Thought Crimes

iConvert

Krampus — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:59:59 GMT

Steve Jobs is now my lord and savior... I just ordered a Mac Pro, my first Mac purchase of any kind! I do not even own an iPod. Why go for the tiddly bits? I went straight to the big daddy: Mac Pro AirPort Extreme card (Wi-Fi) One 16x Optical SuperDrive Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core) 2GB (2 x 1GB) Ram 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI) Amen!!

Ugliest People

Krampus — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:02:50 GMT

To my local Tribe friends, Mars and I were discussing The Beautiful People issue of Birmingham Magazine. I think we should publish in conjunction an Ugliest People column. Keep in mind I am not speaking superficially but about the people in power in our city--politically and economically, publicly and privately--who hinder progress. Who are your nominees? Upon completion of the nominees we will provide details on why they are awarded this "honor". How should we distribute the column? Congratulations to Julie for being one of our city's esteemed beautiful people!!!!! This blog post will be deleted after public distribution. I will post the results on my personal website.

Jericho March

Krampus — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:10:00 GMT

November 1 Washington, DC White House Calling all citizens Gather at The White House November 1, 2008 Bring your musical instruments to march 7 times around the White House blowing a cacophony of sound, of protest, of voice. Talking Points for the Media: * Despite the fact of an election in 3 days, we are watching OUR government... * And participating. "Voting irregularities" will not be tolerated. * There will be change!!! * People should not fear their government. Government should fear the people. * The government no longer works for the people; is no longer a government of the people nor by the people. * "...promote the general Welfare" has become "promote Corporate Welfare". * WE THE PEOPLE = WE THE STATE Spread this across the internet, in the cafes... Post on MySpace!! (I do not have a MySpace account.)

Combating the Christian Meme

Krampus — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:48:24 GMT

Memes, according to memetics, transmit themselves via a copying method, usually imitation. In examining the survival of a meme we must consider certain factors: copy-fidelity (degree of mutation in copying), the context in which it occurs (its environment), the meme's fecundity (or environmental fitness), competitiveness (rival memes found in the environment and the copying rates). If Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et. al. really want to succeed in eliminating Xtianity's (and other religions') sphere and efficacy of influence, then, as a rival meme (or allele) they must present a view (naturalism) that has greater fecundity, competitiveness, etc. in the environment in which both appear. In order to achieve this task we must examine why Xtianity has remained the dominant meme in the environment. It is easy to start with copy-fidelity. Xtianity, undoubtedly, has undergone mutation--hence the various denominations. Another example of mutation is the altering of the scriptures to fit political and theological agendas or due to (literally) copying errors that resulted in semantic changes (see Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"). Certain practices have aided in preserving copy-fidelity. Most recently, televangelists such as Joyce Meyers have published books claiming that "reasoning is an unnatural state", "reasoning is the work of Satan trying to steal the will of god from our lives", that "reasoning is not an activity god desires for our lives" (see chapters 9 - 11 of her book "Battlefield for the Mind"). A historical example may be found in the Catholic Church (HRC). The HRC, for centuries, only allowed The Bible to be printed in Latin and priests were the sole authority on the meaning of scriptures. Any priest who dissented on meaning stood the threat of excommunication or maybe death or sequestering. The HRC burned alive the first two people to print The Bible in English. This monopoly greatly contributed to copy-fidelity--what each person believes and across successive generations. Calvin, Aquinas, and Theodore Beza argued that "heretics" should be put to death because they "murder souls" and are "wolves who expose the whole flock" and "for the sake of the salvation of the flock use that sword righteously to expose the monsters disguised as men". Xtianity has found itself in environments with competitive rival alleles--Islam, Buddhism, "paganism", etc. How did they propagate and preserve copy-fidelity? We need not look very far than Xtianity's genocidal practices. It literally killed off competing memetic alleles by killing the memetic carriers--anyone who refused to convert was killed, in some cases. Coercive practices also contributed to its competitiveness. This extends back to Constantine I (and before). Once the Xtian meme became institutionalized, it controlled the environment itself in which it could propagate. Fecundity follows from environmental control. We see the same attempts now by the Evangelical community, controlling the powers-that-be in attempts to institutionalize and propagate the meme. Examples include forcing the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms (coupled with poor teaching of evolution), controlling or influencing the GOP party. (Admittedly some assert the real control goes the other way; it probably is/was symbiotic.) How can naturalism compete as a rival memetic allele against Xtianity? It must become more competitive--have equal or greater copy-fidelity, greater fecundity, etc. How do we practically achieve these goals? It is not enough to reduce the Xtian meme's efficacy within certain environmental niches (politics and education, e.g.) as Xtianity continues to propagate itself seemingly undaunted across environmental niches. Naturalism needs to institutionalize itself throughout the environment not just within environmental niches like the "ivory towers" of academia. Journalists need to stop giving religion a public voice especially as the supposed authoritative word on ethics and especially silence Catholicism as an authoritative voice on ethics--their habitual pedophilia and the current Pope's active role in the cover-up should have been sufficient for silencing that voice. Naturalism needs to engage, to be competitive with the Xtian meme wherever it is found. Silence and ignoring the Xtian meme only allows it to spread like AIDS in Africa. Of course we must also look at the psychological appeal of the Xtian meme--the psychological comfort it provides. This too is part of the Xtian meme's fecundity. It pacifies certain fears (fear of death, e.g.) and psychological desires (to see one's beloved in the afterlife, a guarantee of justice). Naturalism can provide alternatives without relying upon delusions, falsehoods or unprovable/indemonstrable claims. Naturalism must establish itself as an "evolutionary stable strategy" to use that term metaphorically. However, it seems that in the short-term naturalism must play the hawk to the religious dove. (Although it is religion that is the hawk with its myriad ways of baptizing moral atrocities as glorious acts of faith.) Naturalism must exploit the environment, exploit the weaknesses and faults of the competitive allele that is religious faith so that it may spread throughout the environment in which it resides.

Bush’s Guilty Mind

Krampus — Mon, 07 May 2007 16:20:43 GMT

The G.W. Bush administration advocates and exercises the Unitary Executive Theory. This is why Gonzales maintained he owed no obligation to appear and testify before Congress and why Rice maintains she need not honor the Congressional subpoena. However, the unitary executive theory may be the Achilles heel of the administration. According to this theory, the President possesses all executive power of subordinates within the Executive Branch which the Constitution does not specify as requiring congressional confirmation. Consequentially, Congress’ oversight of the Iraq war, for example, is severely limited. Only the President, as Commander in Chief, may determine how a war is conducted and when it will end. Congress alone can declare war but lacks any oversight regarding a war's management. Bush cites John Yoo of the DoJ maintaining that military force, like presidential pardons and vetoes, is unreviewable by Congress. As Commander in Chief, the mens rea, or command responsibility, requirement may cut the Achilles heel of the administration. Mens rea as Command Responsibility states “commanders possess responsibility for war crimes committed by subordinate members of their armed forces or other persons subject to their control.” Actual knowledge of subordinate’s crimes constitutes a minimally sufficient violation of Command Responsibility. However, many argue in favor of a weaker “should have known standard”: commanders possess a positive duty to be informed of subordinates’ activities and are liable for the actions of their subordinates even if no actual acknowledge is acquired to the extent that they are expected to exercise reasonable diligence in learning of, preventing, and punishing unlawful activities of their subordinates. I see no reason why Command Responsibility does not apply to the President qua Commander in Chief whereas it does apply to commanders in the field. The Red Cross repeatedly notified the Pentagon and the White House of abuses at Abu Ghraib. After repeated failures by the White House and Pentagon to take action, the Red Cross notified Michael Moore (if I remember correctly) who was filming his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Furthermore, the Pentagons’ own report found that only 40% of Marines and 55% of Army soldiers would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian and that more than 40% of Marines and soldiers said torture is justifiable in some cases. Of course the Pentagon is saying the study reflects the effects of battle fatigue and not any form of indoctrination or potential to commit war crimes. President Bush wrote in response to the McCain Detainee Amendment: “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.” The President may be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. The Unitary Executive Theory endorsed by the Bush administration provides a rich legal basis to hold the President to Command Responsibility. I say allow the President his total executive power of subordinates. Then Congress can impeach him citing his own legal theory. Bush’s Guilty Mind The GW Bush administration advocates and exercises according to the Unitary Executive Theory. The unitary executive theory may be the Achilles heel of this administration. Relying upon the “Take Care Clause” and the Vesting Clause of Article II of the Constitution, the President possesses all executive power of subordinates within the Executive Branch. Congressional oversight, therefore, is restricted as specifically delineated by the Constitution. This is why Gonzales maintained he owed no obligation to appear before Congress and why Rice maintains she need not honor the Congressional subpoena. Furthermore, Congress’ oversight of the Iraq war is several limited. Only the President, as Commander in Chief, may determine how a war is conducted. Bush cites John Yoo of the DoJ maintaining that military force, like presidential pardons and vetoes, is unreviewable by Congress. As Commander in Chief, the mens rea, or command responsibility, requirement may cut the Achilles heel of the administration. Mens rea as Command Responsibility states “commanders possess responsibility for war crimes committed by subordinate members of their armed forces or other persons subject to their control.” Actual knowledge of subordinate’s crimes constitutes a minimally sufficient violation of Command Responsibility. However, many argue in favor of a weaker “should have known standard”: commanders possess a positive duty to be informed of subordinates’ activities and are liable for the actions of their subordinates even if no actual acknowledge is acquired to the extent that they are expected to exercise reasonable diligence in learning of, preventing, and punishing unlawful activities of their subordinates. I see no reason why Command Responsibility does not apply to the President qua Commander in Chief whereas it does apply to commanders in the field. The Red Cross repeatedly notified the Pentagon and the White House of abuses at Abu Ghraib. After repeated failures by the White House and Pentagon to take action, the Red Cross notified Michael Moore (if I remember correctly) who was filming his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Furthermore, the Pentagons’ own report found that only 40% of Marines and 55% of Army soldiers would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian and that more than 40% of Marines and soldiers said torture is justifiable in some cases. Of course the Pentagon is saying the study reflects the effects of battle fatigue and not any form of indoctrination or potential to commit war crimes. President Bush wrote in response to the McCain Detainee Amendment: “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.” The President may be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. The Unitary Executive Theory endorsed by the Bush administration provides a rich legal basis to hold the President to Command Responsibility. I say allow the President his total executive power over subordinates (that is do not legally challenge it in court), then impeach him citing his own legal theory.

Republicans Are the Federalist Disease

Krampus — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:33:06 GMT

Dear friends, Below is an editorial I am working on in hopes of publication. Please make comments for additions or revisions. Also, I need suggestions on where to publish it. Truthout.org, Motherjones.org, MoveOn.org do not accept outside editorials. Republicans are The Federalist Disease The neocon faction of the Republican party explicitly admires The Federalist Papers. Membership in the Federalist Society is a networking imperative for any up-and-coming conservative minded lawyer. Given the nature of neocon Republican dominated politics over the past six years, if not twelve, we must ask why Republicans are merely federalist cheerleaders and not first-string players. This is not to deny their efficacy on public policy rather to underscore how their efficacy is contradictory to the values expressed in The Federalists Papers. The federalists Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay writing as Publius were concerned with dressing the criticisms lodged against extensive republics and representative popular governments. Extensive republics “suffer from the diseases” of despotism, to borrow the their terminology. Large republics tend to be wealthy and populous which fosters envy in their neighbors which in turn nurtures a despotic and warlike state in the republic. To preserve democratic rule, the citizenry must be patriotic, vigilant, and above all informed. However, the complexity of public affairs undermines these necessities. The media, rightly, is the “fourth branch of government” but it too suffers from the republic disease. Corporate ownership of the media coupled with partisan politics infesting media coverage keeps the electorate ignorant. Replicated (nonscientific) surveys demonstrate the differing beliefs between those who watch Fox News almost exclusively and those who acquire their news from competing sources. Among Fox News viewers 75% of the self-identifying Republican respondents believed that Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center, and 72% believed that WMDs had been found in Iraq. Representative popular governments suffer from additional diseases which the federalists sought to cure via checks and balances, separation of powers, an independent and effective judiciary, and by holding representatives accountable to the people. Representative governments become infected by the representatives subverting the will of the people; popular majorities ruling oppressively; and the majorities, through compliant representatives, failing to protect the common good, or general will. Neocon Republicans are federalist disease carriers. Under their tutelage the United States has contracted all of the aforementioned diseases. The Republican banter of “representing mainstream America” or “the moral majority” are euphemisms for their overbearing popular rule disguised as Constitutional rule. The majority “execute[s] and mask[s] their violence under the forms of the Constitution” to quote The Federalist Papers. Democracy is a rule by the many for the common good; that is the rights and well-being of all, not just an aggregate greater than 50%: “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only a sum of private wills” (Rousseau). The federalists wrote “neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on” as a check and balance against oppressive majorities. Religious and moral sentiments have been utilized as means of oppression and denying rights to millions of Americans. Atheists, according to a University of Minnesota study, are the most distrusted sector of society ranking below homosexuals, illegal immigrants, and Muslims respectively. H.W. Bush stated in 1987, “I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” Justice Alito sent a personal thank you letter to James Dobson for his support during the confirmation process. Furthermore, the executive and legislature have twice attempted to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment designed to deny millions of Americans rights and protections. G.W. Bush has stacked his Bioethics Council with religious conservatives. He also appointed Dr. Eric Keroack to head the DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services) that manages the Title IX family planning funding. Dr. Keroack disseminates false medical information such as condoms offer virtually no protection against STDs or HPV as well as false information regarding birth control to favor abstinence only sex education. The White House has not only kept the authority of power, the people, ignorant on important issues but also the stewards of power, elected representatives and the courts including FISA. The executive branch has refused to discuss and inform elected representatives the extent and exact nature of the domestic spying program. The executive has enacted an unjust war designed to promote the interests of PNAC. President Bush refused to release important documents to the Senate judiciary committee necessary for making an informed confirmation of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) nominees. The federalists realized that commercial enterprise is a means to counter the republican disease of class struggle. They also realized that an effective judiciary is necessary to protect the rights of the majority impoverished from the oppressive means of the wealthy minority. The federalists foresaw that the greatest harm to the common good could come from the majority who may desire to oppress the rights of the few. The federalists argued that judicial review and judicial discretion in adjudicating individual cases gives constitutional means to void oppressive legislative and executive authority. Hence, the federalists argued for what the neocons call “activist judges”. SCOTUS in Kelo v. City of New London has aided in breaking the “nonaggression pact” between the economic sphere and the legal sphere by allowing the wealthy minority as private citizens to take private property from the majority for the purposes of acquiring further private wealth. Justice O'Connor wrote in her dissent, "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be ... given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public." The legislature has refused to raise the minimum wage, benefiting 6 million Americans which at its current level qualify a person for welfare, while they simultaneously promote tax breaks benefiting the top 1% of the socioeconomic class. The Department of Labor estimates that 25% of all hourly wage employees earn minimum wage. Worker productivity is up 18.4% and corporate profits are up 72%; for every 1% increase in productivity the company earns 4% in profits. CEO income is up, worker productivity is up, corporate profits are up, but median household incomes have declined in 32 states since 1999 with a national aggregate decline of 0.5%. (Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994.) For the first time, all 400 uber-rich on the Forbes list are billionaires whose collective worth is $1.25 trillion, up $5 trillion from 2005. When government agencies report that mean wages are up it is not because middle or lower class wages are on the rise but because the Daddy Warbucks, like the Walton family who comprise five of the top ten American billionaires, keep stuffing their Princess and the Pea mattresses with the middle and lower classes’ labor. There may be little recourse for availing ourselves as an extensive, wealthy republic of other countries’ envy. Canceling Third World debt bonds may be a step in the right direction. However, envy turns into hatred because of economic disenfranchisement and military aggression designed to create a “new American century”. It should be painfully obvious after six years of a neocon Republican infection that the federalist treatment was not a cure. The vaccines must be strengthened to include term limits on Congresspersons, stringent campaign finance reform, an overhaul of the electoral process, prohibitions on simple majoritarian votes, and more openness and honesty in the SCOTUS confirmation process. However, many of these changes require constitutional amendments. Passing the necessary amendments, paradoxically, requires a virtuous Congress and an informed electorate. Most importantly the people, the source of political authority, must hold politicians, the stewards of democracy, accountable for their actions. Congress must initiate an impeachment investigation regarding the warrantless domestic spying program which the President has repeatedly admitted to conducting. All reasons presented thus far for not starting said proceedings are grounded in partisan politics. Any president that commits criminal or unconstitutional acts must be held accountable irrespective of party affiliation, party self-interests, or party dominance/minority in Congress. “Accountability” is meaningless without an impeachment investigation.

Funny Slate.com Op-Ed

Krampus — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:10:32 GMT

Or Maybe Bipartisanshipium? Science. Researchers from Russia and the United States create a new element in an audacious lab experiment, but it exists for only one millisecond before it begins to decay. They're thinking of calling it stabilityiniraqium. http://www.slate.com/id/2151868/?nav=tap3

Morally Myopic GOP Part 2.B

Krampus — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:51:26 GMT

Billionaires Only Occupy Forbes 400 List http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060921/D8K9I8VO0.html By Vinnee Tong NEW YORK (AP) - For the first time, Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans consists exclusively of people worth $1 billion or more. As a group, the people who made the rankings released Thursday are worth a record $1.25 trillion, compared with $1.13 trillion last year. ____________________________________________ Doing some simple mathematics reveals that just ONE person on the Forbes 400 list earns the equivalent of 292,000 minimum wage workers who work forty hours per week at fifty-two weeks per year pretax with no time off. The GOP believes the only fair thing to do is to raise minimum wage IF AND ONLY IF it is accompanied by an estate tax cut for those on the Forbes 400 list (and a handful of others). The below refers to the following: http://www.geocities.com/hicks1172/Other_Reading/Wages.pdf On Labor Day the Washington Monthly reported that median wages (middle most occurring) have declined in 32 states over the past six years with a national aggregate decline of .5%. On September 7, the Washington Post reported that mean (average) wages rose by 6.6% in the second quater of 2006. Just because median wages (middle wage in the range, not the average wage) are down does not mean the economy is bad or good. It also does not tell us much about wages. We need to know the mean and mode (most frequently occurring) as well. For example in the following range of yearly wages--16,000; 35,000; 3.75 million--we do not know how many people make what (mode) and the mean (average) of these three is 1.35 million. Now we know that mean national wages are up but median wages are down in 32 states. If the median wage ($35,000) declines but the average increases, the increase in average wages is most likely due to a rise in the highest wages as wages at the higher end of the sample skew the average more than the middle and lower wages. Therefore, the Washington Post article falsely concludes that the rise of average wages is good for some workers. With the publication of the Forbes 400 list we now know that CEO income is rising thereby scewing the mean national wage. We also know, yet again, that median wages are falling; in other words, wealth is being redistributed to the top. The GOP believes those on the Forbes 400 list need an estate tax cut while the minimum wage is fine as it is? According to Time, worker productivity is up 18.4% while corporate profits are up 72%; which means for every 1% increase in productivity the company earns 4% in PROFITS (which is above operating costs). CEO income is up, worker productivity is up, corporate profits are up, but median household income is DOWN. Money is no longer trickling down at all; money is now trickling up. Therefore, it seems the more you work the less you make. The middle and lower classes must rise up against their oppressors!

The Morally Myopic GOP: Part 2.A

Krampus — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:52:28 GMT

The GOP's attachment of the estate tax cut benefiting at most 2% of Americans (8,000 individuals) to the minimum wage raise benefiting 6.6 million Americans illustrates the depths of their moral bankruptcy. The GOP is hostile to the Constitution in all matters related to the general will and the common good. Rousseau illuminated the difference between the general will and the collective will (a simple majoritarianism): First, the general will is directly tied to Sovereignty: but not Sovereignty merely in the sense of whomever holds power. Simply having power, for Rousseau, is not sufficient for that power to be morally legitimate. True Sovereignty is directed always at the public good, and the general will, therefore, speaks always infallibly to the benefit of the people. Second, the object of the general will is always abstract, or for lack of a better term, general. It can set up rules, social classes, or even a monarchial government, but it can never specify the particular individuals who are subject to the rules, members of the classes, or the rulers in the government. This is in keeping with the idea that the general will speaks to the good of the society as a whole. It is not to be confused with the collection of individual wills which would put their own needs, or the needs of particular factions, above those of the general public. This leads to a related point. Rousseau argues that there is an important distinction to be made between the general will and the collection of individual wills: “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only a sum of private wills.” (Social Contract, Vol. IV, p. 146). This point can be understood in an almost Rawlsian sense, namely that if the citizens were ignorant of the groups to which they would belong, they would inevitably make decisions that would be to the advantage of the society as a whole, and thus be in accordance with the general will. Rousseau's definition of sovereignty entails that the current administration, irrespective of stolen elections, has forfeited its sovereignty over American's rights: True Sovereignty, again, is not simply the will of those in power, but rather the general will. Sovereignty does have the proper authority override the particular will of an individual or even the collective will of a particular group of individuals. However, as the general will is infallible, it can only do so when intervening will be to the benefit of the society. Proper intervention on the part of the Sovereign is therefore best understood as that which secures the freedom and equality of citizens rather than that which limits them. Ultimately, the delicate balance between the supreme authority of the state and the rights of individual citizens is based on a social compact that protects society against factions and gross differences in wealth and privilege among its members. http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rousseau.htm#SH4b

Why I use a nom de plume

Krampus — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:32:44 GMT

The reason why I do not use my real name here is because of the ever growing problem of academic harassment. Right-wing and evangelical students have engaged in harassing professors who criticize their ideas even when it pertains to the course topics. Class discussion entails allowing students to speak their minds but that does not mean their views are free from criticism as it pertains to the *course material*. It does not mean students have the right to harass professors. They even stoop to defamation, lying, or at minimum unfounded negative reviews. Any presentation of personal views by a professor, even outside of the classroom, is often used as fodder for harassment. The American Philosophical Association has created a task force to aid professors who are harassed. (I never present my personal views in class even when directly asked. I will discuss them on a case-by-case basis outside the classroom.)

The Prophet Frank Herbert

Krampus — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:50:09 GMT

"Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism. It leads to self-fulfilling policy and justifications for all manner of obscenities. It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil. It [religion] feeds on deliberately twisted meanings to discredit opposition. It leads directly to hypocrisy which is always betrayed by the gap between actions and explanations. Ultimately, it rules by guilt because hypocrisy brings on the witch hunt and the demand for scapegoats." (God Emperor of Dune 117-118) “The difference between a good administrator and a bad one is about 5 heartbeats. Good administrators make immediate choices. A bad administrator, on the other hand, hesitates, diddles around, asks for committees, for research and reports. Eventually, he acts in ways which create serious problems. A bad administrator is more concerned with reports than decisions. He wants the hard record which he can display as an excuse for his errors…. Bad administrators hide their mistakes until it’s too late to make corrections.” (God Emperor of Dune 240-241) “Bureaucracy destroys initiative. There is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines. Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept. Who enjoys appearing inept?” (Heretics of Dune 213)

The Prophet Douglas Adams

Krampus — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:53:46 GMT

I am reading, for the first-time, Douglas Adam's "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" published in 1987. I just read a passage describing a piece of software called Reason where you input the conclusion you want first and then the program asks for your supporting evidence. The program then contrives the logical-sounding steps necessary to reach that conclusion. The software was never released to the public because it was bought by The Pentagon. Here is what follows: "I've recently been analyzing a lot of the arguments put forward in favor of the Star Wars project, and if you know what your looking for, the pattern of the algorithms is very clear. So much so, in fact, that looking at Pentagon policies over the last couple of years I think I can be fairly sure that the US Navy is using version 2.0 of the program , while the Air Force for some reason only has the beta-test version of 1.5."

The Morally Myopic GOP: Part I.A

Krampus — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:24:29 GMT

The recent Senate and House debates on the Federal Marriage Amendment were both comical and intellectually dishonest. Sen. Sam Brownback said, “You now have counties in Norway where over 80% of the first born children are born out of wedlock and 2/3 of the second children.” Brownback implies Norway’s 80% out-of-wedlock birthrate is empirical evidence that gay unions debase the family structure and cause undue burdens on society in general. Brownback would have us believe Norway’s homosexual community is engaging in rampant adulterous heterosexual liaisons. Such a suggestion is preposterous and any thinking person can see through this red herring and deceit. Sen. Wayne Allard said, “Marriage is a good thing. It allows children to grow up with fewer difficulties, increases the life span and quality of life of those involved, reduces the likelihood of incidences of chemical abuse and violent crime.” How is gender necessary and sufficient for meeting these conditions? Are we to believe that homosexuals cannot provide love, security, stability, and teach their children not to use drugs? For Allard, only a heterosexual couple who is married can provide these necessities, not even extended family members who may be single and/or heterosexual. When these blatantly fallacious lines of argumentation are exposed, the gay marriage opponents default to a variety of unfounded and outlandish claims. For example, Rick Santorum claims the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy despite the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. Others default to old fashioned appeals to authority in the form of Divine Command Theory. Their theological framework assumes that God’s commands are absolute, unchanging, and definitive. Let us put this theological reasoning to the moral test. The following is every verse pertaining to slavery: Exodus 21:1-11, 20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46, Numbers 31:15-18, 1 Peter 2:18-21, Titus 2:9-10, Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5-9. Nowhere is slavery mentioned negatively; slavery is regulated but never prohibited. It is a contradiction to say, “Slavery is prohibited but you must release a slave after seven years” (Exodus 21:2). Therefore, if the opponents of gay marriage wish to embrace this line of reasoning, then slavery must be morally permissible (that would resolve the illegal immigration debate—Leviticus 25:44-46). Contemporary theologians, on the whole, reject slavery as it contradicts the Principle of Neighborly Love and Paul's definition of agape love found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. However, they fail to adopt the same theological position regarding homosexuality and gay marriage. Christians are not in the moral position to handpick which laws to obey and which to discard—Matthew 7:1-3. Moral consistency demands that the opponents of gay marriage endorse slavery or abandon their simplistic and myopic Divine Command Theory. Paul writes that salvation is achieved by faith alone and not by adherence to Mosaic Law alone: Ephesians 2:8-13, John 3:1-21, Galatians 3:15-25, Romans 3:21-31. A society need not practice slavery in order for individuals within it to live faithfully. Just as slavery is not a prerequisite to live faithfully, neither then is there any reason to suppose that gay marriages necessitate unfaithfulness. Homosexuals can still love and trust God; many do. Likewise, any homosexual couple can provide loving familial units that are stable and safe providing longer, happier, healthier lives. Gender is irrelevant for love and trust. Sexual orientation may or may not be a prerequisite for living a Christian life, but the government cannot require any family to be Christian. The rights and protections afforded by marriage--ability to make medical decisions for one's spouse and children that transcends state boundaries (civil unions do not transcend state boundaries), protection from forced testimony against one's spouse, inheritance protections, and other 200 marital rights and protections--engender familial safety, security, and stability. Denial of these rights destabilize and imperil families not two penises or two vaginas in parental units.

The Morally Myopic GOP: Part I.B

Krampus — Tue, 02 May 2006 13:16:10 GMT

Beginning in 1997, Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas enacted laws making covenant marriage an option. If you buy in, here are the rules: Before marrying, you have to go through counseling. You have to affirm orally and in writing that your marriage is "for life," that you accept its "responsibilities," that you've "chosen each other carefully," that you've "disclosed to one another everything" important to the marital decision, and that you'll "take all reasonable efforts to preserve our marriage, including marital counseling." Divorce takes longer than today's no-fault dissolutions, and the grounds are narrower. The prescribed waiting period is usually two years. In states conservative enough to promote it, fewer than one in 100 marrying couples has chosen this option—about 6,000 to 7,000 couples, judging from published data. If gay marriage is immoral and marriage is for life, then why do only 1% of married couples obtain covenant marriage licenses? I smell hypocrisy and bigotry. Taken from: "Solemnize Me: It's time for gay covenant marriage." By William Saletan Posted Saturday, April 29, 2006 www.slate.com

Immigration Protests: Hypocrisy

Krampus — Tue, 02 May 2006 13:07:15 GMT

WHAT IMMIGRANTS WANT: (Taken from) "National Economic Boycott Disagreement Over Boycott by Immigrants" Rev. Jose E. Hoyos Arlington Catholic Diocese Spanish Apostolate Monday, May 1, 2006; 2:00 PM Washington Post Live Rev. Jose H. Hoyos: The Catholic Church's position can be found online at www.justiceforimmigrants.org and at the usccb.org. Rather than criminalizing undocumented immigrants and those who provide them food and shelter, we are convinced that that reform-minded legislation should establish much-needed systemic changes, such as: * a legalization and a path to citizenship for the undocumented population in our nation, regardless of national origin; * a temporary worker program with adequate worker and wage protections for both US and foreign-born workers; * family based immigration to reduce waiting times for families to be reunited; * and restoration of due process protections for immigrants, which have been severely weakened the past several years. WHY THEY WANT IT: (Taken from) "Behind the Debate: Propelled to Protest, Driven to Migrate Mexican Deportee's U.S. Sojourn Illuminates Roots of Current Crisis" By Manuel Roig-Franzia Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, April 17, 2006; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/16/AR2006041600851.html Rev. Jose H. Hoyos: As a native of Columbia, I have witnessed many of the problems plaguing Latin America. My brother was kidnapped by terrorist groups in Columbia and is still being held by FARC. There is a lot of fear, and few job opportunities. Many of these countries have faced natural disaster and civil wars. Mexico's failure to create enough jobs after the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement pushed countless young people to migrate to the United States, while a growing U.S. demand for labor pulled them north. Mexico's 1970s baby boom, a time when Mexican President Luis Echevarría said, "G obernar es poblar " -- to govern is to populate. Since 1970, Mexico's population has doubled. More important, the population of 15- to 34-year-olds -- the prime migrating years -- has swollen to 38 million, according to U.S. Census figures on foreign populations. That age group is projected to exceed 40 million in 2015. Mexican economists say this is almost certain to push more Mexicans across the border. The peso crisis proved a troubling distraction, diverting the attention of a government that had hoped to be capitalizing on NAFTA to stimulate widespread growth but instead was bogged down in crisis management, said Luis Rubio, director of the Center for Development Research in Mexico City. Not enough roads or ports were built, and business networks did not expand beyond border areas. Mexico's big informal economy -- the legions of street vendors and other laborers -- is another disincentive for politicians to stimulate growth of better-paying jobs in the formal economy, economists say. The informal workforce accounts for 32 percent to 48 percent of Mexico's economy, Rubio estimated. "Mexico's economy grows, but job creation 'missing'" By Jeffrey Sparshott THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/business/20060504-094834-4846r.htm Mexico's economy this year is growing at its fastest clip since 2000, but new job creation is lagging while many workers are underemployed and earn only a fraction of what they can make in the United States. The limited opportunities and disparity in wages create strong incentives, even for people with jobs, to migrate north. "The biggest thing is extremely low wages. Most workers who migrate to the U.S., it's not that they can't find a job, it's that the job pays so much less," said Jonathan Heath, chief economist at HSBC Mexico in Mexico City. The median wage in Mexico is a little under $2 an hour, while a foreign-born Mexican worker in the United States earns $9 to $10 an hour, said Rakesh Kochhar, associate director for research at the Pew Hispanic Center. "The wage gap is most likely the main motivation for coming here," said Mr. Kochhar, who in a 2005 survey found that most Mexican migrants held jobs at home before heading to the United States. Mr. Heath estimates that as many as one-third of the country's working-age adults can't find work, can't find enough work or can't find work in the formal economy with some benefits and stability. ANALYSIS: I know they are protesting to demand equal political rights. That does not explain why they are protesting in the United States. Why are they not protesting the horrid political, economic, human rights conditions in Mexico, El Salvador, etc. that drove them to the United States? It seems to me if they believe they are deserving of rights in the U.S. and are therefore protesting, then they need to be protesting for those rights in their countries of origin. A second question... The impression I am getting is that these rallies, marches, protests are encouraging further illegal immigration. If the illegal immigrants are given equal political rights, amnesty, etc. then we will see further Mexican flight. Illegal immigration harms the economy of both the US and Mexico. It costs $3,000 US dollars paid to the coyotes to smuggle one person into the US, usually more as many women and children are then "kidnapped" to extort more funds. (Of course not all illegal immigrants utilize the coyotes.) They then save another $3,000+ to smuggle the next family member across. This is U.S. dollars leaving our economy, literally, but it is not going into the Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, etc. economy. The "Propelled to Protest, Driven to Migrate" and "In Mexican Towns, Rallies Are Big News" articles noted that Mexico has no incentive to stop illegal immigration to the U.S. due to their huge baby boomer population and poor economy. This returns us to my first question, “Why are they protesting here and not in their home country?”