Against Attacking Iraq, But for Attacking Libya

Some conservatives have pointed out what they believe to be hypocrisy on the part of liberals who support Obama's attack on Libya, while being against the war in Iraq. I am one of those on the left, although only marginally so, who supports intervention in Libya, while still believing that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, and I don't think I'm a hypocrite for doing so. When I would argue with conservatives about the merits of the Iraq war, they would ask me, "do you think Saddam Hussein should stay in power?" and I would say no. So then they would ask me how I expected him to be removed if not by other countries invading, and I would say, there was a perfect opportunity for Saddam to be overthrown when Iraqis themselves, Kurds to be more specific, rose against him after having been specifically instructed to do so by George Bush Sr. and CIA operatives. That would have been a great time to take out Saddam's forces from the air, without invading, and allowing Iraqis to gain control of their own country for once.

Now some argue that the war is not constitutional, and they may have a point. Obama did not successfully gain explicit congressional authorization for the attack on Libya, and his defense that American soldiers are not being put in harms way, therefore America is not really at war, is, I admit, quite a stretch. But the same fucking day, a bill that would deny Obama the funds he needs to carry out the operation in Libya was also voted down, and that vote included a significant number of Republicans, some of the very same Republicans who denied authorization for the operation that they then voted to fund. This proves to me that the protest against the attack on Libya is nothing more than an act.

What Exactly Was Original Sin?

There are many Christians who concede that the Book of Genesis was metaphorical not literal, but I've never heard any Christian explain exactly what this metaphor represents, specifically the whole business with the apple and the expulsion from Eden. Presumably, since they still believe in original sin, there was some kind of event that got god angry at us for which Jesus needed to be sacrificed in order to save us all from hell, but what was this? What does the metaphor of the apple represent? If this was not a historical account, then what event in history actually did result in this original sin?

Why I Am Not Agnostic

Most Atheists are, in fact, agnostics. They know there is no proof that god does exist, but many will concede that they cannot, in fact, prove that god does not exist either. They simply cite the lack of evidence for god as a reason to not accept the proposition of his existence. I, on the other hand, am convinced of the non-existence of god, or at least they Abrahamic conception of god, because I believe it to be completely incoherent. I, in fact, can't believe it, because it makes no sense.

What I find specifically nonsensical is the idea that god created time, ie. that time and the universe had a beginning, and god is responsible for that beginning. God himself, however, did not have a beginning. This implies that god can exist in a state independent of time. This is incoherent. Time is a necessary condition for existence. Nothing can exist, not even god, in a state in which there is no time. If time had a beginning, then everything that exists also had a beginning, including god.

In order for something to be said to exist at all, it must exist for a period of time. If time had a beginning, how long did god exist before that beginning? Zero seconds, in other words, god did not exist before the beginning of time. The only way the idea of an eternal god, ie, a god without a beginning makes any sense is if time also had no beginning. It is only in an eternal universe that an eternal god makes any sense.

Marriage

I wince whenever I see someone in their 20s getting married. I've always felt like marriage should be for old people. Getting married is what you do when you figure you're too old to attract any more sexual partners, so you cling to the one that still seems to find you attractive and you don't let go.

Now, I know plenty of people who are married, who, I'm sure, are sincerely in love and will probably stay together, but I just don't see why couples like that bother to get married. If you really love someone, why get the state involved in it? Benefits aside, it just all seems so insecure to have a big party celebrating the fact that you will never have sex with anyone else ever again and sign a legal contract testifying to it. That doesn't sound to me like something you would do with someone you really love. It sounds like something you would do if you're desperately insecure about your ability to attract a mate.

Anti-Natalism

There is currently a debate among vloggers on YouTube about the merits of anti-natalism, the position that people should not reproduce due to the suffering inherent to existence. I don't consider myself an anti-natalist, but in way this position kinda makes sense. One of the ethical questions raised by the prospect of artificial intelligence is whether, in the event that we create a machine capable of consciousness, and on top of that capable of emotion, we should give it the capacity for suffering. There's something kinda disturbing about deliberately giving a conscious being the ability to suffer. The only reason you would do such a thing is because you wanted this machine to actually experience that suffering. This seems almost sadistic. Even if you also make it capable of pleasure, and ensure that pleasure makes up the vast majority of its experience, to add in the ability to suffer still seems rather cruel. So when we think we've discovered a way to create a machine that can suffer, some will question whether actually doing so is morally acceptable.

But isn't it odd that we never usually ask this question about creating a child? Why do we not feel that creating a child, which is no less capable of suffering or any less likely to actually suffer, is equally immoral?

The best answer I can come up with is that some of us maybe see it a chance to live our own lives again. It's a chance to redo our childhoods but with the knowledge and advice that we never got. It's become a cliche that parents want their children to have all the advantages that they never had. We all think about things we would have done differently and maybe how much better our lives would be had we only known then what we know now. Being a parent is an opportunity to do exactly that, if only vicariously.

Proof the Republicans Are Posturing

This article proves that all this noise Republicans are making about Obama violating the War Powers Act is just a pretense. They're not actually going to DO anything. They want Qaddafi taken out as much as anyone. They just want an excuse to criticize.

Why Democrats Don't Defend Each Other

The best example of this is the way Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. Given that most people did not give a shit about Bill Clinton's personal life and his approval ratings continued to rise all the way through the impeachment process, this was not only unnecessary, it was strategically stupid.

The real question though, is not so much why Democrats won't defend each other as it is why Republicans never seem to get any heat for defending the guys in their own party when they get into trouble. It's clear why Democrats wont defend each other; they don't want the stink of scandal to rub off on them. The real question is why the stink never seems to stick to Republicans who defend corrupt Republicans.

Obama's Interpretation of the War Powers Act

As I said earlier, the attack on Libya, while arguably justifiable, and legal according to international law, is of questionable constitutionality due to the fact that Congress has not declared war on Libya, nor has an authorization for the use of military force been issued.

Obama's defense is that the War Powers Act does not apply to American involvement in Libya, because American soldiers are not being put in harm's way.

The relevant text of the War Powers Act is as follows:
"SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

Now, I suppose one could interpret the prohibition of unapproved introduction of forces "into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated" to be intended simply to keep soldiers out of situations where they would be harmed. It seems to say "don't go into a war zone, and don't go into a place that is clearly becoming a war zone." The text, however, seems to prohibit more than just being introduced into hostilities. It also seems to prohibit involvement in hostilities. The fact that American forces are not somewhere they can be shot at, does not mean they are not involved.

Of course, if mere involvement in hostilities is that standard by which we should judge whether an action need congressional approval, then there are potentially many other conflicts in which American forces have involved themselves that must now be turned over to Congress.

Two Kinds of American Exceptionalism

When Republicans accuse the Democrats of not believing in "American Exceptionalism" and when people on the left reject the idea of "American Exceptionalism", it's clear that they are talking about two different things. When Republicans say they believe in American Exceptionalism, they are saying they believe that America is exceptionally awesome. When those on the left criticize American Exceptionalism, they are criticizing the idea that America should be exempt from the rules and expectations placed on other countries. The American Exceptionalism to which these critics are referring is that which says America is right to try the Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding POWs, but should also be able to make an exception for itself when it comes to the same practice.

Why Atheism Is Offensive

Here's a video of Ricky Gervais discussing his atheism.

http://youtu.be/o1XGTrrZjlI

It is interesting how Christians will get offended if you say you don't believe in god and will often take it as an insult. This isn't something exclusive to religious people, I've noticed. I once ordered a veggie wrap in a restaurant with a friend who gave me a dirty look like I just sneezed on his steak. (I'm not vegetarian, but sometimes I like a veggie wrap.) I didn't scold him for eating a steak, I just decided not to have one myself, and he took offense to that.

This is all irrational, of course, but people find the very idea that others exist who don't think like they do offensive.

I Still Like Trump

He'll virtually assure a second term for Obama, and he's putting those old Bush cronies in their place. Karl Rove has recently said that Trump isn't to be taken seriously, and Trump's response was basically that Rove is partly responsible for the horror that is the Bush administration and therefore his opinion on political matters has even less credibility.

The Illusion of Escape from the Caprice of Man

In the upper left of this picture of a London protest against the French burka ban, you can see a sign that looks like it reads, "The Veil: Liberation from Man Made Laws". This is a really good illustration of one of religion's tempting myths. Many people who are drawn to religion hate to have to make up their own mind about right and wrong. They don't trust their own moral judgement, have weak consciences and find great comfort in the simplicity of allowing religion to make moral decisions for them.

Now, what I said above sounds contemptuous, but I don't mean any contempt for those who struggle with guilt, shame, or an inability to hold themselves to a strict moral code. Lots of people are like that; probably even most. I only have contempt for those who condemn people for having the balls to continue the struggle with their consciences rather than submitting their own judgement to the equally capricious, and even more capriciously interpreted rules and regulations of religion.

Libertariansim Is Not Conservative

Many libertarians consider themselves conservatives, but they really shouldn't. The reason why I think they do this is because people who do have some conservative beliefs also tend to believe in a laissez-faire style free market. Advocating this, however, is not conservative.

For a belief or position to be conservative, I think it should stand for the conservation of something, or at least for the resurrection of something that has been abandoned. Advocating laissez-faire economics does neither of these things. Because a completely free market capitalist system has never existed in all of human history, advocating such is actually very radical. It is anti-conservative. Sure, some people who advocate this also advocate the resurrection of traditional social values and, therefore, can rightfully call themselves conservatives, (although not entirely consistent conservatives). Libertarians, however, who want to do away with both traditional economic systems and with traditional morals, cannot.

Why Donald Trump Is My New Favorite Republican Candidate

I was a hardcore Palin supporter for quite some time, because I knew that she might actually get the Republican nomination and, if she did, Obama would slaughter her. Now that her approval ratings among Republicans are starting to sour, it looks like her chances are as good as they once were. When Donald Trump started throwing around the idea of running, I got a little nervous. I thought this guy might have enough popularity to beat Obama, if he were to get the Republican nomination. This was dumb on my part. After having listened to a few interviews, it seems as though he's even dumber than Sarah Palin, and that, while he might be popular enough to get the nomination, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy and everybody who's not a Republican can clearly see that.

Some people think the whole Trump thing is just a publicity stunt, and it very well could be, but I hope Trump really does run. He's so naive when it comes to foreign policy that he'll make Obama look like Henry Kissinger. Let's just hope that people don't clue in to what a dunce he is until it's too late. Unfortunately, Glenn Beck of all people, already has.

A Point of Order

While I think something should be done to impede Qaddafi's brutalization of his fellow Libyans, there are a few procedural issues with the enforcement of the no-fly zone. Unlike the Iraq war, this is not a violation of international law as best I can tell. It has security council approval. However, there are problems with regard to US law. While the aerial bombardments are clearly an act of war, no such war against Libya has been declared by Congress. There hasn't even been an authorization for the use of military force like Bush had before the invasion of Iraq, which is itself of questionable constitutionality. The president cannot legally wage war against another country without congressional approval.

It's About Time

For the first time, polls show that a majority of Americans support gay marriage.

Of course we all know that gay marriage is an inevitability in the US, but this is an early indication that it may come about via legislation rather than judicial proclamation.

Maybe Libya Will Turn Out Better

Hopefully the humanitarian intervention in Libya will turnout better than the air raids on Serbia, which, looking back, look like they exacerbated rather than mitigated the violence against ethnic Albanians. In Libya, however, nobody will be able to say that the brutality against rebels began only after Western intervention. People have been getting mowed down for days and this looks like the only way to make it stop.

Everything Is Under Control

Apparently some people are offended that there are books out recommending that women "train their men like dogs" as if this somehow compromises the dignity of men or are sexist toward them. Granted, the fact that you could never get away with publishing a book recommending men train their women like dogs does make it a bit sexist, but were it more equal, would there be any reason to be offended? No!

Just about everybody is under some degree of social control. Subjecting someone to such control is only cruel or transgressive of personal dignity if it is done poorly, because systems of control that do not lead to the contentment and satisfaction of the controlled are unsustainable.

Let This Be a Lesson to Everyone Else Planning on Making a "Family Film"

Disney spent $175 million on Mars Needs Moms, and it has so far made 4% of that back. There are number of excuses being proposed, like the technology isn't up to snuff or market saturation of 3D CG movies, but hopefully people are just realizing that Disney movies are all fucking garbage and "family films" are nothing but a fascist plot by the Heritage Foundation and other haters of real art to push movies that aren't a bunch of cutesy crap out of the theaters.

Invade Libya?

Before the Iraq war, and during, I held the position that an invasion of Iraq would be justified if it were mainly to aid an indigenous uprising, rather than imposing a new regime from the top down. In Libya, the West seems to have an opportunity to do just that. This seems to be an ideal situation to take action in support of pro-democracy factions fighting to prevent their own slaughter.

Chomsky disagrees in this interview.

What surprised me was his assertion that the overall attitude of the pro-democracy population was that the West has been "mostly asked to stay away". This seems to contrast with this New York Times article that describes the reaction to the UN resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya: "Benghazi erupted in celebration at news of the resolution’s passage. 'We are embracing each other,' said Imam Bugaighis, spokeswoman for the rebel council in Benghazi. 'The people are euphoric. Although a bit late, the international society did not let us down.'"

The Arab League also seems to be in favor of a no-fly zone

Maybe there's a distinction to be made between the West and "the international society" but, given that right now it looks like operations will mainly be carried out by Britain and France, that distinction isn't very clear.

Wisconsin

Those on the right, who oh so often are quick to denounce anyone who dares to suggest that Tea Party protesters, seem to have no problem condemning the protestors in Wisconsin as "violent thugs". They see no irony in this.

Are there some people among the protestors who've said stupid violent things? Sure? That's true of any large group. Will conservatives admit the same about tea-baggers? Apparently not.

Here's a good video about it.

DOMA Dead? Dun Dun DUNNN!!

So Obama has decided not to defend constitutional challenges to the Defence of Marriage Act. What practical difference will this make? One reason DOMA was passed was to prevent same-sex married couples from being able to demand that their marriages from being recognized in states that don't want to recognize them. Will people be able to do this now? Will people be able to cite the full faith and credit clause to force states to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states? Will the SCOTUS uphold its constitutionality without the Attorney General defending it?

Qaddafi on Drugs?

I've just been walking Fareed Zakaria on Parker/Spitzer and they asked him what his impressions of Qaddafi were when he interviewed him before the revolt in Libya. His response: "I seriously thought he was on drugs."

If only Qaddafi were not so brutal, he would be the coolest world leader out there today, with the exception of maybe Berlusconi. He dresses like he's a 17th century European monarch all dolled up for a portrait, and his 40 or 50 bodyguards are all women trained to use high powered weapons. He's like a teenaged boy who's been put in charge of a country.

Market Solution to Global Warming

Most of the really pro-free market guys say they don't believe in global warming, despite the science. Why is this? They seem to like science when it produces profitable technology, but not in this case. Why? I suspect it's because if they admit that global warming is real, that it is caused by human activity, and that it will cause massive problems very soon, their ideology provides no solutions.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that global warming is real, human caused and soon to do great damage. What is the free market solution to this? If clean energy doesn't become more profitable than fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe, how is the market going to address this problem? How do you fix this without state intervention?