Brain Mash.

Scientific Theories

2009-08-23T00:33:00.000-07:00

I have developed certain ideas about scientific theories that I have recently realized are not in accordance with majority of the public, and perhaps the majority of the scientific community either. As such, I would like to lay them out and give my reasons.

1. Scientific theories are not about explaining phenomena; they are about predicting the future.

This can often have the disguise of explaining, but ultimately that is not the purpose. One of the tests of a scientific theory is it having falsifiable predictions. If there are no falsifiable predictions it is not a theory. Ultimately everything is inexplicable. At best you can explain everything in terms of physical laws, but those laws have no explanation behind them, they just are. Personally, I consider such explanation to be unnecessary (though it is nice). If your theory makes falsifiable predictions, and is not falsified, it is a valid theory. In this view, a theory says "Assume A is how the world works, then B will happen," instead of "B happens, therefore A is how the world works."

2. A scientific theory cannot merely fit the current data points, it must make predictions about future data points, and is not to be considered correct until those data points are verified.

This is sort of the same as #1, but slightly more nuanced. It seems obvious right off the bat until you consider what it actually implies. Suppose I observed the moon for 10 years and noticed that on day 1 it was a new moon, on day 2 it was waxing, etc etc. I now make a theory saying the moon goes in cycles from new moon to new moon every 29.5 days. This fits the data I have perfectly. However, my theory is not yet tested, because all the data points I used to make it are irrelevant at testing it. This also means that if you have a fixed number of data points and you will never get any more, if you didn't make your theory before you finished getting the data, it will never be a valid one. It would simply be an organizational structure to help memorize the existing data points. Perhaps I am getting too close to arguing semantics on this point, but I nonetheless feel that it is important.

3. Nothing is strictly true. Everything comes about due to inductive reasoning.

Thus a scientific theory does not have a true or false value. Rather it has a percentage, where 0% is absolutely false and 100% is absolutely true. The truth value of a scientific theory is based on the number of experiments performed after it was conceived that match the predictions of the theory. An experiment performed that matches the prediction raises the truth value (though even if all the experiments match the theory it does not get to 100% because of the way statistics works). This is probably accepted by most people, but it leads to...

4. Two competing theories that have equal truth values are equally valid.

By this I mean that you cannot deny a theory purely on philosophical grounds. Saying "God does not play dice with the universe," is incredibly poor form. Moreover, this means that since two competing theories can be 99% true even if they are mutually exclusive. This seems very counterintuitive, but if you remember point #1, it works out, because a science ultimately doesn't care how things work, it just wants to predict the future.

If you have these 4 beliefs about scientific theories work, (and I think that, except for #2, you really have no choice but to believe it) then a few things become simpler.

First, Science and Religion never conflict. Well, they could potentially, but I don't know any falsifiable predictions that Religion makes, thus, they should never be in conflict.

Second, it becomes easy to accept all the craziness of quantum mechanics and other modern science (How can something be a particle and a wave? What do you mean how, it just is!), and the question of whether the universe really is random or not becomes irrelevant.

Citizen's Briefing Book

2009-01-15T18:19:00.000-08:00

The Citizen's Briefing Book is a section of Change.gov, an online website that the Obama administration will maintain. The Citizen's Briefing Book attempts to give the masses the power to share ideas with the president. The website allows anyone to sign up to suggest ideas and issues and rank the ideas of others. As expected, many of the issues include the usual "stupidity in masses" mentality seen frequently online. However, there are a few gems hidden among the trash.

Most of the ideas in The Citizen's Briefing Book are fairly fiscally wasteful and some are very socially conservative as well. I hope that the general public will hear about the website soon, allowing for possibility of diversifying the idea spectrum. I encourage everyone to sign up for the Citizen's Briefing Book and vote up or add issues that matter, but please do not vote on issues when you are not well-informed.

Gold Standard vs. Fiat Money

2008-09-18T20:00:00.001-07:00

Data Gathered here and here . Although it's not possible (or maybe it is, ask an economist!) to predict what gold prices would've been like if we were on the gold standard (maybe they would've been more stable), it bears to keep in mind that the U.S. is not the only country in the world, and other countries do use fiat money. Although the overall trend is for the gold to stay roughly the same price, it often moves unpredictably. The CPI (which is basically a measure of inflation, if you're in a year where CPI is 200, your money is half as valuable as in the year where it is 100), on the other hand, has a predictable movement. Something that is predictable is the next best thing to something being constant. Anyways, this chart is why, in my opinion, it is not at all useful, and probably even dangerous to go back to the gold standard.

The Only Real Question

2008-08-26T16:44:00.000-07:00

Today is a Tuesday, just like any other Tuesday. But at the same time, it is not like any other Tuesday. Because on no other Tuesday did I sit at this table out in the Court of Sciences at UCLA and begin to write about my state of being. How many Tuesdays have passed like today, how many Tuesdays are to come? What is there that I have that can make my Tuesdays unique? What can I do next Tuesday that makes it worthwhile? These are interesting talking points, points that I don't intend to talk about. These questions presuppose other notions that make these questions possible. Notions such as our existence is real and that this existence may or may not possess intrinsic meaning or value. Why are we here? What am I and why do I do what I do? These are the questions that everyone asks and no one answers, no one can answer, no one will answer. Because it is not the answer that interests the inquirer but that which he discovers about himself along the way. It is important every once in a while to talk to yourself, make sure your still there. Make sure you know who it is you are and who it is you intend to become, or if you want to become. Thoreau said that the greatest tragedy is when you die with the realization that in fact you had never lived. I would amend that statement by saying the greatest human tragedy would be to look at oneself before retiring from this world and not to recognize your oneself, to die realizing you did not know who you were. Without knowing self, you cannot realize your life, your ambitions, your dreams, your goals, your loves, your hates, your existence and maybe even your purpose or meaning. You will die not having lived if you live not knowing who you are. So the final question then is this, who am I. Yahweh says I AM WHO AM. Lets think about that.

White Collar Crime, An Alternative Explanation

2008-08-02T00:15:00.000-07:00

Here I shall deal with the apparent injustice of the punishments metered out to white collar criminals versus violent crimes. I take as a given that such an injustice exists (though this is certainly debatable). I cannot prove that my explanation is the correct one, but I only hear one explanation for this, and lest we fall into the trap of thinking that since it's the only one it must be the correct one, I am providing an alternative. The common explanation is that the white collar criminals are rich, and thus aren't prosecuted to the full extent.

A little introduction before my alternative explanation is necessary. I think that all laws can be classified into either a general or specific category. The laws I assign to the specific category are laws that few people would break even if they didn't exist (like murder). The laws that I assign to the general category are laws that many people would break if they didn't exist (like speeding, even though everyone breaks that law anyway).

My explanation is that white collar crimes fall into the general category, whereas violent crimes fall into the specific one. Thus, ultimately we feel that we are not that different from white collar criminals, because we would act the same in their position, and that is why we don't want to punish them as much as violent offenders. We feel that violent offenders are very different from us, and have no moral standing. White collar criminals are really just like us, except they aren't afraid of the law. Violent criminals are pathological and dangerous.

Before you say "I'd never commit fraud against my customers" or something like that, let's consider a simpler example. Insider Trading. You are not allowed to spread knowledge about your company in private. That is, suppose you're the CEO of Intel, and you have this giant chip coming out that's going to be huge. You can't tell your friend that this is happening and advise him to buy stock. If you tell someone, you have to tell everyone publicly. Certainly, people would do it hand over fist if the law didn't exist. Yet it's something that damages the people that aren't in the know. How is it really different from fraud? Or how about this, you and your competitor agree to pay a certain amount to your employees. Hey, you're saving money, you're not tricking anyone, why wouldn't you do it? Well, it's illegal, and it hurts the employees.

So, my alternative explanation is that White Collar Crime is punished less because we feel more empathy towards those criminals, than we do towards the Violent ones.

Our Government Loves Us

2008-07-10T23:28:00.000-07:00

I recently read about how an official in the Department of Homeland Security is interested in requiring ever air plane passenger to wear an "Electronic ID bracelet." These bracelets contain information about the passenger (taking the place of a boarding pass) so passengers could be easily tracked and it would have the ability to act as a taser device against the wearer if necessary. These devices would supposedly be very effective to fend off terrorists while in air.

I found it interesting when reading about this bracelet that the government only seems to want to use them to protect plane passengers. I mean, planes are one type of transportation that could be targeted by terrorists, but what about buses? Can't you imagine a terrorist wreaking havoc on buses and trains killing dozens of innocent passengers just as easily as on air planes? Sure the air plane is more difficult to exit in an emergency, but buses are in even more public places than planes, allowing for people who are not even on the bus to be hurt.

For that matter, why should we restrict the use of these bracelets to buses and trains? What if a terrorist is walking around on the streets of some major city and decides he is going to whip out enough explosives to blow up a city block? What if a terrorist is on the run and no one knows where? An electronic tracking device/taser seems like the perfect remedy for these horrible situations.

In conclusion, I believe the proponents of this device at the Department of Homeland Security should broaden the scope of their argument and look into requiring this bracelet for any person, citizen or not, who resides or will soon reside within the United States at any time. After that they should consider installing cameras in every television set sold and seeking enough funding for the Department of Homeland Security enough so that every citizen can be monitored at all times to ensure they are staying out of trouble and only eating trans fats on weekends.

How to Control the World

2008-07-02T00:20:00.000-07:00

The most effective way to control the world is to control the supply of an essential item such as water or oxygen. Fortunately, completely controlling the supply of essentials is usually very difficult. Unfortunately, our patenting system in the United States has recently been transforming in such a way that encourages monopolies of control over many very common items, including food.

One of the biggest problems I see with our patent system is that it allows for the complete control over strains of genetically modified food and animals. At first glance it may not seem like a monopoly on specific strains of food would matter much. Farmers would just be able to not buy the strain or to use the seeds from their own already modified plants if they so wished, right? Wrong.

The U.S. patenting system allows for genetically modified seed to be sold in mass with restrictive stipulations placed upon them. For example, genetically modified seeds are often sold with the restriction that the seeds cannot be reused in the next years crop, so the farmer must purchase more costly seeds directly from source next year. This allows for a monopoly on this specific strain of seeds such that anyone who has these genetically modified plants are forced to buy their seeds from the supplier with the patent.

This doesn't seem so bad, right? A smart farmer would just not buy the genetically modified seeds in the first place if these crazy stipulations were placed on the use of these seeds. Unfortunately, this approach still does not circumvent this flawed system. Many plants spread their pollen far and wide, ensuring that genetically modified plants will contaminate any crops near them. Once a genetically modified hybrid plant has been produced, the law leaves the ownership of this plant in a potentially very dangerous place.

A company called Monsanto has been practicing this form of controlling the world over the years and they are becoming increasingly better at it. Monsanto owns thousands of patents on herbicides, insecticides, genetically modified seeds, and they have even filed a patent for genes present in pigs. Monsanto distributes the most popular herbicide and they are by far the leading producer and patent owner of genetically modified seed.

There are many conspiracy videos explaining how Monsanto is attempting to gain control of all pigs worldwide and is generally harming the world as a whole. Regardless of Monsanto's intentions, they obviously do not care at all about the health of the world (see Agent Orange) and they are in a position that allows them nearly complete control over all food. It is a bit curious how many people have supposedly been fired or humiliated for researching or reporting bad information about Monsanto.

Although people are fighting back and sometimes winning battles, Monsanto is winning the war. Congratulations to the Monsanto Corporation for grossly taking advantage of human ignorance and obtaining the power to control the world in the most effective way I have ever seen.

Why I'm Not A Libertarian

2008-07-01T20:20:00.000-07:00

I recently read a very interesting quote that goes something like this:

"If your neighbor came over and pointed a gun at you and demanded food for another neighbor in need, we would consider this criminal and immoral. So why is it O.K. for a million people with guns (in the form of a government) to do the same?"

This quote embodies half of the Libertarian ideal. So, why is it O.K. for a government to do this? First, the quote is misleading. It expects you to take the point of view of the person having the gun pointed at them. But let's take a different point of view. That of the person pointing the gun. Let me paint you the picture.

My friend, through no fault of his own, falls on hard times. So hard that he's going to starve to death. I'd share my food with him, but I'm not well off enough to feed 2 people. But I have a gun. And I know of a person who has enough food to feed 10 people. I would not consider it morally wrong to go to that person and demand food for my friend. Perhaps this is the difference between the Libertarian and me: The Libertarian would consider it morally wrong to do this. Now, I'd try to pay the person back eventually, but if I couldn't, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

So, I argue, it is O.K. for a person to do this. But a person might encounter many problems, the rich person might have a gun himself, and this could result in a loss of life really easily. Moreover, there is the problem that the person becomes judge, jury, and executioner (after all, how do I really know my friend is starving through no fault of his own). This is one thing that the government can do better than a private person. Now the scope to which the government is allowed to perform this transfer of wealth is a more difficult question. But the transfer of wealth is a duty of the government.

The Will of the Majority

2008-06-30T12:02:00.000-07:00

Although here I will assert two very general statements, they are brought about by pondering about a specific issue. Many people claim that a vast majority of Americans wants to withdraw from Iraq and that therefore we should withdraw. There are many good reasons to withdraw from Iraq, but that is not one of them. First of all, strictly speaking it's a logical fallacy. What a person or group believes is the correct course of action is not a reason for the course of action because the group must have its own reasons in the first place. But, of course, the counterargument is that what this situation demonstrates is that the government is out of touch and doesn't listen to the people, not the correctness of the approach (which in any case won't be decided for decades, if ever).

But that is also not true. The government does not have to, nor should it, listen to the majority. In my high school days, I came across a very interesting list in my government textbook. It was a list that a majority of Americans believed should be allowed or not allowed by the government. The list included some things I would have liked to have (getting rid of the electoral college), and it had some things I wouldn't have liked (allowing prayer in public schools). Personally, I would've rather had none of those things than all of them. Now, although I can't say this with certainty, it struck me that most people would probably rather have none of those things than all of them. So, this leads to my first statement. There is no such thing as a majority. By this I don't mean that on an issue it's impossible to have more than 50% of people agreeing. By this I mean that there is no majority voting block that votes the same way all the time (that is the same 50% of people always vote together). This means that if the government actually listened to the majority, it would end up pissing the majority of people off. So, this is why the government does not have to, nor should it, listen to the majority.

Moreover, a place in which such a majority bloc does exist (The same 50% of people always voting together) a democracy cannot exist. This is simply because the minority in this case will have no reason to even vote. The majority always gets their way, and there's nothing to be done about it. The minority either becomes disenfranchised and oppressed, or secedes to form their own country. In order for a democracy to exist, the government has to sometimes ignore the will of the majority.

Allegiance, Loyalty, and Citizenship

2008-01-25T13:53:00.000-08:00

What does it mean to be loyal?

As near as I can tell it means the willingness to do something that you generally consider "wrong," or not do something that you would normally do, for the benefit of another person. For example, if you see someone shoplifting, you might report them (assuming you care enough, most people would think this is the proper course of action). If you see your best friend shoplifting, you wouldn't report him. This is because you're loyal to your friend, but not a random stranger. Of course loyalty is usually limited (if you saw your best friend commit murder, you would probably be very conflicted, and maybe report him). Some people have good objections to this view of loyalty, but this is the way I believe it works.

Although loyalty to a person is relatively easy to define, loyalty to an ideal or a country is harder, but I believe it follows the same general vein. Loyalty to an ideal means you're willing to do some things wrong, to further the goals of this ideal.

Loyalty to a country means you're willing to put the interests of your country above the interests of other countries. That is, you want your country to win, even if it means other countries lose. Unfortunately, there's also a problem with defining what a country is. Is a country the nation-state? Is a country the people that live in it? Is a country the government? Or is it the ideals that a country claims to embody? (Sometimes the main loyalty also isn't to a country, but to a religion say).

In any case, it is not too far of a stretch (in my opinion it's not a stretch at all) to see that Citizenship is granted based on loyalties. That is, you get Citizenship to the country you value more than any other. Of course than there's the problem with dual citizenship, but usually you're only allowed to get that if your two countries are allies. I know several people that openly proclaim that their main loyalty is not to the United States, and are US Citizens. Should they be denied citizenship? (well, according to the rules of dual citizenship they shouldn't, but...) Then I know some people that say they feel no loyalty to the US, what about them? Finally, there's people like me, I feel no loyalty to any country that I can think of? Where should I get Citizenship?

Anyways, I think the whole idea of loyalty is... not good in some senses. For example, if you're in a court case with a judge, you definetly want the judge to have no loyalties to any of the people involved. So, inside your country you always have a person that fixes things when loyalty gets in the way, but in the world at large, no such arbiter exists. (As I learned in my poli sci class, this is called an anarchic system). So, whereas loyalty doesn't cause any major problems in a country, it can cause major problems between countries.

United States Drug Schedule Madness

2008-01-04T03:00:00.000-08:00

In the United States Drug Schedules are used to determine to what extent certain drugs are federally regulated. Drugs in Schedules I and II have a high potential for abuse. Drugs in Schedule I have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and there is a lack of accepted safety of the drug under medical supervision.

Given the use of medical marijuana in California, I would have to argue that there is definitely a medical use of this drug. I would also argue that there is not a lack of accepted safety with this drug because it is difficulty to accidentally overdose. Unfortunately marijuana is on the Schedule I drug list. This means that legally marijuana has no accepted medical use and it is illegal to use marijuana medically.

Cocaine is used to some extent nationally in hospitals as a topical anesthetic. Cocaine's usage has decreased over the years, but it is definitely still used. Cocaine is on the Schedule II drug list. This means that by law there is a currently accepted medical use for cocaine. This is certainly true, although decreasingly so.

The thing that greatly bothers me about the United States Drug Schedules is that it is ruled that there is no acceptable medical use for marijuana, but there is an acceptable medical use for cocaine. Marijuana is a fairly effective painkiller that is much less physically shocking and much less addictive than many alternative painkillers that are legally prescribed. Cocaine is much more dangerous recreationally and therefore has a much greater potential for abuse. Why should cocaine be legal to prescribe if marijuana is not?

The Tea Party Begins

2007-12-15T21:29:00.000-08:00

I support Dr. Ron Paul for president. The main reason I support him is that he is one of the very few politicians in our country who uses reason and logic to make decisions. His ideas closely resemble the ideas of many of our founding fathers. He believes the basic rulebook of our country, the Constitution, should be regarded and respected as the important document it is.

A few months ago people could have argued that Dr. Paul had no chance at winning and people often made this claim and touted it as fact. At this time it would be very difficult to argue that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican primaries. Paul's support is increasing greatly. His campaign funding is growing immensely and the grassroots efforts of his supporters are never ending.

December 16 is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Many supporters of Ron Paul have decided to celebrate this date by donating money to Paul's campaign. The "tea party" officially began at 12:00am EST. I expect the campaign to have broken their fourth quarter goal of $12 million dollars by 2:00am EST. I wish Paul's campaign the best of luck on this day.

Speech Regarding Affirmative Action

2007-11-07T11:00:00.000-08:00

I recently attended a forum at UCLA regarding affirmative action. The three speakers present included Ward Connerly (founder and Chairman of ACRI), Richard Sander (faculty member of UCLA School of Law), and Peter Schwartz (former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute). The forum was mostly a discussion against affirmative action as it currently stands.

All three speakers argued in favor of California proposition 209, which banned state-sponsored discrimination based on race. Sander used statistics and findings from personal research to demonstrate that affirmative action is counter-productive in the battle against racism. He also argued that a comprehensive review of the affects of proposition 209 needs to be performed.

Connerly argued against the case Grutter v. Bollinger which allows universities to favor under represented groups in order to ensure diversity. Connerly argued that if this policy was enforced at UCLA then Asians could potentially be discriminated against due to their large over representation here.

Sander's arguments were very well formed, but I disagreed strongly with Sander's view that the wealthy kids could be discriminated against as a form of socio-economic justice. I respect Sander for the research he has done and for his immense patience during the brutal question and answer session at the end of the speech, but I think he is wrong in assuming that discrimination against anyone wealthy is justified.

Schwartz had the most capitalistic arguments of the night. Some of his statements were also somewhat accusatory towards audience members and people who support affirmative action. Although Schwartz expressed his views in a somewhat extreme fashion, I agreed with his views more than the other two speakers present. Schwartz brought up many points that the other two candidates did not. The most important point Schwartz brought up was in response to a question about how to solve the root of this problem of classism and racism. Schwartz's response was a simple one: give children a better education and ensure everyone has the education they deserve. I have argued this solution to the problem of racist and classist discrimination before.

The thing that surprised my the most about this speech was the demeanor of the protesters present. I honestly was not very surprised by the large number of protesters because so much controversy surrounds this issue. The protesters that spoke up, there were many that did, used circular logic or attacked the speakers with very outlandish accusations. Little respect was shown for the speakers while the speakers seemed to have nothing but good intentions.

Battling Racism through Education

2007-10-09T21:26:00.000-07:00

This post is not about whether or not affirmative action is justified (See Racism and the Reverse). I may criticize affirmative action in this post, but that is only because I believe there is a more important and more effective way to battle racism. I look at affirmative action as attempting to treating the symptoms of a disease rather than attempting to cure the disease. The disease of racism may always be present in our society, but there are things we can do to help prevent the seeds of racism to grow in the next generation.

There is one goal that all affirmative action advocates have that I personally believe in. This goal is the to "level the playing field" for all races. I believe the goal is best attainable by starting children off on the "same level" by ensuring they have the same opportunities to obtain an education. In my opinion, the two key aspects of this unleveled playing field are lack of education and unhealthy family relations. In the United States today social standing, wealth, and skin color probably matter much less as a child than education and family relations do when speaking of giving a child the opportunity to succeed in life. These other factors do matter, but they play minor roles in giving a child an opportunity to succeed.

Education is the ultimate tool. It is my opinion that regardless of whether someone is poor or rich, if they are educated their potential to succeed in life is increased greatly. One problem for lower-class minorities today is that it is often very difficult to receive a good education in a low-income area. Low-income areas tend to have very poor public schools with little funding and ineffective teachers. This problem needs to be solved by raising the money to do whatever needs to be done to get really good teachers and really good programs set in place in these lower-class schools.

Every child is shaped by the family they grow up with. Families influence their children in both positive and negative ways. The negative ways in which families can influence children include not supporting their goals and dreams, convincing them that they do not need an education, and guilt-tripping them into making decisions that may affect them negatively. Families may not push their children to obtain an education, they may force them to drop out of school to support them, or they may tell them they should not pursue a college education. In my opinion, negative family influence is the one big road block that may keep the educational playing field unleveled for longer than expected.

Lower-class families need to be encouraged to support their children in their educational endeavors. Giving children the chance to receive a good education and prove their intelligence is the most important step the government can take in combating racism at a legal level. The argument that leeway must be given to minorities applying for jobs and college is based on the idea that minorities currently do not receive the same education and opportunities as everyone else.
Ensuring that everyone, minorities included, have easy access to education will allow everyone the opportunity to succeed.

Official Languages

2007-09-27T14:23:00.000-07:00

People often propose making English the official language of the United States. Even discounting the many different varieties of English, this is an awful proposal. Laws that are like this are either useless, or racist.

First, let's consider what this would mean. The weak version is that all official documents have to be at least in English. I must ask the question, why? What good will be gained from this? All government documents are already in English, so the only place this would apply is in contracts (and personally, I'm not sure if contracts in different languages would be enforced). But contracts are a matter of civil courts, and thus, not strictly law-enforced. Besides, if two people want a contract in Spanish, why shouldn't they get one? This is the useless version.

A stronger version is that official documents should not be in a language other than English. And same for store signs, etc. Now, suppose that for some reason or another, 90% of the population now spoke Spanish, or some language other than English, as their first language. This would seem like a pretty silly law. This also applies to the first weaker version too. So, the law is either useless, or it forces a percentage of the population to learn a language they don't want to. If the latter is true, it is racist. Think about it like this, would you force an immigrant to take an accent coach and learn the precise "proper" way to pronounce the words? Why not? It's the same idea, taken just a bit further. Possibly, you'd say they can make it with just the English language, and they can make themselves understood. In the first case, there are plenty of economic reasons to learn English. If they can make it without using English, that's just fine for them. They can decide whether they need English or not, better than you can. Why is it O.K. to force a minority to do something and not a majority? Well, traditionally it's considered not O.K. and this should not be an exception.

So, the law is useless unless it's racist. And thus it shouldn't exist.

Superstitions

2007-09-17T23:36:00.000-07:00

"Always start off with a quote because somebody's already said it better" - American History X

Well, I'm saying this, because although it may be true that somebody has said it better, it is not often that I can point to the specific person and passage that did. However, in this case I can. Richard Feynman said it better. I got angry about this because I saw two people, who were very successful and seemed intelligent enough, discuss faith healing as a serious topic. Anyways..., superstitions obviously still permeate our society, and without further ado, the words of Feynman himself:

And now finally, as I'd like to show Galileo our world, I must show him something with a great deal of shame. If we look away from the science and look at the world around us, we find out something rather pitiful: that the environment that we live in is so actively, intensely unscientific. Galileo could say: "I noticed that Jupiter was a ball with moons and not a god in the sky. Tell me, what happened to the astrologers?" Well, they print their results in the newspapers in the United States at least, in every daily paper every day. Why do we still have astrologers? Why can someone write a book like Worlds in Collision by somebody with a "V," it's a Russian name? Huh? Vininkowski? And how did it become popular? What is all this nonsense about Mary Brody, or something? I don't know, that was crazy stuff. There is always some crazy stuff. There is an infinite amount of crazy stuff, which, put another way, is that the environment is actively, intensely unscientific. There is talk of telepathy still, although it's dying out. There is faith-healing galore, all over. There is a whole religion of faith-healing. There's a miracle at Lourdes where healing goes on. Now, it might be true that astrology is right. It might be true that if you go to the dentist on the day that Mars is at right angles to Venus, that it is better than if you go on a different day. It might be true that you can be cured by the miracle of Lourdes. But if it is true, it ought to be investigated. Why? To improve it. If it is true, then maybe we can find out if the stars do influence life; that we could make the system more powerful by investigating statistically, scientifically judging the evidence objectively, more carefully. If the healing process works at Lourdes, the question is how far from the site of the miracle can the person, who is ill, stand? Have they in fact made a mistake and the back row is really not working? Or is it working so well that there is plenty of room for more people to be arranged near the place of the miracle? Or is it possible, as it is with the saints which have recently been created in the United States - there is a saint who cured leukemia apparently indirectly - that ribbons that are touched to the sheet of the sick person (the ribbon having previously touched some relic of the saint) increase the cure of leukemia - the question is, is it gradually being diluted? You may laugh, but if you believe in the truth of the healing, then you are responsible to investigate it, to improve its efficiency and to make it satisfactory instead of cheating. For example, it may turn out that after a hundred touches it doesn't work anymore. Now it's also possible that the results of this investigation have other consequences, namely, that nothing is there.

And another thing that bothers me, I might as well mention, are the things that the theologians in modern times can discuss, without feeling ashamed of themselves. There are many things that they can discuss that they need not feel ashamed of themselves, but some of the things that go on in the conferences on religion, and the decisions that have to be made, are ridiculous in modern times. I would like to explain that one of the difficulties, and one of the reasons why this can keep going, is that it is not realized what a profound modification of our worldview would result, if just one example of one of these things would really work. The whole idea, if you could establish the truth, not of the whole idea of astrology but just one little item, could have a fantastic influence on our understanding of the world. And so the reasons we laugh a little bit is that we are so confident of our view of the world that we are sure they aren't going to contribute anything. On the other hand, why don't we get rid of it? I will come to why we don't get rid of it in a minute, because science is irrelevant, as I said before.

Transcript From Recent Osama Bin Laden Video

2007-09-11T00:15:00.000-07:00

The mainstream media makes it very difficult to find some information. An example of this is Osama Bin Laden's latest video which surfaced on September 7, 2007. The video was made sometime in the past few months based on the news events referenced in the tape. According to Bin Laden's statement that "just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" I would date the tape to somewhere around August 8th.

I believe that public information such as this should be easily available. A transcript of the video is included below. I have linked some words and phrases to relevant websites.

All praise is due to Allah who built the Heavens and earth in justice, and created man as a favor and grace from Him. And from His ways in that the days rotate between the people, and from His law is retaliation in kind: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the killer is killed. And all praise is due to Allah, who awakened His slaves' desires for the Garden, and all of them will enter it except those who refuse. And whoever obeys Him alone in all of his affairs will enter the Garden, and whoever disobeys him will have refused. As for what comes after: Peace be upon he who follows the Guidance. People of America: I shall be speaking to you on important topics which concern you, so lend me your ears. I begin by discussing the war which is between us and some of its repercussions for us and you. To preface, I say: despite America being the greatest economic power and possessing the most powerful and up-to-date military arsenal as well; and despite it spending on this war and is army more than the entire world spends on its armies; and despite it being the being the major state influencing the policies of the world, as if it has a monopoly on the unjust right to veto; despite all of this, 19 young men were able - by the grace of Allah, the Most High - to change the direction of its compass. And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader, and the effects and signs of that are not hidden. Since the 11th, many of America's policies have come under the influence of Mujahideen, and that is by the grace of Allah, the Most High. And as a result, the people discovered the truth about it, its reputation worsened, its prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically, even if our interests overlap with those of the major corporations and also with those of the neoconservatives, despite the differing intentions. And for your information media, during the first years of the war, lost its credibility and manifested itself as a tool of the colonialist empire, and its condition has often been worse than the condition of the media of the dictatorial regimes which march in the caravan of the single leader. Then Bush talks about his working with al-Maliki and his government to spread freedom in Iraq but he in fact is working with the leaders of one sect against another sect, in the belief that this will quickly decide the war in his favor. And thus, what is called the civil war came into being and matters worsened at his hands before getting out of his control and him becoming like the one who plows and sows the sea: he harvests nothing but failure. So these are some of the results of the freedom about whose spreading he is talking to you. And then the backtracking of Bush on his insistence on not giving the United Nations expanded jurisdiction in Iraq is an implicit admission of his loss and defeat there. And among the most important items contained in Bush's speeches since the events of the 11th is that the Americans have no option but to continue the war. This tone is in fact an echoing of the words of neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle, the latter having said previously that the Americans have no choice in front of them other than to continue the war or face a holocaust. I say, refuting this unjust statement, that the morality and culture of the holocaust is your culture, not our culture. In fact, burning living beings is forbidden in our religion, even if they be small like the ant, so what of man?! The holocaust of the Jews was carried out by your brethren in the middle of Europe, but had it been closer to our countries, most of the Jews would have been saved by taking refuge with us. And my proof for that is in what your brothers, the Spanish, did when they set up the horrible courts of the Inquisition to try Muslims and Jews, when the Jews only found safe shelter by taking refuge in our countries. And that is why the Jewish community in Morocco today is one of the largest communities in the world. They are alive with us and we have not incinerated them, but we are a people who don't sleep under oppression and reject humiliation and disgrace, and we take revenge on the people of tyranny and aggression, and the blood of the Muslims will not be spilled with impunity, and the morrow is nigh for he who awaits. Also, your Christian brothers have been living among us for 14 centuries in Egypt alone, there are millions of Christians whom we have not incinerated and shall not incinerate. But the fact is, there is a continuing and biased campaign being waged against us for a long time now by your politicians and many of your writers by way of your media, especially Hollywood, for the purpose of misrepresenting Islam and its adherents to drive you away from the true religion. The genocide of peoples and their holocausts took place at your hands: only a few specimens of Red Indians were spared, and just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by your nuclear weapons. And among the things which catch the eye of the one who considers the repercussions of your unjust war against Iraq is the failure of your democratic system, despite it raising of the slogans of justice, liberty, equality, and humanitarianism. It has not only failed to achieve these things, it has actually destroyed these and other concepts with its weapons - especially in Iraq and Afghanistan - in a brazen fashion, to replace them with fear, destruction, killing, hunger, illness, displacement and more than a million orphans in Baghdad alone, not to mention hundreds of thousands of widows. American statistics speak of the killing of more than 650,000 of the people of Iraq as the result of the war and its repercussions. People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment. And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think, and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority? I will come back to reply to this question after raising another question, which is: Why are the leaders of the White House keen to start wars and wage them around the world, and make use of every possible opportunity through which they can reach this purpose, occasionally even creating justifications based on deception and blatant lies, as you saw in Iraq? In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation. And so Kennedy was killed, and al-Qaida wasn't present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade. But after it became clear to you that it was an unjust and unnecessary war, you made one of your greatest mistakes, in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, Rumsfeld. And even more incredible than that is that Bush picked him as secretary of defense in his first term after picking Cheney as his vice-president, Powell as secretary of state and Armitage as Powell's deputy, despite their horrific and bloody history of murdering humans. So that was a clear signal that his administration - the administration of the generals - didn't have as its main concern the serving of humanity, but rather, was interested in bringing about new massacres. Yet in spite of that, you permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you - with your full knowledge and consent - to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then you claim to be innocent! This innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th - were I to claim such a thing. But it is impossible for me to humor any of you in the arrogance and indifference you show for the lives of humans outside America, or for me to humor your leaders in their lying, as the entire world knows they have the lion's share of that. These morals aren't our morals. What I want to emphasize here is that not taking past war criminals to account led to them repeating that crime of killing humanity without right and waging this unjust war on Mesopotamia, and as a result, here are the oppressed ones today continuing to take their right from you. This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice. The entire world came out in unprecedented demonstrations to warn against waging the war and describe its true nature in eloquent terms like "no to spilling red blood for black oil," yet he paid them no heed. It is time for humankind to know that talk of the rights of man and freedom are lies produced by the White House and its allies in Europe to deceive humans, take control of their destinies and subjugate them. So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any causes for astonishment - and there isn't any - in the Democrats' failure to stop the war. And you're the ones who have the saying which goes, "Money talks." And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cites, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war. However, there are two solutions for stopping it. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out, and I ask Allah to grant them resolve and victory. And the second solution is from your side. It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations. And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms to massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives. And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown - still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer, and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles, and attrition of the capitalist system. If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of "globalization" in order to protect democracy. And Iraq and Afghanistan and their tragedies; and the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes; and the abject poverty and tragic hunger in Africa; all of this is but one side of the grim face of this global system. So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology in which it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantages at the expense of the other classes as is the case with you, since the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The infallible methodology is the methodology of Allah, the Most High, who created the heavens and earth and created the Creation and is the Most Kind and All-Informed and the Knower of the souls of His slaves and the methodology that best suits them. You believe with absolute certainty that you believe in Allah, and you are full of conviction of this belief, so much that you have written this belief of yours on your dollar. But the truth is that you are mistaken in this belief of yours. The impartial judge knows that belief in Allah requires straightness in the following of His methodology, and accordingly, total obedience must be to the orders and prohibitions of Allah Alone in all aspects of life. So how about you when you associate others with Him in your beliefs and separate state from religion, then claim that you are believers?! What you have done is clear loss and manifest polytheism. And I will give you a parable of polytheism, as parables summarize and clarify speech. I tell you: its parable is the parable of a man who owns a shop and hires a worker and tells him, "Sell and give me the money," but he makes sales and give[s] the money to someone other than the owner. So who of you would approve of that? You believe that Allah is your Lord and your Creator and the Creator of this earth and that it is His property, then you work on His earth and property without His orders and without obeying Him, and you legislate in contradiction to His Law and methodology. This work of yours is the greatest form of polytheism and is rebellion against obedience to Allah with which the believer becomes an unbeliever, even if he obeys Allah in some of His other orders. Allah, the Most High, sent down His orders in His Sacred Books like the Torah and Evangel and sent with them the Messengers (Allah's prayers and peace be upon them) as bearers of good news to the people. And everyone who believes in them and complies with them is a believer from the people of the Garden. Then when the men of knowledge altered the words of Allah, the Most High, and sold them for a paltry price, as the rabbis did with the Torah and the monks with the Evangel, Allah sent down His final Book, the magnificent Qur'an, and safeguarded it from being added to or subtracted from by the hands of men, and in it is a complete methodology for the lives of all people. And our holding firm to this magnificent Book is the secret of our strength and winning of the war against you despite the fewness of our numbers and material. And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard. Don't be turned away from Islam by the terrible situation of the Muslims today, for our rulers in general abandoned Islam many decades ago, but our forefathers were the leaders and pioneers of the world for many centuries, when they held firmly to Islam. And before concluding, I tell you: there has been an increase in the thinkers who study events and happenings, and on the basis of their study, they have declared the approach of the collapse of the American Empire. Among them is the European thinker who anticipated the fall of the Soviet Union, which indeed fell. And it would benefit you to read what he wrote about what comes after the empire in regard to the United States of America. I also want to bring your attention that among the greatest reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was their being afflicted with their leader Brezhnev, who was overtaken by pride and arrogance and refused to look at the facts on the ground. From the first year of the Afghanistan invasion, reports indicated that the Russians were losing the war, but he refused to acknowledge this, lest it go down in his personal history as a defeat, even though refusal to acknowledge defeat not only doesn't do anything to change the facts for thinking people, but also exacerbates the problem and increases the losses. And how similar is your position today to their position approximately two decades ago. The mistakes of Brezhnev are being repeated by Bush, who - when asked about the date of his withdrawing of forces from Iraq - said in effect that the withdrawal will not be during his reign, but rather, during the reign of the one who succeeds him. And the significance of these words is not hidden. And here I say: it would benefit you to listen to the poignant messages of your soldiers in Iraq, who are paying - with their blood, nerves and scattered limbs - the price for these sorts of irresponsible statements. Among them is the eloquent message of Joshua which he sent by way of the media, in which he wipes the tears from his eyes and describes American politicians in harsh terms and invites them to join him there for a few days. Perhaps his message will find in you an attentive ear so you can rescue him and more than 150,000 of your sons there who are tasting the two bitterest things: If they leave their barracks, the mines devour them, and if they refuse to leave, rulings are passed against them. Thus, the only options left in front of them are to commit suicide or cry, both of which are from the severest of afflictions. So is there anything more men can do after crying and killing themselves to make you respond to them? They are doing that out of the severity of the humiliation, fear and terror which they are suffering. It is severer than what the slaves used to suffer at your hands centuries ago, and it is as if some of them have gone from one slavery to another slavery more severe and harmful, even if it be in the fancy dress of the Defense Department's financial enticements. So do you feel the greatness of their sufferings? To conclude, I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one's life - i.e., to die outside of Islam. And Islam means gain for you in this first life and the next, final life. The true religion is a mercy for people in their lives, filling their hearts with serenity and calm. There is a message for you in the Mujahideen; the entire world is in pursuit of them, yet their hearts, by the grace of Allah, are satisfied and tranquil. The true religion also puts peoples' lives in order with its laws; protects their needs and interests; refines their morals; protects them from evils; and guarantees for them entrance into Paradise in the hereafter through their obedience to Allah and sincere worship of Him Alone. And it will also achieve your desire to stop the war as a consequence, because as soon as the warmongering owners of the major corporations realize that you have lost confidence in your democratic system and begun to search for an alternative, and that this alternative is Islam, they will run after you to please you and achieve what you want to steer you away from Islam. So your true compliance with Islam will deprive them of the opportunity to defraud the peoples and take their money under numerous pretexts, like arms deals and so on. There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling only 2.5%. So beware of the deception of those with the capital. And with your earnest reading about Islam from its pristine sources, you will arrive at an important truth, which is that the religion of all of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them) is one, and that its essence is submission to the orders of Allah Alone in all aspects of life, even if their Shari'ahs (Laws) differ. And did you know that the name of the Prophet of Allah Jesus and his mother (peace and blessings of Allah be on them both) are mentioned in the Noble Qu'ran dozens of times, and that in the Qu'ran there is a chapter whose name is "Maryam," i.e. Mary, daughter of Imran and mother of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both)? It tells the story of her becoming pregnant with the Prophet of Allah Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both), and in its confirmation of her chastity and purity, in contrast to the fabrications of the Jews against her. Whoever wishes to find that out for himself must listen to the verse of this magnificent chapter: one of the just kings of the Christians - the Negus - listened to some of its verses and his eyes welled up with tears and he said something which should be reflected on for a long time by those sincere in their search for the truth. He said, "verily, this and what Jesus brought come from one lantern": i.e., that the magnificent Qu'ran and the Evangel are both from Allah, the Most High; and every just and intelligent one of you who reflects on the Qu'ran will definitely arrive at this truth. It also must be noted that Allah has preserved the Qu'ran from the alterations of men. And reading in order to become acquainted with Islam only requires a little effort, and those of you who are guided will profit greatly. And peace be upon he who follows the Guidance.

2008 Presidential Candidates: Keeping Informed

2007-09-09T01:02:00.000-07:00

Being an informed voter and voting in presidential and state elections is probably the most important role one has as a citizen in the United States of America. As such, finding the best ways to keep informed about elections is important. I have faced the fact that at this time our system is a two party system when it comes to the presidential election. I do not like this fact and I hope another party can step up to the plate soon. However, the system being as it is, the places I look for information on presidential candidates may be biased towards these two parties solely, leaving out any talk of other parties.

I have found that the best places to find information on presidential candidates are online. Personally, I have researched the upcoming presidential candidates a lot already, but I will be keeping up with the debates and some of the key speeches as time goes by. Some might think it is a bit early to be looking at candidates when the election is over a year away. I will remind those of you that think this that the primary elections are in February. I know very few voters, if any, that vote in the primaries, but I feel it is the most important part of the election process because it is the only time you get to decide out of well over a dozen candidates, which one you want to make the cut. I encourage everyone to inform themselves as a voter, try to remain open minded, and vote in the primaries when they come around.

Here are a list of websites I recommend for finding out about the candidates:

Candidates@Google (Google's QA Sessions With Candidates)
YouTube's You Choose '08
OnTheIssues - 2008 Presidential Race Speculation
Project Vote Smart - 2008 Presidential Candidates
Presidential Political Compass (Not useful but interesting)
Pick Your Candidate (Uses 2decide's On The Issues)
Council on Foreign Relations - Issue Tracker
Election.tv
Tech President

People are Smart

2007-09-04T14:22:00.000-07:00

It is common knowledge that the majority of people are idiots. It is likewise common knowledge that common knowledge is often wrong (which is ironically based on the idea that most people are idiots). Anyways, a surprising amount (at least to me) of people believe that everyone in the world, except for them, is an idiot.

The first time I noticed this was when I was discussing the education problem (the fact that not everyone gets an equal education, or even gets the opportunity for an equal education), with a friend. And he asked me, "Well, how would you solve it?" and I thought about it for a few minutes, and the conclusion I came to was "I can't solve it. It's actually ridiculous of you to assume that I would even have something approaching a good idea within such a short time span. As a matter of fact, unless I do some hardcore research, no amount of time of thinking about it will help. And for that matter, there are plenty of people that have actually done this hardcore research, and not solved it. Now, it is possible that I'll be able to strike on a solution that those people missed, but nonetheless, they're not idiots, and such a solution isn't obvious." I gave him the short version of that. After which he proceeded to tell me how he thought the "problem" should be solved.

Now, discussing such things is good, and since I'm not a mind reader, I can't actually tell if he did anything wrong in this. But if he actually thought that the solution that he proposed was a good solution, and should be used, that is a case of assuming that everyone in the world, except for himself is an idiot. Now, it is true that I have done that myself sometimes, but I will say that you should start every thought off with the idea that nobody is an idiot (even though some people are) rather than that everyone is an idiot.

A good example of the difference: The person thinking that everyone's an idiot hears "All people are created equal," and says, "That's ridiculous, some people are born lame, some people have deficiencies, some people are born stronger and smarter than others." So, this person is then told that Thomas Jefferson wrote this in the Declaration of Independence. Now, they might back down, or they might say "Thomas Jefferson is an idiot, and the Declaration of Independence is stupid." Which they actually already did, in effect say.

Now, a person that assumes that no one is an idiot would realize that in saying "All people are created equal," something is lost. Because it clearly can't mean that all people are equal, so they would say "What do you mean, what about the lame, and the dumb? Please clarify your statement." Upon being informed that it was in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, you could say "O, that makes sense, it's a political document, what Thomas Jefferson means is that all people are politically equal." And then you might get to thinking well, what does that mean? and say, "O, it means that every person's interests are equivalent to every other person. My interest in staying alive is equivalent to all other's interest in staying alive. I guess that makes sense, yeah, we are all created equal." And then you'd think about it some more, and maybe you'd decide you disagree, maybe sometimes one person's interest wins over another's.

But in either case, you'll understand what you're actually disagreeing with and realize that Thomas Jefferson isn't an idiot. So, it is a really good idea to assume that no one is an idiot.

"Racism and the Reverse" Response

2007-09-02T01:39:00.000-07:00

This post is a response to Racism and the Reverse. In the previous post George defended the "current approach" for dealing with racism. The current approach often comes in the form of affirmative action and is meant to reverse the effects of racism. I disagree with George's defense of this approach to battle racism and I disagree with the idea of affirmative action.

I agree with George that racism is most certainly still a problem in the United States. I do not believe affirmative action is the correct way to counter current discrimination problems. George raised three arguments that support the use of affirmative action today. I believe these are valid points but each of these points can be solved by means other than affirmative action.

George's first point brings up the idea of battling racism at the individual level. This point is applicable when an admissions, recruitment, or hiring officer of a school or business is racist. The problem with assuming affirmative action can fix racism at the individual level is that more than half of the hiring officers need to be racist for this method to be beneficial at all. If less than half of the hiring officers are racist then the extra leeway given in favor of one race will statistically allow less qualified employees of that race to be hired.* This creates a flaw in the system in favor of one race, just as racism itself does and the problem then exists in the reverse. Instead of using affirmative action, this "individual racism" problem can be battled by administering tests to ensure these hiring officers are racially unbiased to a reasonable means.

The second point George made was that flaws in the hiring or admissions system of a company/university may encourage racism. The example given in the previous post was a test biased against minorities. I think systems that encourage racism are special cases that need to be fixed on a case-to-case basis. Most of these systems are probably due to minorities not receiving the opportunity to seek the education or credentials they need. This situation cannot be helped by lowering the bar slightly for certain minorities that tend to lack the opportunity to seek the qualifications needed for a certain job.

Any non-discriminatory system should ensure that everyone is given the opportunity to learn, especially poor inner-city children whose school systems may be of a poor caliber. This problem of uneven education opportunities is the root of the racism problem and it is the major reason that a low number of minorities are admitted into colleges. If affirmative action were used to solve this problem instead, employers would be required by law to hire potentially under-educated people. This could lead to people making the assumption that employees of that particular minority are not up to par and de facto racism will occur.

The third point brought up was that minorities may not be hired because customers and statistics are biased against them. This point is strongly linked to the second point of flaws in a system that encourage racism. This problem can only be solved over time by ensuring that all minorities have the same opportunity for an education as the majority has. Once this is true the average education levels of minorities will increase and reverse this trend of racist thinking. An opportunity for education is the most important factor to ensure equality among all demographics of people and it is the only way to properly combat racism.

* Explanation: Imagine a scenario where three out of ten admissions officers at a college are racist. Affirmative action is practiced at this school so being a minority boosts your chance of getting in slightly. This may help counter racism of the three racist officers but the other seven officers will also be letting in more minorities than they would have without affirmative action. Assuming each official evaluates an approximately equal number of minorities, this system will ensure that seven out of every ten minorities that entered the school had too much preferential treatment.

Racism and the Reverse

2007-08-31T12:40:00.000-07:00

In the 1950s, a decision by the Supreme Court declared segregation in schools illegal. The case Brown v. Board of Education is probably the most famous court case in the United States. But, the Supreme Court based its unanimous decision on the fact that separate was inherently unequal. Thus it did not simply declare de jure (by law) segregation illegal, it declared de facto (in fact) segregation illegal as well.

This is the reason busing was used. Communities were typically divided by race. Thus, the school districts were also divided by race, and would now be illegal.

Here, it is necessary to know a little about the difference between criminal and civil cases. That link is useful though somewhat biased. Basically, to have a criminal case one needs to break a law that was passed by a legislature and can go to prison, whereas in a civil case, one only needs to hurt another, but cannot go to prison. So, when I say illegal, I do not mean that this is criminal, but doing so would make them lose civil cases.

Since then, the idea of forced desegregation has spread from the schools, to the universities, and even the workplace. Many people reject this notion of forced desegregation. Some call it reverse racism. Some go so far as to say that it is unnecessary because racism no longer exist. But that is simply not true as numerous studies show.

I will defend the current approach to dealing with racism. First, there is the fact that people are racist. Some even unconsciously so. Second, the system may be racist in itself (such as a biased test). Thus giving a boost to minorities does not necessarily let in people of a lower caliber.

Third, there is a simple situation to show why even someone that's not racist would make a bias against minorities. Suppose you have two resumes in front of you. They are functionally equivalent, except one person is white, the other is black. Which one do you pick? There are two reasons to pick the white person over the black one, even if you're not racist. First, you'd realize that some people are racist, which means that by having to make them deal with a black person, you could be losing customers. The second reason, though a misuse of statistics, is that a black person is more likely to be a criminal. Thus, you would hire the white person as good business practice.

So, there are at least the three ways above that minorities get discriminated against on a regular basis. What's wrong with giving the minorities a boost to counter these ways?

One counterargument goes like this: Racism exists and it is bad. But it is even worse when the government starts being racist to correct it. The way to end racism is not more racism. This seems like a valid point, but I believe history has shown it to be untrue, though this is hardly undisputed. This brings me back to Brown v. Board of Education. During the late fifties and early sixties the government forced different races to interact and mix together, and although it is impossible to trace the cause of the improved race relations today, I would say that the government actions had a hand in it.

Another counterargument is that the government should not be involved in such things in the first place. This is a harder belief to refute and perhaps has some validity. But I would like to point out that the government is not as involved as is commonly believed. The days of affirmative action are largely in the past. The government does not actively seek out racists and racist companies. Instead people who feel wronged sue the company or university that acted racists towards them in a civil case. And often, they lose. No one goes to prison for being racist. Moreover, many of the "reverse racism" policies are issued by the government only when it acts as an employer. Things that private employers would be able to do, if you believe the government shouldn't interfere. And many private employers, and universities, use these policies even though no one is forcing them to.

I think that our current system of dealing with racism works fairly well, and that the "reverse racism" policies are fair because, well, quite simply, if we don't have reverse racism, we will have only plain racism.

MPAA Movie Ratings: NC-17 Movies

2007-08-27T14:25:00.000-07:00

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has a de facto monopoly on movie ratings in the United States. The MPAA rating system was started in 1968 after rising complaints over the presence of sexual content, graphic violence, and profanity in some films. The system ensured that the federal government would not create their own movie rating system which would have allowed a de jure monopoly on movie ratings.

The MPAA's rating system has acquired quite a bit of fire from critics. Most of the controversy that surrounds the MPAA ratings is due to the NC-17 rating. Nearly all major theaters follow the MPAA rating system. Movie theaters that follow this system will not allow minors into movies with an NC-17 rating even if a parent accompanies them.

Movies with an NC-17 rating are shunned in the United States. Many movie theaters will not even play NC-17 rated movies. Movie producers do not want their movies rated NC-17 because of this bias. Movies that receive an NC-17 rating are usually edited and resubmitted until they receive an R rating.

According to my count, over 90 out of the 157 NC-17-rated movies were appealed or re-edited until they received an R rating. This bias against NC-17 rated films effectively creates nation-wide movie censorship. The censorship created by this system may be more the fault of misconceptions of the American public than the fault of the MPAA. Regardless to whose fault this censorship is, it is still a problem.

Fortunately, many edited movies are being released in an "Unrated" form on DVD, allowing movie buyers to see the movie in its original form. This allows for an alternative to the censored release version of the movie but it does not act as a solution to this problem. The MPAA should revise the current movie rating system or theater owners should adopt multiple rating systems, allowing for competition and hopefully encouraging less censorship.

Industrial Hemp: A Dead Cash Crop

2007-08-09T19:13:00.000-07:00

The cannabis plant is often associated with the drug marijuana, which is harvested from strains of cannabis that have high levels of THC. Industrial hemp is a strain of the cannabis plant that has low levels of THC, rendering it useless as a drug. Cannabis plants are illegal to grow in the United States, regardless of their THC content, because some strains of cannabis can be harvested to produce the drug marijuana. Since hemp is a strain of cannabis, industrial hemp is illegal to grow in the United States.

Hemp is a very useful resource and has numerous uses. Before hemp was outlawed in the United States it was seen as valuable cash crop. The U.S. Department of Agriculture actually released a film called "Hemp for Victory" in 1942 in order to promote the production of the hemp plant to support the war effort. Industrial hemp plants produce very strong fibers and, along with cotton and flax, are one of the most useful natural fibers known to man.

There is a theory that cannabis plants were originally outlawed in the US in order to stop hemp from taking business away from many other industries. This theory is fairly widely accepted by advocates of industrial hemp. Of course, some consider this theory to be inaccurate. Regardless of whether or not there was a well-planned conspiracy to outlaw the production of industrial hemp, the fact still stands that industrial hemp is outlawed in the United States.

There are no good arguments for keeping industrial hemp illegal. One common argument against industrial hemp is that it would be too hard to tell industrial hemp apart crops from medical cannabis crops. This is not true. It is fairly easy to tell industrial hemp crops and medical cannabis crops apart based on appearance, the way in which they are grown, and the time of year they are ready for harvesting. David P. West's Hemp and Marijuana: Myth's & Realities sheds some light on the truths about industrial hemp.

Legalizing industrial hemp is not a lost cause. Organizations such as Vote Hemp are trying to legalize industrial hemp in the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture published a study on hemp in 2000. Ron Paul introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005 and the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 to Congress. A wealth of information is available on industrial hemp. Hopefully U.S. politicians will wake up and see the light soon.

Discussion on Intellectual Property

2007-07-27T22:39:00.000-07:00

The actions taken by many companies in the United States have got me thinking about intellectual property and its role in society. My last post was about how intellectual property laws concerning music are being abused in the United States.

Research into the abuse of intellectual property has lead to me literature that shuns the whole idea of intellectual property such as Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture (freely available of course). Lessig brings up points such as the fact that the amount of time a work can be copyrighted has changed multiple times. Originally a work was copyrighted for 28 years, then it could be copyrighted for 75 years, and now a work can be copyrighted for 95 years. This means that since our current copyright laws in the U.S. started in 1923, any work whose copyright was properly renewed has not entered the public domain yet. This means at the current rate of copyright law changing the copyright term may one day be limitless.

An unlimited copyright term is probably the worst thing that can happen to intellectual property law. An unlimited term for copyright means that any new creation which is based on a previously copyrighted idea will be subject to royalty fees. If in 50 years people want to make things that are loosely based upon other works created a long time ago, they will have to pay royalty fees to create their work. With this cycle, people will eventually run out of completely original and new things to create and basically everyone who creates something will need to pay up.

Intellectual property laws discourage the creation of new works that are not completely original. Anyone who creates a derivative work could potentially be sued. The 'fair use' clause of copyright law should exempt some works from paying royalty fees. Fair use should cover educational uses and non-profit uses. Apparently filesharing and educational YouTube videos do not fall under this fair use clause.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 added another layer of evil to intellectual copyright law. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection methods in order to modify software or equipment that you own. This means that by modifying many electronic devices or pieces of software for your own personal uses you may be breaking the law. The most ridiculous section of the DMCA is the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act. Out of all the sections of the DMCA, this section has probably caused the most unnecessary court cases targeting innocent consumers.

One solution to the abuse of intellectual property is to abolish intellectual property from the law completely. This would hurt large companies and benefit consumers. One could argue that it makes sense for certain things to be copyrighted. Intellectual property could still be protected when absolutely necessary by including a contract of use that one must agree to when acquiring a particular item. This would make intellectual property unprotected by default, which allows for more incentive to create derivative works.

Abolishing intellectual property completely is not a feasible solution in the United States today. Our copyright laws are too deeply rooted. However, finding an optimum length for copyright terms and abolishing acts such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act would help our situation. The optimum length of a copyright term would enable the creator to seek great financial reward but would allow the work to enter the public domain in an appropriate amount of time so new derivative works could be freely made. A Cambridge student claims to have calculated the optimum length of time for a copyright term to be 14 years. Hopefully someday our government will encourage creation and progress of intellectual property by lowering the copyright term for new works.

Insoluble Situations

2007-07-26T23:20:00.000-07:00

The simple fact of the matter is that some situations have no good solutions. Young people, tend to be arrogant and believe that the world can be improved in every aspect, but, young people, and especially academics, tend to be arrogant in general. Unfortunately, any problem has many people, of good intelligence, working on it, and being unable to, for one reason or another, come up with a workable solution. Now, I am not saying that we should not discuss such things, but a little humility when thinking about them is appropriate. There is a reason that these problems are still problems, and that is that they are difficult, and some impossible, to solve.

I call these the insoluble situations. What I mean by this is that any course of action is going to take sacrifice, and will end up unfairly hurting a portion of the population. I have a historical example of such a situation. The Soviet Union. And let's face it with a regime death toll ranging anywhere from 10 to 50 million (possibly more if you count the international deaths caused by it), the resolution was hardly any good. But there was no good solution. Going to war would've been even more catastrophic.

There are a few modern situations like this. The situation in the Middle East, in Iraq and Israel are likewise insoluble. Someone is going to get hurt unfairly no matter what. But don't despair Fortunately there are situations that do have good solutions (not necessarily painless, but at least good). Global warming is one that does.

So, what I want to tackle in this post are some suggestions for dealing with problems that could be insoluble. For this, I have two suggestions, and I welcome more. First, don't make assumptions. Approach the problem humbly, look at what others have suggested, and always look at the flaw in your own plan (it will have one). Stating it to someone else will probably help you, because they're more likely to find the flaw.

Second, don't be afraid to compromise. Compromise is not a bad word. Although "uncompromising" is often used as a compliment, it really shouldn't be. Not everyone is going to get a fair deal, but a compromise is better than nothing. I mean, when in high school, one of my teachers had a poster on their door saying "Stand up for what you believe is right, even if you're standing alone." That sounds all good and inspirational and stuff, but the real situation is much more complicated. It's better to fix most of everything than all of nothing.

So, with this advice I leave you to your own pondering, if you have more suggestions leave them as comments

RIAA: The Worst Company In America

2007-07-21T17:52:00.000-07:00

A recent poll conducted by The Consumerist concluded that the RIAA is currently the worst company in America. The RIAA has sued over twenty thousand file sharers since 2003. They are a relentless suing machine.

Among the people sued by the RIAA are a ten-year-old girl, a twelve-year-old girl and a dead woman. The RIAA has targeted YouTube video uploaders who dance to music, coffee shop owners who play live music, and AM/FM radio. A man who offers free guitar lessons through YouTube videos has even been targeted by the RIAA for copyright infringement because the songs he teaches are copyrighted.

The RIAA has petitioned judges to lower artist royalties. This is the most wrong of all their wrongdoings. The people who deserve the money most in the music industry today are the artists.

The RIAA is not the only company fighting this losing battle against music lovers. The NMPA and MPA recently sent take a down letter to OLGA (as their homepage currently states). OLGA is an archive of guitar tablature. The take down letter was sent because OLGA has guitar tablature for copyrighted music. Most of this tablature is transcribed by ear and therefore not necessarily even accurate. I think it is just as wrong to sue OLGA as it would be to sue a website that posts the lyrics to a song, most of which would be transcribed by ear.

I sent an email to my local representative in the district I vote in because he has accepted large amounts of campaign contributions from the RIAA. The email informed him that he had lost my vote because of the people he received contributions from. Like a good caring politician he of course sent me a love letter back to me stating that he'd love to hear from me again. Most politicians will probably not listen at all but if you are interested here is a list of politicians who have received campaign contributions from the RIAA.

Despite the massive amounts of people that have been sued in recent years due to a "misuse of music," this fight is a lost cause. This is a lost cause just as a war against sex would be a lost cause. File sharing is on the rise and guitar tablature can still be found all over the internet. The plans of the RIAA will probably backfire badly at some point and they may end up in a bad mess with little income and no love from artists or listeners. Until then try to stay under the radar of the RIAA and if you are extreme enough, boycott them.

Morality and Rules

2007-07-16T14:32:00.000-07:00

It appears some people have a belief in the existence of something called personal morality. I don't think something like that can exist. By personal morality, I mean people believe that it's possible to have a set of morals for oneself that is not to be applied to the rest of the world. To me, this issues from a misunderstanding of what morals are. I suppose this is technically a semantics argument, but I'm going to make it anyway. Morals require you to apply them to the world at large, otherwise they're just rules you make for yourself. I mean, I could say I never drink tomato juice. This is not a moral decision, and I don't see how it's any different from saying I won't have sex until I'm married, or I won't get an abortion.

Morals are standards of behavior that you judge people by, including yourself, but certainly not exclusively yourself. It's somewhat ridiculous to apply a separate standard to yourself and to other people, whether your standard for yourself is higher or lower than for others. Thus, personal morality is a set of rules that you choose to apply to yourself. But morality still doesn't fit completely in with this.

This is because the conditions for rules are very different from the conditions of morals. First, rules should be kept to a minimum, following the belief of Occam's Razor. Second rules are never ends in themselves. Here, my argument diverges from a purely semantics argument. I am saying that rules people set for themselves should not be an end in themselves. If they are, you're now applying a different standard of judgment to yourself than others. It is perhaps possible to argue that it's ok to have different standards of judgment for different people, and if anyone wishes to, feel free to make a comment. But it is counterintuitive to me to do so. Thus, rules must have a certain goal in mind when created.

Moreover, rules should be remade with relatively little difficulty. This is because the general expectation is that you will get smarter and wiser as you grow up. Thus if you feel you should change a rule you should. Thus, it doesn't make any sense to say "I won't have sex until I'm married" unless you're willing to say "People shouldn't have sex until they're married." In the future you'll be smarter and be able to rethink such a decision, so why would you restrict yourself unnecessarily. It is true that you won't always be smarter, thus it should take you maybe a few days of thought to reevaluate your rule to make sure you're not under duress or something similar. But then still, the rule that would make sense would be "I won't have sex without a prior decision to do so." That is, you won't just have it come to you unexpectedly.

What Democrats thought of Iraq

2007-07-11T19:28:00.000-07:00

I found an interesting website that lists quotes from Democrats both after and before 9/11. All of the quotes support the claim that Saddam Hussein has been producing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many of the claims show support for using force against Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically. All of the quotes have sources listed for contextual purposes.

I think these quotes demonstrate an interesting point. The Democrats quoted on this page are all currently against our current war in Iraq. However, these same Democrats were for taking action against Iraq at some time between 1998 and 2003 based on their quotes. I think information like this becomes quickly lost in the hate-driven debates between the Republicans and Democrats we see all over the media nowadays.

One of the main reasons we are in Iraq is because the Bush demonstration claimed there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and deemed it necessary to take action against Iraq. The facts brought up by the Democrats in the link above about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was also a very strong point.

The 9/11 and Iraq connection seems to be a foggy and easily-forgotten part of our recent political history. The Bush administration asserted that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq but many dismissed this link stating that there was not any valid evidence to support this connection. Cheney's haughty response probably did not help the Bush administration's case much. The odd thing about this Al Qaeda-Iraq debate was that the Clinton administration believed there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq also.

I'm not bringing up these points to determine whether starting the war was the right thing to do and I don't necessarily believe that any of the statements made by the Republicans or Democrats mentioned above are correct. I think there was an interesting connection between the agenda of the Democrats and Republicans though.

I am not going to go into details on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. You can use this Wikipedia article for that.

What's the best kind of Free Speech?

2007-07-10T17:34:00.000-07:00

There are two definitions of the word free that are appropriate to this discussion. Free can mean unrestricted, as in "I am a free man." It can also mean economically cheap, as in "That is a free cookie." Free speech may exist in the first sense, in the sense that you can say what you want without fear of punishment, at least sort of... That is, you won't be placed in jail. But you may get punished in other ways .

That link isn't really too important; it is just an example. Speech, even if it is unrestricted, is definitely not without economic consequences. I suppose that ultimately free speech would have no consequences, except then it would be a contradiction in itself. Since if speech had no malignant consequences, others wouldn't speak out against you and would thus not have free speech. But, at least in the economic sense, is it possible to have free speech?

That is, is it possible to say what you want, without missing out on a job opportunity or being fired, or etc. Well, not in our society, but certainly it's not impossible to see one where it would be. The second and important question is, should we strive towards such a society. A society where speech is free not only in the unrestricted sense, but also in the economic sense. Obviously, some jobs would be exempted from this, especially public offices. That is, jobs where people's opinions are what constitute a job should obviously be based on said opinions. But what about jobs in the grey area, such as university professors. Or what about conduct outside your profession affecting job status? There was a teacher that was fired for having an offensive myspace page.

This affects people greatly, many are afraid of what they put on the internet, due to colleges or future employers basing decisions on such things. Logically, I can see how some of these things make sense. After all, why shouldn't you make a decision based on all the information available. But whenever I hear such a story, I feel for the person fired/not hired. Moreover, there are some good arguments why it shouldn't be implemented as well. First, you're rewarding people who are dishonest (who feel a certain way, but don't reveal it). Moreover, this discourages free speech and discussion, and encourages conformity for the sake of conformity. After balancing it out, I think speech should be free not just in the unrestricted sense, but in the economic sense as well. This is, however, a close call for me.