The Black Hole of Missile Defense

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

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

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

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

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

Source

Focus: The People Sent To Fight For Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danish Fleas and Arabian Sledgehammers

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

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

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

Executions Allowed At Any U.S. Army Installation

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

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

An Aborted Thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foodstamp Reform: A Response To The Don

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frosted Window

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

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

A Quote of Wisdom

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

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

We'll Trade You Pat Robertson for the Journalist

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

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

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

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

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

Update: The Real CIA

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.