HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 14, 2005 Here is Nuggets Vol.8, the last issue can be found here. In this issue, a brief rebuttal to Ronaldo Lewis, agreeing with Craig Chamberlin in a left-handed way, and the power of yoga! Actually, the last bit is about John Waters and his attack on humanism. Also, Stephen and gay-discrimination, the Right-wing non-lie of the issue, and some quotes. Each section start is in bold-face – scroll to what sounds interesting. Ronaldo, in your very entertaining piece, you said that you are tired of hearing the same old liberal arguments over and over again, but you treated me to the same old conservatives arguments: liberals think the world is full of “nice” people, liberals are young, liberals are weak, etc. We can chat about specific policy or we can chat about philosophy. The specific policy of terrorism is that not all terrorists are linked, Chechnya is not related to the “war on terror” (no matter how much Putin wishes it to be), and neither is Iraq. As Mac pointed out here, Saddam was a bad man not liked by anyone, even us “nice” liberals. Saddam did pay for suicide bombers, but we know who he gave money too, and if we would buy into the simpleminded mantra that Bush keeps repeating, we'd side step Iraq and go right into Palestine or Lebanon (or Syria or Saudi Arabia). Conservative rags have been talking about taking Iraq for years, and the Downing Street Memo I find to be pretty good evidence that Bush has been listening to those Conservatives. Reasons for Iraq are to establish a hegemony over a good source of that dwindling and precious black stuff that keeps us Americans so cozy. The fact that folks will be free is a handy side effect, that only an emotional flag waving fool would consider one of the main reasons. Sorry folks, as a nation, we just aren't that “good” – if we were, we'd be in Africa right now, in force. Anyway, France was close to joining the effort. Had Bush waited just a tad longer, however, Saddam might have better complied and then the “prize” would be lost. I think we should stay in Iraq now until it's stable. However, Iraq still had zilch to do with the “war on terror”. That was one specific policy point, now lets talk philosophy. My interpretation of the Conservative philosophy seems to be: expect people to be as good as they can be - if they falter, then it was by their own doing or their own lack of ambition. Prevention is a silly waste of money – those sappy emotions have no place in politics! Rage and vengeance are perfectly acceptable emotions, however, and acting on them is A-OK! Liberals on the other hand recognize the very simple fact that if a man has a job, food and keeps warm in the winter, he isn't likely go into the street and burn American flags. If involvement is warranted, why not before hand? Why not recognize that human nature is what it is, and budget for the less than ambitious? Why not err on the side of caution – sure, some will cheat and get that which they don't need, but isn't that better than erring on the other side, and having someone go hungry and become disenfranchised? Conservatives are quick to point out the blatant fact that pure socialism doesn't work – people will not just work entirely for the benefit of their fellow man. Why not also recognize other aspects of human nature? There are several other countries right now which employ far more liberal policies than we do, and which are in various ways more successful. We are the richest and most powerful, yet not at the top of any social indicator charts. This means that we are less efficient than our allies. Maybe equal access to good education is better than ever longer jail sentences? Of course it is. By the way Ronaldo, if you like you can call me Fred, or Freddy, or F, or Smithy, or Fithy or even Fredsworth, if it suits you. Craig said it best – it's all about Islam and centuries old conflicts. Well, that's for part of the elephant party, for the rest it's Middle East hegemony, in part to secure access to that dwindling resources we love to love. I just wish Craig could put two and two together – Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. If his ilk hates Islam so much, one way to protect what we love about America is to embrace secularism now, even more than what the Founders wanted – maybe even as rigid as what they have in France. This will allow a dwindling Christian population to live as equals among our new Muslim neighbors. Precedents set now to allow statues of the 10 Commandments, will also allow public displays of the Koran. Now, of course, most Muslims are peaceful people, just as most Christians are, but both are capable of lunacy, and we have plenty of historical evidence for that, Jack touched on it in his recent excellent bit on morality. To give an example, consider someone that resents being called a racist, someone that says he's, “just reading the Bible.” The author of the “Left Behind” series is such a person, “I know that it seems like racism, but that's what the Bible tells us!”. This translates into, “I'm going to support racism because my religion tells me so”, which is analogous to, “I think the West is full of infidels, because the Koran tells me so”. In the kind of future hypothetical nation which many on the extreme Right want, with more and more barriers between church and state removed, how are these attitudes likely to affect public policy? Might we go back to looking the other way as racism is “handled” by old boy networks? Will open discrimination of one sort of another lose its taboo status? What about the role of women – women who Ann Coulter already thinks shouldn't vote, women who are to submit to men and not handle money? What would the practical policy implications be? Would we become like so many Muslim countries, denying our women these rights? If so, I guess it will fit right in with the eventual [assuming current trends continue] Muslimification [say that three times fast!] of the world. Both religions, when practiced literally, are quite similar. Personally, I don't think it will come to that – I think the vast sleeping middle will wake up when they start to lose a few ticks of freedom as the Right-wing religious nanny-state tries to impose itself. It's already begun, with talk of censoring pay cable tv and of course the Shaivo case. It makes me wonder how social libertarians can coexist with those types in the same tent, but that's another article. John Waters attacks humanism quite a bit. He essentially suggests that Jesus Christ was a myth, but that believing in myth is better than not believing in myth – I think. Although he seems like a competent and smart guy, I sometimes have trouble following his very many and oft very short pieces. He seems to be talking about the philosophy of science – a very deep subject indeed. John, If the m-theory hypothesis holds or becomes a real theory, then we will have whole universes, perhaps just a millimeter away form ours, in the same space, but in higher dimensions. Most of what's out there we cannot perceive at all, but, it wasn't the “yogic force” or Buddha which came up with m-theory. It's not astrologers who will try to watch as particles leave our universe in future particle accelerator experiments. Science seems to validate itself - it proves its worth as a philosophy; it's really good at differentiating crap from reality. Some scientists apply science to “everything”, take Dawkins for instance, while others think that science and religion are two separate worlds, two explanations of reality. The problem is, that in a practical sense, Dawking's view rears it's ugly head all too often, the Scopes trial, abortion, the current attack on science in the science classroom, etc. In a truly secular society, I'd have no problem with the latter view – the view that both are valid, as long as science class remains science for example. On Sunday or Saturday, parents are free to educate their children with yogic-force education, or Mormomism or what have you. Secularists want a, “lets not step on each other's toes” world, while all too many extreme Right-wingers want their own world view to be forced on the rest of us. You do realize, however, that the religious Right wants no part of New Age religion, right? You get no bonus points for believing in something supernatural, as you might say. I may do a whole piece on the philosophy of science – it's a complicated and mind bending topic. Stephen's article claims that now that more nations have homosexual marriage, that next we will have widespread bestiality. As I mentioned here, there will always be a certain percentage of gays, and have always been. I don't remember reading about any ancient bestiality-laden City States in the Greek region, or rumors that certain presidents had some fun with goats in their spare time. Gay marriage doesn't affect heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage is better for society. Gay couples will not alter the nuclear family, since as I mentioned in my piece about gays, “gayness” doesn't spread in predictable ways. A real change, which had nothing to do with homosexuality, was the transition from the extended to the nuclear family. This had advantages and disadvantages. What bestiality we do have is most certainly a much bigger problem in red states. Maybe that's some kind of clue? And now, the Right-wing non-lie of the issue, this time by our old favorite, Michael John McCrae: Terrorism: “The unlawful use or
threatened use of force or violence by a person or an
organized group against people or property with the
intention of intimidating or coercing societies or
governments, often for ideological or political
reasons.”
Thanks Michael, you've accurately defined terrorism for us. Your buddy Reagan with his stooge, Olie North, supported terrorists against the wishes of Congress. I know, I know – I've heard it from many Conservatives, it was for a “higher purpose”. Breaking the law for ideological reasons is ok, I guess. Hey, that even fits with the definition! And here are some quotes – note how many of these strike close to home, especially in terms of our current “war”:
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's
religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is
also."
------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
