Virtual Illusions

I think Cliff is missing the point. He may have a valid point from the point of defense, but we don’t use our military exclusively (or even primarily) for defense. Once the argument isn’t about defending the boarders it becomes significantly more difficult to justify conscription.

Without the notion of defending the country all the pithy quotes about defending freedom and liberty get reduced to meaningless rhetoric.

We have a voluntary military that in this political climate is sufficient to keep the borders secure to the level that we feel comfortable. There are no credible threats that an increased conscripted citizen army would counter. An increased military doesn’t protect us from terrorism, Intelligence and our current military strength is sufficient.

I don’t see the government’s authority to conscript people to fight overseas (i.e. in a non-defensive situation) That appears to be a political decision that each soldier should have the ability to make for themselves. I’m not talking about giving soldier’s the ability to veto commanding officers, if you voluntarily sign up, you understand the risks and benefits of such action. That is a voluntary support of a policy which is different from being conscripted.

–Zafkiel

Politics

A rumpled man walks into a bank in New York City and
asks for the loan officer. He says he is going to
Europe on business for two weeks and needs to borrow $5,000.
The bank officer says the bank will need some kind of
security for such a loan. So the man — clearly an
eccentric — hands over the keys to a new Rolls Royce
parked on the street in front of the bank. Everything
checks out, and the bank agrees to accept the car as
collateral for the loan. An employee drives the Rolls
into the bank’s underground garage and parks it there.
Two weeks later, the man returns, repays the $5,000 and
the interest, which comes to $15.41. The loan officer
says, “We are very happy to have had your business, and
this transaction has worked out very nicely, but we are
a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you
out and found that you are a multi-millionaire. What
puzzles us is why would you bother to borrow $5,000?”
The man replies, “Where else in New York can I park my
car for two weeks for 15 bucks?”

Corporate

Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of
a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him, but was
moved by Arthur’s youth and ideals. So the monarch offered him
freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question.
Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer; if, after a year,
he still had no answer, he would be
put to death.

The question: What do women really want?

Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man,
and, to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it
was better than death, he accepted the monarch’s proposition to
have an answer by year’s end.

He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everybody: the
prince, the prostitutes, the priests, the wise men, the court jester.
He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory
answer. Many people advised him to consult the old witch–only
she would know the answer.
The price would be high; the witch was famous throughout the
kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.

Finally the last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no
alternative but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer his
question, but he’d have to accept her price first:

The old witch wanted to marry Gawain, the most noble of the
Knights of the Round Table and Arthur’s closest friend!
Young Arthur was horrified: She was hunchbacked and
hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage,
made obscene noises… etc. He had never encountered such
a repugnant creature. He refused to force his friend to marry
her and have to endure such a burden.

Gawain, upon learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur. He
told him that nothing was too big a sacrifice compared to
Arthur’s life and the preservation of the Round Table. Hence,
their wedding was proclaimed, and the witch answered
Arthur’s question thus:
What a woman really wants is to be in charge of her own life.

Everyone instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth
and that Arthur’s life would be spared. And so it was. The
neighboring monarch granted Arthur total freedom.

What a wedding Gawain and the witch had! Arthur was torn
between relief and anguish. Gawain was proper as always,
gentle and courteous. The old witch put her worst manners
on display, and generally made everyone very uncomfortable.

The hour approached. Gawain, steeling himself for a horrific
experience, entered the bedroom. But what a sight awaited
him! The most beautiful
woman he’d ever seen lay before him! The astounded Gawain
asked what had happened.

The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when
she’d appeared as a witch, she would henceforth be her horrible,
deformed self half the time, and the other half, she would be her
beautiful maiden self. Which would he want her to be during the
day, and which during the night?

What a cruel question! Gawain pondered his predicament. During
the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night,
in the privacy of his home, an old witch? Or would he prefer having
by day a hideous witch, but by night a beautiful woman with whom
to enjoy many intimate moments?

What would you do? What Gawain chose follows below, but don’t
read until you’ve made your own choice.

Noble Gawain replied that he would let her choose for herself.

Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all
the time, because he had respected her enough to let her be in
charge of her own life.

What is the moral of this story?

The moral is: if a woman doesn’t get her own way, things get
ugly!

Gender

via alchook

What the hell does that mean? What is a right? Who guarantees the right?

So if Apu decides to close the Kwikee-Mart for Vishnu day he still gets paid? Who pays him?

A right is something that your local lord (government) promises not take away wholesale, it agrees to take it by piecemeal.

That being said, I think the UN document isn’t a bill of rights as we think of them so much as the set of conditions for a person to live in dignity and according to their conscience. They are supposed to be basic tenants to know when you’ve been stepped on and when you are stepping on someone else.

The form and nature of government and economy in your local country will fill in the blank of who or what guarantees that right. In the US many of the rights are guarantied not by the government but by the working of the economy.

The US has a bill of rights that is supposed to be the guarantor of some the conditions it also (is supposed) break(s) up monopolies which in necessary to the working of capitalist society that guarantees other conditions listed in the UN document.

We use the word right in terms of something that can’t be taken away from us. The UN document uses as something that shouldn’t be taken away, government and economics should work towards all people having them. The UN document is a goal set not an absolute floor, below which you are definitively a monster.

–Zafkiel

Politics

I was listening to All things Considered on NPR last night and they had a segment on Islam. It instilled an interesting parallel to my mind.

If you follow scientific advancement you have this movement from the roman empire to the Arab world. During this time Europe was in it’s dark ages and gripped by religious control. At this time we had the crusades, inquisition and witch hunts.

I’m going to admit not having much knowledge about the Islamic world during this time. What I have heard is that during the dark ages it was the center of learning and scientific advancement. I’ve also heard that it was an fairly tolerant (Spain under Islamic rule is often sited as an example).

Keep in mind the crusades, whatever you argue they were really about, they certainly seem like a religiously motivated attack on ones more successful and prosperous neighbor.

Move up to the last century or so and you see a reversal of roles. Islamic countries are more and more under religious control engaging in dark age like behavior culminating in a crusade(jihad) against the U.S. and other countries. Europe has loosened the religious grip and become more secular.

Could the religious push in the U.S. be the beginning of the next shift of control? Maybe this time it will fall (back) to the Buddhists or Hindus?

Anyway I’m sure people will tell why my understanding of history is wrong and way oversimplified, but I think the underlying point has some validity.

–Zafkiel

Culture, Philosophy/Religion

from http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,322115-412,00.shtml

But as the war on terrorism continues, and the government remains on high alert for future attacks, many still see a chance to convince nonbelievers that faith should be part of their lives.

We should believe because we are afraid? Religion unmasked.

News, Philosophy/Religion, Politics, Quote