|
|
|
This is even more political...but my Grandfather, A US Marine veteran of WWII through Vietnam, sent it to me and I found it exceedingly informative and insightful. You may not wish to read it, and it is a bit long-winded, but please...listen to some sense.
I had no idea who Dr. Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)
Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA. A different spin on Iraq war.
This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the same way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means
hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past
18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are
completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put
100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed
400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United State, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.
Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that include the politicians and media of our country and the free world!
"leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our through this, that we must UNITE!
If you would like to see who this Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF fellow is go to this Air Force web sight and look him up.
http://www.af.mil/bios/alpha.asp? alpha=C
 Hiphistus · Mon Dec 04, 2006 @ 08:46pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This, like my previous entry, is more political than philosophical. For those of you who are atheist...I will destroy your view of reality another day. I respect those who can follow a given faith (except for those faiths that encourage genocide), though when they start to attempt at making it a science...I become irritated. Here, then, is my response to the. . .idea of intelligent design as a way of contesting evolution.
Religion Needs to Evolve
In the religious community, the mention of the word ‘evolution’ causes almost as much chaos as shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre. The continuous feud of fact versus faith has been rekindled due to recent events. Philosopher Stephen Jay Gould asserts that “According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions.” However the church hasn’t come up with any groundbreaking new claims, and they have been the ones who start the majority of these outbursts. Those trusting in science and the theory of evolution have no reason to argue with religious folk. But they can’t convince the vocal churchgoers that there is little to argue about.
The new school board of Dover, Pennsylvania is planning on changing its current policy regarding teaching evolution. Meanwhile the state school board in Kansas has focused on recognizing the supposed flaws in the theory of evolution. The previous members of the Pennsylvania board asserted that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact.”(Lemonick). They also believed that the concept of intelligent design is an adequate alternative. One of the problems with this line of thinking is that these misguided individuals believe they are helping the cause of the creationist/intelligent design believers when in fact they are making the religiously oriented look like fools. It only takes a few loud zealots to disgrace the name of the group they claim to be affiliated with. Televangelist Pat Robertson said “You just voted God out of your city”(Lemonick) regarding the citizens choice to oust the school board members who mandated the endorsement of intelligent design in biology classrooms. These type of people are the the ones that hurt the name of creationists, more than evolutionists. However, the dispute between evolution and intelligent design is stale and lukewarm at best.
The main problem with the so called “argument” of evolution versus creationism is that there is no argument. As Charles Darwin saw it, being a Christian, the two could coexist with little or no altercations. In fact, Darwin believed that his observation of the natural world actually bolstered the idea of a wise God. The contrast between the traditional Christian’s perception of God and Darwin’s can be expressed as the difference between Caractacus Potts (the inventor in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) and the Zen master. Potts, as portrayed by d**k Van Dyke, was an eccentric inventor; constantly tinkering with his inventions without any organization whatsoever. Whereas the Zen Master makes subtle, calculated changes to his garden and lets it take its course.
The theory of evolution is talked about by many, but only fully understood by few. It is the justification for the mutation of species shown evident through archaeological investigation. It does not assert anything regarding the origin of the first reproducing life-form. It only describes how a species continually changes to adapt to their environment as changes arise. The individuals that survive, are the ones that undergo mutation that provides them with an advantage over the others of the same species. For example: The Zebras whose genes mutate to provide larger leg muscles, allowing them to run at 35 miles per hour have a significant advantage over those that can only run at 32 miles per hour. Therefore the ones that survive are the ones that reproduce. The ones that aren’t as privileged die off.
The creationists believe that nature doesn’t adapt all by itself, instead they believe that God is actively changing each of the species on Earth. For what nobody is exactly sure…maybe its his idea of a video game, or an ant farm. Creationist’s main objection with evolution is that they don’t like the idea that we are, in a sense, the most mutated life form on the Earth. In other words, humans are the product of countless mutations stemming from the first life on Earth. This doesn’t allow them any elbow room to assert their claim that “God willed it.” That is most likely why the creationists are spending so much time trying to disprove evolution.
The faults in the creationists’ assault on evolution were revealed by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981 in his essay entitled Evolution as Fact and Theory, as part of a larger work, Hen’s Teeth & Horses Toes. He asserts that there are two major points that the modern attack against evolution fails miserably. “First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice”.
This plays upon the flaws of semantics, wherein the meaning of a word becomes relative to the speaker’s particular use of it. “In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact", part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory.” Since the scientific community uses the word to mean an explanation of the way things are that can be justified by the evidence and has yet to be proven false, the Christians don’t have a foothold in using this title against the evolutionists.
Gould then moves on to the next fault of the creationists‘ attack; “Creationists claim that [creation] is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution in high school biology curricula. But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science. The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meets Popper's criterion it too must be falsifiable in principle…They misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase.” The creationists are therefore proposing a double-standard, in which the evolutionists must subscribe to general rules, yet they themselves are, so-to-speak, above the law.
After facing this blockade, the religious people decided to try and come up with a new idea, designed only for the sake of thwarting evolution. The church spent a lot of money to research and develop a new way of thinking about creation. They called it “Intelligent Design.” This thinly veiled version of creationism asserts that everything that is, was, and ever will be, was created directly from God’s hand (I refer back to my contrast between Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Zen). However it differs slightly from creationism in that it states God made a plan for the entirety of existence, including how species changed over the course of time. Michael Behe wrote an argument in favor of this slight modification of traditional creationist beliefs in his work titled “Design for Living.” “[He] offers the following argument for intelligent design:
1. "We can often recognize the effects of design in nature."
2. The appearance of design is present in biological phenomenon.
3. "We have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn’t involve intelligence."
4. "In the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life."
5. So, we are justified in thinking intelligent design was involved in life.”(Payne)
This proposal seems sufficient enough to instill belief in intelligent design. However Behe presupposes that the first two premises of his argument are true. “Supporting the second premise of Behe’s argument requires that we show that natural things like the cell are similar to artificial designed things like trucks and factories in at least some of the respects that are relevant to our judgment that the artificial thing is the product of design”(Payne). This hardly seems reasonable from the standpoint of our distinct separation from natural and artificial things. If the second premise, the appearance of design in biological phenomenon, is accepted then some explanation of what design looks like is necessary. Otherwise, we cannot distinguish what is designed from that which isn’t.
The third premise changes direction, claiming that no adequate explanation has been given of the origin of life. This could be true based on factors having nothing to do with the merit of evolutionary theory. It could be simply because we lack access to the historical evidence required to give a detailed account of the origins of the impressive features of the cell. The lack of evidence is not an adequate reason for refusing natural selection’s possible role in the origin of cells that we have strong reason for believing it played in later evolution. The argument presupposes that nothing short of an account of the origins of life through natural processes would suffice as an explanation of the appearance of design. Why should we think that giving a complete developmental history of the origins of cellular life is required for the explanation of the appearance of design?
Even if the third assertion is true, “It is deceptive in its suggestion that we do have a good explanation in terms of intelligent design. Here is the salient question: [what] does the hypothesis that cells were designed by an intelligent designer explain? That humans designed trucks has explanatory power because it makes reference to a causal process that we have some acquaintance with. It is a process that involves engineers sitting at computers, building models, and so forth. But an appeal to a supernatural designer posits non-causal means about which we have no grasp what-so-ever. A supernatural creator is in some way acting outside the causal order and thereby producing effects in the causal order. Intelligent design theorists owe us some account of just how the design hypothesis is supposed to explain [anything]”(Payne).
The most reasonable defense against intelligent design is that of imperfection in species. If an intelligent, perfect God actually did create all of the creatures on Earth, one would think he would make them perfect with regards to their anatomy, physiology and niche in the ecosystem. However there are many examples that are present in the world that refute this ideal design. The panda’s thumb, for example, is just a shard of bone protruding from their wrist. Something with a little more dexterity would be exceedingly useful when tearing the leaves off of bamboo shoots. There are things in nature that an engineer or mechanic could design in a more effective fashion. This is likely the most straightforward parry to intelligent design believers’ attack.
There is no way to refute the creationists. To them, everything can be explained as part of God’s big plan for existence. Though an assertion that can be used as an answer to anything serves as an adequate explanation for absolutely nothing. Religion’s main foundation is faith, which by its very name is belief independent of empirical evidence. This cannot be refuted by anything, scientific or otherwise. Therefore the Christians are playing a shrewed card in that they know their ideals cannot be squelched. But by the same token, religion has no place in the biology classroom as the Christians are fighting for.
Those that hold the creationist’s point of view need to learn a little before proclaiming their ignorance in public. Instead of taking potshots at evolution that amount to nothing, their time could be spent clarifying their own beliefs and praying that their God would help them convince the evolutionists of how He is the only answer. After each one of their countless refutations of evolution was thwarted, one would think they would stop trying. Yet they still fight on, trying to find one loophole that will reinstill Christian values into the common folk and once again making the church the foundation of human life.
It is still unclear why the religious folk want to continually argue with the evolutionists. Perhaps they want to be able to teach their ideas in schools to indoctrinate the youth. Maybe they are afraid that the followers they do have will ‘turn to the dark side’ so to speak. Or maybe they are just concerned souls that fear the damnation of their fellow humans and are trying to bring them to God out of the goodness in their hearts. Who really knows what motivates the faithful to continually dispute the scientists and attempt to find faults in the theory of evolution.
The quarrel between religion and science will probably never be concluded. However, if people take the initiative to learn about their opposition, as well as their own beliefs, the arguments will be meaningful and much more fruitful. There are those that champion a cause without knowing the full extent of what they are proclaiming, and are so arrogant to think that they know what is right. The intelligent people, from both sides, are both amused and upset with these conceited, overzealous bigots.
People from both sides of the discussion need to become a little more educated. No matter how many degrees a person has, it couldn’t hurt to read up on and fully understand both sides of an argument they are involved in. The last thing we need on the ten o’ clock news is some yahoo getting airtime for flagrantly proclaiming fabricated information that the uninformed public believes is true.
Works Cited
Behe, Michael. (2005) “Design for Living” The New York Times,
February 07, 2005
Chart, Natasha. (2005) “There is no proof of intelligent design” The Jibsheet,
February 15, 2005 Vol. 60, No. 07
Gould, Stephen Jay. (May 1981) "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262.
Krauthammer, Charles. (2005) “Commentary on Evolution” Time Magazine
August 01, 2005
Lemonick, Michael D. (2005). “Much Ado About Evolution.” Time Magazine, November 21, 2005, Vol. 166, No. 21, page 23.
Payne, W. Russ. (2005) “Letter to the Editor” The Jibsheet,
February 15, 2005 Vol. 60, No. 07; on Design for Living, refuting Michael Behe
Popper, Karl. (1963) “Conjectures and Refutations“ London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, pp. 33-39;
Schick, Theodore (Ed.), “Readings in the Philosophy of Science” Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13.
Hiphistus · Mon Dec 04, 2006 @ 08:31pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This entry is quite different than others that I have previously posted. It is on the hot-button issue of slavery reparations...I wrote this report for an expository report writing class. I know this will, in all likelihood, cause a few of you to moan...though I believe people should think for themselves...though they should be given actual facts, without any sort of bias. Since bias is a human inevitability, the only way to remedy the situation is to take the perspectives of all sides and see how they compare and contrast. Here, then, is my report.
Any Excuse For Cash
When people are asked if they would rather win the lottery or have a solid job, I think the majority will go with the lottery. This is because people are generally lazy and impatient. They want to get something without earning it, and they want it immediately, even if don’t have a viable excuse for getting this money. Some black people however, have a supposed reason that they deserve to be paid just for living.
They claim that their ancestors were brutally treated as slaves and that alone caused their entire race to be poor. Manning Marable described various statistics that supposedly prove racial discrimination as why black people should be paid. Discrimination is a thing of the past. Of course there are a few radicals who absolutely hate everyone other than themselves, but black people in particular are not discriminated against. If we gave something to everyone who was poor due to people not liking them, we would be in a form of socialism. Furthermore, I think that the vociferous pro-black preachers such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are giving decent black people who actually work for a living a bad representation.
The information stated in Marable’s essay is completely and irrefutably skewed. He says that “one-third of all black households actually have negative net-wealth. In 1998 the typical black family‘s net wealth was $16,400, less than one-fifth of that of white families” (109). This is an obviously slanted statistic. Even if it is true, it doesn’t take into account the countless external factors that are involved. Variables such as, but not exclusively; the size and structure of the family, the number of working members, the amount of capital spent, and what the money was spent on. Mona Charen’s essay makes adequate use of these factors by stating “Black intact families enjoy incomes and standards of living indistinguishable from whites. But only 30 percent of black children are born to married couples today” (111). These ‘households’ Marable is referring to have negative net wealth due to the fact that the irresponsible father didn’t stick around to pay for his children and mate. There is no “structural racism” inherent in the system. People would just rather blame someone else than take responsibility for their actions and problems.
What about multi-racial families? Should they fight themselves for their own money? It seems a bit ludicrous to ask a partially black people to pay reparations to themselves because their ancestors were slave owners…as well as slaves. Some people that feel reparations should be paid to them have no connections to slaves. Should black people of all areas and social classes be paid because some of them have ancestors that were treated badly? It sounds as though black people want money for ‘the sins of the white man’ even though they themselves weren’t ever treated badly.
If America is going to pay blacks for the ill-treatment of their great-grandfathers, I think that we should give even more to the Japanese-Americans discriminated against during WWII. Their homes and farms were taken away with no hope for reimbursement. After the war ended, the Japanese that survived the internment camps were given nothing. Some of these survivors are still alive, not just their distant descendents. I believe that only the immediate victim and perpetrator should be given consequence. Otherwise…how far will this go? People cannot honestly say that after a millennium, after all races have homogenized and no differences are even noticeable, they should be paid because someone long ago was treated badly due to their ethnicity.
By giving in to the subject of reparations, black people as a whole will only become more segregated. Even if they themselves weren’t championing for the cause, they will be seen as lazy beggars by the honest, hard-working taxpayers. This will lead to hatred and violence because people don’t like to see their money go to someone who hasn’t earned it, or offered any service in return. Most Americans do not believe that they owe anything for the injustices of others in the past. As Thomas Sowell so eloquently wrote: “You are never going to convince people whose ancestors arrived in America after the Civil War that they owe anybody anything for what happened in the antebellum South. You are never going to convince people outside the South that they owe something for what happened in the South. And you are never going to convince the descendents of the majority of white Southerners, whose ancestors were too poor to buy slaves if they wanted to, that they owe anybody anything“ (114). If they did then the descendents of anyone in history that did anything to any particular group of people ought to pay reparations. It is easy to see how things can get ridiculously out of hand.
To pay a person for the way their ancestors were treated is pure and utter nonsense. The descendents of bank-robbers or thieves shouldn’t have to go to jail or pay a fine. It’s just sheer luck that decides who is born to whom. It’s not their fault, nor is it even significant. Only the people immediately involved should be punished or offered condolences. According to Charen, “a majority of whites living in America today have no ancestors who lived in America at the time of slavery. Only one third of the citizens of the Confederacy (and, believe it or not, 12,000 free Southern blacks) owned slaves” (111). Therefore I believe that Americans have no obligation whatsoever to give reparations for slavery to blacks. People will continue to complain about this issue, but I hope (un-)common sense will spread enough to avoid wasting the taxpayers’ money.
Works Cited
Charen, Mona. “Reparations Question Won‘t Go Away.” (June 22nd, 2001.)
Vesterman, William. Reading and Writing Short Arguments. 5th ed. (108-109)
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Ó2006
Marable, Manning. “An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” (Aug. 27th, 2001. Newsweek)
Vesterman, William. Reading and Writing Short Arguments. 5th ed. (108-109)
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Ó2006
Sowell, Thomas. “Slavery Reparations Create Black Victims.” (Aug. 5th, 2001)
Vesterman, William. Reading and Writing Short Arguments. 5th ed. (113-115)
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Ó2006
Hiphistus · Mon Dec 04, 2006 @ 08:27pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all you cognitive perambulators (wandering thinkers),
I haven't posted one of these in a while...So I may be a little rusty. Some of my friends have expressed disdain in not understanding the origin of my MSN headline, 'Shrodinger's cat is dead.' In this blog I hope to alleviate some of that unnecessary confusion.
A man named Shrodinger (there are supposed to be two dots above the 'o' but this format won't allow it" wink was disappointed in the way people viewed the world. In his time the commonly held belief among philosophers was that of esse est percipi, which I explained in a previous blog. Whether this was due to philosophical merit or to lack of falsifying evidence one can't be sure. At any rate, Shrodinger set out to produce an experiment that would force people to think open-endedly about this particular belief. He explained a way that would produce a sort of paradox. I would like to mention now that he did NOT actually perform this experiment...it is entirely theoretical.
Shrodinger's experiment was to put a cat inside of a soundproof box..with all of the necessities for a cat...and put a bottle of poisen inside with a trigger. If the box is opened, the trigger would be pulled and the cat would die. However, if the box was left, there is now way to know if the cat pulled the trigger or not. So if the cat did pull the trigger it would, obviously, be dead. If the cat did not pull the trigger it would be alive, but in a smaller, darker world than before. During any point of the experiment, the observer (I use that term lightly) does not know the vital state of the cat, and if he looks, he immediately alters the experiment...and kills a cat.
That is what I mean by 'Shrodinger's cat is dead', and that is the end of this rather short blog.
Hiphistus · Thu Nov 30, 2006 @ 06:53am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the most well-known latin phrases in philosophy. It translates as "I think, therefore I am." This was made to indicate that if an individual is capable of conscious thought, that they prove their own existance. This is originally derived as a way to thwart the perception-based universe as is popular among many philosophers. Basically; if one is capable of honestly questioning, or even doubting their own existence, then they have just proved they exist, at least in a mental form.
For those of you not necessarily well-versed in philosophy, many great minds have, at one time or another, doubted their presence on the Earth. This, like many other philosophical discussions, seems ridiculous at first, second, and even third glance, but after much introspection, one can easily see the perspective.
As I mentioned in my previous blog entry; the experiences you have from your senses are nothing more than electronic impulses relayed to your brain and translated into what you see, hear, smell, feel, taste and otherwise sense. In tremendously traumatic situations, such as a near fatal injury, nerve-endings and nodes might be pinched or set-off, causing a false electronic impulse. This is one of the reasons that some hallucinations occur. Since these impulses basically cause the experience one feels, it is safe to say that the experience (what you see, hear etc) can occur even if it doesn't actually exists in the corporeal plane.
When doctors conduct brain surgery, they can cause the patient to experience certain things such as sights, sounds and smells by simply poking and prodding certain nerves along the brain. There are no pain receptors in the brain itself so there is little distraction on the part of the patients mind. This pseudo-experience seems every bit as real as if it were actually happening, though there is no actual trigger for this experience other than the ne-er do well doctors.
Rene DesCartes, a famous philosopher, conjured up an idea that the human physical form doesn't actually exist. In that only the mind exists somewhere and some evil genius is poking and prodding the brain in many complex ways to excite the nerve-endings and thus cause the sense-experiences of everyday life. Now, If I didn't give you the information of the last two paragraphs, you probably wouldv'e thought I had one too many drinks. However, now I believe I have simplified the concept insofar as it being comprehendable by anyone, including those who haven't ever heard of philosophy (for whom I have the deepest sympathy).
A more modern manifestation of this idea is the ever-popular Matrix. From what I can gather, the Matrix is a program that manipulates the minds of the humans to experience certain things in a specified world. The Agents would, of course, be the replacement for the doctors or the evil genius.
However, one important thing to remember is that the electronic impulses sent to your brain to be interpreted must have a path to travel upon. These paths are the connections between brain cells that are called synapses. When you learn something new or experience a new feeling, a synaptic connection is made; that is how things seem familiar...since the path of the impulse has already been established, travelling along it more frequently will make that experience seem more routine and familiar. Hence the phrase "practice makes perfect." The truth is, the more you use those connections, the easier the path is to travel along.
The way this is linked to what I told you earlier is that: IF there is an evil genius or doctor or what have you, poking and prodding our brains, the synaptic connection must first be established. Now, unless the evil geniuses and doctors have found out a way to artificially make those connections...we must have first had the experience in order for the path to be exploited.
The battle rages on in the minds of philosophers with nothing productive to do...but for those of us that would like to take our life and world for granted and without doubt...it is little more than an amusing conversation and discussionary topic.
I hope you enjoyed this 'lite' version of mental philosophy. Send me a message if anything confused you as I am a collector and trader of knowledge.
Hiphistus · Thu Nov 30, 2006 @ 06:52am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those of you that don't know...I think deeply about things that few others consider to be worth the time. Since I am a creature of efficiency, I often find myself with my duties completed and only mindless chores to do. This gives me a lot of time to keep my mind occupied with these supposedly inconsequential matters. I happened to think of a subject recently that I had explored several years ago I thought I might post it here.
Esse es Percipi is a Latin phrase that roughly translates to "to be is to be percieved." Coming from around the same time as the infamous "Cogito ergo Sum" which I may or may not write about later. At any rate, the view is that if something isn't being observed, then it is impossible to know whether it exists.
To many this seems absolutely ludicrous; but as with most philosophy, it doesn't make sense until you think about it long and hard. To concieve of something that doesn't exist isn't easy, if even possible. Just think for a moment though...If something isn't being seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt, who's to say that it is there at all? If the effect of the sense experience isn't present, how can the cause be there? That's like a light being on in a room with no windows and a closed door; nobody can possibly know when and if the light burns out.
If this makes sense by now...good job! If it doesn't, then you may have a mind more based in fact, rather than abstract ideas. There's nothing wrong with that, it just means that you are intensely focused on your sense experience and perceptive interpretation of reality. For those of you that get it...ponder for a while...what really exists? Is it only what is percieved? In the following paragraph I will try and examine this concept in a more fact-oriented, practical manner.
Okay...here we go. When you 'sense' something; whether it be sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch, or whatever...your nerve endings send an electronic impulse to your brain which is then interpreted and the image, sound, smell, taste, or touch is then 'sensed' by your concious mind. This concept of Esse es Percipi is saying that if you don't have that sense experience, and the electronic impulse isn't sent, then you cannot know whether or not the origin of that sense experience is there anymore...even if you had the experience not too long before.
That's all for now. Post anything you like....except flames
Hiphistus · Thu Nov 30, 2006 @ 06:51am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
