My DD214

Veterans should be a thing of the past.

An analysis of Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya in 1941 to a British soldier who had moved there to join the Allied Forces during the Second World War. He and his family returned to England when he was eight years old. He was raised in the Anglican Church of England, attended Anglican schools and was confirmed in the faith as well. He studied at Oxford University and graduated in 1962. After receiving his doctorate under Nobel Prize winning, Danish ethologist Niko Tinbergen he was Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley from 1967 to 1969. In 1970 he accepted a position as Lecturer in Zoology at Oxford University as well as Fellow of New College. He is endowed with a multitude of awards and prizes for his work in the field of ethology and evolutionary biology as well as for his uncanny ability in making science and the understanding of scientific principles (especially Evolution and Natural Selection) accessible and available to the public.

Today, he is perhaps the world’s most prolific proponents for atheism, secularism, science and embracing evidence when rationalizing beliefs. He was named the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science in 1995 (a £1.5 million sterling award to Oxford University) and has been aptly called “Darwin’s Rottweiler” by Simonyi himself. Dawkins, since 1976, has been publishing books and papers and making public speeches that fly in the face of the Intelligent Design/Creationism movement and religious dogma. His books include The Selfish Gene (1976), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), The Extended Phenotype (1982), River Out of Eden (1995), Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), A Devil’s Chaplain (2003) and An Ancestor’s Tale (2004). His latest book, The God Delusion (2006), has served to stoke the flames in the ongoing controversy over religion and its interaction with society. Over the past decade he has become the Media’s Golden Cow with regards to coverage of the ongoing debate on religion, atheism, secularism and faith. He has appeared on countless television and radio programs in both Europe and America and has been translated into numerous languages. He still teaches at Oxford to this day.

Richard Dawkins main contribution to the body of scientific works with respect to Darwinism, Evolution and Natural Selection is the view that the unit of Natural Selection is the gene – a locatable region in the genomic sequence that makes all life on earth possible. This view is laboriously detailed in his first book The Selfish Gene. Here, Dawkins modifies the original idea (Evolution) that Charles Darwin invented in his 1859 book, the Origin of Species. The Darwinian view to Evolution is that the species is the unit of selection. Under Dawkins’ theory that the unit of individual selection with respect to Natural Selection, the mechanism of Evolution, the individual organism is a machine assembled by the genes in order to ensure the longevity of the genes – we are survival machines in which our genes reside safely, behind the curtain of our (and all other organisms’) physiology. According to Dawkins, the intent behind the book The Selfish Gene and the research Dawkins did for the book is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism. For most people, the stretch is not that there is a biological basis for selfishness, but that there is a biological basis and genetics behind altruism is a giant leap. Thus the controversy ensues, much like the kind Darwin endured, over whether or not humans receive an objective basis for morality from God. Dawkins, as well as many other accomplished unbelievers, is clearly a strong opponent to this view that a divine mandate is behind our will to be good and to do good. From this position, it is not hard to see why Dawkins has a robust philosophy and is often the subject of discussion on human morality. Dawkins, as well as others, has brought a staggering amount of evidence to the argument from Natural Selection that our genetic make-up has clear, relevant and reasonable influences to not just human behavior, but the entire, perceivable ethical system of the animal kingdom. Answers to why mice commit infanticide, why fratricide is found among baby cuckoos, why gazelles jump in front of a predator or why religion is common to all human culture lie in the interactions of the genes in our DNA. The opposite of this view of course is the argument from Intelligent Design that all of existence is brought into being by a Divine Creator (a la Aristotle’s Prime Mover).

There are two problems with this that both I and Dawkins are adamant in pointing out. One is that along with the assertion of a Unmoved Mover or Divine Creator comes the need to explain the existence of the Creator. Who or what is responsible for its creation/existence? Quickly, an infinite regress of creators is apparent and in need of justification. The justification, predictably, is that the Creator is beyond justification or human understanding. Two is that the “Theory” of Intelligent Design is worthless in practice. Intelligent Design cannot make predictions about our physical world. Intelligent Design’s only answer can be god did it, god’s doing it and god will do it. With Evolution via Natural Selection we have a usable theory on how organisms are affected by their environment and subsequently alter themselves in response to changes around them. I don’t intend for this paper to provide extensive proofs for the claims within – my references provide an embarrassment of riches if one needs evidence. That isn’t my scope nor do I have space and time for it, so I apologize if I seem dodgy of providing evidence.

Aside from the Selfish Gene Theory, the body of literature and various other media that surround it, Richard Dawkins has been extremely determined it providing evidence and logical arguments for the harms that holding beliefs without evidence to support them – religion – can have on individuals and societies. His latest book, The God Delusion, lays out a strong case against religion and is a full-frontal assault on any religion founded on false or otherwise un-provable tenets.

In the first part of the God Delusion, Dawkins draws into question the validity of the Theologian as a fixture in the University and as a field that one can claim expertise in. The analogy he uses in the book is how a reasonable person might regard a fairyologist in determining the exact shape and color of fairy wings. I find this reasoning both sound and valid and it is here that he displays one of his key arguments about atheism being a noble and intellectually fulfilling admission. The argument here is that everyone, everyone, everyone knows what it’s like to be an atheist. Because no single person can hold all possible beliefs at any given time that person can be said to be an atheist with respect to something else. Muslims are atheists with respect to Hinduism, Christians are atheists with respect to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and humorously but true enough the reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster). The atheist simply goes one-god-more in the list of human generated phenomena that he/she doesn’t believe in. After all, since the birth of written history humans have been drawing nearer and nearer to the true number of gods believed in by the majority. From polytheism to monotheism we can see a plausible convergence on the number zero. Dawkins also points out the inventor of this particular line of thinking to be Bertrand Russell in his parable of the Celestial Tea Pot orbiting the Sun betwixed Earth and Mars. The charge here is a fallacious argument theists have with atheists that the atheist cannot disprove a given gods’ existence. Russell’s answer to this is that there are myriad things that no one can disprove – such as an undetectable, infinitely small tea pot in an elliptical orbit around the Sun. The argument is simple, albeit a little cynical, but nonetheless relevant and effective. The God Delusion lays out case after case of counters to contemporary arguments faced by rationalists today.

Dawkins points out that every theology, whether it be mono or polytheism, is based on something called the god hypothesis. At it’s core, the god hypothesis is a proposition that is subject to all of the same scrutinizes as everything else in the universe. It is here that Dawkins calls into question the peculiar curtain of deep respect that religion is given by politicians, competing theologians of other religions and even scientists. Why is it when dealing in matters on human morality and certain topics in ethical discussion that a trump card is simply issued to the theist by default? Why don’t they have to support their claims, first off, and second, why are they given a free pass such as in recent court cases where religious groups in the U.S. were authorized to use otherwise illegal substances because they believed it is the only way to practice their religion? Especially considering that even with mounds of evidence stating that usage of the same hallucinogenic drug in cancer victims eases pain and has a sating effect on their symptoms. The answer is (Dawkins and I both borrow from Daniel Dennett) that belief, in itself, is a virtue more powerful to some than supporting claims with evidence. People believe in belief. It is here that Dawkins calls for a divergence in the paradigm which gives a free pass from reason to religion. Any claim – whether it be from the mouth of a scientist or theist – should be verifiable.

I agree strongly, as he points out, that religion is all too often given a free pass out of logical discourse. We can see other ways in which this is so such as the contentious objector in war-time. It is all too true, as he asserts, that all one need to do in order to avoid serving in war is merely claim to be a Quaker or a Muslim. It doesn’t matter how many papers or books you’ve written on the philosophical basis for Objective Morality. You don’t even need to have read the Holy Books you claim to follow religiously. All you must do is claim faith. In my own experience in the military I was truly awestricken, and indeed a little insulted, when a chaplain in the U.S. Navy tried to convert me to Christianity. Nevermind that I was wearing my countries U.S. Marine Corps uniform and leading men into certain death, but I also had to deal with the onslaught from the religious to save my soul. As if I didn’t have enough to worry about. The real problem here is not my feelings so much as the fact that U.S. Taxpayers are funding the Chaplain Corps to harass nonbelievers before embarking across enemy lines, as well as in peacetime. I, nor Dawkins I presume, can see any logical basis for the continued existence of a Chaplain in the Military other than that’s ‘the way it’s always been’. To that I’d say that is an argument once brandished by slave owners and witch-burners.

Another question he demands that we as a humanity own up to is our contrived dependence on the clergy to answer for us certain flavors of questions like why are we here, why is there pain and suffering, what happens when we die and where does life come from. Again, would you ask this of a fairyologist? Why have we not abandoned the notion that the clergy are the guardians of this type of information? Why is it that we would defer the opinion of a lawyer, doctor or scientist and rely on that of a priest when it comes to matters like these? The claim here is basically that religions haven’t gotten anything else right – geology, astronomy, physiology, etc. – so why should we trust it in matters of morality and the big questions?

Moving from direct conflicts with atheism and religion Dawkins briefly touches on the subject which he calls the ‘poverty of agnosticism’. He distinguishes between two types. One is the TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism in Practice. This form of agnosticism, the more understandable of the two, is basically an admission of doubt based on the notion there is a definite answer somewhere, but we lack the evidence, all the facts are not in or we haven’t looked at the evidence properly yet, etc. This type of agnosticism is understandable to subscribe to given these circumstances, but to Dawkins, the facts are in. Evolution is a fact just as much as any other empirically verifiable scientific theory or tenet. TAP would be a reasonable position for say, why the dinosaurs went extinct or why the Cambrian explosion? To these questions the jury is actually still out, but to the question of the existence of every single God every to grace the pantheon of human experience, the argument is over. For this reason Dr. Dawkins refuses to appear in any debates where the subject matter is Science Vs. Religion or Faith Vs. Evidence or something to that effect. To people like Dawkins and myself, there is no argument. The claims are simply false. And not only are they false, they are unimaginative. To borrow use a Douglas Adams quip in the God Delusion (to whom the book is dedicated) “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” and Dawkins own saying that unweaving a rainbow doesn’t make it less wonderful. We have the multitude of our future to explore and find or even to create god (as some like Ray Kurzwiel would predict) without having to rely on the infancy of our species for the answers to questions like the ones mentioned in this paper.

The second form of agnosticism, PAP, or Permanent Agnosticism in Practice, is understandably detested by nonbelievers and believers alike. As one can guess, a PAP argument to the god hypothesis is that there is an equal likelihood of each scenario – god’s existence and gods’ nonexistence – so the answer is that it is an unanswerable question and, therefore, not one that deserves the attention of a response. An arguer for PAP, to me, is really someone who doesn’t care – the stereotypical face of agnosticism. And, to me, to be apathetic towards such a weighty and ever-present topic such as how other peoples’ delusions affect daily and global life is not respectable in the least. With atheism, even believers can respect that the atheist has the courage of his convictions and vice verse.

Predictably, being the evolutionary biologist that he is, Dawkins talks about Evolution. If you read the Selfish Gene you can become an informed voice for it and wield a better-than-modest understanding of it as well. If you read the God Delusion, you’ll undergo a brief education in the argument against Evolution from mere chance. Dawkins, as of late, doesn’t seem as hell-bent over imparting the evidence for Evolution via Natural Selection – the evidence for that is well documented and readily accessible to most everyone – as he is hell-bent on imparting an understanding of how it works and how it doesn’t. The relevance of Evolution in the debate isn’t hard to see because it provides an alternate creation story for people looking outside of Septuagint-derived works such as the Bible, the Pentateuch and the Qur’an. And the confusion, in my eyes is actually understandable. Most proponents for biblical literalism would have you believe that Evolution explains the origin of life on Earth as happening by chance – and here’s the confusion. Evolution happens via Natural Selection, a process that takes millions upon millions of years to, visibly, work. The Dawkins analogy is the climb up Mount Improbable, where there are two ways up the mountain side: a quick leap up the miles-high mountain (equal to the probability of a 747 being assembled by a tornado sweeping through a scrapyard) and the other a slow, winding pathway up the other side. The process of Natural Selection takes the very improbable concept of the occurrence of life in the Universe (there’s only one known case: Earth) and breaks the improbability down into a long series of more likely occurrences. This is the opposite of chance.

But with Evolution comes the task of explaining why religion occurs at all in human culture since Natural Selection abhors waste. One explanation that the field of evolutionary biology has offered is that it (religion) is a misfiring of some otherwise or once useful trait that humans evolved in response to meet the needs of their environment. Like how a moth flies suicidally into a burning candle. This is because they use the luminosity of the moon to navigate at night. A misfiring of an otherwise useful trait. As of today, I must confess to be an agnostic with respect to the reason this happens, as I imagine most people in the field are today. But the field is very young and much research is underway on this very topic. Even with the hypotheses and case studies Dawkins provides, the larger argument still remains intact, afloat calm waters in the sea of religious mysticism – the absence of a concrete explanation for various phenomena does not add any weight to the truth of their arguments. This is true of religion as well and this is a gripe I have (as does Dawkins) that when science cannot offer a concrete explanation here and now, on the spot – the “only” alternative, God, wins the argument by default. I’ll quote the only known American equivalent to a scientist on par with Dawkins in communicating science to the public – Carl Sagan. When asked whether or not he had a gut feeling on whether life really existed elsewhere in the universe he replied “But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it’s okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.”

The last point I’d like to cover in this review of Richard Dawkins as one of the world’s most important contemporary philosophers is the issue of why be good without god? Here he is very clear that morality is easily the department of the atheist just as much as, if not more than, the arena of the theist. Michael Shermer is clever to point out that when someone admits that they’d surely kill him if it weren’t for the fear of God, that person reveals him/herself to be an immoral person. It’s a debate stopper. In the God Delusion, Dawkins asserts that morality in the absence of policing is somehow more truly moral. He also subscribes to Immanuel Kant’s views on a sense of duty for duty’s sake. One of most influential points he made on the topic of the compatibility of morals with either atheism or theism is in his discussion on Hitler and Stalin. Both of these men are said to be atheists (Stalin most certainly was, but Hitler is not so clear on the issue, even that aside…) and both are attributed to committing some of the worst known cases of genocide in the twentieth century. Yes. There is no argument here. The argument, and to me, the real cookie of the point is that neither of them did their atrocities in the name of atheism! How often otherwise is the case of a suicide bomber or a crusader doing his or her crime against humanity in the name of his or her deity? Always. The case against atheists having no basis for a system of ethics or a moral code is, not surprising to me, exceedingly and embarrassingly weak.

From indoctrinating children to authoring slavery and genocide, religion has a lot of owning up to do and must somehow make up for it’s own misdoings. In my mind, it would be best if the guardians of these religions could muster the courage and come clean with its followers so we can be done with the whole mess. The Dali Llama has reconciled his religion with science saying that if any tenet we (Buddhists) hold is not reconcilable with science, it must be abandoned. But even this, I know wouldn’t be enough. If the present leaders fell today, more ruthless ones would pick up the colors and march forward (or backward…?) into the same old tune of hellfire and damnation.

To finish, Dawkins sums it up best in an interview with Paula Zahn on CNN. When asked by Zahn “How would you characterize the overarching public reaction to atheism?” Dawkins happily replies “Misunderstanding. And, really, missing an awful lot of what’s valuable. Because if you’re an atheist you know, you believe this is the only life you’re going to get. It’s a precious life. It’s a beautiful life. It’s something that we should live to the full, to the end of our days. Whereas if you’re religious, and you believe that there’s another life somehow. That means you don’t live this life to the full because you think you’re going to get another one. That’s an awfully negative way to live a life. Being an atheist frees you up to live this life properly, happily and fully.”


Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

TalkOrigins Archive. October 1, 2003. Mark Isaac and TalkOrigins.Org. December 4, 2007. http://www.talkorigins.org/

Richard Dawkins. Wikipedia.Org. December 4, 2007. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Richard Dawkins: Biography and Background. July 1995. The World of Richard Dawkins. December 4, 2007. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml

YouTube. February 12, 2007. Straight Talk with Paula Zahn – CNN. Conversation with Richard Dawkins. December 4, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZX7RyidWvc

31 January, 2008 4:26 PM Posted by | Angry rant, I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, Just a thought.., LEGALIZE IT!!!, Politics and other hazardous materials, Pride and Prejudice, Religious Tomfoolery, We don't need no educations, Will Recommends: | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Imperial Presidency – Nepotism

I was reading through the comments on Curts last post and when I read the last one, by Coop, there was an idea brought up about limiting the terms of elected officials even more – to two, three years or so.

I really don’t think that’s the idea we should be focusing on. The problem with having the same people in office for generations, which is why we have term limits, is multifaceted. One, a major reason, is that we as Americans realize that corruption can slip underneath our radar and we want to be able to evict an elected official if he/she is uncovered to be Satan or a minion of Hades. Another big reason is that we want to keep new faces and new ideas rolling through our offices of representatives – we’re a progressive country and should be progressively getting new and inspiring leadership.

Something I don’t think we’re talking about in this country enough is that, if Hilary were to be elected, we’d have an American Presidency that looks a little like this:

  • George Bush
  • Bill Clinton
  • George W. Bush
  • Hilary Clinton

From 1989, the year George Sr. took office, potentially until 2012 when Hilary’s first term would be up we, as an American people, would have said there is no better representative for this country than a member of either the Bush or Clinton family.

Bull$hit. This is America. The home of the best and brightest. Why are we continually electing Presidents, Senators and other representatives of our nation from a small pool of individuals from a small network of families.

I realize that Nepotism is a major driving force in the economy here, but this is a little ridiculous. That the American Presidency should be dominated, stolen, hoarded and plundered by two families for over 20 years is folly.

We don’t need shorter term limits.

We need to, all of us, have the common decency and foresight to

.

.

VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS!

(its a little late, but this is a guy who’s got it…

check out this video and you’ll see what I mean)

 

 

 

8 February, 2007 9:38 PM Posted by | Angry rant, I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, Just a thought.., Plan for global domination, Politics and other hazardous materials, We don't need no educations, Will Recommends: | 8 Comments

American Culture Vs Mexican Culture – Immigration

My last post discussed how I feel about Immigration and that I want to really focus my writing on the, so-called, “problems” concerning Immigration. My friend Jason has been the only one to post to the discussion so far and I want to elaborate more on my thoughts about the notion of an inherent “American culture” that he has made reference to on a few occasions.

The idea of American culture seems to be a loose term that is thrown around, well…loosely. It seems to me that there is a paradigm of American culture being an established phenomenon – an entity that has proven itself to be a force to on its own. To me, this is very dangerous and irresponsible.

The United States of America is two and a quarter centuries old. This is barely enough time for bacteria to create culture, much less humans. Culture is defined, loosely, by some anthropoligists as “the way of life for an entire society.” (the Wikipedia article is quite comprehensive) Culture includes such things as a society’s food, music, individual appearances, art, language and many more cultural indicators. The important thing that, I think, needs to be realized about the U.S. of A. is that all of the cultural indicators in our society are actually not ours. Every part of our culture is an adaptation on imported cultural indicators. This means that, inherently, American culture borrows from all the people that came here and is the sum of all imported cultures within.

This is why I disagree with the notion that Mexican Immigrants, legal or illegal, are “enforcing thier culture on Americans”. If anything they are adding to it; enriching it; making it better, more valuable – summing up to be greater than it would be without them.

Most Mexican Immigrants are illegal. I am not disputing this. What I do dispute, however, is that they are here unwanted and unneeded. Throughout history humans have proven that when there is an excess of a certain resource, consumption will increase as a result. When we find alot of crude oil, we increase our gasoline consumption; when we increase our burnable Watts per day, we leave our lights on longer or use the air conditioning. Well, over the past 15 years or so, there has been an excess in cheap labor. As a result, American Capitolism has increased its consumption on it and there are industries that, without those Mexican laborers, would fold and turn into ghost industries. Infrastructure with no subjects to take advantage of it. A toolbox without a mechanic. A kitchen without a cook. A kingdom with no king. That, in and of itself, is the antithesis of American Capitolism.

I say we need Mexican Immigrants. I think that instead of criminalizing them like we have Marijuana (we can all see how successful that War has been), we should be accepting them into our society with open arms. Lay out a pathway to citizenship. Let them pay into the system that they benefit from. Imagine if we had sent the Irish and the Chinese back to thier country of origin: the gold ruch would still be happening and we would still have railroad systems trying to connect the two coasts! With Mexican Immigrants we have the capacity to grow beyond our wildest dreams. They can help us just as we can help them.

Aside from the obvious benefits of embracing the Mexican Diaspora of the turn of this last century, there are other considerations as well. Such as the idea that only hard working, ethically driven Mexicans make the jump (pardon the pun) to American civilization. Mexicans who dream of a better life for thier children. Mexicans who want to become educated. Mexicans who want to learn the language, pay thier taxes and contribute to this wonderful society come to this country. The ones that don’t want to come stay in Mexico. That means that (I must thank Carlos Mencia for this idea) the United states has all the best Mexicans! The best Englishmen left the Brittain for America. The best Italians, Germans, Swedes, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Japanese, Chinese, Dutch, Polish, Russians, Irish, if I’ve missed anyone I apologize. And as far as Africans go (once again thank you Carlos) we got the best ones. Since thier cousins sold them into slavery (which is pretty messed up and I wouldn’t want to go back to a place like that either) they have had nothing but problems. Eastern Europe hasn’t been able to win a war since we left! The point is that everyone should watch the Carlos Mencia Live DVD and realize that he makes an excellent point – only people with vision and imagination realize that this is the best country in the world. So they come here to join and reap the rewards. We work harder and produce more than any country in the history of time because we will take anyone. If we stop now we will doom ourselves.

I will end this article with a short story of a Illegal Mexican immigrant that I know. For our purposes we will call him Juan.

Juan is about 65 years old. He has two jobs. He doesn’t have any degrees and he is an unskilled laborer. He has two different jobs at two different restaraunts. Today I learned that, on average, he works a 72 hour work week. All manual labor. He bought a house four years ago in one of the most desirable parts of South Minneapolis. His house has gone up in value at a steady rate of more than 4% per year.

I don’t know about you, but to me, he doesn’t sound like someone who is lazy, worthless or incompetent. To me he just sounds too busy to enroll in ESL classes. He’s too busy WORKING and PAYING PROPERTY TAXES! Which is something that many natural born American Citizens can’t seem to get motivated enough to do.

5 September, 2006 8:07 PM Posted by | LEGALIZE IT!!!, Music reviews, Pat Robertson Watch, We don't need no educations | 29 Comments

Wrong for most.

I was getting off of work and going to get a beer. I hadn't the slightest clue on how I would soon interpret the information I'd been shown.

For years. Literally, years. People have been shown, visually and verbally, how important and patriotic it is to thank a servicemember for his/her service done for this country. I just want to take this time to offer up a different…former servicemember's…perspective on this reaction.

You support the status quo. You may not like the fact that we're at war, but you support it. You support the cause. You identify with the factors of the current government and would gladly offer up your opinion of the present situation in the Middle East. The people that you support are over there fighting for a common goal: freedom and the equality of all men under the sun.

I want you to tell it to me. I want to hear it. It makes me proud. It justifies my actions.

Tell it to me again. I can't wait to hear it. "Thank you sOOOO much for defending our country." "No", pause for effect. "I really mean that. Thank you soo much."

Well I'm sorry, but I just don't fucking buy it. You don't realize what I hear when you say such things. You say thank you, but don't realize that by your admission of thanks, you concede that I could've died for the cause. You're a person that is willing to have people die for you, not with you. You're willing to accept my death at the cost of your freedom. Freedom that you already had. Freedom you don't exercise. Freedom that you trade away. Freedom that lies in dormancy. I wastes. It atrophies. All you can do is thank me. And for what? Thanks for standing up for me? Thanks for wiping my ass? I went to Iraq and killed people. There was no protection of American liberties over there, unless of course if you count bombing brown people as an American virtue.

You do it. You fucking try crawling your ass through the worst imaginable environments with a 60 pound pack. Then find out that there was no threat. Saddam had no ties with Osama. There were no WMDs. All they had was an army that was in dire need of a leader. And we killed them. For what? For standing thier ground. Then tell me about what our freedoms means to you.

Don't Trade away what my predecessors and I have vied and bled for.

Freedom Vs. Security.

7 May, 2006 4:50 AM Posted by | Politics and other hazardous materials, Release the Bears, We don't need no educations | Leave a comment

A short essay to the international community…a cry for help.

What if Saddam was a victim too?

By William Charlton

This is an idea I had while analyzing some of our biggest political problems in America.

I think that the United States of America is under the political guidance and control of a group of individuals and organizations that are morally ill and misguided by irrelevant drama.

I was thinking about some of the recent “news” and some of the not-so-recent and thought – what if the Iraq of the Saddam Hussein Era was under a similar spell?

What if Saddam was manipulated by his interior ministry and was led to believe that his cabinet of advisors was conducting business according to justice and morality? Is it not possible that his “advisors” were the ones in control of both the country and Saddam? What if they were all really good bullshit artists and could persuade people to do things that they normally wouldn’t?

Things like justified massacre.

This is exactly what is happening to our country.

From top to bottom, the U.S. and the former Iraqi government are not so different.

Both are comprised of a population which atleast half of it’s people don’t approve of it’s host government’s actions.

Both are comprised of a host government that acts against it’s own established political and ethical guidelines.

Both are comprised of culturally elite citizens that suffer no repercussions from the inability to follow the law.

Both are comprised of govern-mental majorities that belong to the same religious organizations.

Both are comprised of governments that justify murder for the sake of security and national health.

I can’t be sure, but I think we’re getting screwed just like the people of Iraq were while under Saddam.

14 February, 2006 2:04 AM Posted by | Angry rant, Just a thought.., Plan for global domination, Politics and other hazardous materials, Robots are awesome, We don't need no educations | 3 Comments

What I’d like to hear.

What a troubling tale when a model of societies cannot focus. We turn our heads to anything but the problem which is most pertinant.

Cheney shot someone. He didn’t mean to. This is a type of accident that could have literally happened to anyone. It could’ve happened to John Stewart.

Cheney’s lies have taken this model society into a place where societies go to die. We are divided, in massive debt and in the midst of a situation that is just as volitile as just before the last Holocaust and other crusades.

Why is this not viewed as the most pertinant problem?

I’d like to hear about the lies some more. I haven’t heard any apologies that suffice. I do not believe that the Bush administration should be allowed any more latitude from the American public. The Bush administration inherited a strong U.S. committed to justice and fairness. The incident on September 11th has stricken fear into the hearts of the men in charge of our government and our media, our most precious information resource. And as we all know…fear leads to the dark side.

War is only effective when the oppressed are in abundance. Right now, it is Americans who are in abundant wealth and it is the rest of the world that is oppressed. The Americans that are responsible for the stewardship of our society in this world as a whole and our country from within are short-sighted and don’t believe in the methods that have always worked best when dealing with the enemy: we should be dividing them by capitalism and greed the way that we deal with ourselves. Instead we unite them with a shared adversity.

Fundamental freedoms, like those on the Bill of Rights, are being challenged by parties on all sides of the political spectrum; basic womens rights are being questioned and normal working Americans are no longer getting information from unbiased spokesmen. They are getting Pro-Christian, Pro-Wealthy and Pro-Bias opinions. There are no more facts.

I am really getting sick of this shit.

Impeach them. The whole cabinet. Am I making myself clear?

14 February, 2006 1:26 AM Posted by | Angry rant, Politics and other hazardous materials, Release the Bears, We don't need no educations | 1 Comment

Jesus don’t truck with no dove-sellers

In honor of Will’s excellent post, I thought I’d point out the specific verse that he alluded to and simultaneously take a nice opportunity to plug the excellent Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.

The verse in question (as per the King James version) is:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. —Matthew 21:12-13

Nice post, William. Props to my pops for helping me find the exact passage.

30 December, 2005 9:40 PM Posted by | We don't need no educations | Leave a comment