My friend Dan wrote this and gave me permission to repost it here.
Israel Must Respond to Militant Islam with Overwhelming Force
On July 12, 2006, Lebanese fighters perpetrated an act of war against Israel when they fired rockets into Israeli territory and kidnapped two IDF soldiers. In the face of such a brazen and unprovoked attack, it is a government's moral responsibility to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives of its citizens. Israel was well within its right to respond militarily and demand the return of its soldiers.
Arabs throughout the Middle East greatly feared the Israeli response. Hezbollah was widely criticized for awakening the sleeping Zionist giant. At first, the Israeli government threatened to respond with overwhelming force. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the Lebanese action "an act of war," and promised a " very painful and far-reaching response." The head of Israel's Northern Command Udi Adam said, "this affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon. Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." As rockets began to streak across the border onto Israel towns, Israeli army radio declared that the army would "totally destroy any village from which missiles are fired toward Israel."
Israel was challenged to follow through on its promises. Hezbollah guerillas embedded themselves in the civilian population, fired rockets from populated areas, and disguised themselves as civilians. In several reported cases, Islamists blocked village exits to prevent residents from leaving combat zones, maximizing civilian death. International pressure began to mount against Israel. On July 20, after a report claimed that 60 civilians were killed in a single attack, Israel agreed to halt air strikes for 48 hours. The United States began to push Israel towards a fast resolution.
Thereafter, even as Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets across the border, Israeli forces were careful not to inflict significant damage on non-combatants. This hampered Israel's ability to fight the war effectively. The army never followed through on its promise to "totally destroy" villages from which rockets were fired.Israel finally agreed to a cease fire on August 14, even though it had not accomplished its two stated objectives for victory: recovering the kidnapped soldiers, and ejecting Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah was widely regarded as the winner of the conflict. On September 22, thousands of supporters gathered in Beirut to hear Hezbollah leader Nasrallah openly declare his country's "divine and strategic victory" against Israel.
This outcome was worse than if Israel had done nothing, because now supporters of militant Islam have rallied around the victorious Hezbollah. Civilians in Lebanon still must fear the strong arm of militant Islam, but no longer fear the harsh reprisal of Israel. Moderate Lebanese have no incentive to oppose Hezbollah; to do so would mean certain death. Al Queda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations around the globe now see that the tactic of holding ones own civilian population hostage is effective.
When the United States faced a similar threat during WWII, we achieved victory by convincing the people of Japan that we would destroy their entire country if necessary to defend our own. We settled for nothing less than unconditional surrender. When Japan would not yield, we unleashed a devastating attack on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though less widely publicized, similar tactics were used against Nazi Germany. Today, US actions in WWII are often criticized, but witness the long term results of this ruthless approach. It is widely conceded that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American lives.
Israel should learn from this example. Islamic Terrorists cannot be reasoned with, and they will not stop until Israel is completely destroyed. Israel must recognize that the only way to stop an enemy aggressor is to respond with overwhelming force. If they are not willing to do so, then Muslims around the world are right: Israel has forfeited its right to exist.
--Dan Edge
I agree completely.
--Chris McKenzie
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Ayn Rand Sighting
There was a scene in the last episode of "Lost" ("Par Avion") in which one of the characters was reading "The Fountainhead" on the beach.
It made me happy.
It made me happy.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Follow Up
Trey Givens was kind enough to respond to my last post on Environmentalism and Epistemology.
With regard to this quotation from my post:
Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.
Trey writes:
I'm a person with only a nominal amount of information about environmental science and what I know about things that affect the weather doesn't exclude the environmentalists' claims from being plausible given the evidence offered.
What challenges their claim is the fact that the evidence they've offered has so frequently turned out to be false or misapplied to the question, but it is not the case that they don't attempt to offer some relevant information to the question.
This is very much unlike religionists' claims about the supernatural, which by its nature is beyond consideration, examination, and even definition.
I agree with Trey that within the context of his knowledge, religion is more obviously irrational than environmentalism. Trey has explicit knowledge of the Primacy of Existence, and so the mere fact that something is considered to be "supernatural" is enough of a reason for Trey to dismiss the claim. However, although the PoE is axiomatic, and axioms are by definition self-evident, explicit integrated knowledge of the PoE is not automatic. So, for many people, that something is supernatural is not reason enough unto itself to dismiss a claim. I don't think that most people have a clear idea even of what is meant by "supernatural." Many, I believe, simply think of it as "as of yet unexplained phenomena," which carries with it the implication that explanations are plausible. Such people would not say that God's existence is impossible, but neither would they characterize God as "the Magic Man in the Sky," the way that I do.
Trey further writes:
Certainly the environmentalists do want us to resort to faith when it comes to their claims, but they've at least been sneaky enough to obscure this fact by offering up facts and figures about this and that.
Religionists are doing exactly the same thing for the same reason. Their "intelligent design" theory is a pseudo-scientific veneer applied to supernaturalism. However irrational the theory, to the mind that thinks of "supernatural" as meaning simply "as of yet unexplained phenomena," there is nothing in intelligent design that is inherently contradictory. The reason that it is so clearly ridiculous to Trey and me is because we grasp the PoE.
So I contextually agree with Trey. If we are talking about how ridiculous one or the other will seem to somone on the surface, I think these rules apply:
In a layperson's context, neither environmentalism nor religion is necessarily be obviously invalid.
In Trey's context, since he grasp's the PoE, religion is obviously irrational, but environmentalism is not since it has the veneer of science.
In my context, since I grasp the PoE and have discovered that environmentalism isn't backed up by any science, both environmentalism and religion are equally ridiculous to me.
Epistemologically speaking, however, judged on their own merits, religion and environmentalism share the same underlying error in that neither is cognitively related to reality. That's what I meant when I said that one is not more ridiculous than the other.
With regard to this quotation from my post:
Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.
Trey writes:
I'm a person with only a nominal amount of information about environmental science and what I know about things that affect the weather doesn't exclude the environmentalists' claims from being plausible given the evidence offered.
What challenges their claim is the fact that the evidence they've offered has so frequently turned out to be false or misapplied to the question, but it is not the case that they don't attempt to offer some relevant information to the question.
This is very much unlike religionists' claims about the supernatural, which by its nature is beyond consideration, examination, and even definition.
I agree with Trey that within the context of his knowledge, religion is more obviously irrational than environmentalism. Trey has explicit knowledge of the Primacy of Existence, and so the mere fact that something is considered to be "supernatural" is enough of a reason for Trey to dismiss the claim. However, although the PoE is axiomatic, and axioms are by definition self-evident, explicit integrated knowledge of the PoE is not automatic. So, for many people, that something is supernatural is not reason enough unto itself to dismiss a claim. I don't think that most people have a clear idea even of what is meant by "supernatural." Many, I believe, simply think of it as "as of yet unexplained phenomena," which carries with it the implication that explanations are plausible. Such people would not say that God's existence is impossible, but neither would they characterize God as "the Magic Man in the Sky," the way that I do.
Trey further writes:
Certainly the environmentalists do want us to resort to faith when it comes to their claims, but they've at least been sneaky enough to obscure this fact by offering up facts and figures about this and that.
Religionists are doing exactly the same thing for the same reason. Their "intelligent design" theory is a pseudo-scientific veneer applied to supernaturalism. However irrational the theory, to the mind that thinks of "supernatural" as meaning simply "as of yet unexplained phenomena," there is nothing in intelligent design that is inherently contradictory. The reason that it is so clearly ridiculous to Trey and me is because we grasp the PoE.
So I contextually agree with Trey. If we are talking about how ridiculous one or the other will seem to somone on the surface, I think these rules apply:
In a layperson's context, neither environmentalism nor religion is necessarily be obviously invalid.
In Trey's context, since he grasp's the PoE, religion is obviously irrational, but environmentalism is not since it has the veneer of science.
In my context, since I grasp the PoE and have discovered that environmentalism isn't backed up by any science, both environmentalism and religion are equally ridiculous to me.
Epistemologically speaking, however, judged on their own merits, religion and environmentalism share the same underlying error in that neither is cognitively related to reality. That's what I meant when I said that one is not more ridiculous than the other.
The 300
There have been several reviews of the 300 already.
* * * SPOILERS * * *
There's a pretty great one here.
Favorite quote: "Hyper-epic" may accurately characterize the style in which this already exhilarating Frank Miller story was realized on film. From the studio logos to the end credits, every frame of "300" pulsates and flexes as if it were heaving an enormous weight from one shot to the next. The music and sound effects are pushed completely to the forefront, making every pluck of a string, every beat of a drum, every footstep and even every breath carry the dramatic impact of most other films' entire audio tracks. Every shot is picturesque. Every close-up is extreme. Every man is muscle-bound and sculpted. Every woman is elegant and beautiful (even the terribly scarred ones). Every monster is hideous and sickening. Every blow is fatal. Every moment is a moment. Not one second is wasted.
The online muse gushes about it here.
Diana Hsieh discusses its shortcomings here.
Cox & Forkum utilizes it in a wonderful cartoon here. They also link to a nice true history of the battle of Thermpylae, as well as to a History Channel documentary on the subject.
Trey Givens gives his thoughts here.
My take? Basically I agree with everyone here. I think the movie was masterfully executed, wonderfully exciting and dramatic, and not-quite up to par intellectually. I liked the intellectual values that the film tried to uphold, but I don't think those elements were integrated into the rest of the film very well.
My only disagreement is with Diana. She writes: "Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess."
The way I read it, Leonidas did not think that he could fight Xerxes to defend Sparta (and its way of life) and destroy that way of life at the same time. I didn't read his action as being a compromise, but rather as finding a way to uphold the principles for which he is fighting. Now, one may legitimately criticize the principle's for which he fought (duty, militarism), but in his own context, I think Leonidas stayed true to his ideals.
I wanna' see it again!
* * * SPOILERS * * *
There's a pretty great one here.
Favorite quote: "Hyper-epic" may accurately characterize the style in which this already exhilarating Frank Miller story was realized on film. From the studio logos to the end credits, every frame of "300" pulsates and flexes as if it were heaving an enormous weight from one shot to the next. The music and sound effects are pushed completely to the forefront, making every pluck of a string, every beat of a drum, every footstep and even every breath carry the dramatic impact of most other films' entire audio tracks. Every shot is picturesque. Every close-up is extreme. Every man is muscle-bound and sculpted. Every woman is elegant and beautiful (even the terribly scarred ones). Every monster is hideous and sickening. Every blow is fatal. Every moment is a moment. Not one second is wasted.
The online muse gushes about it here.
Diana Hsieh discusses its shortcomings here.
Cox & Forkum utilizes it in a wonderful cartoon here. They also link to a nice true history of the battle of Thermpylae, as well as to a History Channel documentary on the subject.
Trey Givens gives his thoughts here.
My take? Basically I agree with everyone here. I think the movie was masterfully executed, wonderfully exciting and dramatic, and not-quite up to par intellectually. I liked the intellectual values that the film tried to uphold, but I don't think those elements were integrated into the rest of the film very well.
My only disagreement is with Diana. She writes: "Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess."
The way I read it, Leonidas did not think that he could fight Xerxes to defend Sparta (and its way of life) and destroy that way of life at the same time. I didn't read his action as being a compromise, but rather as finding a way to uphold the principles for which he is fighting. Now, one may legitimately criticize the principle's for which he fought (duty, militarism), but in his own context, I think Leonidas stayed true to his ideals.
I wanna' see it again!
Environmentalism and Epistemology
Trey Givens has a good thread happening on Environmentalism. The most interesting aspect of the discussion for me is the relationship between environmentalism and religion.
Religion, it is noted, begins with claims of the supernatural, and with exhortations of faith. As such, its claims are wholly outside of reality, and can be dismissed out of hand. Everyone in the discussion seems agreed on this point. However, the status of environmentalism is not so clear. "Deep Greens," as they are being called (a term I like and shall keep), use concepts with which we are familiar to make false or unsubstantiated claims. Aren't they on the surface "better" than religionists, since some part of their claims is within reality?
In Trey's words: "I pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between the global climate and the supernatural, one exists and one does not."
I think we should be careful of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy here. One could re-structure Trey's argument to say that "Religionists claims are analytically false, but environmentalists claims are synthetically false," meaning that religionists' claims are essentially non-logical and self-contradiction, but environmentalists' claims require further study.
Environmentalists' claims do not require further study. Once it has been demonstrated that the environmentalist is making claims in an evidentiary vacuum, that is enough of a reason to dismiss the claims. The environmentalists' claims have no cognitive status. They are not "possible," "probable," "certain," "true," or most importantly: "false." If their claims are not backed up by evidence, then their claims have no cognitive content, and therefore bear no relationship to reality.
The fact they the environmentalists' nominally use words that we recognize and have no inherent contradictory status is in-essential and irrelevant. It does not make them any closer to reason than the religionist, nor any more honest. To the extent that their claims are arbitrary, they deserve no consideration.
Now, for the person that has no knowledge of environmentalism, it is proper that they should take the claims seriously enough when they first hear them to ask "why?" "How do we know that Global Warming is happening, and that man is causing it?" But as soon as it becomes apparent that no answer is offered for those questions (other than "the UN said," or "the debate is over"), then it is apparent that environmentalists are another flavor of religionists, and should be treated as such.
Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.
Religion, it is noted, begins with claims of the supernatural, and with exhortations of faith. As such, its claims are wholly outside of reality, and can be dismissed out of hand. Everyone in the discussion seems agreed on this point. However, the status of environmentalism is not so clear. "Deep Greens," as they are being called (a term I like and shall keep), use concepts with which we are familiar to make false or unsubstantiated claims. Aren't they on the surface "better" than religionists, since some part of their claims is within reality?
In Trey's words: "I pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between the global climate and the supernatural, one exists and one does not."
I think we should be careful of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy here. One could re-structure Trey's argument to say that "Religionists claims are analytically false, but environmentalists claims are synthetically false," meaning that religionists' claims are essentially non-logical and self-contradiction, but environmentalists' claims require further study.
Environmentalists' claims do not require further study. Once it has been demonstrated that the environmentalist is making claims in an evidentiary vacuum, that is enough of a reason to dismiss the claims. The environmentalists' claims have no cognitive status. They are not "possible," "probable," "certain," "true," or most importantly: "false." If their claims are not backed up by evidence, then their claims have no cognitive content, and therefore bear no relationship to reality.
The fact they the environmentalists' nominally use words that we recognize and have no inherent contradictory status is in-essential and irrelevant. It does not make them any closer to reason than the religionist, nor any more honest. To the extent that their claims are arbitrary, they deserve no consideration.
Now, for the person that has no knowledge of environmentalism, it is proper that they should take the claims seriously enough when they first hear them to ask "why?" "How do we know that Global Warming is happening, and that man is causing it?" But as soon as it becomes apparent that no answer is offered for those questions (other than "the UN said," or "the debate is over"), then it is apparent that environmentalists are another flavor of religionists, and should be treated as such.
Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
School Vouchers
When I first heard about the idea of school vouchers, I was all for it. Then I thought about it some more, and decided that the gov't would use the existence of vouchers as another mechanism to encroach the first amendment. Loathe though I am to say it, Hilary Clinton summarizes that fear quite well in this video:
Still, I think I'm going to have to come down on the side of being for it. I think that there's something wrong with the approach of viewing migratory deregulation as a danger source for the further erosion of rights. The fact is, our rights are being eroded all around us. I think we're better served by advocating controversial acts of deregulation despite the fact that they open new ground for worrying if for no other reason than that we can give the subject of rights the spotlight. Yes, school vouchers does raise first amendment issues--we need to keep rights in the forefront of the American consciousness as much as possible. Our answer to Hilary's question: "Who decides who gets the money?" is "no one." As a first step toward privatizing the educational system in this country, we should offer school vouchers for parents to send their children to any school they want.
Still, I think I'm going to have to come down on the side of being for it. I think that there's something wrong with the approach of viewing migratory deregulation as a danger source for the further erosion of rights. The fact is, our rights are being eroded all around us. I think we're better served by advocating controversial acts of deregulation despite the fact that they open new ground for worrying if for no other reason than that we can give the subject of rights the spotlight. Yes, school vouchers does raise first amendment issues--we need to keep rights in the forefront of the American consciousness as much as possible. Our answer to Hilary's question: "Who decides who gets the money?" is "no one." As a first step toward privatizing the educational system in this country, we should offer school vouchers for parents to send their children to any school they want.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Media Center
So I purchased a Dell E521 system (Vista Home Premium) with a dual tv-tuner to server as a Home Theater PC (HTPC). The first thing that I noticed was that it had no tv out. Hmmm. It appears that whoever designed the tuner card didn't think anyone would want to output the signal to a television. Go figure.
So, a trip to Best Buy and $150 later and I'm back with an NVidia GeForce 7600 GS PCIe card installed and ready to go. I connect to my HDTV and--beautiful... for about two hours that is. Then the video card locked up and I had to reboot--and again every 1 to 2 hours after that.
Much googling and a perusal and even a service request from the NVidia website turned up no helpful information. So, back to Best Buy. Except they didn't have any non-NVidia cards for less than $250 which was a quite a jump in price. So, get a refund.
Circuit City now. Found a card--ATI Radeon X1300 Pro 256Mb PCIe card for $129. Get it home--get it installed--and... eeewwwwwww. My Live TV picture is grainy and just generally shoddy. Check the DVD playback--that's all good. Hmmm... Email to ATI customer support--response in 12 hours. Hmm, guess I know who I'll be buying from next time.
I tried the TV output to a regular monitor, and it still sucked. Then I replaced the video card with another NVidia geforce card from my gaming machine-same sucky picture. Then I remove the video card entirely and just use the onboard VGA port to output to my monitor--same sucky picture. I knew that the picture wasn't that bad with the first card, so I figured that something must have gotten lost in translation when I removed the first video card and replaced it with the second.
Game plan--restore system back to Day 1 using the built-in Restore Point technology in Windows. Set up the Media Center software to talk to my satellite box again and... beautiful!
So the moral of the story is, when everything is fine on your system, and BEFORE you install any new hardware, make sure you create a restore point--otherwise you'll be spending an evening reinstalling updates like me.
So, a trip to Best Buy and $150 later and I'm back with an NVidia GeForce 7600 GS PCIe card installed and ready to go. I connect to my HDTV and--beautiful... for about two hours that is. Then the video card locked up and I had to reboot--and again every 1 to 2 hours after that.
Much googling and a perusal and even a service request from the NVidia website turned up no helpful information. So, back to Best Buy. Except they didn't have any non-NVidia cards for less than $250 which was a quite a jump in price. So, get a refund.
Circuit City now. Found a card--ATI Radeon X1300 Pro 256Mb PCIe card for $129. Get it home--get it installed--and... eeewwwwwww. My Live TV picture is grainy and just generally shoddy. Check the DVD playback--that's all good. Hmmm... Email to ATI customer support--response in 12 hours. Hmm, guess I know who I'll be buying from next time.
I tried the TV output to a regular monitor, and it still sucked. Then I replaced the video card with another NVidia geforce card from my gaming machine-same sucky picture. Then I remove the video card entirely and just use the onboard VGA port to output to my monitor--same sucky picture. I knew that the picture wasn't that bad with the first card, so I figured that something must have gotten lost in translation when I removed the first video card and replaced it with the second.
Game plan--restore system back to Day 1 using the built-in Restore Point technology in Windows. Set up the Media Center software to talk to my satellite box again and... beautiful!
So the moral of the story is, when everything is fine on your system, and BEFORE you install any new hardware, make sure you create a restore point--otherwise you'll be spending an evening reinstalling updates like me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)