Happy (Belated) Birthday Tom!

Like Chris, I meant to post on this yesterday, but time just got away from me.

Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The American Crisis pamphlets, was born January 29, 1737. His writings were instrumental in rousing the inhabitants of the British colonies in North America to take up the cause of liberty, declare themselves independent, and engage in the greatest experiment in democracy and freedom the world has yet seen. His reputation as a Founding Father has been unduly stained by controversy connected with his monumental indictment of Christianity (The Age of Reason) and today not a single monument to his memory exists in Washington, DC a city whose government he had as much a place in creating as Benjamin Franklin or John Adams.

In a similar post, Ed Brayton quotes from The American Crisis I:

These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

This is eloquence; this is rhetoric at its very best. How stark the contrast between these moving words, poetic in their composition, and the speeches and writings of today's political figures!

Paine stands as one of the paramount figures of not only the American revolution, but also of the Enlightenment in general. It's a genuine shame that he's not better known than he is.

Additional information can be found at the Thomas Paine National Historical Association website.

There are no words...

Possibly NSFW, so caveat clicktor.


I...um...errm...

nothin'...I got nothin'...

Amusing Diversion...

Who would win in a battle between God and Muhammad? Between Buddha and Jesus? Well, now you can find out! Try out Faith Fighter and you get to choose your deity and duke it out with other contenders for the title of Supreme Being!

HT: Pharyngula

The Ineluctable End of Collectivism

In his provocative and closely-argued book, The Road to Serfdom, Austrian economist Friederich Hayek lays out and defends his thesis that the logical and unavoidable end of collectivist economic systems is totalitarianism. This is so, in a nutshell, because such systems require centralized economic planning which, if it is to be effective, will require the acquisition by the State of more and more power over the lives of individuals until eventually liberty is extinguished.

While it is certainly true that there has yet to exist a State whose economic and political infrastructure aligns perfectly with Communist ideology, we can certainly see enough of the results of existing collectivist states to, at the very least, lead us to wonder if perhaps Hayek was on to something after all?

Welcome to North Korea is a documentary which won an International Emmy award in 2001 and which shows a, for the most part, unexpurgated view of what life in the North is like under the rule of Kim Jong Il, the current "leader for life". The video is rather long (about 50 minutes), but well worth watching for a reminder of how precious is liberty and why our Constitution and Bill of Rights must be defended from enemies both without and within...



Side Note: the embedded video is hosted at YouTube, but you can find a downloadable copy at Archive.org, which is a veritable treasure-trove of public domain music, videos (including full-length movies!), and other assorted materials.

HT: Positive Liberty

Parody of a Loon

If you haven't seen Tom Cruise's Scientology spiel by now...under what rock have you been hiding? But just in case you've only recently crawled out, here's a link to the rather disturbing, albeit humorous (in a schadenfreude-istic sort of way), train-wreck of a video. It's engendered much discussion on the inter-tubes over the last week or so, but the take on it I much preferred was this one by actor Jerry Connell:



I think I was probably one of about five people who thought Joe's Apartment was actually kind of funny, but I've got a new respect for O'Connell now...

Astonishing!

We live in amazing universe filled with astonishing and wonderful things. The last minute or so of this video is incredible evidence of the creative power of evolution.

How NOT to defend the Moral Argument

A comment at Debunking Christianity calls our attention to an article by William Hawthorne wherein he makes the following statement:

My view is that objective moral properties exist and that they would be unexpected, and indeed inexplicable, in a world in which atheism (or more precisely, naturalism) is true.

It's likely that's the view of many theists. I have certainly seen similar sentiments expressed by theists on blogs and in debates. But is it true? And even more to the point, isn't such an argument self-defeating?

In order to get around Euthyphro (and indeed to have any chance of alleged moral facts being "objective"), theists will seek to ground moral facts in God's nature. That is to say, to ground it in characteristics or essence that is NOT subject to God's whim or will.

Fair enough (and it seems to me that this is the only possible successful answer to Euthyphro's dilemma). However, in what way is this functionally different than a non-theist's claim that moral facts are grounded in the nature of existence? I.e., in brute fact (that's just the way things are)? The question "why is God as He is?" is functionally the same as "Why is existence as it is?" Moral facts grounded in the nature of existence would therefore seem to be ontologically equivalent to those grounded in the nature of God.

What therefore could serve as any relevant difference between "God" and "existence" that could satisfy Hawthorne's condition such that the existence of moral facts would be "unexpected" and "inexplicable" if God were NOT to exist? The only difference appears to be will or intent, yet that is specifically what we must rule out if we want moral facts to be objective. So doesn't it seem self-defeating to argue that "objective" moral facts only make sense if they're the product of will or intent, thus rendering them non-objective?

(Also posted as a comment at DC)

No Fair!!

According to Arno Widmann, Julia Fischer (a professor of violin at Frankfurt's Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Tanz) performed at a New Year's concert in Frankfurt in which she played Saint-Saëns Third Violin Concerto on the first half and the Grieg A-minor Piano Concerto on the second half! These are both rather difficult pieces of music, even for the professional and by all accounts, Prof. Fischer acquitted herself admirably. In fact, again according to Widmann, both performances were dazzling.

I can actually fumble my way through a Mozart or Haydn concerto and I've even played through the Beethoven First (appallingly, I assure you), but the Grieg is too much for my stupid fingers (although I could play parts of it with my younger, less arthritic hands) and yet here is a woman who, having mastered one instrument to the point of teaching others how to play it, takes on another and triumphs yet again. Oh to have even a portion of her "excess" talent!

HT: MPR's Classical Notes

Funny O' The Day

It's an interesting attempt...

...but I still think Huckabee's campaign is doomed.

P.S. I love Sinfest!

The Great Question

Great thinkers through the ages have pondered the many mysteries of life. Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? Does God exist? What is the capital of Assyria? But none of these questions have come close to the ultimate question of our time: What if the Beatles were Irish?

Karlheinz Stockhausen, 1928-2007

I'm not sure how I missed this, but the German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, often called "the father of electronic music" died suddenly at his home in Kurten on 5 December.

While I'm not a big fan of electronic music, it is impossible to deny or overestimate the impact of Stockhausen's work on the music of the 20th century. He began composing in the 1950s, studying under such luminaries as Frank Martin, Darius Milhaud, and Olivier Messiaen. With such teachers, it seems to me almost predestined that he would produce something completely novel. His composition Gesang der Jünglinge (1955-56) has been called the first electronic masterpiece and over the next forty years Stockhausen's output continued to be innovative and influential. At the time of his death, he was looking forward to a complete production later this year of Licht, a monumental cycle of seven operas dealing with "traits associated in various historical traditions with each weekday" (according to Wikipedia).

Stockhausen was the creator of an organization founded to advance his creative ideals which will carry on the work he began almost 60 years ago. Alex Ross discusses the composer and his impact here. One of Stockhausen's students attended the memorial service in Kurten and provides some thoughts here.

If you haven't yet finished your xmas shopping...

Christmas gift suggestions:
To your enemy, forgiveness.
To an opponent, tolerance.
To a friend, your heart.
To a customer, service.
To all, charity.
To every child, a good example.
To yourself, respect.

-Oren Arnold

HT: Unscrewing the Inscrutable

Who is the superest super hero?

Two cartoonists have created an ongoing competition to draw a continuing succession of "superheroes" each of which has powers which can defeat the powers of the preceding hero. So far my personal favorite is "The Creationist" (above), but check out the entire list here.

HT: Pharyngula

But of course I always knew...

HT: Atheist Jew

In which I join the "far left"...

I've not seen this story on any of the major networks, but apparently Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D. Ohio) introduced a resolution in the House on Tuesday to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney:

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

See the link for the full text of the resolution which spells out in excruciating detail the actions of the VP that Kucinich believes warrant impeachment.

According to WaPo the resolution ended up being sent to the Judiciary Committee for discussion (from which it will no doubt never be heard of again) after some political wrangling by both Democrats and Republicans. Apparently, Democratic leadership decided some time ago that talk of impeachment was an, "...irresponsible move supported only by the far left" and so they decided to do whatever was necessary to avoid being "embarrassed" by a floor debate.

Again I have to ask: WTF? Aren't these the same Democrats who voters elevated to the majority party largely if not solely due to the deceit, fraud, and utter failure that is the current administration? Based on the polls I've seen, somewhere close to 50% of Americans believe impeachment may indeed be warranted for both Bush and Cheney. A 2006 Zogby poll found 52% in favor of impeachment proceedings based on the illegal wiretapping debacle. A more recent USA Today/Gallup poll found 36% believe there to be enough evidence to hold impeachment hearings. (that last page linked has several polls with impeachment questions; the average in favor seems to be around 30-35%). Does the Democractic leadership truly believe that the "far left" is comprised of between 30-50% of the American population? If Democrats make up about 50% of the voting population, then that would indicate that over half of their membership is "far left". Does that make any sense?

The answer: NO, of course not. Most of the polls I've seen give breakdowns by political affiliation and there are always Republicans in the "impeach" category right along with Democrats. This is not a "far left" issue, it's almost mainstream. What is the Democratic leadership so afraid of?

The "left" is traditionally associated with socialism or communitarian politics. I'm a libertarian (lower-case "l"), so that's about as far from "left" as it's possible to get without being an anarchist. I say it's high time we started talking about impeaching these goons, to say nothing of the possibility of criminal prosecution. By their actions they have repeatedly shown their contempt for both America, Americans, liberty, and the rule of law. I see no reason to allow them to leave office quietly and honorably when their terms expire. If that belief by itself makes me a member of the "far left", so be it.

To Hell In A Handbasket...

Yesterday morning the Senate Judiciary Committee approved, by an 11 to 8 vote, the nomination of Michael Mukasey and sent it on to the full Senate for a vote. Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Charles Shumer joined the Republicans in voting for the nomination and in so doing betrayed, along with those Republicans, both common sense and common decency.

If you've been following the nomination hearings, you have surely heard that Mukasey declined to give an opinion on whether or not "waterboarding" should be considered as torture. He carefully explained that he was not privy to the actual techniques employed by U.S. interrogators, as they're classified, he was unable to offer an opinion on their legality or moral status.

Except that he wasn't being asked to do so. He was given an explicitly hypothetical definition of a procedure that was defined to him as "waterboarding" and asked to comment on whether or not that procedure was moral and/or legal: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Dem. RI) asked, "is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning. Is that constitutional?" To which Mukasey replied, "If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional"

WTF? IF it amounts to torture? What kind of moral reprobate are we dealing with here? Disregard for a moment the fact that Whitehouse' description is inaccurate (the technique doesn't simulate drowning, it is in fact controlled drowning in that the lungs are actually filling with water), what kind of human being can hear of such a thing and not immediately agree that such an act is torture?

Of course the White House was quick to defend Mukasey's response by noting that he had not yet been briefed on classified interrogation techniques and couldn't be until his confirmation. But this is utterly irrelevant. Mukasey wasn't being asked to comment on actual interrogation techniques, only the status of one described to him. Whether or not such a technique is actually used was not relevant to the question. And still he couldn't, or wouldn't, answer.

In reality, of course, Mr. Mukasey was likely assisting in covering the administration's collective ass. If he were to give what seems to any rational humane person to be the obvious answer, then it might mean difficulty or even eventual prosecution for Bush and his morally-challenged band of sycophants.

With the by-now painfully obvious lack of moral standards and the lust for power and disdain for the rule of law that characterizes this President and his rotten, corrupt administration, do we really need an Attorney General who is unable to support common sense and common decency over political sycophancy and fear? Do we really need another moral degenerate in a government already filled with them?

Keith Olbermann (who in my opinion has rightfully inherited the mantle of Edward R. Murrow) has the right take on this administration in his MSNBC commentary last night:

The presidency of George W. Bush has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of George W. Bush.

All the petulancy, all the childish threats, all the blank-stare stupidity;

All the invocations of World War Three, all the sophistic questions about which terrorist attacks we wanted him not to stop, all the phony secrets; all the claims of executive privilege, all the stumbling tap-dancing of his nominees, all the verbal flatulence of his apologists…

All of it is now — after one revelation last week — transparently clear for what it is: the pathetic and desperate manipulation of the government, the re-focusing of our entire nation, towards keeping this mock president, and this unstable vice president, and this departed wildly self-over-rating Attorney General — and the others — from potential prosecution for having approved or ordered the illegal torture of prisoners being held in the name of this country.

See the link for the full transcript and a video.

Indeed. What else is there to say? At one time, one would have expected Democrats to stand up against this fraud and expose it, but we have two of the leading members of that party complicit in the process of approving yet another degenerate sycophant to the already degraded office of Attorney General. The damage this man and his fellow travelers have wrought to the office of President, the United States, and the democratic process may well not be fully known for years. Next November cannot possibly come quickly enough!

Do Want!

I think I shall add this to my xmas list...

HT: Alex Ross

The 6 Most Terrifying Foods In The World?

BLECH!!

All thoroughly disgusting, however I wonder if there are any worse things out there?

There's a show on the Food Network wherein the host travels to all sorts of exotic locales and samples local cuisine. He usually manages to find something disgusting: the US seems to be one of the few places in the world where we really don't eat from tail to head and there are certainly a lot of parts in between that I don't really care to sample!

HT: NoodleFood

Happy Hallowe'en!

Teaching The Tongue To See

From The Frontal Cortex via Andrew Sullivan, this video of an incredible piece of technology that purports to enable blind persons to perceive and navigate their environment in a manner analogous to sight by "remapping" signals received via the tongue to the visual cortex of the brain. Jaw-droppingly amazing:



I found it interesting to note the difficulty the sighted person had in attempting to use the device. It put me in mind of the old canard about blindness heightening the awareness of other senses and I wonder if the learning curve would be as high for a blind person.

I was also fascinated to learn from Jonah's post (at Frontal Cortex) that a similar experiment was performed with ferrets wherein information transmitted from their retinas was fed to the auditory (as opposed to visual) cortex and yet the ferrets could still see! Their brains were able to "remap" the signals and translate them appropriately. Incredible.