever come to seeing an actual town was the tri-annual migration of woolerby. The woolerby renowned for its woolyness migrates from the northern most kingdom of Pole, through the many kingdoms, to the southern most kingdom of Pole. It is worth noting that Pole and Pole are not the same kingdom though many travelers get confused between the two. This should not be the case as the two kingdoms are entirely different. Pole has translucent ice while Pole has ice that is somewhat opaque. The other difference should the consistency of the terrain not be enough is that the inflection is different in the respective languages of the two kingdoms. As the woolerby migrate they are followed by the dewoolerbys who construct makeshift shantytowns all along the migration route. The dewoolerbys’ origins are thought to have originated from the peons of one or both of the two kingdoms who discovered that by helping the migrating woolerby the woolyness of the woolerby increases. The dewoolerby harvest the wooly of the woolerby and trade it to Pole and Pole, and any other kingdom depending on the coldness of the weather, for supplies for their next migration. Neither Pole nor Pole enjoys having woolerby and dewoolerby within its borders but tolerate their presence as a necessity. This is because it is almost worth freezing to death at either Pole or Pole to not have to wear a woolerby fur. Woolerby in addition to being exceptionally wooly are odiferous in the extreme. One traveler after wearing a woolerby fur found that his wife would no longer nag him or, in fact, stand within five hundred paces of him. His wife found that she preferred being further than five hundred paces from him and in the company of another man. Pole and Pole tolerate the odiferous presence of the woolerby and dewoolerby for one reason. This reason being that it is preferable to buy up the woolerby furs quickly than to have both the woolerby and the dewoolerby stay until the stench becomes so overwhelming that the dewoolerby can charge anything to move the herd a few lengths away from town. Peon stared at the beautifully crafted buildings in wonder. The buildings were constructed of expertly cut stone and timber. The more simple structures possessed thatched roofs while the more ornate ones had wooden or slate shingles. All of the buildings were extremely well kept and the town was surrounded by high stone walls for protection. Peon observed what appeared to be a market toward the center of the town and noted that it was extremely busy. After taking in the hustle and bustle of the lively town he proceeded with a lightened step down the hill toward the town gate. All the while, with the thought that he would soon have the delicious berries he sought stirring gently in his mind. Upon reaching the gate he filed in behind a mover cart that was being ushered through. As he passed through the gates he noted their fine craftsmanship with the detail paid to the goddess of protection at the top of the arch, her lovely gaze overlooking the travelers who entered. He was roughly thrown back out into a muddy rut created by the passing movers. Peon looked up to see a rather large brutish figure standing over him. Getting to his feet he saw that the figure was an ugly looking grunt. This was no surprise as all grunts are ugly but some are more ugly than others. As Peon’s eyes widened in surprise the uglier than average grunt approached him and began to speak.

“Well, well, what have we got here, hmm, perhaps a peon who hasn’t paid the toll yet?” grunted the grunt. As he grunted this, three other grunts surrounded Peon.

“Well peon, what do you have to pay the toll with? Or are my colleagues here going to have to show you the way back home?” he grunted.

Peon was characteristically stricken with fear and, as such, was lost fishing through the murk of his fear addled mind for an answer. Finding the wherewithal to formulate a response will take him awhile so we will leave him to collect himself and launch into a discussion on grunts. Grunts are a large brutish people who enjoy being large and brutish. They specifically enjoy being large and brutish around others who are afraid of brutishness, especially when it is combined with largeness. It is because of their subconscious need for this enjoyment that they are socializing with Peon. Unfortunately, due to a grunt’s inept social skills this socialization is often perceived by others as bullying. Bullying is exactly the way Peon perceived it, through no fault of his own, because the grunt had grunted his remarks. A study conducted at the Palladium Plateau University of the Eastern Plains determined that not all grunts can grunt. Specifically, only about thirty percent of all grunts can grunt with half of those only being able to do so intermittently. Another study proved that grunt grunting occurs most frequently when a grunt is angry. Having little else to do in the middle of the woods Peon had subscribed to Palladium magazine and was fully aware of these facts, hence his perfectly reasonable fear reaction. Now that we understand the misunderstood nature of grunts and Peon’s side of things it is only appropriate that a more sociable translation of the grunts speech be forthcoming.

Translation into Peonic of the perfectly reasonable grunt’s speech:

“It appears that this peon here has not yet paid the perfectly reasonable toll for repair and maintenance of this road, lets go collect it,” grunted the grunt reasonably.

“Greetings little buddy, do you have currency or barter to pay the perfectly reasonable toll with? Or are my colleagues and I going to have to show you the way back to my home for dinner and a night of rest? Because you may not pass without paying the toll,” he grunted in a most friendly manner.

Peon finally collecting himself after so many parts of a moon noticed the grunts advancing on him and used his recovered wits to respond to the grunt’s inquiry.

“I, uh, I have, um, some stuff … in my pack here to, um, barter with,” said Peon quickly.

The grunts stopped advancing on Peon and the uglier than average grunt considered this for a moment before responding.

“Show us,” he grunted.

Peon hurriedly emptied his pack onto the ground and backed away a few paces to let the grunts sort through his pile of belongings. The grunts set about rummaging through the pile picking over what few items Peon possessed. They sniffed at what little food he had left after his journey to town and found it was not to their liking. It is uncommon for a grunt to turn down food whether it is the finely prepared cuisine of a king’s palace or the stale lumps of goo from Peon’s pack. Peon thought that this was not a good sign in regards to his chances of surviving his encounter with the grunts. As it turns out, the grunts simply were not hungry (who would have thought?). A grunt picked up Peon’s bubbler and after examining it tossed it to him. Peon found a rock nearby, sat down on it, and began bubbling as the grunts continued digging through the pile of his stuff. He watched as they examined his fire starter, his extra set of clothing, his Furgy Frog, and a really nice rope he had found useful on occasions when he wanted to climb something. They threw all of these into a pile behind them without so much as a sound except to laugh at him when they found the Furgy Frog. Then the uglier than average grunt picked up the exceptionally sharp axe and advanced toward Peon with the other grunts following a pace or two behind him.

It is worth explaining what a Furgy Frog is so that one can understand why a grunt would find the fact that Peon was carrying one funny. In a time about two-hundred new moons ago there was a Countess named Furgy Urn Frugal. This countess was unfortunate enough to run afoul of a wizard who was wizzing in the woods near her tower. Being rather ruffled at this intrusion on his wizzing he laid a curse upon her turning her into a frog. If you know anything at all about wizards, spellcasting, or curses then you can figure out that this wizard was not very imaginative because this curse had been done so many times before. In fact, if he had had any imagination at all he would have realized that he was likely to be caught doing his wizzing that close to the countess’s tower. Unfortunately, this kind of misunderstanding can happen when one is unimaginative or in non-wizard speak when one doesn’t have brains. The Countess Furgy Urn Frugal spent quite a few years as a frog in a pond in the forest near her tower. Eventually some of her staff at the tower did go search for her when they stopped receiving their paychecks from the tower treasury but failing to find her or receive continued compensation for their services they left to find other employment. A concerned citizen of the overactive variety might find the staff’s behavior cold and uncaring, but I assure you this is not the case. The staff was doing their jobs properly. Whenever the countess wanted something she was to ring a small silver bell she carried with her and the required item or service would be provided for her. Since she never rang the bell after her transformation it was understood that she did not require any service. This protocol had been arranged by the tower treasurer who was also a close advisor to the Countess. It served them both well because the Countess did not like to be annoyed by her staff constantly checking to see that she had everything she wanted and her treasurer did not like being interrupted by the complaining Countess while he was spending her money. In a way, the Countess should be grateful to the treasurer for spending all her money because it is the only reason anyone came looking for her in the first place. One might wonder why the Countess never hopped toward her tower for help. This quandary is easily settled by two things the first being frogs do not like being away from water. The second being the chef on her staff had served frog legs on occasion and unlike the wizard she was very imaginative. One day as the countess was sitting on a lily pad in the pond she heard the unexpected sound of someone moving toward her in the woods. After a few short parts of a moon a boy of about the age of fourteen entered the clearing around the pond. He carried a fishing pole and a bucket of worms and beetles. He set about baiting his hook, casting his line, and waiting for some fish to bite. The countess decided that she should try and get him to help her though she didn’t know how he was going to convince a person of noble status to kiss her. She hopped off the lily pad, swam to shore, hopped up to the boy, and spoke. The boy promptly dropped his pole, jumped up, screamed, and ran away into the woods. The Countess sat, stunned, on the shore because she had not expected the boy to be frightened and because she had not spoken since she had been transformed many new moons ago. While not impossible it is rather uncommon to encounter a talking frog hence the boy’s reaction. After she recovered herself from her thoughts she decided that next time someone happened by the pond she would stay hidden so she could explain her problem before revealing herself. She then decided it was time for lunch and took advantage of the worms and beetles the boy had brought with him as bait. Several cycles of a moon after the boy fled from the pond another person came upon the pond. This time, as luck would have it, the stranger was a Prince who had decided the clearing near the pond would be a perfect place to rest before continuing on his travels. The Countess hid in a stand of cattails near the edge of the pond and addressed the stranger.

“Good Evening dear sir, I was wondering if you might be so kind as to assist me with a matter of some importance,” She said.

Somewhat startled the Prince looked around for the source of the melodious voice that had spoken to him and said, “Fair lady I would be pleased to offer what assistance I can but would you be so kind as to show yourself that I may see the beauty that is so present in your voice.”

The Countess considered whether or not it was the right moment to reveal herself and decided to play it safe and wait. “But dear sir I don’t even know your name,” she said.

“I am Prince Thavion Treehugger, my lady, and what may I ask is your name?” Inquired the Prince bowing sweepingly around the clearing.

“I am the Countess Furgy Urn Frugal,” she said.

“It is a pleasure to meet you wherever it is you may be. Would you not step out so that I may lay eyes upon your beauty and that we may discuss further this matter of importance to you?” he said again looking around the clearing.

At this the Countess hopped out of the stand of cattails into the clearing. The Prince while scanning the clearing for the Countess spotted a frog that had hopped up to him out of a stand of cattails. He quickly ran it through with the pins he carried and set about to do a wonderful job of magical taxidermy. It so happens that Prince Thavion Treehugger was from a kingdom to the west that was fond of preserving nature in all its forms. They had developed a method by which all natural creatures could be preserved almost indefinitely by stuffing them and charging them with magical energy. After finishing his marvelous job of magical taxidermy the Prince looked up from his work and remembered the Countess.

“My apologies for being so forgetful Countess but I am always so absorbed in my work. If you would but step out and speak with me I am sure that I can help you with whatever it is that you need,” said the Prince.

“Mmmmm huuhhhhh uhhhhh mmmmuhhhherrr uuuuuuhhhhherrrrr” screamed the Countess through the stitches in her mouth.

The Prince looked down and seeing that it was his recently taxidermied frog trying to speak to him promptly had a coronary and died. Although the people of the Prince’s kingdom made sure to stitch up the mouths of their magically taxidermied animals so that they did not eat each other no such constraints were put upon the Prince. He was unfortunate enough to dine upon steak every day of his life and this is how he ended up being struck down in his prime by his work. The Countess, although still as alive and well as a magically taxidermied frog can be, was in a bind. She was still pinned to the ground by the Prince’s taxidermy equipment and was unable to free herself. She struggled until nightfall and then watched a large white moon rise overhead. The Countess learned later that night that magically taxidermied frogs do not sleep and so began to hum various tunes to keep herself occupied. About ten to twenty new moons later a woodsman found the clearing while cutting down the brush that had grown up around the pond. While pausing in cutting down the brush he heard what sounded like humming coming from some tall grass near the pond. He proceeded to investigate and found it was coming from a stuffed frog pinned to the ground next to a skeleton. He unpinned the humming frog and stuffed it in his backpack thinking it would make a good present for his daughter. He looked at the skeleton for a short time then kicked some dirt over it and finished clearing the brush before heading home. He would have gone and gotten some help in burying the skeleton properly had he not remembered some advice from his father. The advice was along the lines of “its best not to get involved in such things”. It was just as well that he left the Prince’s remains in the clearing because had they been properly interred in the Treehugger’s crypt they would have been desecrated. The Treehuggers while doing their very best to preserve nature created many enemies in their attempts to do so. The main reason for this was that while the Countess Furgy Urn Frugal was the first person turned into a frog to be taxidermied by a Treehugger she was not the last. This unfortunate event happened to many people of noble birth and came to an end when a Treehugger taxidermied a wizard. This wizard had temporarily transformed himself into a ferret in order to retrieve a magic ring he had dropped down a hole. Upon retrieving his ring and sticking his head out of the hole he found himself grabbed by a Treehugger chloroformed and taxidermied before he could say a word. After waking in the Treehugger’s castle he removed the stitches from his mouth with the ferret’s rather dexterous paws and proceeded to transform himself back into his wizardly form. Then he magically removed the stitches from the mouths of the other animals. He was rather astounded when many of these animals started to thank him in courtly voices. After the transformed nobles thanked him and explained to him what had happened he cast spells transforming them back into their noble selves. The rather angry nobles led by a very angry wizard set about lighting fire to and pillaging the Treehugger estate while the Treehuggers fled in panic. After this incident the nobles led a vicious public relations campaign against the Treehuggers, which is why Treehuggers have a bad reputation to this very day. When the woodsman returned home to his family he kissed his wife and gave the humming stuffed frog to his daughter. The woodsman’s daughter was thrilled to have been given such a wonderful present. The next day she showed off her humming stuffed frog to all her friends. The Countess was not pleased by this turn of events because even though there were plenty of people around to help her she could not ask for help and she did not enjoy being poked and prodded by a bunch of children. She had also discovered while in the woodsman’s pack she could not move even though she was no longer pinned to the ground. At first she thought it was because she hadn’t tried to move in so many moons but after many days she came to realize that it was because the magic charge the Prince had imbued her with was mostly used up. After much humming and a new moon or so later luck finally smiled upon the Countess. The woodsman’s daughter, some many parts of a moon ago, had started to take sewing lessons from a local seamstress. The lesson she received this day was on the proper removal of stitches. While she was practicing the craft it occurred to her that she could put her newly acquired knowledge to practical use. She had always disliked the nasty stitches on her humming stuffed frog’s lips so she decided to remove them. After removing the stitches she set her supplies down and held her humming stuffed frog up to admire her work. The Countess having had the stitches finally removed from her lips decided to give asking for help a try.

“Little girl would you be so kind as to fetch your parents so that I may discuss with them some problems I believe they could assist me with,” the Countess croaked out. The croaking having less to do with her being a frog than her throat being dry from the many moons worth of humming.

“Who are you calling little?! I’m fourteen! Don’t you think you could ask me for help? No, of course not. You people are all the same you think just because I’m a girl and taking sewing lessons I’m not worth asking for help! Well I’ve got news for you froggy I’m not … I … ahhhhhhhh!” said the woodsman’s daughter screaming and dropping her talking stuffed frog.

The Countess made a ploofing sound as she hit the floor. “Would you mind not dropping me on the floor when I’m trying to talk to you?”

“Ya … Ya … You … You can talk?” stammered the woodsman’s daughter.

“Of course I can. I thought we already established that. Now would you mind fetching someone who might be able to help a talking frog?” replied the Countess.

“Uh, I think I should go get Miss O’Hara,” said the woodsman’s daughter who quickly ran into the other room to fetch the seamstress.

Miss O’Hara, the seamstress, was less than impressed by the girl’s story of a talking stuffed frog but decided that she would humor her considering how much she was being paid by the woodsman to give the girl sewing lessons. When the woodsman’s daughter returned with the seamstress in tow the Countess could barely contain her enthusiasm.

“I’m telling you it can really talk! It is just over there. Ask it something you’ll see!” said the woodsman’s daughter.

Miss O’Hara walked up to the Countess and bent over to examine the frog. “So you can talk huh? Have anything good to say?” she asked.

“Indeed I do, miss. I need your help removing—“ the Countess was unable to finish her request because seamstress released a shriek that would do a banshee justice and began backing away from her rapidly. Unfortunately, the sewing supplies the woodsman’s daughter had used to remove the stitches from the Countess’ mouth were lying on the floor behind her. In her hurry to escape the talking frog, the seamstress tripped over the sewing supplies and hit her head on a nearby table knocking herself unconscious. The woodsman’s daughter rushed to her side and examined her to make sure she wasn’t dead.
The woodsman and his wife having heard the scream from the other room and ran in and saw the unconscious seamstress. While his wife and daughter tended to the seamstress as best they could the woodsman went to fetch the local healer. It was many parts of a moon later when he returned with the healer. The commotion caused by the seamstress injuring herself had caused the woodsman’s daughter to forget the Countess. During all this activity the Countess stayed silent and observant. The Countess did not wish to alarm any more of the people in the house since she needed their help. She was also aware that her ability to speak was fading with the magical charge and that she should wait for an opportune time to make her request since she might only have one more chance. The healer quickly restored the seamstress to good health and she slowly sat up. The seamstress looked around the room taking in the faces of those standing over her. Then her gaze settled on the stuffed frog and she let out a scream and began yelling angrily at the woodsman’s daughter. When the family and the healer finally calmed her down she related her story of how the woodsman’s daughter had played a horrible trick on her making her think the frog could talk and causing her to injure herself.

The woodsman’s daughter did not like being blamed for this mess and objected strongly “But my frog really can talk! Just go ask it something!”

The woodsman very skeptical of this statement nonetheless wanted to believe his daughter was not a liar. He walked over the where the Countess sat, picked her up, and examined her looking for something to indicate the stuffed frog could talk.

“Would you kindly put me down,” said the Countess. The woodsman let out a shout and dropped the Countess who landed on the floor with soft thud.

“Allow me to introduce myself,” said the frog,” I am the Countess Furgy Urn Frugal and I respectfully request your assistance in—“ and that was as far as she got because just then the healer cried out and pointed his walking stick in her direction. There was a burst of green light from the end of the stick then the Countess flew back into the wall and fell to the floor with a thunk.

The healer walked over to the woodsman’s daughter and rested his hands on her shoulders. He spoke saying, “This demonic creature shall trouble you no more my child”. Then he walked over to where the Countess lay and picked her up stuffing her in his bag of healing supplies. He slowly turned around taking in the faces of the woodsman and his family and that of the seamstress. Satisfied that he had saved them from a demonic evil he took a deep breath, let it out, smiled, and walked out the door. The woodsman, the seamstress, and his wife watched him leave stunned that they had been so close to a demonic evil and not known it. The woodsman’s daughter watched him leave stunned that her stuffed frog had been blasted into a wall and then confiscated by the local healer.

Many moons later the woodsman’s daughter set up a shop selling stuffed frogs. The town’s children seeing another useless item to make their parents spend money on bought them as fast as they could be produced. With each sale the woodsman’s daughter told the tale of the Countess Furgy Urn Frugal and that is how the stuffed frogs became known as Furgy frogs.

Peon continued to sit and bubble as the grunts advanced on him, the ugliest one carrying the exceptionally sharp axe. It was not because Peon came into possession of some courage that sat there. It was because he was frozen with fear of his certain demise and his mind had drifted off elsewhere to hide.

The uglier than average grunt stood in front of peon and spoke waving the exceptionally sharp axe at him. “You will pay the toll with this exceptionally sharp axe,”

Peon thinking he was about to die said the only thing that came to mind. “Don’t you think that is a little much?”

The grunt stopped waving the axe and squinted at Peon thinking. Then he said,“ You are right maybe we get other axe,” and pointed to the much duller axe laying on top of the pile of stuff the grunts had been rummaging through.

Peon noticing his old axe considered how much more painful it would be to be hacked into pieces by it instead of the exceptionally sharp axe. He quickly responded “No, No that is quite alright, you can have the exceptionally sharp axe. It really would be better don’t you think?”
The grunt squinted some more pondering Peon’s proposal then grunted “No we get the dull axe,” walking over to the pile and picking up Peon’s old dull axe. He walked back to Peon waving the dull axe around. When he got close Peon cringed back waiting for the blow to come.

The uglier than average grunt patted him on the shoulder and handed him a piece of paper saying, “You drive a hard bargain but the toll is not very high. The road has too many potholes.”

The uglier than average grunt and his companions walked away to harass someone else leaving Peon to stare bewildered at the paper in his hand. The paper read “Receipt: Toll Paid In Full. Please Keep For Your Records”. After sitting down on a rock to recover from his near brush with death Peon stood up and collect his belongings the grunts had piled on the ground. He then proceeded to pass through the town gates to purchase the delicious berries that had caused him so much trouble.

The Legacy of Deep Throat

2005-09-19T23:19:00.000-04:00

The secret of who Deep Throat is has finally been revealed. I’ve noticed this has sparked debate on television about whether or not Mark Felt did the right thing by leaking information to the press. This debate seems absurd to me because by leaking the information he made sure people who broke the law were sent to jail. His motives for going to the press have no effect on whether or not that action was good because that should be decided by the outcome of his action. His action was good because it resulted in exposing illegal doings and plots by various individuals. That is a good thing for all Americans. As for whether or not he could have accomplished the same result through government channels it is safe to say he could not have. His superior to whom he should have reported his information was quite possibly one of the people involved in the deceitful acts taking place. Regardless of his motives Mark Felt did all Americans a great service by showing us the corruption in our own government. I do not need to know a person’s motives to give credit where it is due.

No Candy For You!

2005-09-19T23:18:00.000-04:00

Several years ago I learned of a horrific event. The elementary school that I had attended and loved no longer allows the children to celebrate Halloween. On that day, the children are not allowed to wear their costumes to school and no party is held in celebration. The reason given for this is that a celebration takes up valuable time for teaching and preparing for SOLs. The other reason is that the school administration only allows three parties per school year and it had to choose when to celebrate. The current "holidays" are celebrated: Winter, Valentines Day, and Spring. I believe my recollection of that list is correct but the school may use different names for the same times of the year. It is worth noting that the celebration on Halloween was cancelled a few years before the limit on parties allowed per year was imposed. I have it on good authority that a large part of the reason for its cancellation was that a minority of parents felt that the holiday was promoting the practice of witchcraft and/or other satanic practices. The administration obviously did not feel that it was worthwhile to stand up for the majority of parents and students that felt differently. I am aware that when Halloween originated it did involve practices of the occult but since those two thousand years ago it has evolved into a much more fun and friendly holiday. The children in the schools do not care about Halloween's origins. They only care that it is a day on which they get to dress up, receive candy, and have fun. I know because I was one of them and the people who ended this celebration should have thought back to when they were children and asked one simple question. Which did I care more about then, witchcraft or candy? I realize that I am posting this far in advance of Halloween but with the approach of Easter or "Spring" holiday I find the need to comment on it. For the sake of political correctness and deference to those of other religions the Easter celebration and the one near Christmas were renamed even before the Halloween celebration was cancelled. I have no problem with this because we had plenty of paper cutout menorahs to go with the paper Christmas trees. I do believe that this is a bad sign that these celebrations could fall victim to attacks from individuals who believe that they are representative of religion in our public schools. I have no desire to see school children loose more of their few chances for parties. The school's claim that the five or six parties we had before these policies existed take valuable time away from teaching and SOL preparation is ridiculous. The teachers found it impossible to teach us on Halloween because our minds were occupied with what we would fill our bags with after class not because we were celebrating in class. As for the SOLs, I did fine without them and so did most of my elementary school class. For proof of this I have my diploma from high school and in two more years the one from my chosen University. Children have the right to have fun and I think these policies are snuffing it out bit by bit. My message goes to both the people who want to remove celebrations in schools because they promote the occult and the people who want remove them because they are associated with holidays they do not believe in. Leave our candy alone!

Sayings of the Parents and the Children

2005-09-19T23:17:00.000-04:00

Sayings of the Parents:
"The world is not fair."

Sayings of the Children:
"Then let us make it so."

Why People do Stupid Things

2005-09-19T23:16:00.000-04:00

I have always wondered why people do stupid things. Now I think I know. It is for a combination of reasons one of which is a lack of communication. The second is the inability to perceive and understand things from another perspective. The third is that people feel emotions but do not always understand where they come from and misdirect their reactions and their intent. I am writing this because today I punched my roommate of two years. The only other person I have ever hit was my best friend. We were at lunch together and for a reason I don't remember I punched him in the face. I only did that half-heartedly and I did not put my full strength behind it. I have no idea why I did it. He punched me back and then we just stopped. We are still friends. I punched my roommate and I did it with most of my strength. I don't feel that I meant to hurt him but I do feel that I was trying to direct my anger towards something. It shows because I busted his lip up and I really didn't think I was strong enough to draw blood. What made me angry in the first place was I had been showing two funny videos from a website to a friend and my roommate cut off the power strip to my computer. This is where lack of communication and understanding another perspective enters. I know my roommate dislikes my friends coming back with me because they stay for about twenty minutes and we talk. He was studying and I was going to get them to leave after about ten minutes, which was the length of the two videos. My roommate was telling them to leave and watch the video later and I ignored him. I ignored him because I thought he would be smart enough to figure out that because I said "you have to see this one before you leave" to my friends that it would be the last of the two videos I had planned to show. I was wrong and he decided to shut off my power strip. If I had just told him explicitly that this was the second and last one instead of implicitly none of this would have happened because he would not have been forced to drastic measures. This is where understanding another perspective on his part would have helped also. I was tired of people touching my computer without my consent. My roommate earlier this day tried to hit command Q while I was doing an online assignment. He has done this before when I have been playing games and it did not bother me much then and he did not do it often. One of my other friends has a habit of hitting the power strip on my computer while I am playing games. This has occurred more frequently recently and made me angry over time. I would have much rather punched him for being a jerk than my roommate but I misplaced my aggression. I did not realize this until a while after I hit him. I am angry with myself for not stopping this when I saw signs both in myself emotionally and in what my roommate said that could have prevented me from hurting him. I am glad I am not always this emotional or I could do more stupid things. I am sorry I hurt my roommate. That is all I really want to say and for the record I only have a bruised elbow so I hope things get back to normal.

The Toothy Pencil

2005-09-19T23:12:00.000-04:00

This is a story from my early childhood gather from it what you will.

When I was in first grade I had a pencil. I had been given this pencil from my dentist on one of my first visits. This pencil was a prized childhood possession of mine for no real reason other than I liked the way it looked. It was a shiny dark green with smiling white teeth spiraling up its length and at the end there was a black eraser. One day, maybe a week or so after I acquired the pencil, my teacher approached me and asked if a girl from my class could borrow one of my pencils for a while. I had a few other pencils out on my desk and I was using a large blue one I had received from my teachers at my preschool. This pencil was unique in that no matter how long I used it seemed never to be used up. I still have this pencil and although it is now a couple inches shorter its longevity is still astounding. Having pencils to spare I consented to allow her to use a pencil. The teacher picked up the shiny green one from the dentist and handed it to the girl standing behind her. At the time this did not bother me though later I would regret it. The day proceeded and I enjoyed it very much. It consisted of easy work, a good lunch, and a fun playground break. Near the end of the day I approached the girl I had loaned the pencil to. To my dismay when I requested the return of my pencil she appeared to have no idea what I was talking about. I explained to her that I required the return of the shiny green toothy pencil in her possession and reminded her that I had loaned it to her earlier that day. She informed me that the pencil was in fact her's and that her dentist had given it to her! At this point I was quite surprised and retreated to my desk for a moment to think. I considered for a moment that I may have asked the wrong girl and that she was clearly right. However, this was clearly wrong because she matched my recollection perfectly and as everyone was doing his or her work at this moment I could see that no one else had a similar pencil. After coming to this conclusion I decided I would have to appeal to a higher authority, the teacher. I approached my teacher and informed her that the girl refused to return my pencil. I walked behind and to the side of my teacher to confront the girl. The teacher asked her about the situation and the girl denied that the pencil was mine. I pointedly reminded the teacher that it was she who had asked if the girl could use the pencil. The teacher had trouble recalling the event but seemed to remember something similar happening earlier in the day. She asked the girl again if she was sure that the pencil was her's. By now the girl was looking troubled and appeared to be close to tears, as well she should have been for lying. After what I have mentioned my attention wondered and I didn't hear all that the teacher had said to the girl. The teacher continued to talk to the girl and then turned and talked to me. The teacher then misdirected me somehow though my memory is unclear of just how after these many years. What I do remember is that the teacher did not think I was lying about the pencil but that the pencil wasn't really important enough for all this fuss. I was not going to get my pencil back. I was rather shocked by this and had no idea what to say. I returned to my seat and continued my work until the end of the day. As was her habit my mother would ask me about my day and being so young I would easily open up and tell her everything I remembered. Upon telling her about my pencil, what the teacher had said, and generally complaining about it, she told me that I was right but that the teacher was also right and that the pencil didn't matter much. This made me angry and I complained some more and questioned how this event could possibly be right. I know now the reason why the teacher maneuvered me away from recovering my pencil though I could not think of one at the time. My teacher was attempting to avoid a scene of the girl crying and throwing a tantrum. She obviously believed that the pencil meant much less to me than to the girl and so I could do without it to spare the girls feelings and make things easier for all involved. In a way she could have been right. If before this I had been given a trade of the toothy pencil for an equally fancy looking pencil I would likely have accepted. I could easily get another on my next visit to the dentist and, in fact, I did. However, the value of the toothy pencil was in the fact that another person had wronged me. I expected it to be set right. Since I was not going to receive help from the classroom authority I did what any decent wronged individual would do. I took matters into my own hands. The following weeks, I think it was about two, I plotted on how to get my pencil back. I considered being forceful, walking up and taking it and shoving the girl to the ground if she tried to stop me. However, I did not want to do this because I had no desire to cause the girl physical pain. I also knew this would get me in considerable trouble even if the pencil was mine to begin with. When I was in elementary school I was against using physical force to get what I wanted. I would even avoid fighting people who tried to shove me around. This was not because I was afraid to fight but because I thought there was always a better way to fight. I always found some way to avoid confrontation. Blackmail worked well to keep people off my back but that is another story. I decided that I would have to steal my pencil back. Unfortunately, the girl was very protective of it and it took me about two weeks to "recover" it. When I finally did the toothy pencil had more than one reason for its name. During the time I had to wait to steal it back the girl had chewed on it. She did not stick with chewing the eraser like most people; she had chewed all along its length. The pencil was also much shorter from her heavy use. I was annoyed at these changes to my prize but was glad that I had recovered what was mine. I made a point of surreptitiously showing the girl that I now had the toothy pencil to let her know that I had triumphed over her. However, I received no pleasure from this because the girl no longer had any attachment to the pencil. She didn’t even care that I now had it! Afterwards I made sure to tell my friends never to trust her and I myself had no dealings with her ever again. I felt cheated and I knew that my loss would likely never be set equal. After the day the toothy pencil had been stolen from me I never again kept more than one pencil out on my desk. I did this so I could claim the pencil I was using was my only one and I could not afford to loan it to anyone. The moral of this story is that whenever possible one should seek fairness always. For those of you who believe in karma the story continues. As of this date the girl in this story gained a prodigious amount of weight in High School and never was a straight A student. With any luck, she will spend the rest of her days in trailer park. The second moral of this story is let go of those grudges when the universe equalizes things for you. I really love karma.

The Thug and the Fairy

2005-09-19T23:10:00.000-04:00

I've been told that people find this amusing so I decided to keep it posted.

In this writing I discuss killing in self-defense. I believe most people can agree with the idea that it is ok to kill a person if they are actively trying to kill you. However, there is a gray area of just how much force you can respond with if the person's intentions are unclear. Police officers face the decision to use deadly force more often than the majority of people. I have read many reports in newspapers about police officers shooting an individual who appeared to be carrying a weapon but was actually unarmed. Some of these shootings result in the death of the suspect others do not. In the cases where the individual has died I read of much public outrage against law enforcement. In most cases where the individual has been killed and the public blames the officer and other local law enforcement I read that the person was fleeing the police or resisting arrest. In many cases the person had committed the crime for which the police were chasing him or her. If the person had not done these things the police would have had no reason to think they were dangerous and required the use of force. It is because of this that I believe it is mostly the individual's fault for getting him or herself killed. I do not believe that this means that police shootings should not be investigated because there are some corrupt officers who do shoot people illegally. However, I do believe that there is an overreaction in this country against the use of force by police. A person fleeing from the police and appearing to reach for a weapon, even if they have not committed a crime, is still fleeing from the police and is acting in a dangerous manner. It is unfortunate that an innocent person is sometimes shot because they acted suspiciously and fled but if they had behaved in an innocent manner they would not have been risking harm to themselves. I believe that I have adequately addressed the matter of police officers killing in defense of the law and their own person. I will now introduce a hypothetical situation in which a person is not in danger of being killed but may still have the right to kill to defend himself. Once, in a land far away there were many people living in a kingdom. On a street corner at night a fairy is dancing in the moonlight. In the shadows is a thug who is observing the fairy. The fairy continues to dance for much of the night while being observed by the thug. Without warning the thug springs upon the unsuspecting fairy. The fairy has three possible courses of action: it can do nothing and be beaten to a pulp, it can kill the thug, or it can try to outrun the thug. In this kingdom it is a sport among thugs to smash fairies into the pavement as hard as they can. Smashing the fairies will not kill them because they are durable magical individuals who can only be killed by things that pierce them. However, smashed fairies are badly injured individuals who will likely never be able to move at any great speed again. This is because their wings and limbs are very fragile and will break like twigs with enough applied force. The fairy chooses to flee but is not fast enough. Unlike most thugs this thug is extremely quick and capable of matching the fairy's pace. This leaves the fairy with the other two options. Should the fairy allow itself to suffer harmful injury rather than commit the seemingly evil act of killing a being, which does not have the intent to kill and cannot kill it? I believe the answer to this question is simple. The fairy should kill the thug. The thug has already committed an evil act against the fairy in attempting to violate its person by smashing it. The thug had no right to do this and therefore is open to action by the fairy to prevent this. The only action the fairy can take to prevent the evil thug from smashing it is to kill the thug. This is because the thug is so large compared to the fairy any other form of restraint is impossible for the fairy to accomplish. In explanation of how a fairy can kill a thug let us return to the story. The fairy flew at the thug's face and drilled through the thug's eyeball. Upon reaching the thug's brain it commenced to dig through it until the thug was dead. This hypothetical situation demonstrates how in our world a small person could be justified in using a firearm to kill an unarmed attacker but only if the attacker was so much more powerful than them physically that they could not fight them off in any other manner. An argument against killing the thug could be much like the following. The fairy did not have a right to kill the thug because the amount of harm it inflicted was not equally to the harm it could suffer. I refute this because in another example it is much like saying a slave does not have the right to kill his masters to be free. The slave's masters commit an evil act by keeping him in bondage. If he attempts to escape the masters capture and return him to his slavery. His masters are not extremely cruel because they keep him well clothed, fed, housed, and ask only that he clean the house once a week. However, he is not free to leave their service and if he refuses to work he is whipped. The slave will never be free until he kills his masters. To say that the slave cannot kill his masters because he would be causing them more harm than they cause him by his enslavement is the same argument as that against the fairy killing the thug. I believe I have done a satisfactory job of explaining the reasoning behind my arguments but if something seems unclear feel free to comment and I will try to explain myself more thoroughly.

The First Saying

2005-09-19T23:09:00.000-04:00

I do not fear life or death
Nor pleasure or pain,
I fear only myself for the sorrow I may bring.

-The Major

The Sea of Night

2005-09-19T23:06:00.000-04:00

This is a rough work I created which I still have not edited. I thought it might be interesting to readers and give a perspective on what my unfinished work is like.

The clipper ship Shadow sailed over the sea, which remained tranquil for five days. At the start of the sixth day of the voyage clouds had gathered on the horizon darkening the sky. Peter looked out over the seascape at the grayness and the growing choppiness of the waves. He thought of his family and friends he had left behind to make this voyage. He knew his mother and father were worrying about him but he had made his choice. The wind picked up and tossed his dark brown hair, he continued to gaze out to sea. He could hear the crew scrambling on the deck to prepare for the storm they knew was heading towards them. He knew getting to his destination was going to be dangerous when he set out. He turned to look aft at the Captain who was yelling orders to the crew over the rising strength of the wind. Peter noticed there was a glint in his eyes, a mixture of excitement and possibly fear. One never knew if a voyage through a storm on the sea would be his last. Peter thought if I am to perish on this voyage then so be it. I have seen to all that I can control let fate decide the rest for me. Peter turned back to the sea and watched the darkness grow along with the wind and the waves. It has to be about noon now even though we can't see the sun he thought. Rain began to fall down from the black night of clouds soaking him making him one with the wetness of the sea. Waves washed over the deck knocking members of the crew from their feet and washing the around the deck. Through the thick sheets of water Peter caught a brief glimpse of the Captain gazing out into the dark blankness. He had the look of complete calm as if the storm was something that he was observing from the outside. The waves became larger as the day continued. At times Peter was knocked off his feet and once he was almost thrown overboard. He would have been except for a crewman who was quick enough to grab him by the back of his shirt and strong enough to hall him back over the rail. He was able to catch more glimpses of the Captain and every time the Captain appeared as still and serene as he had before. As evening approached the storm grew worse the sheets of rain becoming dark walls too thick to see beyond and the wind a howling demon, which removed all other sound. The crew when he encountered them in his attempts to keep hold of any perch he could find on deck appeared tired and beaten as if they were undead being without life but not yet faded from the world. The storm persisted into the night, Peter began to loose his strength and he was giving in to the tiredness he felt. He felt as if the ship were giving in to its tiredness as well. He felt as if it were sagging beneath him to find rest and sleep. Then the Shadow bent and the world turned over. He fell into cold like an infinite number of icy needles on his skin. He was alive. He broke the surface struggling and was pushed back under. He fought against the dark wetness, which surrounded him again and again. He reached the divider between it and the sky many times but each time he was pushed back down into the cold. He felt it sink into his limbs as he felt himself sink into the darkness. He looked around for something he did not know but found only the blank abyss. He stared into the darkness letting the cold consume him for an eternity. He saw colors. They appeared like mist in the black of the sea and they floated in the darkness around him. He could not tell if they were close to him or far but he sensed that they were distant. He felt sound in and around him, which he thought was a mixture of people's voices and music. It was beautiful sound. It brought to him memories of his life and his love he had left to cross the Sea of Night. A spark ignited a fire in his mind and the cold left him. The mist enveloped him and he knew the darkness.

The Gospel of Thomas

2005-09-19T23:04:00.000-04:00

I have taken an interest in these sayings since I watched the movie Stigmata. The Catholic church rejects many of these sayings which many scholars believe to be the written words of Jesus of Nazareth. http://www.gospelthomas.com/

The Edge of Forever

2005-09-19T23:01:00.000-04:00

The one thing I was lacking when I created this blog was a good writing explaining the meaning of The Edge of Forever. I have now remedied this problem.

Standing on the edge of forever
I look out before me and see the future
As it spirals away into oblivion
I sense the past set in stone behind me
The present always in flux beneath my feet
Here I surf the chaotic flow around me
I guide myself towards what end I do not know
The waves directed by infinity steer my course
Cold, warm, red, blue, hard, soft, melody, silence
Resonate in the waves pulsing out from forever
Led by the hands of creation.

The Reawakening

2005-09-19T22:53:00.000-04:00

After a long time without posting I have decided to reorganize and add to The Edge of Forever. Please read and enjoy the stories, philosophy, and thoughts herein. Anyone wishing to use my works found here as part of another literary work or on another site please check with me to get permission first. It is likely I will grant it.

THE WORKS FOUND ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION OF THE RESPECTIVE AUTHOR OR AUTHORS. PLEASE CONTACT THE AUTHOR(S) FOR REPRODUCTION RIGHTS.

The Edge of Forever

Star Trek: A Review

Why All Religions are Wrong, Atheists have Faith, and Agnostics don't Know Jack

The Desk

The Art of Violence and Justice 3

The Art of Violence and Justice 2

My Pro Obama Thing

Don't Kiss in India... they might arrest you.

The Student's Paradox

The Songbird

The Art of Violence and Justice

MySpace Police

Personal Account: The Virginia Tech Rampage

Bush Supports Gay Rights... sort of

Texas Against Public Health

A Comedy of Errors

The Third Question Answered

What can you expect from people who threw perfectly good tea overboard?

The N Word

Xfire for Mac

Anyone ever wish the Senate was comprised of pregnant school girls?

What is it worth to you not to have bombs dropped on your head?

Searches without Warning

Only Partially Free Speech

Learn English

The Great Wall of Mexico

What? Did Someone Make a Caricature of Him too?

Teaching Creationism: Listen to Europe and Just Say No

Does Anyone Think they Fired the Wrong Guy?

Once Upon a Time on a Field

No... Not Embarrassing At All...

Why be Concerned by Homosexual Marriage?

Sayings Again

Iran, Nukes, and Hamas

Two of the Three Questions Answered

Peon Part IIa: Life would be Simpler if Carriages Lacked Breaks

The Foolish Cleric

Ideology Is Less Flammable Than Flags

Unreasonable Gunmen

No Freedom of Speech In Congress

The Black Hole of Missile Defense

Focus: The People Sent To Fight For Us

Danish Fleas and Arabian Sledgehammers

Executions Allowed At Any U.S. Army Installation

An Aborted Thought

Foodstamp Reform: A Response To The Don

Frosted Window

A Quote of Wisdom

We'll Trade You Pat Robertson for the Journalist

Update: The Real CIA

The Reason of Existence

A Response to The Don

God Abandons Dover Pennsylvania!

In Answer to a Question

The Real CIA

The Words Are Written

Two Different Questions

Walking Alone

Should we Quarter him with Arabian Horses?

More Reasonable Capital Punishment

Read More About Stem Cells

The Flame

Does the Antichrist Pay for Broadcast Time?

Not Very Christian Of Him

Peon Part I: Green Berries, Grunts, and Frogs

The Legacy of Deep Throat

No Candy For You!

Sayings of the Parents and the Children

Why People do Stupid Things

The Toothy Pencil

The Thug and the Fairy

The First Saying

The Sea of Night

The Gospel of Thomas

The Edge of Forever

The Reawakening