The Gadfly Press

Let Us Fight Better: American Muslims and the War on Radical Islam

2012-02-27T17:58:00.001-05:00

Sean Ewart

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/11/what-the-muslims-in-america-can-do/2/

We need to stop pretending that radical Islam is not athreat. The whim of Islamist extremists poses a potentially devastating threatto the world, including other Muslims. In an age of nuclear proliferation andincreasingly accessible biological and chemical weapons, the ability of “oneangry man” is amplified to the extreme. This ability is exponentially increasedby organizations, like Al Qaeda, which are well funded, endorsed, and protectedby a larger network of Islamist governments and sympathetic Muslims. Even in America, 13% of Muslims believe suicide bombings carried out against civilians are often, sometimes, or rarely justified (raresuicide bombings also cause ample destruction). In New York State, thelocation of the World Trade Centerbombing of 1993 and their eventual destruction by Al Qaeda in 2001, the fearis especially acute – and not at all unfounded. Revelations that the New YorkCity Police Department has been spying on Muslim organizations across theNortheast, therefore, come as no surprise. America, including AmericanMuslims, is at war with radical Islam, and has been for decades. Let us fightbetter.

I recently spent an enjoyable evening at a Halal restaurantin Albany, NY, with several Muslim friends. Two ofthem, both Palestinian, were in town to give a presentation about living lifeas a refugee and had been onstage with a Jewish refugee of Nazi Germany justhours before our dinner. Our talk inevitably turned to issues of racialprofiling, especially the type that typically transpires on a regular basis atairports. “They look at my veil and don’t know what to do,” said one of myfriends, a refugee from Gaza,describing her experiences with the Transportation Security Administration.“One of them told me to pat down my veil while they watched – as if I wouldtell them if I had a bomb!” The insanity of the procedure she explained was, ofcourse, telling of the misunderstandings which often confuse interactionsbetween Muslims and the American population at large.

Another of my dinner companions, a Palestinian refugee fromJordan who now works in the United States, said it is even worse being an Arabman going through security checkpoints. “You can’t even imagine,” he said, “in America, itreally pays to be white.” And it’s true enough that white people in Americahave it easy. Even while other whites are blasting away at abortion doctors,blowing up state buildings in Oklahoma,shooting up high schools, and sending bombs in the mail, we get off easy at theairports. Continuing, however, my friend admitted that “anyone who isn’tAmerican” has a hard time. The four of us sitting around the dinner table,being given suggestive glances by the owner who wanted to close early, agreedthat so-called “random” searches at airports are far from random; the TSAshould drop the charade: random searches do us no good.

I relayed a story of a recent flight I took where I made itthrough security without being stopped, all the while wearing a belt bucklewith a gun imprint on it and carrying a book sporting a large image of BinLaden (“When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden”). Instead, the 50 yearold woman behind me was taken for enhanced screening. Considering that men myage are far more likely to be violent than 50 year old women (indeed, thanwomen in general), I was shocked that they did not screen me, or any otheryoung men getting on the small Cessnathat day. Let us fight better.

In the years following 2001, the New York City PoliceDepartment has launched a serious surveillance program targeting Muslims. NewYork Mayor Michael Bloomberg, defending the program, said, “We just cannot letour guard down again.” The scope of the intelligence effort, however, is theproblem. NYPD agents were responsible for undercover surveillance operationsacross Northern New York, Connecticut,Pennsylvania, and New Jersey – far from the city limits. Asnoted by the Associated Press, the NYPD is one of the largest intelligenceagencies in the United States with roughly 1,000 officers dedicatedto intelligence and counter-terrorism. It is tasked with protecting the city of New York, and,obviously, threats often come from outside. However, there are severalproblems, beyond simple issues of jurisdiction, which result from the actionsof the NYPD. The AP reports:

In the past few days, the department has come under firefrom university officials and others, including the president of Yale University,after the AP revealed that police agents had monitored Muslim student groupsaround the Northeast and had sent an undercover agent on a whitewater raftingtrip with some college students.

More criticism came from public officials in New Jersey after another AP report detailed a secreteffort by the NYPD to photograph every mosque in Newark and catalog Muslim businesses.

That operation was an extension of a similar tracking effortwithin New York'scity limits. Plainclothes officers swept through Muslim neighborhoods,photographing mosques and eavesdropping on businesses. Informants reported onwhat they heard inside mosques, including the sermons. Police monitored andkept files on Muslims who Americanized their names. They also infiltratedMuslim student groups.

What we are seeing taking place is an aggressive policy ofreligious profiling targeting Muslims. There are justifications, however. A topconcern is the fact that Muslim student groups, the Muslim Student Associationin particular, have been proven recruiting grounds for terrorist groups.Founded in the 1960’s by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the MSA is in thesame family as organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda – all ofwhich were also Brotherhood spinoffs. The Brotherhood’s current motto is: “Godis our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader,jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of ouraspirations.” MSA alumni include:

Anwaral-Awlaki, an influential American-born al-Qaida cleric who recruited a seriesof homegrown jihadists before being killed by a U.S. drone strike;
AafiaSiddiqui, convicted of attempted murder and assault on U.S. officers and employees in Afghanistan;
ZacharyChesser, convicted of attempting to provide material support to the Somaliterrorist group al-Shabaab and soliciting attacks on "South Park"producers for an episode in which the prophet Muhammad was shown in a bearsuit;
JesseMorton, convicted with Chesser of threatening the South Parkproducers with murder;
AdamGadahn, an al-Qaida spokesman who is on the FBI's Most Wanted List for treasonand material support to al-Qaida;
WaheedZaman, who was convicted of plotting to blow up transatlantic flights;
AdisMedunjanin, who is awaiting trial for plotting to bomb New York subways;
RamyZamzam, who was convicted in Pakistanof conspiring to carry out terrorist attacks;
OmarHammami, who was indicted on charges of providing material support toal-Shabbab and is designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for his terroristconnections;
MuhammadJunaid Babar, who pled guilty to his support to al-Qaida; and
SyedHashmi, who pled guilty to providing material support to al-Qaida.

This is not to say that the MSA is a violent organization.It simply is not. However, it has been a fruitful ground for terroristrecruiters and an incubator of political Islam, therefore, it should be on the radar. And while it is true thatnon-Muslim extremists also pose major threats to the United States, itso-happens that it is Islamic fundamentalism which now dominates the world asthe single largest supplier of terrorist funding, recruitment, rhetoric, andtraining.

The large net cast by the NYPD, however, is clearlyunnecessary. While there is simply nothing wrong with cataloging the onlinepublications of anyone, as the NYPD did with MSA websites and forums, theundercover operations and the sheer scale of the surveillance program is, atbest, wasteful.

According to the RAND Corporation, between 2001 and 2009 atotal of 125 people were identified in 46 cases of “domestic radicalization andjihadist terrorism.” Most of these people were operating alone and most werealso American citizens. Indeed, even while Arab and South Asian immigrantsdisproportionately represent the cases of radicalization, they still accountfor a small percentage of the total Muslim community. Only 1 out of every30,000 Muslims in Americahave joined a jihadist organization or attempted to do it alone. Even moreobvious is that at least 23 of the 125 jihadist ideologues had prior criminalrecords. These people were already threats to Americans at large, includingMuslims. As RAND says, “A mistrust of AmericanMuslims by other Americans seems misplaced.” Let us fight better.

The issue is less complex than it is often made out to be.On the one hand we have a very real threat of Islamic terrorism and Muslimcommunities which have proven receptive to their recruiting methods. On theother hand we have an American Muslim community which is overwhelmingly non-radicalized,anti-terrorist, and willing to cooperate with the authorities against effortsby those who pose a threat to us all. Muslims are not immune to terroristattacks. Efforts similar to those taken by the NYPD which group all Muslims together, as they havebeen doing since 2001, are disastrous as they create a trust gap between thepolice and those communities best able to identify targets within their ownmembership. Muslims need to be encouraged to work with the police; the currentregime of religious profiling is only making it harder for this to happen. In as much as random searches at the airports do us no good, neither do random searches of American Muslims. We need anti-terrorism programs which include, rather than ostracize, the American Muslim community. We need anti-terrorism programs which seek to build, rather than destroy, bridges. We need, in short, anti-terrorism programs which protect citizens, not victimize them. Let us fight better.

First they came for the communists,
andI didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the tradeunionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a tradeunionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and Ididn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there wasno one left to speak out for me.
-- pastor Martin Niemöller

God or Country: The Fight for Church and State

2012-02-24T11:02:00.000-05:00

Sean Ewart

http://www.oldfortchurch.com/news_detail.php?news_id=43

I detest what you write, but I wouldgive my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. –Voltaire

In the ongoing debate over governmentmandated reproductive healthcare and its intrusion on the freedom ofreligion, my co-nontheists and social liberals seem to have forgottenthe words of Voltaire. The conflict over the rights of religiousinstitutions verses the rights of employees is indeed only a proxybattle which is indicative of the larger war between secularism andtheism which is becoming increasingly bellicose in our society. Inthe past, conflicts relating to religious freedoms were contained todifferences between people of faith. Today, as roughly 16% ofthe nation now identifies with no religious organization, the war isbeing fought between those who believe and those who do not. As aproud member of the atheist camp, I recognize those constitutionalprotections which have allowed us to grow so large in a nation onceso deeply religious. It is true that even the religious are nowacting largely with disregard to their professed faith. Butas we are growing in representation, and thus, in power, we should bevigilant to ensure that we do not violate those same constitutionalprotections which, to this very day, still provide a platform fromwhich to voice our opinion. I say to my religious opponents, in thespirit of Voltaire, that I detest what you believe, but I woulddefend to the death your right to believe.

Government has long interfered with theactions of the religious. The 1882 Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act is aperfect example. Long before the rise of secularism in America, ahighly religious society decided the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-Day Saints had gone too far. But today’s environment ofincreasing insistence on the freedom from religion is farremoved from the days of religious sensibilities offended by thehedonism of a bizarre cult in Utah. Since 1882, for instance, womenhave been given the right to vote, black Americans have been givenequal status under the law, and homosexuals are increasingly beingbrought into the mainstream. Even the religious are liberalizing;despite strict prohibition on the use of contraceptives by theCatholic Church, 98% of Catholic women in America have used them.Among the American youth, 25% of people ages 18-29 are religiously“unaffiliated.” America increasingly desires that the separationof church and state is interpreted to mean that there can be noreligious influence in public life. Leave your convictions at church,thank you very much.

Belief, however, is the catalyst foraction – just observe the enormous voting block which is thereligious right. Convictions are no more left at church thanscientific laws are left in laboratories. Indeed there has beendemonstrated a clear correlation between religiosity andconservatism, as measured by regular attendance to religiousservices, how important you believe religion to be, and how often youpray; a correlation also exists between liberalism and non-theism.Does one cause the other? Perhaps, although it is impossible tomeasure without further data. What is clear is that political thoughtand religious thought are not entirely separate spheres. What youbelief about the nature of the supernatural has a direct impact onhow you interact with the more mundane and tangible realities whichdirect public policy. Just look at the American public's view on theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict which has been on going for nearly acentury all-told, and is a complex an highly nuanced subject based onreligious and practical concerns. As of 2005, a full 22% of Americanssaid that religion is the biggest factor in determining their view ofIsrael – in 2003, 44% of Americans said that god had given the landof Palestine to the Jews. The separation of church and state wasestablished to maintain the free exercise of religion by Americancitizens. Any expectations that religious feeling should have noplace in public discourse are sadly removed from reality. In otherwords, “Expect my beliefs to influence my actions.”

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

The question, therefore, is how far weare willing to tolerate the actions of the faithful. In 1882 Americadecided that the Mormon Church had crossed the line with polygamy,and today our sensibilities are far less based upon religious feelingthan our 19^th century predecessors. Can Catholic hospitalsrefuse to preform abortions? Must religious institutions providecoverage for women's reproductive healthcare? Do religious groupswhich operate on college campuses have the right to discriminateagainst homosexuals? The answers to these questions depend largelyupon qualitative ideals. Is abortion something other thaninfanticide? Is reproductive healthcare the right way to preventunwanted pregnancies? Is homosexuality wrong? Merely establishing aconstitutional separation of church and state is one thing, applyingit is a far more difficult prospect. We can see this playing out inthe battle being waged over homosexual civil rights. Argumentsagainst gay marriage, for instance, are necessarily couched in religious terms, while those of us who are pro civil rights arguefrom a sociological and scientific vantage point. Regardless of whichside inevitably wins, the very process of democracy ensures thatreligion will not be separate from public policy. So long as ballotsare cast by religious people, the separation of church and state canonly be a protection against undue governmental interference inreligious expression. Religion interferes with government by natureof its existence. All for thegood, but the question remains: what qualifies as undue governmentalinterference?

Federal anti-discrimination law has what is known as “Exemptions for Discrimination Based on Religion.” According to the law, theseexemptions apply to organizations whose “purpose and character areprimarily religious... discrimination is not permitted on any basisother than religion.” A further clause states that “A separate'ministerial' exception based on the First Amendment preventsinterference between a religious institution and its ordained clergy,an individual effectively acting in that capacity, or an individualintimately involved in religious indoctrination.” In other words,the government cannot tell the Catholic Church who can and cannot bea priest. However, there is an interesting clause attached to thiswhich says “religious organization may not pay women less than meneven if policy is in accordance with its religious beliefs.”Indeed, this varies on a state by state basis as well. New YorkState, for example, already has legislation in place which mandatesthat religious institutions provide coverage for women's reproductivehealthcare. Where is the line? Is discrimination against homosexualsreligiously based? What about racial discrimination?

Theline, obviously, is how it affects society. Currently religiousorganizations are tax exempt and therefore effectually subsidized bythe government. Clearly the right to believe must be protected, butthe right to act according to your beliefs is tricky. Polygamists donot have that right, and neither do those who believe that womenshould make less money than men. And while it is generally agreedthat religious institutions like churches, mosques, synagogues,temples, and meditation centers are free to discriminate as theyplease (see Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission),religious universities and hospitals are another matter entirely.Especially glaring is the divide between churches and hospitals:churches are opt-in whereashospitals are compulsory. Youchoose to go to church, you are required, by medical emergency, to goto the hospital. If religious organizations are not comfortableproviding modern medicine such as reproductive healthcare to theirpatients or employees, they should not be in the business ofmedicine. Indeed, the same is true for churches to a degree. Whilechurches should maintain the right to believe what they will, andpractice their beliefs where they do not infringe on the rights ofothers, the greater public should not be expected to payfor it. Churches should beallowed to discriminate as they feel lead, but let them pay taxes. Toput in bluntly: tax exemptions exist to support organizations whichpromote the public good, once churches fail to do that, bydiscriminating against one segment of the public or another, or bydenying modern medicine, they should likewise lose public money.Believe what you like, hate who you will, but not with my taxdollars.

In keeping with thespirit of Voltaire, we should always support the rights of religiouspeople and institutions to believe what they will. However, theactions which inevitably result from these beliefs are neither sacrednor protected. Furthermore, the discrimination which takes place inchurches is far from a promotion of public good, and the religioushierarchy is often out of step with its own congregation. Religiousorganizations should be fiercely protected, even by non-theists, fromforces which seek to undermine their constitutional protection. Thefreedom to believe what you will, to say what you want, and to act asyou please, without infringing on the rights of others, arefoundational American values. Tax-exemption, however, is not.Likewise, religious organizations which provide public services, likehealthcare, should not be allowed to apply dogmatic whims when theycontradict modern scientific understanding. I will close with onelast revision of Voltaire:

To my religiousopponents: I detest what you believe, but I would defend to the deathyour right to believe. I detest what you say, but I would defend tothe death your right to speak. I detest what you do... but I cannotdefend what you do.

Cosmetic Psychopharmacology Part Two

2012-02-23T23:08:00.001-05:00

This is the second of a multiple part series exploring Cosmetic Psychopharmacology. It includes the text of Joe's thesis and will culminate in a reanalysis and break down of the piece. Read Part One Here.

Joe Chiarenzelli

How Can We DifferentiateMorality and Policy in Regards to Cosmetic Psychopharmacology?

An important aspect of any moral inquest is to clearlyshow where morality and legality diverge. When we engage in moral reasoning wemust be unencumbered by the context of legality. This is of the utmostimportance because it allows us to move from legality, which is determined byboth time and place, to morality, which attempts to be unbounded by both (evenit if is questionable whether morality achieves this). For example, take theperiod at the dawn of the 20th century—prohibition—when alcohol was illegal in the United States. The federalgovernment enacted and enforced this law for a period of roughly ten yearsuntil prohibition was ended. While within this ten-year period it was illegalto possess alcohol, on either side of this ten-year period it was not illegal.Take for example a laborer in New York City: in 1918 he could sit in his homeand drink whiskey to his heart's content. Now, suppose, unbeknownst to him, heis suddenly teleported 7 years into the future. He is now performing an illegalact, but the act itself has not changed only the legislation regarding it.According to the letter of the law, this man could be carted off to jail.Suppose he hops through time again, 10 years into the future, afterprohibition. Again, he is performing the same act with the same set ofcircumstances that 10 years ago was illegal and 17 years ago was legal. This illustrateshow legality is bound to time; things can become illegal or legal as timeprogresses. We can see this same situation relative to place. Suppose the man,instead of moving through time, at the height of prohibition is transported toFrance. His actions are no longer illegal because at that time the French hadno restriction on alcohol consumption. If he moved suddenly back to the UnitedStates, he would again be performing an illegal act.

Morality is not like this. When we speak of morality wespeak in terms of what would be correct or incorrect action in relation to aspecific context. For example Immanuel Kant believed that it was always wrongto tell a lie. If we take this as the morality that informs our actions then wewould never lie, even if we were in another time or another place. What makesmorality different from legality is that, from the point of a static moralposition, the same exact response will be prescribed as a result of that moralreasoning every time.

However, morality and legality are linked. Societies relyon moral philosophy to inform how legal structures should work. Therefore wecan see that morality is the backbone upon which legality attempts to drapeitself. This is important because it gives moral reasoning the potential tocraft laws with a consistent logic. This potential for moral reasoning issalient to our investigation of the ethics of cosmetic psychopharmacology forseveral reasons. First, at present, the use of cosmetic psychopharmaceuticalsis in a legal grey area. While doctors can prescribe drugs off label they canalso be prosecuted for doing so. For instance, if I went to a psychiatrist withno actual symptoms of ADHD and I convinced them to give me a prescription for apsychostimulant like Ritalin, a schedule II drug, a psychiatrist would berisking their medical license. This, however, does not necessarily mean thatthe psychiatrist would be wrong in giving me the medication for the purposes ofenhancement, which is the question that we are trying to address. And secondly,we must remember that drugs such as Ritalin, which are illegal to possesswithout a prescription, are not necessarily immoral but are in fact illegal topossess and use.

Keeping all of this in mind we must attempt to remove ourbias to regard all things illegal as bad. Certainly some illegal things arebad, i.e. rape or murder. Almost all moral systems consider both crimes are badactions. Our own legal system reflects this by making them harshly punishedcrimes. But, contrarily, look at how slavery was legal but has been decried bymost schools of moral philosophy. It is for these reasons that we must makesure not to confuse our inquest into the morality of the issue with ourlegislature's stance.

The History of CosmeticPsychopharmaceuticals

Before we canget to the morality of cosmetic psychopharmaceuticals we need to look at someiconic examples of this genus of drugs. To this end we will look at severaltraditionally used compounds that have been seen to elicit a cosmetic response.These compounds may not have been used expressly for the purpose of augmentingabilities but through modern testing we have seen that they are capable ofincreasing intellectual ability or producing mind states that are beneficial tosocializing. Then we will look at compounds that have been developed and usedexpressly for the treatment of mental disorders such as ADHD or depression.These medications have been developed after the medical revolution and havepassed through FDA testing for safety and efficacy. These compounds have beensynthesized or altered from naturally occurring substances. These sets are byno means exhaustive but the historically used compounds include: Caffeine,Cocaine, Nicotine, and Alcohol and the modern substances are: selectiveserotonin reuptake inhibitors and the psychostimulants Modafinil,Methylphenidate, and Adderall, a mix ofAmphetamine salts.

Broken Wings

2012-02-22T19:01:00.000-05:00

Ruhi Al-Ahmed

Trapped in a crimson rusty cage
You have swallowed the key
I'm slowly growing in age
Given up. I let it be.
I let you be

Feathers of green, red, yellow
fallen to the floor
I am naked, with no choice
A lack of color in me
I no longer sing with this voice
I let it be
I let you be

I am waiting for the day
when these broken wings
find the strength to fly away
Peaceful, soulful
I am yearning for that day
when the wind whispers on my skin
Gently, smoothly
shall it be

Discovering myself gradually
in this world I have been caged from
Locked up. Shattered. Silenced from.
But the key still dangles from a thread
Like hope... that I ferociously dread

Hope remains
my weakness will be drained
I will be free
I'll let it be

To read about why Ruhi left Islam, read: Why I Left Islam

Chance Encounters of the 1,387,438th Kind

2012-02-21T23:51:00.000-05:00

Pierce Smith

So, I was in HinmanDining Hall eating my lunch solo. I was trying to eat kind of quicklybecause I left my Management Information Systems homework to the lastminute, and I needed to head back to the library to finish it. It'salways so crowded in the dining halls during lunch. So, this kidwalks up to my table, and asks if he can sit across from me. I didn'treally hear what he said through my headphones, but I just said,"Yeah, yeah, sure." I kept working on my macaroni, andlistening to my music. After about a minute, I decided I'd take offmy headphones, and talk with the kid. It's just weird for me tosit across from someone in silence like that.

"So, what'syour name, man?"

"Lawrence."

"Cool. cool.So, what's your major?"

"I studyengineering."

"Yeah, whatkind of engineering?"

"I'm not sureyet, either mechanical or electrical."

"So, what yearare you, dude?" I asked completely expecting him to sayfreshman. He looked young. Just a frail, little white kid with ashaved head.

"Me? I'm afreshman. How about you?"

"I'm a senior."

"And what'syour major?" Lawrence queried.

"I study psychand business." I said as I took a big bite of fish.

"Interesting...whatdo you plan to do with that?"

I chewed over myfish, as I waited to respond. A moment later, I finally swallowed,and then spit out my reply. "I'm actually gonna be takin'the LSATs this Saturday. I'm hopefully going to law school next year.I wanta understand international and contract law so I canmediate negotiations between Chinese and American businesses. Iforgot to tell you, I lived in China for a little while, and I canspeak some Chinese. So, yeah I'm hoping I'll be able to weave some ofthese things together."

"Cool man. Butwhere does the psych come in?"

"Oh, I juststudy that one cuz I'm interested in it."

"Yeah, I'minterested in psych, too. I actually wanted to be a psychiatrist, butdecided it would be too much work."

"More work thanengineering?" I said incredulously.

"Well, yeah, Imean, psychiatry you have to do so many years of school. Then a fewyears of residency..."

"Yeah, that'smore time-consuming," I interjected. "But I still think theengineering work would be harder."

"Well, I'vealways been good at math and science, in high school, you know."

"Word. I hearya. So where ya from, man?"

"Me? I'm local.I drive to school everyday."

"Oh, cool. Whattown are ya from?"

"Endicott."

"Oh, really,I'm from Norwich. So, you play any sports for Union-Endicott?"

"Yeah, tennis."

"That'sawesome, man. Tennis is great exercise."

"Yup, yup."

"So, what areyour hobbies, dude?"

"Partying."He stopped for a second, and gave me a funny look. Then I nodded myhead to goad some more hobbies out of him. "Reading." Hesaid with emphasis. "Yeah I like to read books. Well,actually I just like to read one book, The Bible."

Whoa, I thought tomyself. This boy needs a bit of education. "So, you're a prettydevout Christian, eh?"

"Yes."

"Well, that'sgood man. That's good that you're spiritual. Everyone ought to bespiritual. But me, I just can't believe that Christian shit."

"Why not? TheBible is never self-contradicting. It all makes a lot of sense onceyou really read it."

"...Well thatmay be. But, ya know, I told you I study psych, which is a prettyscientific field. And the more you learn about psych, the more youlearn about biology, the more you learn about physics, about anyscience, the more you wonder, 'why the fuck wasn't any of thisimportant shit mentioned in The Bible?' Why does the stuff in theBible contradict a lot of these known truths about the universe."

"Yeah, but whatmade the universe? I mean, yeah energy created the Big Bang, and thenlater some rocks came together to form the Earth, and then somechemicals came together to produce life...Doesn't it all sound tooimprobable to have happened without a Creator?"

"Well, it isvery improbable that any one reality exists. I mean, you know it'sone in a billion. Actually it's way more than that it's like 10 tothe hundredth power, or some ridiculous number I can't evencomprehend. But whatever the chances of any reality existing arevanishingly small. But that's the whole idea of parallel universesand alternate realities."

"Yeah, but.."

"Yeah, butpositing a Creator is even more improbable than that!" Iinterjected forcefully. "As hard as it is to explain thebig bang, and the beginning of life, it's much easier to explainthose than to explain a Creator. What created the Creator? You needsome Deux Ex Machina to come and create the Creator, and theneverything's solved!" I said mockingly.

"Yeah, butdoesn't it just make sense that there's a God? There's more to thisworld than just matter."

"Yes, that'strue. Everything in this world, can't just be described in terms ofmatter. But there is a physical and mathematical aspect to everyphenomenon. For instance, in psych you can describe something interms of the behavior itself, the social context of the behavior, theneurochemical processes that elicit the behavior, the evolutionarypressures that created the need for the behavior, and so on..."

"Yes, I knowthat. I know some things about psych. I have OCD actually. So, I'velearned some things just through my own experience."

"ObsessiveCompulsive Disorder?" I said with surprise. I couldn't believethis kid I just met had told me this, but it was just the beginning.

"Yeah,Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Depression. So, I've spent sometime with psychologists." He said with a nervous laugh.

"Well, that'sinteresting..." My whole emotional state and perspective on thislittle chat seismically changed with those few short sentences. "Whendid you find out?"

"I was in 6thgrade when they diagnosed me with OCD."

"And were youdepressed all that time?" I asked intently. I would've beenshocked to hear about a 6th grader with clinical depression. It justdoesn't happen too often. Kids are happy. Teenagers get sad.

"No, thedepression didn't start until 12th grade."

"So, lastyear?"

"Yeah. Mypsychiatrist tried to switch around some of my meds because theythought it would help, but I just ended up crashing. Just couldn'treally do anything, but lie in my bed miserably...My mind was sopolluted. I thought about commiting suicide. I was pretty close."He let out a mirthless chuckle. "And that's actually how I gotinto reading the Bible. You know I just felt like there was nopurpose--no reason to go on. But then I started reading theBible, and it gave me hope. It gave me a purpose--to serve God...Imean don't you feel like without God that there's just no purpose tolife?"

I looked up atthe roof of the cafeteria. That last question stung me a bit. I don'tknow if many people know it, but I've actually had my own struggleswith depression throughout the years. Nothing clinical. Althoughmy Dad did want me to get therapy in high school, butI was such an incorrigible lad that I just told him to fuck off, andwent and played FIFA Street. I sighed, "Yeah, I know whatya mean. I feel that purposelessness. But I don't know..." Wewere silent for a moment, then I asked, "So man, I actuallydon't know too much about OCD. Could you educate me a little?"

"Yeah, well OCDis an anxiety disorder. For instance, today I parked over in the MLot. And I saw someone I knew and I said hi to them while I waslocking my car. So, the whole time through philosophy class I justkept thinking 'did I lock my car? Is someone breaking in?' Ya knowthose kinds of thoughts. But just a million of 'em a minute."

"Yeah, I hearya. I often get anxious about forgetting little things like thattoo." I replied in a pathetic attempt at consolation.

"Yeah, but itdoesn't consume your entire being. When I'm thinking about somethinglike that, that's all I'm thinking about, and I just can't stop theloop."

"Yeah, yeah.That must be rough." This reminded me of something a psychologyprofessor of mine once told our class, "The only thing thatseparates mental illness from normal distressing psychologicalexperiences is; frequency, severity, and duration." Frequency.Severity. Duration. I believe it. "So anyway man," Icontinued, "what kind of symptoms have you had in the past?"

"Oh, it goes incycles. Phases, really. You know, I had a cleanliness phase, wherenothing could ever be clean enough. And recently I had a Scrupulosityphase."

"Scrupulosity?"

"Yeah, it'swhere you always think you should be praying, and reading the Bible.Things like that."

"Wow, that'svery interesting. I'd never heard of that. Well, a lot of greatpeople have had OCD. I know David Beckham has a mild case, orsomething. Apparently, his compulsions are practicing his shot andhis passes all the time."

"Yeah. Iactually had a phase where I was pretty obsessed with success. Thatwas part of what led to my crash. Just trying to do so much schoolwork, and do my best, or whatever. But I'm past that now. I justwanta earn enough to provide for a family."

"I hear ya.That's an honest goal, man."

"Yeah, I justfigure what's the point with that, right? I'd be pursuing success forall these selfish reasons. And now I'm at college where there are alot of talented, driven kids, and if I tried to compete with all ofthem, I'd probably crash myself again. And I figure whether I get a2.0 or a 4.0, I still get the same diploma. So, as long as I can passI'll be happy."

"Haha. That'strue man. Not too much competition in U-E or Norwich High, that's fordamn sure. But yeah that's a good idea, man." Silence returnedto us, and I finished up my yogurt, as I thought about his hobbies."Yo, you said that you liked to party, right?"

"No, I didn'tsay that." He said with a quizzical grin as he shook his head.

"Yeah, I didn'tthink you were that type of guy. I must've misheard you earlier.Shit, I just get so used to all the white people here telling methat their favorite hobby is partying. I must've just expectedyou to say it. That's good that you don't party, dude. That stuffbrings you down. Do your own thing."

Now that I was doneeating, I needed to head back to the library. But this conversationseemed a lot more important than a routine MIS assignment. I wantedto say something to this kid. I didn't know what. You know? Just lethim know I heard him. Let him know it meant something to me that hewould be so honest with me. I gave him my name and phone numberand told him to contact me if he ever wanted to hang out, or neededany advice about university life. But I needed to say something morebefore I left. Part of me wanted to tell him that God had brought ustogether today. But I didn't know if I could keep a straight facewhile I said that. "Well, Lawrence, I'm glad you sat down atthis table. It was real nice talking to you. I hope we'll keep intouch."

"Yeah, me too.See ya."

And off I went backto the library. I wanted to start writing about the conversation thenand there. But the success bug still has me, so I finished myhomework. I couldn't stop thinking about our conversation all day,and I vowed that I'd write it up as soon as I got back home. Butafter class, I stopped at that same dining hall to pick up somedinner. I ended up sitting with a Chinese buddy of mine. It wasMonday, so I was still excited about the New York Giants' unexpectedvictory over the Philadelphia Eagles. So, I talked to him about thegame and he taught me the Chinese word for rival (宿敌,in case anybody out there gives a shit), and a few othersports-related words. We walked out of the cafeteria together, and aswe parted ways, I saw Lawrence sitting on a bench 20 yards away,reviewing some flash cards.

"Hey, Lawrence,what's up buddy?" I said as I approached.

"Oh, heyPierce." He said as he looked up from his flash cards.

"So, youstudying for a quiz or something?" I asked as I squatted downnext to him.

"Oh, no, theseare just some Biblical verses I'm trying to memorize."

"Whoa, can Itake a look?"

"Yeah, sure."

I looked down atthese flash cards and they've got some pretty inspiring verses onthem.

"Yeah, thesearen't the best verses." Lawrence said to me.

"Why not?"I asked.

"I mean, forconvincing someone about God."

"Yeah, I hearya. But people who read the Bible don't need convincing. Theseverses aren't really about convincing, man. They're about inspiring.They're good."

"Yeah, theyare."

"So, anywayman, what are you doing sitting out here?"

"Oh, I'm justwaiting to go to a meeting for this project I have."

"Yeah, what'sthe project for?"

"It's an adrenoproject. Every freshman engineering student has to do it..."Lawrence went on about some details of the project, and I asked him afew more questions about it. All fairly geeky stuff. I don't feellike boring everyone here with that. Fact is I'm grateful you've hadthe patience to read to this point.

Anyway, as I walkedup the hill back to my dorm, I thought about those flash cards, andthree words popped into mind. Frequency. Severity. Duration. Iwondered what a full blown case of scrupulosity must look like. Isighed. I thought about some recent conversations I've had with anold buddy of mine. He and I are both fairly committed Atheists. He'sbeen encouraging me to be more proactive about trying toeducate believers, which I applaud. I'm always eager to hear that. Ithink this world would be a much better place without organizedreligions. But still it's tough to try to disabuse people oftheir delusions. Especially, when you meet a good kid like Lawrence,who's had some bad luck, and needs the religion to help him getthrough. I can't express to you how horrible I would feel if I knewthat my arguments against God and religion brought Lawrence back todepression...let alone if he fell into such a dark hole that hekilled himself. I don't have the heart for that. Truth be damned.

It's tough to have apurpose without religion. Lawrence was right about that. I mean thereis a purpose to life. It's nothing magical and special like thereligious charlatans would have you believe. It's to procreate andspread your genes, and just keep on going in this rat race ofexistence. But that's not too edifying.

A lot of people cango through life with no real purpose, and that's just fine for them.You can keep yourself distracted, and away from the bigquestions...and the big answers, with a lot of stuff. And thedistractions become more numerous with each passing day (e.g. the newfacebook ticker on the top right hand corner), and the masses remaindocile, and the world keeps spinnin'.

Despite my ratherscientific analyses of most situations, I'm actually a very spiritualperson by nature. It's just in my blood. My mother and father aregood Protestant folk--honest, hardworking, loyal. I try to take thatreligious discipline and apply it to secular fields. But still,what's the purpose? When you're religious you try to do right by God,and that's your purpose. That's what matters.

But what's thesecular purpose? Progress? Towards what?

Helping others? Toaccomplish what?

Actualizing yourpotential? Potential to do, or become what?

I guess that'swhat's so great about religion. Once God answers every question, youcan just stop asking them. It's nice. It's comforting. But maybe thegreatest thing a person can do is to accept that they have noinherent purpose. Isn't that the most admirable? To keep on marchingin the face of an infinite abyss. To work for its own sake. To doright by other people, just because that's what they deserve, notbecause God told you to.

Maybe that's mypurpose in life. To just keep on keepin' on for the sake of keepin'on. I don't fuckin' know.

The American Night

2012-02-21T19:51:00.000-05:00

Chris Hall

Fromthe sweat soaked hollow scenes of the American Night, in hazy paintedmonochrome, dead fingers clutching onto the hallowed prizes, seethinginstinct, dulled brain ache, heavy foot falls, sticky floors in blackwalled dance halls, bodies pressed against walls and other bodies,hard encounters of hip bones and denim grinding, swift retreats, thetepid swarm of alcohol in fertile minds, like a virus, like a selfinflicting bleeding, bleeding vision, colors bleeding into thebrownout frames absence, warm deft selves locking pieces together,and synapse, deadening formation, in formation, in lockstep breathingmasses and swarmed presence, there existed the beginning of atemporal switching sequence, like lever throws, or streams of focusunder retinal dream sequence, in fervid encounter, in visceraldead-pan: what series of these Nights would lead to anything besidesthe new morning, where leaves of grass unstick from their tension,twitching into sky-reach, into posture, this body, now sought after,and controlled––hands will grind dust into plastic, intoergonomic rapture, the lure of cybernetic fusion, this body, its wetmatter, its slow wending of breath and congealing blood––nowformed in the Night under some organizing dream of thermodynamicsymphony, one unit, one agent of dreamed agency, it seeks.

Nowwe are at the critical junction, as we always were, not adjusting butbeing, in this box of cheap tricks––combustion on the highwaygrowls across miles––we can now camp in the Night as ifdestitute, we are now in the desolate calm of the relaxationresponse. It has given us all it can give. The rest is up to us.

Clarifying Cosmetic Psychopharmacology

2012-02-20T18:01:00.000-05:00

This is the first of a multiple part series exploring Cosmetic Psychopharmacology. It includes the text of Joe's thesis and will culminate in a reanalysis and break down of the piece.

Clarifying Cosmetic Psychopharmacology

Joseph Chiarenzelli

Introduction

The last one hundred years have brought with them a greatdeal of advances in humankind's knowledge of its own biological functioning.Along with this increase in scientific knowledge have come new ways tointervene and effect change in hopes of abating illness and other lifethreatening conditions. This field is limited to practitioners of the medicalsciences, who use their discretion to treat patients suffering from any number ofmaladies. Medical treatment typically takes the form of reactivecountermeasures to rectify biological malfunctions. For instance, if anindividual is having an allergic reaction he or she will go to a doctor who,typically, will supply them with a prescription for an antihistaminergic agentthat will counteract the elevated levels of histamine in the blood. However,there are notable exceptions to this reactive model, one of the most well-knownis the use of vaccinations to create immunityto viruses that could potentially be encountered in a person’s life time.Doctors are now pushing more and more for proactive personal efforts to remainhealthy such as diet and exercise. This reduces the number of cases that needreactive intervention to correct problems.

In recent times there have also been many developments incognitive health fields, biology, psychology, and neuroscience. Typically apatient will see a psychiatrist in an effort to correct perceived problems intheir mental function. These problems are approached through eitherpsychotherapy or medication, the latter of which is important to our currentinquest. These medications can range from having a large behavior alteringeffect to rather small and unnoticeable results. However, unlike in cases ofbacterial, viral, allergic etc. cases these cognitive disorders do not havestrict biological markers such as the presence or absence of certain compounds.Instead, cognitive disorders are typically described by behaviors (which aresubjective to the treatment professional) that have been agreed upon byprofessionals in a book such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders [DSM].

Though some subjectivity is implicit due toepistemological barriers between a psychiatrist and a patient, oftenpsychiatrists will come to the same conclusion about a patient (Kessler et al2009). This validates the use of behavioral markers as a means of diagnosingcognitive disorders at least until the point that biological markers can beestablished. Further, this allows a psychiatrist to be trusted (by patients ingeneral), to a practical degree, to identify sets of mental behavior thatcorrespond with a diagnosis.

However, we must first know what a disorder"is" before applying it, with its attached negative connotations, topsychiatric patients. In general a disorder is considered to be emotional,experiential, or thought based disruptions that make it difficult, or preventindividuals, from sustaining interpersonal relationships or act as contributingmembers of society (i.e. work) (Perring 2010). This definition is inherentlybased on practical considerations and not on ontological considerations, due tothe epistemological barriers between two minds along with the context dependentnature of any proclamation of a cognitive disorder. For example, in a societyfull of individuals who do not wear clothes a clothed individual would seem tohave a mental disorder, just as the opposite is true in our society. Thisdistinction is a normative one, but is an important part of how we distinguishbetween healthy and unhealthy individuals. To address these epistemological andsocietal concerns however would require a great deal of postulation andanalysis of theoretical situations and would not have useful praxis. If weassume that most individuals are concerned with helping those that can bedefined as having a mental disorder in practicality (which negatively effectstheir quality of life), rather than debating the various merits of ontologicaldistinctions between mental fitness and a lack there of, then we can use thisbroad definition of emotional, experiential, and thought based disruptions thatcause difficulty sustaining interpersonal relationships or contributing tosociety as a metric to pronounce the relative mental order/disorder ofindividuals.

But now that we have our definition for mental disorder,what of those people who, by our metric, are mentally healthy yet do not havethe interpersonal relationships they want or cannot contribute in the way theydesire to society from lack of intellectual or social ability? For example,what if there is a janitor who can function in society and interpersonally butwould like to be able to work with more numbers in his short term memory inorder to become a mathematician. It is on these individuals that our lens comesto rest, those who do not have a mental disorder, but are not mentally who theywould like to be. It is these individuals, who seek to amplify or augment theirabilities through psychopharmalogical means that fall under the purview ofcosmetic psychopharmacology. I will demonstrate that the best means by which toevaluate those who wish to use psychopharmaceutical aid for cosmetic purposesis a utilitarian system that has Mill's harm principle as a central tenet. Thisethic also requires some systematic changes to how medicine is currentlyperformed and how pharmaceutical companies conduct themselves. My methodologyis simple, I will set up the current trends and facts about cosmeticpsychopharmacology then construct an argument using utilitarian principles as aframework to craft a system where cosmetic psychopharmacology would be morallypermissible.

What is CosmeticPsychopharmacology?

To get started with analysis we must first define ourterms and accordingly establish their conjunctive meaning. Much as in the term"cosmetic surgery" we can take cosmetic to mean "Having power toadorn, embellish, or beautify" (Oxford English Dictionary), however inthis context we must take appearance to mean behavioral appearance(personality) or, more clearly, how we mentally interact with our environment.Psychopharmacology is much easier to define, simply, "the psychotropicproperties or characteristics of (a drug or other substance)" (OxfordEnglish Dictionary).

Cosmetic Psychopharmacology is a neologism whichoriginated in a book by Dr. Peter D. Kramer in 1993 entitled, Listening toProzac, which explored the ethical and social ramifications of usingpharmacological means to allow a mentally fit individual to augment theirsocial or intellectual abilities (Kramer 1993). This book opened a whole newfield of ethics which, accordingly, has been dubbed cosmetic psychopharmacologyor neuroethics. It raised important questions such as: "Does a medicalprofessional have the right to prescribe psychopharmaceuticals for the purposeof enhancing function?," "Does a medical professional have the rightto deny a patient pharmaceuticals that could help achieve that patient’sdesired mental state?" and, "To whom does the responsibility ofadverse effects of pharmaceuticals fall, the patient or the prescriber?"

This area of bioethics has subsequently gained muchground in the amount of attention received from both practitioners of medicineand philosophers who focus on bioethics. There has been no clear consensusamong those focusing on the issue and, further, no specific guidelines indealing with these situations for doctors. This is a result of A) not beingable to ontologically distinguish healthy mental faculties from unhealthymental faculties and B) various points of view on just what exactly apharmaceutical is doing: is it changing behavior but leaving the self-intact?,or is it fundamentally altering the self?

What Does it Mean to beHealthy?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO),"Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing andnot merely the absence of disease or infirmity." But as we have seen,drawing a line between mental fitness and mental unfitness is notoriously difficult.Due to this we delineate by saying that mental disorder results in an inabilityto maintain interpersonal relationships or contribute as a productive member ofsociety. Using this definition we can clearly eliminate all those who sufferfrom mental disorders as defined by the psychiatric community (e.g. DSM),because these disorders negatively affect either or both of these criterion.

This leads us to another question. Can an individual whoworks as a janitor but aspires to be a mathematician justifiably say that he ishealthy albeit less healthy than those currently in the occupation he desires?It certainly seems that this question gets at a level of nuance not apparent inthe dichotomy of health and ill health. Our janitor raises the question, can hejustifiably seek out medical help, though he is healthy, to attain a preferredstate of mental ability? This question is at the very route of the ethics ofcosmetic pyschopharmacology.

Can we OntologicallyDistinguish between Curative Methods and Augmentary Methods?

Our friend the janitor presents to us a quandary. Wouldprescribing a drug that boosts his ability to manipulate mathematical symbolsbe curing his state of ill health or augmenting his already present health?This question requires a detour into the field of ontology to establish whatexactly an ontological distinction is.

To take a classic example of an ontological distinctionin the field of philosophy we can look to fifteenth century philosopher ReneDescartes, of "cogito ergo sum" fame. He proposed that thethere was an ontological distinction between the mind and the body, essentiallythat there was a different mode of existence for the mind and the body. Heposited that the mind was a nonmaterial entity, not based in matter and thusnot requiring either extension or motion and being exempt from physical laws.The body on the other hand was bound to physical reality and had both extensionand motion. He claimed that these two things were ontologically distinctbecause they did not share the same parameters of existence.

This type of distinction can also be found when we talkabout the living and the dead. An individual who is dead necessarily does nothave thoughts, dreams, or biological functions that reside within the sameparameters as those who are alive. An individual who is dead ceases to mentallyreside on the same level of existence as those who are living do (or cease toexist at all depending on who you ask). This distinction allows us to clearlydelineate between those who are still alive and those who are not.

However when we take this model of distinction and applyit to the field of Cosmetic Psychopharmacology we encounter problems withdelineation that are not apparent in the simple examples given above (whetherthese examples are accurate or not are up for debate, but for our purposesthese demonstrate the form that an ontological distinction would take). PamelaBjorkland (2005) illustrates this difficulty using the case of Prozacand clinical depression. She highlights the fact that physical analysis ofbrain structures does not give us an accurate view into what an individual isactually thinking or experiencing, though it may correlate. She argues that,"Depression,then, even the so-called clinical kind that Prozac can sometimes treat so well,is always more than reductive materialism would have it. It is never simplybiological, although it may be at least, or perhaps even mostlybiological." This is a validcritique and shows us that there is an inherent problem for those studying abrain to ontologically establish whether mental faculties are necessarily morehealthy or less healthy. The inability to draw lines in mental health is due tothe fact that we can never actually measure a person's consciousness withoutfirst establishing a system of evaluation that relies on a person's actions or comments. She further points to theimportant distinction between depression as a pathological disorder as opposedto depression as a mood, the latter type is not persistent. By highlightingthese instances of difficulty in ontologically establishing healthy fromunhealthy states she very persuasively shows that there is no real criterionupon which we can base ontological distinctions when it comes to anindividual's mind. Her position is fairly unassailable because it falls back onseveral issues in epistemology that have been long running, namely an extensionof the problem of other minds.

While the problem of other minds typically deals withestablishing the very existence of other minds, Bjorkland’s adapted form askshow we can be sure that behaviors necessarily tell us the ontological state ofthe brain’s health? While the very existence of other minds has been arguedthrough analogy by philosophers J.S. Mill and Bertrand Russell, these argumentsaddress the existence of other minds by showing that the philosopher himselfhas a mind and because he or she has a great degree of similarity to otherhuman beings those other human beings must also have minds. This solution hasbeen rejected, by Norman Malcolm, and postulated in many different forms andits veracity is up for debate. However, Bjorkland's argument is more subtle.Assuming that the argument by analogy does give us a solid grounding for theexistence of other minds, this does not necessarily extend to mental stateswithin those existing minds. For example, the argument from analogy works onthe basis of similarities between my knowledge of my mind's existence and mybehaviors indicating my existence (i.e. talking, evidence of planning, etc.).But these criteria do not necessarily allow us to use analogy for mentalstates. For instance, my good mood may entail my running around literallyleaping for joy while someone else's may consist of sitting contentedly. Wewould both describe our states as "happy" yet if I were to argue thatmy mental state of happiness results in the behavior of running around leaping, I could not say that you were unhappy becauseyou were not doing so. Alternatively, someone having an angry mental breakdownand running around leaping could not verily be described as happy when theyclearly would describe themselves as incensed.

So what does this leave us with? Well, hopes for anontological distinction are clearly ill-founded due to time tested gulfs inepistemological reach. This means that we must find another way to draw adistinction between more healthy and less healthy, because we can already rule out those in ill health with thecriterion of interpersonal relationships and productive contribution to societyas a pragmatic distinction. In this vein let us consider an individual who doesnot fulfill the criterion for ill health, yet seeks to enhance him/herselfbecause he/she perceives him/herslf to be of lesser health and an individualwho fulfills neither the criterion for ill health nor lesser health to be ofgreater health (for brevity I will use the term "health" for lesserhealth and "Health" for greater health). This allows us to sidestepthe question of other minds and rely on the patient himself for identificationof their own state of health. Essentially, if an individual is dissatisfiedwith their current mental faculties yet is not in ill health (according to thepragmatic definition of health stipulated above) they are of lesser health andthus any psychopharmaceutical treatment would count as cosmetic.

Does God exist? - a dialogue between Freud and C.S Lewis

2012-02-16T16:07:00.003-05:00

Saiful Saleem

Lewis and Freud

Does God exist? Sigmund Freud and C.S Lewis give us two fundamentally opposing answers which have been displayed extensively by two groups of people throughout time.

The first group, which includes C.S Lewis, consists of theists – people who believe in theism, or the view that there exists at least one higher power in this universe. The second group, which Freud belongs to, consists of atheists – people who disregard theism as false.

C.S Lewis contends, in Mere Christianity, that human beings have within them an inherentknowledge of a universal Right and Wrong. He claims that this moral conscience of sorts has existed throughout time and transcends civilizations. Thus, in that sense, the law of Right and Wrong is something we discover rather than create. C.S Lewis argues that the clearest explanation for this, is that someone had put this concept of Right and Wrong into us and this person must have created us. He then concludes that this creator must be God.

There are a few issues with C.S Lewis' contentions. His claim that morality is universal is difficult to substantiate. Also, morality between civilizations has amounted to substantive differences. For example, homosexuals used to find themselves a persecuted minority in the West just decades ago. Arguments justifying this persecution tended to be that homosexuality was immoral. Today, mindsets towards homosexuality are slowly being reversed with an increasing percentage of people no longer viewing homosexuality as immoral. Also, even if there were a universal morality, C.S Lewis does not clearly enough explain why this would mean that God does exist.

Sigmund Freud, quite contrary to C.S Lewis' notion of “god-given morals”, believes that our concepts of morality arise from human experiences. He also claims that religion is born out of a child-like need for a father's protection. And, according to Freud, as we grow older we realize that our father might notbe all that strong and we create God. In our father, we found protection but in God, we find (or rather create)our answers to the riddles of the universe.

Freud's notion that morality is an evolutionary process does not sound unlikely but, like C.S Lewis, he doesn't provide much reasons for why this is likely. Having said that, his theory is an interesting one. It is common knowledge that our childhood experiences significantly affect our adult lives. But it seems to be too a great logical leap to make the assumption that Freud goes on to make – that we created God out of a childlike desire.

However who makes more sense? Both writers have interesting points and yet, neither really provide much substantiation. Yet, one would have to find that Freud's idea that we create religion out of necessity seems to hold more credence than C.S Lewis' theory that there is a god because someone must have put morality in us. C.S Lewis' claim is merely an fallacious assertion. Thus, in conclusion, Freud's conceptions of God and religion hold more credence, if only slightly, than C.S Lewis' assertions.

Still, I leave you with this question – what does it really matter in the end?

Saiful Saleem is a trained hypnotist and a former soldier in the Singaporean army, serving 2 years as a Military Policeman. A citizen of the Republic of Singapore, Saiful currently lives in the United States where he studies Political Science at Boston University. Saleem is the founder of The Unoccupied Press.

The Conflict Between Salvador Dali and Immanuel Kant

2012-02-14T17:47:00.001-05:00

Joe Chiarenzelli

SalvadorDali’s painting Soft Construction with Boiled Beans flies inthe face of Immanuel Kant’s theory of aesthetics; as such itprovides evidence that Kant’s theory is not applicable in moderntimes to assess the quality of aesthetic endeavors. This can be demonstrated byseveral elements. Firstly, the painting is inseparable from the topic ofthe Spanish civil war and the political rending of Spain. Secondly,the painting is not classically beautiful because of the inclusion ofgrotesquery and decay. Lastly, (and most importantly) the rendition of ametaphorical painting of this degree clearly does not allow Kant’stheory to hold, seeing as Kant believed meaning behind a paintingstopped its aesthetic appreciation.

Immanuel Kant’stheory of aesthetics is very ethereal. He is a direct descendentphilosophically of David Hume, who discussed to a great degree tastein art. Immanuel Kant’s theory is essentially based upon two mentalaxioms. Firstly, on the painter’s side of the creative process,there is “purposiveness without a purpose.” This phrase is meantto describe a general degree of nonbiased creative work based solelyon the aesthetics of a painting. An analogy that allows us to betterunderstand Kant’s meaning would be to consider the artist as amachine, this machine does not have any thought behind its painting,no cognitive creative functioning at all. This machine would be aproducer of art works that were based singularly upon the pleasingnature of their lines and symmetries or whatever the subjectiveconsensus would find timelessly appreciable due to the evocation of a“harmony of the faculties”. It would be necessary for thismachine to be coded very well however, as it would have to operatewithin “purposiveness without a purpose”. This “harmony of thefaculties” is a state of pleasure created by the viewing ofsomething aesthetically pleasing. The second axiom of Kant’s theorylies with the phrase “disinterested interest” this phrase is used to indicate a degree of intellectual separation from mentalassociations and further a separation from emotional processing of apiece of artwork. For example the viewer in Kant’s theory wouldneed to see the painting but not react or respond to it in any wayother than feeling the “harmony of the faculties”. I would positthat this form of art appreciation can be used, but unfortunatelydoes not include the depth and breadth of the art world, certainlynot Soft Construction with Boiled Beans.

Primarily SoftConstruction with Boiled Beans is an expression of the increasingtension in Spain circa 1936. At this point Franco was urging on hisrebellious followers and had not begun overt threatening movementstowards the Republicanos, the current ruling party. Dal,i with hisrazor wit, and insight had noticed the coming storm and set aboutexpressing it. He depicted a divided entity just as the country wasrending itself into two factions, the Rebels and the aforementionedRepublicanos. In this Dali violated Kant’s first principle of“purposiveness without a purpose”, the very act of trying tocomment on the current socio-political environment his purposivenesswas obviously with purpose. For instance to say this was withoutpurpose would be to say that a political cartoon was created only forhow pleasant it is to look at. Further, while the painting wascreated before the civil war actually began, Dali in an opportunisticmove, completely incongruent with Kant’s first axiom, renamed hispainting several times as the war “turned on”. Initially thepainting was named Soft Construction with Boiled Apricots asevidenced by its display at a London gallery in the early part ofJune 1936, a month before the beginning of the civil war. As timeprogressed it was named Spain: Premonition of Civil War, andthen it became Soft Construction with Boiled Beans. Thisshifting naming process completely flies in the face of Kant’s“purposiveness without a purpose”, as it shows a great deal ofpurpose, in so much as the fact that he obviously wanted to conveythe topic of the civil war and expressly did not want a detachedaesthetic view of the work. Classically art has been used to createimagery associated with divinity or idealism, here too Dalideparts from Kant’s theory.

In modern times arthas “progressed” to a study of the human condition and has evencome to the point of featuring grotesqueries and decay in an effortto alarm the reader and cause a visceral reaction. These types ofartwork are incapable of being analyzed through the lens of Kant’stheory of aesthetics; this is due to the fact that they cause animmediate and intense reaction that is primal and base, both of whichKant thought were too strong to be felt in the viewing of art as theydetracted from the “harmony of the faculties”. In the paintingDali uses a variety of brush strokes and stylistic choices to createa distasteful juxtaposition that offends the sensibilities. By theuse of harsh brushstrokes in creating his skyscape, he presents tothe viewer an abrupt and immediate vision of the frustration and ragetowards the then current socio-political environ. As a continuationof his frustration and disgust he uses generally aestheticallyunappealing colors, the green that counterbalances a light blue inthe sky is a sickly pale green, which can only be associated with thelesser products of the human body. Even more disconcerting to theaesthetic observer is the fact that many parts of the picture showdecay and ugliness, for instance the head towards the very top of thepainting bears a close resemblance to the shrunken heads of certainindigenous tribes. This same effect is utilized more by Dali on theend of a jumble of assorted limbs and a single breast. Not only isthe assortment of decaying body parts alarming, the body partsthemselves are mutinous and disarming. In the painting an armbranches at the elbow resulting in two forearms and a breast growsfrom the center of a chest counterbalancing a leg which protrudesfrom the opposing side. Further the ground which the scene is setupon is a brown yet again reminiscent of bodily functions; strewnwith boiled beans, a box, and unidentifiable brown featuresresembling slugs. By using this imagery Dali presents the viewer witha sensual affront which drags us from our “disinterested interest”perch down to a level of pure physical revulsion, no matter how hardwe try to resist. Dali also gives to us many metaphors andparadoxical images which do not allow us to not read into the meaningof the painting.

Dali presents to usin this painting, as mentioned before, a metaphor for the Civil Warin Spain. Along with the rending body parts, he presents several moremetaphors which deserve recognition. Dali represents a great degreeof knowledge in his use of beans in this painting. In AncientCatalonia it was common for the Catalans to offer beans to the gods.This religious practice most likely resulted from the peoples whopreviously inhabited Catalonia, primarily the Celtiberians. TheCeltiberians were a fusing of the previous inhabitants, the Celts(pagans) and Iberians. The reference to this ritual most importantlyrepresents a plea to the gods both from the general populace and Dalihimself. More personally Dali includes ideas from his own life. Theimage, almost photographic, towards the bottom left of the paintingis a representation of his childhood muses Anneke and Nikki van Lugo.In thiscase the little man represents Dali himself as an older man andcontained within him are the ideas and memories of his childhoodmuses. As can be seen the metaphorical aspect of the painting cannotbe ignored no matter the viewers level detachment or disinterest due to thefact that the painting is so inexplicable without the metaphoricalexplanation, and thus draws the observer into the realm of interested interest.Taken out of context this painting is a jumble of paradoxical and oddimagery, incapable of being appreciated.

Overall thispainting contains a large amount of ideas and imagery that stronglydisagree with Kant’s theory. To reiterate, Kant posits that the wayto appreciate art is to detach oneself and use a state of“disinterested interest” to notice the aesthetics of the work. Asis clearly evidenced this is impossible with Dali’s SoftConstruction with Boiled Beans due to the imagery and metaphorwhich causes first an emotional and visceral reaction and secondly aninquisitive nature towards the metaphors contained within thepainting. Salvador Dali created this painting too politically chargedand visually disturbing to allow Kant’s theory of aesthetics to bean adequate tool to analyze it.

References

Guyer, P. (1979).The harmony of the faculties. Kant and the claims of taste (pp.60-97). Cambridge University Press, NY.

Schusterman, R.(1992). Art and theory between experience and practice. Pragmatistaesthetics (pp. 34-62). Rowman & Littlefield, NJ.

Ades, D. (2000).Chapter 25 part 2. Dali’s optical illusions (pp. 120-121).Wadsworth Atheneum, NY.

The Curious Case of Whale Enslavement

2012-02-12T01:52:00.000-05:00

Sean Ewart

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” – the 13th Amendment

These are the words which, upon ratification on December 6, 1865, abolished slavery in the United States of America. A truly momentous occasion for a nation whose brief history had been scarred by the racial injustice which was the bonded servitude of one race to another. Yet a California court has recently heard, and thrown out, a case involving accusations of slavery. It wasn't human trafficking Mexican Coyotes or even pimps pushing prostitutes to politicians who were on the receiving end of the lawsuit, however, rather it was SeaWorld. And it wasn't custodians working around the parks for minimum wage who were being exploited at slaves, according to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), but five killer whales. Seriously.

“This case is on the next frontier of civil rights,” said attorney Jeffrey Kerr, representing PETA in this case. “For the first time in our nation's history, a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human. By any definition these orcas have been enslaved here.” The logic of the case is simple enough. Five killer whales, oarcas, were captured in the wild and “enslaved” by SeaWorld, being forced to preform for a human audience who reveled in their misery and captivity. It is, from the perspective of PETA, a clear cut example of slavery; of human will being forced on a (relatively) helpless animal.

Before simply writing off this case as a further example of the lunacy of PETA, we should take a moment to reflect. As a student of evolution and a humanitarian, the idea that we, humans, should not abuse killer whales merely because they did not have the fortune to be born human resonates with me. Richard Dawkins said, “We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes.” And indeed, if we travel back far enough on the evolutionary tree of life of which we are but the most recent appendage, we find that we not only are like animals, but we are animals. Extending basic decency to our fellow animals should not be too great a burden. The goals of the Great Apes Project, for example, stand out to me as being particularly well grounded:

“GAP is an international movement that aims to defend the rights of the non-human great primates - chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. The main rights are: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of torture.”

In our interactions with our fellow animals, we should be mindful of the fact that they, too, feel pain and pleasure (to varying degrees), and we should do what we can to limit the former and enhance the latter.

Returning to PETA's lawsuit, it can safely be said that it is reasonable to endeavor to treat animals, including killer whales, with decency. However, applying the 13^th Amendment is absurd. To begin with, what is critical about the abolition of slavery is that it abolishes the enslavement of one human by another. Should PETA's lawsuit prevail, ever, it would establish a precedent that would soon see dog owners punished as slaver owners. Moreover, why stop with the 13^th Amendment? Why not extend constitutional protection to the entirety of the animal kingdom? Should whales be allowed to seek public office and bear arms?

No. Why not? Because they are neither physically nor mentally capable of either holding public office or bearing arms (whales in particular would find it challenging to operate a Glock). This is not discrimination, it is observation. It is indeed an evolutionary fluke (pun only partially intended) that a killer whale is born a killer whale, but it is a reality all the same, and one which we would be idiotic to ignore. Putting Free Willy in charge of the CIA would be a questionable move at best.

This is shockingly obvious in the case of Tilikum the whale – one of the five whales signaled out by PETA as being a victim of slavery and worthy of constitutional protection. Tilikum has, over the past two decades, killed three people. If Tilikum is given constitutional protection, could the whale also be charged for murder? Of course not, because the whale is not mentally capable of committing murder in the sense that a human is. Whales are not cognizant of, nor are they are partial to, the conditions of human life which have made intra-species killing “wrong.” They are, as far as the law is concerned, forces of nature, and deaths by them are tragedies – but nothing more.

Judge Miller, who heard the case, was quick to point out that “The only reasonable interpretation of the 13th amendment's plain language is that it applies to persons, and not to non-persons such as orcas.” However, while the case was thrown out on February 8, the decision in no way diminished the whales rights to be treated with respect. In the case of our fellow apes, there has been a global awakening to their plight in laboratories and circuses which has lead to various laws protecting them. A Spanish resolution, passed in 2008, offers a prime example:

The resolution “gives great apes the right to life and protects them from harmful research practices and exploitation for profit, such as use in films, commercials, and circuses and freedom from arbitrary captivity and protection from torture.”

PETA is shockingly absurd in their claims that captive whales are slaves in the same sense as Africans were in 1850's America. Kerr's assertion that “slavery doesn't depend upon the species of the slave, any more than it depends upon the race, gender or ethnicity of the slave,” is downright ignorant and devoid of any real meaning (again, are PETA and Kerr also against, say, cat owners?). But perhaps we should take a second look at the conditions in which we keep those creatures over whom we possess power; those fellow animals of ours which, by evolutionary chance, we happen to hold coercive and potentially destructive power over. Humans have become the accidental custodians of the world and her many and diverse inhabitants – it is time to demonstrate our merit.

Footage of Chimps seeing daylight for the first time after

30 years undergoing scientific testing:

For more on environmentalism, read: Adapting to Climate Change

The Demolition of Democracy: NDAA 2012

2012-02-10T23:05:00.002-05:00

Jacob Sherretts

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

Thereis something ominous on the horizon. On December 31, 2011, PresidentObama signed a bill that will seriously infringe upon the rights ofUnited States citizens. Over the next month, Congress has theability to make changes to this dangerous bill as per the President’ssigning statement. The public at this present time, in general, hasnot grasped the gravity of the legislation that is the NationalDefense Authorization Act for the year 2012. Although a defensebudget is passed annually, the Act for 2012 contains wording thatallows for the indefinite detention of American citizens as well asother dangerous possibilities. Furthermore, the bill’scontroversial components have many aspects within them that mayactually hinder the government’s ability to deal with legitimatethreat. For these reasons, it has become clear that the bill wascrafted by those who fear the growing dissidence in our nation. Ifthe United States is truly the land of the free, something must bedone to repeal NDAA.

Inorder to understand why this bill is aimed at dissidence, it shouldfirst be understood why the controversial detention aspect of NDAA2012 does not allow additional safety measures for American citizensin regards to terrorism. According to FBI Direct Robert Mueller III,the new detention provision adds a level of uncertainty when dealingwith a terrorist threat. The uncertainty lies in the overlap thathas been created between the FBI and military when dealing withterrorism cases.

NDAA"talks about not interrupting interrogations, which is good, butgaining cooperation is something different than continuing aninterrogation," Mueller said. "My concern is that...youdon't want to have FBI and military showing up at the scene at thesame time on a covered person [under the law], or with a coveredperson there may be some uncovered persons there, with someuncertainty as to who has the role and who's going to do what."

(Acovered person is anyone who has been linked to a terrorist group orthreat: “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained bythe U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of orsubstantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forcesthat are engaged in hostilities against the United States or itscoalition partners.”)

Suchuncertainty when dealing with detainees could easily cause manyproblems when trying to gather information for counterterroristoperations. Heather Holbert, of the National Security Network, had concerns that were similar to those of Robert Mueller:

“There’scertainly a scenario under which an enormous amount of retraining hasto take place, but if the interpretation of the White House is thisdoesn’t exchange any existing law or effect any existing practices”than retraining may not be required. “It does seem to me that thelasting effect is that it actually adds one additional layer ofuncertainty where everybody said they wanted less uncertainty.”

Oneshould also consider, although this is not specifically stated by FBIor defense officials, that the bill may actually impede thegovernment’s ability to get information from detainees. If someonehas been charged with terrorist conspiracy and is likely to get“detained until the end of conflicts,” what reason does thatperson have to cooperate? In regards to lesser offenders, the FBI(or the military) will not have the leverage to offer plea deals inorder to get information from detainees. It is likely that therewill be more danger in regards to actual terrorist threats after thisbill takes full effect.

Invery few ways does the NDAA actually improve domestic safety. Thebill does, however, severely harm civil liberties. According to theObama administration, the bill does not target American citizens andwill not widen the assault on civil liberties that was done under theBush administration. By analyzing the bill, however, it is easy tosee that this is false. As Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com points outin his article on NDAA, the bill furthers the definition of who anenemy combatant is from its narrower definition under 2001Authorization for Use of Military Force (another piece of legislationfocused on terrorism). Under the AUMF, as signed by President Bush,those who are targeted must be expressively linked to the attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001 by either committing acts of terrorism orharboring organizations that did. The NDAA, in contrast, widens thisdefinition to anyone who has associated or supported Al Qaeda or anylinked organization.

Imagefrom Salon.com

NDAAalso makes it easier for American citizens to fall into the samecategories as foreign terrorists thereby making them legitimatesubjects for indefinite detention. Although the White House saysthat they will not target American citizens, the only provision isthat it is not mandatory that an American “terrorist” fall undermilitary authority. Foreign subjects, on the other hand, will haveno ability to go through the regular judiciary system.

Imagefrom Salon.com

Bydissecting the controversial aspects of this bill, it can beconcluded at the very least that the definition of who can beconsidered an enemy in the war on terror has been widened. It canalso be concluded that it has become easier to detain a United Statescitizen indefinitely. At the same time the bill still targets onlyterrorist suspects. For this reason many are inclined to believethat the general public will not be affected by this legislation. Butthe fact is that dissidence is already being targeted. One exampleof mislabeling is in the case of a journalist who was reporting on anFBI raid on an animal rights activist. Because of the speed in whichhe reported and the photo he was able to capture of the incident, theFBI concluded that the journalist must have had close links to thesuspect and that the journalist was an animal rights “extremist”with possible links to terrorist animal rights organizations. Although the reporter was not targeted officially for furtherinvestigation by the FBI and is not being pursued for detention,their ability to arbitrarily label him an extremist could allow themto detain such a person if they so desire.

Somemay also not feel the need to protest NDAA because they trustPresident Obama’s reservations when signing the act. It must beremembered that this bill will be in action for future presidents. If Obama does not abuse this bill, it is extremely plausible that afuture president will. The power of this bill, in many ways, isabsolute, and absolute power, as the cliché states, corruptsabsolutely. Under this bill it is not hard to justify callingsomeone a terrorist supporter. A blow such as this to the UnitedStates judicial system has not been seen since the McCarthy era RedScare. For all intensive purposes, the accused does not have anyrights and habeas corpus is suspended. To reiterate, althoughthe Patriot Act and AUMF codified for indefinite detention, thebroadening definition of who can be detained is what makes NDAA sodangerous.

Anyonewith dissident opinion has something to lose with the enacting of theNDAA. As someone who values diversity of opinions as a means ofseeking truth, I implore everyone to do what they can to let ourrepresentatives know that we will not stand for this disregard forcivil liberties. The example of a reporter who empathized withanimal rights activists is not an isolated incident; dissidence maybecome toxic across the political spectrum. In the United Kingdom,Occupy London has already been deemed a terrorist threat. It may notbe long before the Occupy movement here in the United States gets thesame label. Any protest, any democratic voice wanting to be heard,is at risk.

Politicalphilosopher John Stuart Mill contends that discussion is a means offinding ultimate truth and that discussion is crucial for upholding alegitimate democratic society. If the United States becomes a placewhere dissidence is the language of terrorism and treason, thentyranny has truly taken hold.

The Singularity is Near for Artificial Intelligence and Man

2012-02-09T17:50:00.000-05:00

JoeChiarenzelli

RayKurzweil has been at the cutting edge of technological and scientificexploration since his graduation from MIT (Kushner 2009, 56-61). In atime of global strife it is necessary to look to our leaders infields of high practicality to help us envision and plan for thefuture. Ray Kurzweil’s model of information acceleration followedby a singularity is very accurate and can be compared to historicaland current data to prove that, if no other factors come into play,the current path of technology, and artificial intelligencespecifically, will continue in correspondence with Kurzweil’smodel. This process can be mapped by discussing the theory behind theacceleration of information, the data that currently points to atrend very similar to an exponential acceleration of information, andwhat constitutes a valid prediction about the future of technologyand science.

RayKurzweil, in his books, outlines the basic theory of informationacceleration by compiling the assumed paradigm shifts in humanhistory. In all Ray uses 15 sources to compile his list of paradigmshifts, these sources range from the Encyclopedia Britannica to theprominent scientist Carl Sagan (Kurzweil 18)(Kurzweil 2008, 10-10). Aparadigm shift, in this situation, can be defined as the scientificand cultural framework on which human life operates. When graphed ona logarithmic scale versus time, these points form a straight line(Kurzweil 17). This means that when plotted on a normal scale thereis exponential growth (Kurzweil 18). This growth is representative ofthe exponential increase in paradigm shifts as time progresses.However, on a small level this curve is not smooth. Each technologytakes the shape of an S, a technology exponentially gains acceptanceand after that it reaches an upper limit of permeance. But, Kurzweilillustrates that exponential growth gets around this by showing thatwhen a technology reaches its limit it is replaced by a newtechnology that continues the S curve. So, when looked at from amacro level the curve looks smooth, but it is in fact a series of Scurves. Due to the fact that paradigm shifts result from a shift inan obsolete to a more efficient and advanced model, they areinherently representative of technology and information itself. Thus,in illustrating the exponential nature of paradigm shifts throughhuman chronology, Kurzweil provides a solid base for his discussionof an apparent exponential nature to this increase.

Furthermore,Ray provides more evidence behind this trend in information andtechnology. Gordon E. Moore, in 1965, described the nature of acertain type of technological acceleration, namely transistors thatcould be placed on a chip inexpensively. This relationship over timealso illustrated an exponential increase, having a doubling time oftwo years (Lundstrom 210-211). Moore was immortalized when the termMoore’s law was coined to describe this exponential increase intransistor count. However, transistor counts are not the only area oftechnology to increase exponentially. Over time the cost pertransistor has also decreased exponentially, which, when combinedwith Moore’s law allowed a massive increase in widely availablecomputer power that resulted in the generation of other exponentialtrends (Kurzweil 62). Computer performance per unit cost, in directcorrespondence to Moore’s law, doubles every two years. Virtuallyall areas of information technology exhibit this exponential trend,from price per bit transferred to the pixel per cost value of digitalcameras. However, this trend does not only address subjects withinthe field of information technology.

Kurzweil,in a speech sponsored by the technology, entertainment, and designprogram (TED), outlined a similar process in mapping the humangenome, a biological proposition. The project was originally slatedto last fifteen years, beginning in 1990 (Kurzweil 2008). In thefirst five years the most advanced technology of the time had onlymapped one ten-thousandth of the human genome (Kurzweil 2008). Inthe next five years there was still no significant progress, stillhaving sequenced only a fraction of the entire genome (Kurzweil2008). If this was a linear progression, obviously the project nevercould have been concluded within the original time-line, however, itsprogress took the shape of an exponential function. This increase inthe rate at which decoding the DNA was performed resulted in thehuman genome being sequenced on time, with most of the work done inthe last five years (Kurzweil 2008). Kurzweil also gives the exampleof the sequencing of SARS and HIV, “HIV was sequenced in fifteenyears, and we sequenced SARS in thirty-one days.” (Kurzweil 2008).Kurzweil also cites the importance of biological systems as a modelfor exponential growth by explaining that the evolution of DNArequired billions of years, while the Cambrian explosion, a periodwhen great biologically diverse growth occurred, took only 10 millionyears after that. In Kurzweil’s theory even biological systemsdemonstrate this powerful growth.

Thisexponential process also dictates how we interact socially. Kurzweilstates that it took fifty years to adopt the telephone, whilecell-phones were adopted in eight years (Kurzweil 2008). This showsan increase in the consumer’s rate of adoption of technology.Kurzweil makes the point that, if one is to analyze the adoption rateof different information technologies the most recent are adopted ina much shorter time period, less than a decade, as compared toearlier ones such as, television or radio (Kurzweil 2008). The moreconnected the world becomes the more it is possible to exchange ideasand data at increasing speeds, causing a further natural accelerationof information.

Animportant point in Kurzweil’s theory is that even thoughtechnologies have limits, they facilitate the growth of technologieswhich can come to take their place (Kurzweil 43-44). This conceptionis highly visible in the world today. Recently the DVD format hasbeen being replaced by both Blue-ray and HDVD, both of these formatsare greatly improved entertainment formats that satisfy the demandfor greater resolution in both audio and video (Bachman 1). Obviouslythen, although Moore’s law does have projected limits based on thecurrent paradigm of flat chips with smaller and smaller transistorsizes, developments in chip design such as layering chips ordevelopments on the basic substrate of computing such as movingcomputing to a quantum format provide possible replacements for thesetechnologies (Preskill 469-486) (Clark et al. 1451-1471) (Kurzweil111).

Artificialintelligence within this system could be seen to follow a verysimilar exponential path. Although having been originally conceivedin promethean myths exhibiting man’s creation from clay, anunthinking material, the concept never received any legitimatescientific inquiry until our current century (Buchanan 53-60).Contemporary artificial intelligence research is divided into twosub-groups, strong AI and weak AI. Weak artificial intelligence isbased on creating an intelligent system for addressing a certainproblem and can already be performed in some fields, (Cheng et al.237-247) (Bassam et al. 773-780) (Alvarez-Estevez 7778-7785).However, strong artificial intelligence represents a more difficultgoal. A strong artificial intelligence would be able to transcendhuman abilities and apply its intelligence to any field of itschoosing (Anderson and Copeland 371-378). While limited success hasbeen achieved in the field of weak artificial intelligence usingdifferent methods, as can be seen in weak AI systems tailored to aspecific task (Cheng et al. 237-247) (Bassam et al. 773-780)(Alvarez-Estevez 7778-7785), there is still a long way to go if weare going to construct a machine that can surpass our ownintelligence. However, research in this field is developing at anaccelerating rate, causing a massive growth in the field in thelatter part of the 20^thcentury and the beginning of the 21^st.The major force behind the creation of smarter, faster, and moreself-reliant computers is the exponential growth of the field, thisgrowth builds on its self synergistically. For example, asinformation technology develops exponentially we are better able toevaluate and apply information coming from intelligent machines,this, in turn, allows us to create intelligent machines which canhandle more of the data analysis load. It is this progression, ofartificial intelligence creating artificial intelligence that willmagnify and amplify the current research into a whole capable ofreplicating and even exceeding human intelligence.

RayKurzweil does find a conclusion to this acceleration of informationhowever, he calls it the singularity. Once this self-perpetuationgraduates to a post-human level of intelligence the artificialintelligence’s can take over their own growth and development,further increasing the rate at which their intelligence is developed(Kurzweil 8-9). The singularity will result in a sustainedunfathomable increase in technology and intelligence which, forKurzweil, will create a utopian society in which all our needs aremet and exceeded (Kurzweil 8-9, 220-440). Kurzweil believes thatadvances in nano-technology will allow our bodies to be augmented andmaintained by nano-particles creating a post-human meld of man andmachine (Kurzweil 226-258). He further believes that there will be anincreasing inter-face between the human mind and networks like theinternet, this will allow creation of virtual realities for humanenjoyment along with scientific exploration (Kurzweil 226-258). Afterthis point humans will expand into the universe and process most ofthe inanimate matter, to harness its inherent computing power and, bydoing so, create an “awakened” universe. This viewpoint istypical of utopian futurists who believe that man’s progress willdevelop and serve the common good; this ideal is shared by prominentthinkers like Buckminster Fuller. While this represents a best casescenario for human-kind’s technological development, there are manythinkers who disagree.

Inthe 2007 book “What is Your Dangerous Idea: Today’s LeadingThinkers on the Unthinkable”, a host of scientists discuss thepossible pitfalls in the acceleration of technology and information.The psychological and artificial intelligence fields are on acollision course for melding into one science of intelligent systems,for this to happen however the existence of free will must bedisproved. Disproving the concept of free will is central toartificial intelligence, because it means that the complete humanexperience can be modeled by algorithmic calculations. This conceptpresents some very tricky situations for future societies. Paul Bloomsays in “What is Your Dangerous Idea” that “the widespreadrejection of the soul would have profound moral and legalconsequences. It would also require people to rethink what happenswhen they die, and give up the idea (held by some 90 percent ofAmericans) that their souls will survive the death of their bodiesand ascend to heaven. It is hard to get more dangerous than that.”(Brockman 4-6). If it was true that no one had a soul (free will),but rather was only a set of algorithms, then there would be nochoice but to rethink the entire concept of moral action and freewill. If the human is only a product of mathematical algorithms, thenis it ok to punish a human being for doing what they are required bythe laws of mathematics to do? The under-lying problem here is anadmission of no free-will meaning that every action must result fromalgorithmic processes and, if I have no free-wil,l than how can I beheld accountable for any crime? Another idea discussed in this bookis the anthropic principle this says, essentially, that the universeacts and behaves the way it is because it is perfectly attuned tolife and, if this was not the case there would be no opportunity tocome to conclusions on how the universe works since there would be nosentient entities to examine it.

From this principle Robert Shapiroclaims that, “The origin of life would be a natural (and perhapsfrequent) result of the physical laws that govern the universe. Thislatter thought falls directly in line with the idea of cosmicevolution, which asserts that events since the Big Bang have movedalmost inevitably in the direction of life. No miracle or immensestroke of luck was needed to get it started. If this turns out to bethe case, then we should expect to be successful when we search forlife beyond this planet. We are not the only life that inhabits thisuniverse.” (Brockman 65-68) This also represents an obstacle in ourunder-standing of the universe, because it will result in a majorrethinking of our position within the universe and whether or notthere is any purpose to our carrying on in any function because,inevitably, there will be others to take our place. However, thesepossibilities represent the potential of science to send us into anexistential crisis, a host of other thinkers think that technologywill directly destroy the world or create a dystopian future.

Underthe shadow of a nuclear holocaust, most humans believe that if anuclear war can be avoided we are free and clear to develop a worldthat will benefit all. However, with the current economic crisis andrising global tension, many parties believe there are many morepossibilities for other technological crises. Virgin media hascompiled a list of ten technologies that could destroy the world.With crises with computer viruses it is of the utmost importance tounderstand and guard against viruses. If a worm was to infect allthe computers connected to the internet and turn them off, we couldsee massive mortality. Train schedules, airports, and bus systems allrely on computers to regulate arrival and departure times; thisreliance is only being compounded over time. If there is a viruswhich can turn all of these computers off, then obviously there willbe catastrophic consequences (Virgin Media 2009). On an even moremacabre note, what if a worm, after the advent of post-humanartificial intelligence, could infect these systems and cause them toturn on their makers? Of course even if we assume there is ananthropogenic intent behind a dystopic world event such as, nuclearwar, other sorts of advanced weaponry, complete invasion of privacy,or even mind control, that does not rule out the possibility of somesort of human technology having unforeseen consequences.

Recentlythere has been quite an uproar about the activation of the largehadron collider in Switzerland. Many groups are clamoring to stop theLHC from reactivating, because on initial activation it encounteredtechnical problems, due to the nature of particle accelerator’sunforeseen consequences (Overbye 2009). Particle accelerators work bysmashing together subatomic particles to examine their constituentparts. When these collisions occur many subatomic particles areformed, like higgs bosons and quarks, but there is also a possibilityof creating a very small black-hole (Overbye 2009).. Physicistsexplain away the risk by citing Hawking’s radiation, a process bywhich small black holes evaporate through gamma ray emission, butgiven the previously untested nature of these experiments nothing isa foregone conclusion. While it is doubtful the large hadroncollider will create any significant threat to the earth’s safety,as technology accelerates we will further be able to manipulate ourworld in untested ways. One of the key ingredients innanotechnological development is the creation of self-replicatingnano-particles. While it is presumed these particles will have,encoded in them, a stop code to prevent them from creating too manycopies it is always possible, en route to this technology, that therecould be a release of an unstoppably self-replicating mechanisticsystem that will voraciously devour the planet at a faster and fasterrate. While these developments are dangerous they are a necessarystep on the technological curve that Kurzweil proposes, these risksmake many conclude that we may want to stop the explosiveness of ourtechnological growth rate to consider the implications and inherentrisks these technologies present.

Inmy opinion Kurzweil’s arguments have several flaws. Firstly, thefact that the overall exponential curve is composed of smaller Scurves creates a point of criticism. There is no absolute guaranteethat whenever a limit is reached a new technology can be generated toreplace it. To be conservative, all technology must stay within thebounds of physics. For instance, there is no possible way, known tous, to transcend the physical laws of the universe. Because of thisthere can be no possible transcendence of the speed of light or theother cosmological constants that bound the known universe. Also, theability for humans to control the new observational knowledge of theuniverse may also be limited. Kurzweil outlines major exponentialcurves in computing technology, but this does not mean that these canbe transmitted into actual practical usages. For example, even if wecan somehow get to the point where we can simulate a humanintelligence using great processing power, it would require anunbelievable ability to simultaneously analyze and determine theposition of all neurons, which number in the trillions. At a smalllevel like this, there is a certain indeterminacy that isnecessitated by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which says thatit is impossible to know the position and velocity of a particlesimultaneously. However, Kurzweil’s writing provides un-provablecounter arguments to this. He claims that we have no idea what thetechnologies will be that replace the current but that they willemerge, something that is impossible to prove or disprove withoutsome sort of precognition. Also, he believes that it is possible totranscend the limits of physical constants, but again he cannot saywhere exactly they will come from. While it is impossible to prove ordisprove these statements, they are differences of opinion that canmake an individual doubt or embrace his vision.

RayKurzweil’s theories certainly have a strong theoretical backgroundand an almost irrepressible conclusion. What we can learn from hisgeneral argument is that human progression, while chaotic andunstable in the short term, follows a predictable curve. Due to thepredictability of this curve we can then discuss what futuredevelopments will occur within our society and how these developmentswill change our current culture paradigm and what it means to behuman. While the nature of these curves are irrefutable, the endresult, or singularity, is of an opinionated nature and has nohistorical precedent to be compared against. Because of this there ismuch conjecture on the nature of a singularity and what it willentail. Some believe in a purely utopian future where every whim andwanting can be satisfied through the use of technology. Othersbelieve that this technological revolution will carry with itexistential and social consequences that will throw us into a cycleof self questioning. Dystopians believe that the coming technologicalrevolution will create far too many possibilities of the earth’selimination for one not to occur. In essence there is almost noquestion, if one accepts Kurzweil’s trends, for their not to be asingularity, but, at this point, the nature of a singularity is opento conjecture.

References

Álvarez-Estévez,Diego, and Vicente Moret-Bonillo. 2009. Fuzzy reasoning used todetect apneic events in the sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome. ExpertSystems with Applications36, (4) (05): 7778-85.

Anderson, David, andB. J. Copeland. 2002. Artificial life and the chinese room argument.ArtificialLife8, (4): 371-8.

Bachman, Justin.2008. Samsung's BD-P1500: Blu-ray, priced right. BusinessWeek Online(11/12): 1-.

Bassam, A., D.Ortega-Toledo, J. Hernandez, J. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, and J. Uruchurtu.2009. Artificial neural network for the evaluation of CO₂corrosion in a pipeline steel. Journalof Solid State Electrochemistry13, (5) (05): 773-80.

Brockman, John.2007. Whatis your dangerous idea? :Today's leading thinkers on the unthinkable.1st ed. New York: Harper Perennial.

Buchanan, Bruce G.2005. A (very) brief history of artificial intelligence. AIMagazine26, (4): 53-60.

Cheng, H. D.,Xiaopeng Cai, and Rui Min. 2009. A novel approach to colornormalization using neural network. NeuralComputing & Applications18, (3) (05): 237-47.

Kurzweil, Ray. “TheAcceleration of Information.” Lecture, TED lecture series, TED,6/24/2008.

Kurzweil, Ray. 2008.The singularity: The last word. IEEESpectrum45, (10) (10): 10-.

Lundstrom, Mark.2003. Moore's law forever? Science299, (5604) (Jan. 10): 210-1.

Preskill, John.1998. Quantum computing: Pro and con. Proceedings:Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, (1969, Quantum Coherence and Decoherence) (Jan. 8): 469-86.

Progress insilicon-based quantum computing. 2003. PhilosophicalTransactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences361, (1808, Practical Realizations of Quantum Information Processing)(Jul. 15): 1451-71.

Wireless energytransfer - 10 ways technology could destroy the world - pictures -digital - virgin media. [cited 4/3/2009 2009]. Available fromhttp://www.virginmedia.com/digital/galleries/how-technology-will-destroy-the-world.php?ssid=10(accessed 4/3/2009).

Racism and the Illegal Arrests by the New York City Police Department

2012-02-08T00:05:00.000-05:00

Sean Ewart

http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/147967/following-nypd-s-change-on-marijuana-arrests--advocates-want-police-to-avoid-frisks

The New York City Police Departmentcurrently has in place a system of institutionalized racism whichdisproportionately targets, on a massive scale, blacks and Latinosfor marijuana related crimes. By now well documented, thoughunder-reported, the systematic perpetration of illegal arrests byNYPD officers is widespread. This not only costs the City and statemillions of dollars a year (the language of the Legislature) but itis also an affront to the ideals of America. Not be overlyoptimistic, but is it too much to ask for our nation's leadingpolice force to follow the law and not revert back to Jim Crow-eradiscriminatory practices? Apparently. There is, however, a growingoutcry, and this article is intended to fuel the fire.

It should be stated on the outset thatthere is already in place a law which decriminalizes the possessionof marijuana in small amounts – i.e. 25 grams or less. TheMarijuana Reform Act of 1977, which aims at saving the time and moneywasted by pursuing small time users, reads:

“The legislature finds that arrests, criminal prosecutionsand criminal penalties are inappropriate for people who possess smallquantities of marijuana for personal use. Every year, this processneedlessly scars thousands of lives and waste millions of dollars inlaw enforcement resources, while detracting from the prosecution ofserious crime.”

Under the current law, established in1977, anyone caught with 25 grams of pot or less is slapped with amisdemeanor charge and a $100 fine. The clear legislative intent ofthis law was to reduce the waste of resources being thrown at lowlevel marijuana offenders. But the devil, as always, is in thedetails.

From 1977 until 1996 there were only63,000 marijuana possession arrests made in NYC, in accordance withthe Marijuana Reform Act. However, beginning with the administrationof former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and continuing under MichaelBloomberg, NYC has seen 353,000 arrests made between 1997 and 2006for the same offense.

http://marijuana-arrests.com/index.html

What accounts for the radical increase?A simple procedural misapplication of the law. This is how it works:

A person possessing 25 grams of pot orless can only be charged with a misdemeanor. The problem is that thisdoes not show up as a “crime” and thus cannot be used by the NYPDto prove “criminal arrest productivity.” The solution is a simplematter of breaking the law, wherein the police officer, afterordering a suspect to turn out their pockets, then charges them withpublic possession of marijuana. Suddenly this is a more seriouscrime, warranting a trip to the police station and offering evidenceof NYPD's increased effectiveness – all in violation of the Marijuana Reform Act.

According to Professor Harry Levine of Queens College, who compiled much of this evidence, writes:

“When first approached bythe police, most people arrested did not have marijuana “burning oropen to public view.” Approximately two-thirds to three-quarters ofthose arrested for marijuana possession were not smoking and mostwere not displaying the marijuana. Most had marijuana in a pocket orotherwise well concealed in their clothing or possessions. However,the officers who found the marijuana in a search said in theirreport, and when speaking to an Assistant District Attorney, thatthey observed the marijuana because it was “open to public view.””

The illegality of policeaction as it relates to marijuana possession arrests is disconcertingenough. As I said before, it should not be too much to ask for ourlaw enforcement agents to follow the law. But the issue is not merelyone of illegal policing; indeed, the evidence found by ProfessorLevine and the Drug Policy Alliance (as well as many other activistgroups) shows that racism plays a huge role in the actions of theNYPD.

Proof positive can be viewedgraphically (pun only slightly intended):

http://marijuana-arrests.com/index.html

Theissue is glaringly obvious: while roughly 60% of whites have usedmarijuana at least once in their lives, only 15% of the marijuanapossession arrests made from 1997-2006 were of whites. Compare thisto the 27% of blacks and 20% of Latinos who have used marijuana atleast once in their lives, and who make up 52% and 31% of themarijuana possession arrests of the last decade respectively.

If the NYPD wasactually concerned about busting low level offenders, they wouldconduct random searches in white neighborhoods. However the illegalsearches and arrests are targeted overwhelmingly at blacks andLatinos, demonstrating an obvious racial bias which is disgusting andcompletely unfounded in reality. The NYPD is acting outside the lawand is clearly racist in its application of police power.

Currentlylegislation has been proposed to codify an edict by NYPD Chief RayKelly on a state level which would ensure that police officers haveto follow the law. Its about time, especially considering that theillegal and racist actions by the NYPD are actually costing the Cityan estimated $75 million a year. What is absurd is that the NYPDneeds additional legislation to ensure it follows the law and endracist enforcement.

Abbas's Deal with the Devil: the Fatah - Hamas Coalition

2012-02-06T20:22:00.000-05:00

Sean Ewart

Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Mashaal

When Hamas won a majority in thePalestinian Legislative Council (PLC) in 2006 the world was,understandably, concerned (what's wrong with Hamas).Hamas, a militant political and religious organization which seeksthe destruction of Israel and is funded, in part, by Iran,has held the reigns of power in the Gaza Strip ever since thePalestinian Civil War in 2006-07. As the situation in the Gaza Stripdeteriorated following the blockade and sanctions placed upon theisolated region took their toll, largely on the civilian population,the question remained: what to do with Hamas? Recognized by manynations as a terrorist organization, they are responsible forthousands of mortar and suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civiliansand are rather 14^th century in their attitude towards...everything. The Palestinians were thus split between Hamas, aterrorist group elected by the people of Palestine, and Fatah, a moremoderate political party which is often seen as, and often is,corrupt and ineffective. But now the head of Fatah, Palestinian PrimeMinister Mahmoud Abbas, has agreed to head an interim government,including Hamas, before another election which is scheduled for...well, no one knows when.This move is merely the continuation of the same cycles which aredestined to retard the Middle East, including Israel, and anyso-called 'peace process' for years to come if they are not derailed.Abbas' deal with the devil is nothing more than his (hopefullyfailed) understanding that he has no other option: he must eitherwork with Hamas, or be defeated by it.

Indeed it is remarkable that Abbas was able to broker the deal thathe got. In the 2006 elections Hamas won a majority of seats in thePLC and was, in fact, able to form a majority government of its own.Perhaps recognizing its own current structural weakness andvulnerability, Hamas has now agreed to give the position of power tothe leader of Fatah. Possibly a realization that a unity governmentlead by either Khaled Mashaal, the Chairman of the Hamas PoliticalBureau, or Ismail Haniyeh, the Prime Minister of Hamas, and Palestinedepending on whose side you're on, would be ostracizedinternationally, Hamas may in fact be playing a game of risks andrewards. There is nothing to suggest that Hamas could not win amajority in another round of elections. This is troublesome.According to the Pew Research center, 44% of Palestinians aresupportive of Hamas, enough to, at least, win a sizable minority inany unity government.Why is this a problem? Because Hamas has been unequivocal indemanding the destruction of Israel, the slaughter of “the Jews,”and has been violently showing its dedication to its mission.Equally, perhaps more, troubling is the popularity of the ideals ofHamas in Palestine. According to a poll sponsored by the IsraelProject an overwhelming 84% of Palestinians responded that, “Overtime Palestinians must work to get back all the land for aPalestinian state.”So even as Palestine, under the general leadership of the PalestinianLiberation Organization (The PLO, which is also lead by Abbas), hasbegun petitioning the United Nations for statehood (why I Recognize the State of Palestine), there is a massive undercurrent in Palestinewhich seeks a two state solution as a stepping stone to a one statesolution (final solution? That's not just a bad pun, see foryourself: The *current* Hamas Charter).

While it is true that atwo state solution is likely the best way to move the peace processforward, so long as either Israel or Palestine is intent onswallowing up the other, this will only be a facade used to build upgreater force. Here is a telling statement from Time Magazine whichexemplifies the point precisely: “Nominally committed to theeradication of the Jewish State, Hamas now supports a negotiatedpeace agreement based on 1967 borders and – without renouncing theoption to pick up arms in the future – vows to give Palestinianmoderate leader Mahmoud Abbas the running room to see what talks canproduce, according to Khaled Mashaal, chief of the group’spolitical office.”As many times as Hamas has said that they are willing to discuss atwo state solution, or look into using non-violent means, they havealso said gems like this, spoken by Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar,that a truce is “part of the resistance not its rejection...truce is not peace.”Clearly Hamas, or its supporters at any rate, will need to beincluded in the conversation regarding the future of Palestine, butuntil their Charter is renounced, they stop calling for thedestruction of Israel and the Jews, and they recognize peace andjustice as an ends not a means, there can be no progress. The Abbaslead interim government isn't destined to fail by entering into anagreement with Hamas, it already has failed.

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a man who I believe has a Cheney-ian approach to theworld, has a point when he said, “It is either peace with Hamas orpeace with Israel; you cannot have it both ways.”The fact of the matter is that Hamas has not committed to eitherrenouncing terrorism or a recognition of the State of Israel.Palestine is at a crossroads: will they establish a coalition with agroup which is committed to terrorism and the eventual takeover ofIsrael, or will they continue working towards peace? And, we shouldbe quick to point out, there is symbolic evidence of the Hamas viewpoint in the Fatah logo itself:

Arabic reads: "National Liberation Movement of Palestine (Fatah), The Sakhr Habash Center for Research and Authentication'

If you look closely you will notice that the entireregion encompassing Israel and Palestine are in Islamic green. Whereare the tidings of reconciliation, pluralism, and a two statesolution embodied in this image? Perhaps this is a remnant of the oldPLO way of doing things (in the days of Arafat the terrorist, notArafat the statesman), but these are exactly the sorts of images andideas which are impediments to peace. Adding gravity to the situationis the $1 billion of foreign aid which keeps the Palestiniangovernment afloat.Should Fatah side with Hamas, this will shrivel up, leaving thepeople of Palestine in a far worse condition than they are now. Bysiding with Hamas, Abbas is quite literally abandoning the peaceprocess – which, as dysfunctional as it is, at least promises abrighter future.

Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Jesus: a Love Story

2012-02-04T23:16:00.000-05:00

Sean Ewart

Obama, leading the National PrayerBreakfast on Thursday, Feb. 2, said that he believes the rich should pay more because: “I actually think that is going to make economicsense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall berequired.” This statement immediately caused a political andreligious scandal that reeked to high heaven. I will admit to acertain (high) level of frustration at the statement, though not forthe reasons typically being offered. Jesus, it would seem, tended tolook more favorably on the poor who gave everything they owned to him(well... or to god, who Jesus claimed to be), and only chided the rich when they would not so easily part with their treasures forpromises of heavenly rewards. Tying your political beliefs to yourreligious beliefs is about as common as it is ridiculous, however,and this is what I want to point out: Obama is by no means coming outof left field with this statement – and anyway, I suppose that ifreligion is going to be used as a pillar of public policy, justifyingprogressive taxation is at least “good.”

"God told me to strike at al Qaidaand I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam,which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in theMiddle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the electionswill come and I will have to focus on them." This was former President George Bush speaking to Palestinian Prime Minister MahmoudAbbas. This, in fact, sounds much more like the god of the Bible whosaid trifles as:

“...when the LORD your God hasdelivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you mustdestroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.”

and:

“And the four angels who had beenkept ready for this very hour and day and month and year werereleased to kill a third of mankind.” (OK, so this was actually theApostle Paul who said this, but god evidently told him to say it...this is how the world is going to end.)

Ronald Reagan is another famouspresident who apparently had the power of god on his side. “Let uspray for the salvation of all those who live in that totalitariandarkness - pray they will discover the joy of knowing God.” That'sright, Reagan figured that god wanted him to beat back “totalitariandarkness” and, if you read this in context, the Soviet Union.Listen, beating the Soviet Union was a pretty awesome cause tochampion, but I certainly never heard Jesus mention anything aboutit.

The point I am making isn't that,because other presidents have said even crazier things based on theirreligious beliefs, it is somehow OK for Obama to do it too. I am notjustifying the insanity muttered by Obama by comparing it to theinsanity muttered by others. I am merely putting it in the propercontext. Politicians all love using religion because people are religious and eat it up. And lets be honest, we are living in a country which isincreasingly polarized by religion; Obama is facing reelection and isprobably trying hard to convince people, finally, that he is not aMuslim. Apparently the best way to do that is to cite one of theother crazies from the Middle Eastern deserts – this time one whowas nailed to a cross as opposed to marrying a 9 year old (Muhammad).I think we are right to be offended by Obama's statement, but notbecause this is the first time this has happened, nor is it the mostegregious merger of fairy tale logic into public discourse; we shouldbe offended because this is the 21^st century: Are youkidding me Obama? You can't make a coherent argument that progressivetaxation is fair without resorting to mythology? Jesus Christ!

Do What Thou Wilt is the Whole of the Law

2012-02-04T10:00:00.000-05:00

Areflection on ethics.

By
Joe Chiarenzelli

AleisterCrowley, an early 20^th century occultist, asserted that “Do whatthou wilt is the whole of the law.” (Crowley 1978). Crowley’s statement is theclosest maxim I have found to be representative of human ethical theory. Byacting upon this maxim, each individual is forwarding the well being of allhumanity. This is because through the process of competing forces the mostuseful for that specific set of circumstances will arise as the victoriousforce. However, this does not mean that any issue contains any inherent ethicalmeaning, rather in the context of the specific “game” that is being playedpragmatic value can be assigned.

Easternphilosophical theories highlight the illusory nature of human existence. Forinstance, if we look at early Indian traditions, we inevitably recognize thatthe world has no logical basis for being “real.” Early Hindu thought hadvarious different darsanas, which ranged in thought on a variety of issues.However, conserved across all these different schools of thought is the ideathat the world is logically paradoxical. One of the most elementary versions of this paradox is very closelyrelated to Zeno’s paradox of motion. Inthis thought experiment, the great Achilles is in a race against the lowlyTortoise. Since Achilles is a far superiorrunner, the tortoise is allowed to start running one hundred meters ahead ofAchilles. As the race starts, Achilles quickly reaches the point at which the tortoisehas started. However, by this point the Tortoise has progressed another tenmeters. Again, Achilles reaches the point where the Tortoise was when Achilleswas at the one hundred meter mark, but the tortoise has progressed one meter.This process continues ad infinitum with Achilles arriving at the point wherethe Tortoise last was, but the Tortoise having progressed a given amount. Fromthis paradox, Zeno draws the conclusion that Achilles will never pass theTortoise, thus inevitably losing the race (Cohen 2005). This argument at firstlook appears to be airtight, but also fly in the face of all experience. It isimportant to notice that within this mental experiment there is an assumptionthat this pattern, Achilles reaching the point where the Tortoise just was, cancontinue indefinitely. In essence, this experiment elucidates that it isimpossible to come to a certainty about the reality of motion (Cohen 2005).

Still otherEastern philosophies reflect this trend, too. The Buddha’s teaching embodied theillusory nature of everyday religion, and these ideas were developed even morein-depth by later Buddhist schools of thought namely Yogacara and Madhayamika.The main philosophical school, which was in dialogue with the Yogacarins, wasthe representationalist realists (Siderits 2005). They believe that there is anoutside environment, but it is mediated by our inability to directly contactit; rather we always see representations of what occurs in the outside world(Siderits 2005). For instance, while I may see a white sea shell, an individualwith jaundice would see a yellow shell (Siderits 2005). The Yogacarins, on theother hand, believe there is no external reality, just internal impressions(Siderits 2005). The representationalist realists created four objections tothis idea, which Vashudanhu then refuted (Siderits2005). Their first and secondobjections are based on the correlation between an event and space-time. However, Vashubandhu answers this objectionwith an analogy: in a dream there is also spatial and temporal correspondence.In a dream, if one walks into a kitchen where bread is baked, at a time breadis being baked, they will experience the smell of bread. In this situation,reality in the sense of spatio-temporal correspondence is equivalent todreaming (Siderits 2005). The representationalist realists ask about anotherdiscrepancy: if dreams and reality are on the same ultimate level of existence,why is it that dreams do not affect the physical body in the same manner thatawake experiences do? Vasubandhu replies that there is a correlation betweendream experiences and the body, he says that “wet dreams” are an example ofthis correlation (Siderits 2005). The last objection to Vasubandhu’s standpointrelies on the agreement between different people on their experientialsurroundings. Vasubandhu denies this by claiming that karma creates these inter-personalagreements. Since all beings that come in contact with each other on the samekarmic level, their experiences (dharmas) are the same because it reflectstheir karma (Siderits 2005). The essential nature of Yogacarin Buddhism arisesfrom this discourse between Vashudanhu and the representationalist realists.

Anotherderivative of Mahayana Buddhism is the Madhyamaka school, whose main proponentwas Nagarjuna (Siderits 2005). Nagarjuna developed the idea of emptiness(sunyata) within his writings. He did this by using a combination of thereductio ad absurdum method, along with the concept of dependent origination (Siderits2005). Reductio ad absurdum involves taking an assumption to a logical end inwhich it is paradoxical and rejecting the validity of the assumption based onthis (Siderits 2005). The theory of dependent origination relies on the conceptthat everything is a product of cause and effect, in other words, somethingmust arise from something (Siderits 2005). Nagarjuna uses these two tools toshow that everything is empty. Due to the fact that origination results from aneffect being inherent in a cause, there can be no true reality because ifsomething is to be ultimately real it must only have one property (Siderits 2005).Through this method, Nagarjuna disproves the ultimate reality of movement andalso proves the eye cannot see. (Siderits 2005) The end product of Nagarjuna’slogic is ultimate reality not falling into any of the categories of, is, isnot, is and is not, or neither is nor is not. The Madhyamaka school’s main goalis for its disciples to recognize the ultimate emptiness of everything and, indoing so, achieve enlightenment.

Lastly one ofthe main eastern philosophical schools that questioned the inherent essence ofpositive or negative ethical attributes was Daoism. Daoism is considered a verynaturalistic philosophy that disapproves of a large dialectic. In Daoism, theDao (the path) is viewed as a lifestyle, something that should structure one’slife. There is a very large emphasis on the concept of wu-wei, not doing(Slingerland 2003). Through not doing, one is supposed to be emptying oneselfof artificial constructions and letting the essential self emerge (Slingerland 2003).To do this seems obviously paradoxical, but it is based more on a mental levelthan on a literal level. The important emphasis of wu-wei is not regarding. Regardingin this situation refers to assigning values to things (Slingerland 2003). Whenone assigns value, it is necessary that an opposite thing arise to define thefirst value (Slingerland 2003). Forinstance, without any bad there is no good, without rich there is no poor, andso on. So by doing wu-wei, one is to completely emerge as a natural entity thatis able to act in harmony with the will of the cosmos.

While these philosophical theories all suggest thatany inherent meaning is absurd, it does not mean that if we take the world welive in as an assumed axiom we cannot create meaning within it using our ownselves. For instance, consider a game of Risk, the strategic war game. Outsideof the game there are no effects of playing the game, aside from the banter ofthe players. However, within the game, different strategies and group movementsresult in varying successes within the game. The success of a strategy isdependent on the rules of the game and the various ways the players respond tothem. Thus, while our lives are meaningless outside the context of our lives,we still are within the game and thus must respond to how the game works(rules) and how others strategize. Asanother example take for instance a fictional game in a scene in DavidWallace's Infinite Jest. Eschatonis a fictional game much akin to Risk, played on a tennis court representingthe surface of the planet Earth. The game becomes chaotic when it begins tosnow. The snow is outside the scope of the game but this is confusing to thoseplaying the game. Some players do not comprehend this difference and claim thatthe snow changes the dynamics of the game. An individual then launches anattack and punches another player instead of affecting the map. An authority onthe game becomes quite livid and exclaims, “Players themselves can't be validtargets. Players aren't inside the goddamn game. Players are part of the apparatusof the game. They're part of the map. It's snowing on the players but not onthe territory.... You can only launch against the territory. Not againstthe map. It's like the one ground-rule boundary that keeps Eschaton fromdegenerating into chaos. Eschaton, gentlemen, is about logic and axiom andmathematical probity and discipline and verity and order. You do not getpoints for hitting anybody real. Only the gear that maps what's real.”This once again represents the important difference between the relativemeaning within the game as opposed to the ultimate meaning outside of the gameitself (Wallace 1998).

Many existentialists have also made this point. Inthe work Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre,he fictionally develops his existentialist theory. Within the book, theprotagonist, Roquentin, finds himself in existential horror because he realizesthat the world itself is indifferent to him. Rather, he sees that his very apprehensionis inherent in all that he sees around him. The world itself has no meaningaside from what he gives to it. This idea can be summated as, “existenceprecedes essence.” Alfred Camus also touches on this issue in The Stranger. The protagonist Mersaultis able to live with dualities such as happiness and sadness because herealizes each is fleeting. However, he cannot live with the duality that hislife is meaningless while also recognizing that he thinks there is great valuein his life (Camus 1982). He decides that this is absurd, but this is becausehe is taking to different types of truths and assuming that they areequivalent. The truth that he assumes his life is of great importance isrelative to the “game” of life. The absolute meaninglessness of it is onlyapplicable outside of the game, while Mersault is actually within the game.Between the two realizations, indeed, there is no real meaning to reality, butthat there is in fact meaning within the context of life, we find a groundingof moral meaning. However, this does notgive us any reason for assuming different moral precepts.

Another important point is that free will and consciousnessare also products of the “game of life.” We must act as if we have free willand consciousness in order to function and even if these things are not realthey are convenient fictions. If one were to understand how physical processesdetermine the future, the individual would need to have knowledge of everyparticle in the universe. However to do this, an individual would have torecreate the universe because as Alfred Korzybski said, “the map is not the territory.”(Korzybski 1994).There could be no generalizations about the particles in theuniverse only knowledge of every particle if one were to determine any exactresults. Thus, even though these two things are not absolutely true, within thegame they are necessary to functioning, and irreducible to their basalelements.

When we considerhuman ethics, we often think in the terms of a specific spatio-temporal slice.This slice is representative of a certain point of time and also a certainlimit of space which our focus bounds. However, this view is flawed. Ethics hascontinually changed throughout the course of human history. This phenomenon hasbeen noticed by Karl Marx. His analyses of class structure as a commonalityamong human society clearly elucidates the ever-changing nature of humanethical theory (Guignon 1995). While the recognition of this phenomenon shows agreat deal of mental acumen, how Marx applied this observation to thegeneration of his own ethical theory is problematic. Marx claims that throughan empirical analysis of the changing ethical theories throughout history, hecan extrapolate how future ethics will come about, and in what form they will appear. However, by making this statement he iscreating a self-reflexive loop that is irresolvable by logic. For instance, theRussian Revolution was influenced by Marx’s writing, and because of this,whether or not history would have taken this course without Marx’s theorieshaving been known is an unsolvable issue. Thus, when Marx makes a claim aboutthe future of ethical and societal trends, he is affecting them by the veryfact of claiming them as eventualities. The self-reflexivity of predictiveclaims makes them almost improvable and thus inconsequential. This means thatto generate a framework for ethical theory, which can be used to understandethics, it must not make any predictive claims, as this causes a self-reflexivelogical loop. Instead, ethical theory should be examined in hindsight toattempt and recognize the conserved patterns across all historical timelines.

If we stop toremember Crowley’s assertion that, “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law”we can see that this is not a predictive statement but rather a maxim by whichindividual’s live. To update the assertion, it should be put into the form: bydoing what one thinks is best and trying to craft the world in this manner, anindividual is fulfilling their ethical obligation.

John StuartMill’s utilitarianism relies on the idea of the greatest happiness for thegreatest number of principle. Essentially, the central maxim is the greatesthappiness principle claims that one should act for the greatest amount ofhappiness for the greatest number of people (Mill 2005). However, because wehave previously come to conclusion that meaning is not an inherent thing, wemust realize that the definition of what causes happiness is malleable andrelies on a specific set of circumstances. From a purely biological point ofview, happiness can be defined as reproductive success and continued existence.From a societal point of view happiness can be defined as trying to reach theideal of the views that a society holds relative. Thus the sum of these twotypes of happiness would be biological viability along with the capability ofachieving what society has deemed to be happiness. So, one should act topromote the most biological viability along with what society deems to behappiness.

The questionthen is, how can this idea be reconciled with Crowley’s statement? The responseis found in the field of memetics and genetic evolution. The term meme arosefrom Richard Dawkins’ work with genetics, and it is generally accepted to meana basal unit of an idea that can be transferred from person to person. Thesememes are posited to act as mental analogues to genetic material. Assuming thatthis is correct, ideas can replicate throughout a culture and also be eliminatedby the culture in the same manner that poor genes are removed from the genepool. In this situation, natural selection would be analogous to the sum totalof individuals who reject a meme, meaning that the most prominent meme has thewidest appeal and the most socially transferable nature. Thus, when everyindividual decides to act as they want and try to impose their preferences uponothers, their actions come in to tension. One of two things can happen at thispoint: first, an individual can change their behavior to preserve themselves, andsecond, they can try to force this viewpoint onto the other. This can obviouslycome to physical harm or just a change of opinion and action. However, throughthis process we see an analogue of evolution. If we view each interaction as anexample of memetic change, and the meme that is most fit will always be adoptedbecause it is the most useful for the specific set of circumstances, thengradually the population will come to be dominated by this viewpoint, just asan unfit mutation will result in the selection against the unfit organism.Then, if circumstances change and there is a shift in the usefulness of onememe, gradually another will arise to assume its niche. As such through actingas one wants, the net result is a societal trend towards the most happiness forthe most individuals.

Crowley’sstatement very closely mirrors Nietzsche’s assertion of the will to power. Nietzschefocused in Thus Spake Zarathustra on the idea of the ubermensch, an individualwho crafts their own goals and does not obey the morals of others (Guignon1995). This suggests that because the ubermensch creates their own morals theyshould be able to do what they will themselves to do in all situations. Bydoing this, they are crafting their own existence and forcing themselves uponthe world (Guignon 1995). What Nietzsche fails to realize, however, is that theubermensch/man dichotomy is a false one. All individuals craft their own lifeand force themselves upon the world by the very act of passing moral judgment.Just because an individual may share the views of others does not mean that heis wrong, just that at that point in time a greater number of people are beingserved usefully by a certain ethical paradigm, and that is why it is sowidespread. Thus, if we remove the distinction between these two types of men, weend up with Crowley’s initial statement that, “Do what thou wilt is the wholeof the law.”

In conclusion,although life is inherently meaningless outside of itself, since all humanbeings are within the system, meaning can be ascribed. Also, because anypredictive ethical theory is self-reflexive, it is incapable of ever makingclaims about the future that are verifiably true or false. Finally, through theprocess of memetic and genetic evolution, if every individual was to followCrowley’s maxim, the net result would be a greater happiness for the mostindividuals.

Sources

Camus, Albert. TheStranger, trans. Joseph Laredo, 1982.

Carruth,Hayden (1964). Jean-Paul Sartre. ed. Nausea. New York: New Directions.

Cohen, Mark.(2005) Readings In Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales To Aristotle.Indianapolis.

Crowley,Aleister (1978). The Book of Lies. New York: Samuel Weiser.

Mill, John Stuart,Utilitarianism, ed. George Sher(Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979). IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2005.

Science and Sanity An Introduction to Non-AristotelianSystems and General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski, Preface by Robert P.Pula, Institute of General Semantics, 1994, hardcover, 5th edition

Siderits, Mark."Buddhist Reductionism and the Structure of Buddhist Ethics." IndianEthics: Classical and Contemporary Challenges. Edited by P. Bilimoria, J.Prabhu and R. Sharma. Abingdon, UK: Ashgate, 2005.

Slingerland,Edward Gilman. Effortless Action: Wu-Wei as Conceptual Metaphor andSpiritual Ideal in Early China (Oxford University Press, 2003).

The Good Life, edited by Charles Guignon(Indianapolis: Hackett, 1999).

Wallace, DavidFoster. Infinite Jest. 1st. ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.1996

A Portrait of the Hipster as a Young Man

2012-02-03T17:00:00.000-05:00

By
Taylor Paul Smith

Sitting on a bench in Rochester’sAmtrak station, Kerouac’s On the Road inmy hands, I stare up at the clock. 11:45pm; it should have been here by now.Tired, hungry, and sex deprived, I wish that the family behindme would stop being so obnoxious.

“The train will be arriving in 30minutes. Sorry for the inconvenience,” the intercom crackles out. I consider eating my sandwich, but think ofthe twelve hour ride ahead. How do trains even fall behind schedule?

I scurry onto the train and find myseat by the window. A man in his mid-twenties takes the seat beside me. Baggypants, a bright yellow t-shirt, and thick-rimmed glasses. Visibly a hipster, and notthe pleasant type.

The train creeps forward as theconductor makes his rounds. He stops in front of my seatmate and I.

“You’ve got something on your arm”,he says to the fellow beside me.

“No, I don’t,” the hipster snaps back. The conductor laughs and looks pleased with himself. I look down. The hipster’sarms bare the beginnings of a sleeve tattoo design. They seem sloppy and awkward.What an imbecile.

The conductor walks off and theimbecile and I share a puzzled expression.

“Wow, I feel like he reallyconnected with me. I should write a letter to the corporation, thanking them for theirservice. Amtrak, I love it. Been ridin’ since I was a kid. No seatbelts; that’sfreedom,” he stammers at me. I chuckle nervously.

I shake through Kerouac.

“Iwished I was on her bus. A pain stabbed my heart, as it did every time I saw agirl I loved who was going the opposite direction in this too-big world. Theannouncer called the LA bus. I picked up my bag and got on, and who should besitting there alone but the Mexican girl. I dropped right opposite her andbegan scheming right off. I was so lonely, so sad, so tired, so quivering, sobroken, so beat, that I got up my courage, the courage necessary to approach astrange girl, and acted. Even then I spent five minutes beating my thighs inthe dark as the bus rolled down the road.

Yougotta, you gotta or you’ll die! Damn fool, talk to her! What’s wrong with you?Aren’t you tired of yourself...”

“So, are you a student? Where doyou go?” he interrupts.

“Yeah, uh Clarkson University”, Ireply hesitantly.

Startled, he whips back, “No,really? Clarkson? In Potsdam, huh. Yeah, I grew up in Potsdam. Lived there ‘tilI was 18. What are you studying?”

“Mathematics,” I say, keeping myreplies pointedly short.

He presses, “Oh yeah? What area?”

“Pure mathematics, logic and stufflike that.” I stress the difference between myself and those calculators they call applied mathematicians and statisticians.

“What kind of courses do you takefor something like that?” he asks.

“Uhh, well I just got done with twosemesters of Real Analysis. Next semester I’ll be taking Abstract LinearAlgebra.” I was hoping some jargon would leave him with nothing to say.

He blankly replies, “But, thosearen’t really logic, I mean…”

I quickly correct him, “Well sure theyare. There’s plenty of proof writing andthings like that.”

“It’s also a language” he says.

Who is this guy? And what the hellis he talking about? You certainly develop a language in Real Analysis, but howdoes that rule out the usage of logic. I stare at him pretentiously.

“Nevermind… But specifically logic,huh?” he asks.

“Uhh… yeah.”

Logic! He means logic is alanguage. Of course. I wonder if I should clarify.

“Yeah, I’m actually a graduatestudent in mathematics at Cornell.” he says. I stare back blankly.

As I process this bizarre exchange,things slowly start to make some sense. I had told a person I assumed to be anidiot that I studied logic. To most this would simply imply that I apply logicalprinciples to problems in order to derive solutions. Tell this to a heavythinker like a philosopher or a mathematician and it means much more. They willassume you are deconstructing the Aristotelian logic we all hold dear and are buildingup some new set of axioms.

We make small talk about safe,trivial topics. He offers up a logic puzzle that I fail to wrap my head around.And our conversation had ended just as it had begun; with one of us thinkingthe other was a complete fool.

Jack Kerouac has been credited withdefining the 1950’s subculture known as the Beat Generation. Members of thisBeat Generation, often referred to as beatniks, are characterized by theirfreethinking, their rejection of materialism, and their spontaneity. A parallelcan be drawn from these beatniks to the hipsters of today’s postmodern world.This sort of counterculture lineage can be traced from the beatnik, to thehippie of the 1960’s and 1970’s, to today’s hipster.

This lineage brings to light a bizarre separation of the hippie and the hipster. Because oftheir similar linguistic labeling and sociotemporal proximity, one would expecta hipster to have more in common with a hippie than a beatnik. On the surface,this is far from the case.

Aestheticallyspeaking, hipsters resemble beatniks far more than their LSD entrancedcounterparts. With a love of cigarettes, wine, big glasses and small pants, andanything and everything obscure, a hipster and a beatnik would never strugglefor chitchat over their cup of black coffee. Superficially these subculturesare nearly identical, however the substance behind each of these façades isdramatically different. That is to say that beatniks have substance.

This lastnotion may come off as harsh, yet some would say this is justified. Take forinstance Julie Burchill, as quoted in Neil Mercer’s Words & Minds:

“If I wantimmaturity, I’ll choose a gorgeous boy with no ambition and a sweet nature. …The trouble is, men have got it too soft these days. In the past, just theprocess of being alive saw to it that boys grew up PDQ; shoved into factoriesat 14, as my father was, deprived of sex before marriage, adulthood seemed boththe natural and desirable state for any boy on the right side of adolescence. Thesedays, educated until they say ‘when’, with sex on tap, there simply seems nopoint in growing up.”

While Ifeel that Burchill makes some outrageous claims, her overall message rings true. There issomething different about the youth growing up in this privileged postmodernworld. And although she does not use the word ‘hipster’, I believe these are the people she is describing. But the question remains, are hipsters really thecultural dead-end that some claim? Let us turn back to the beatniks for ananswer.

The term beatnik came from the notionthat these individuals were “beat” down wanderers searching for spiritualmeaning. They live for the new and are constantly searching for things thatmake their hearts beat faster. In contrast, hipsters typically come fromprivileged upbringings and rarely venture outside of their particular scene.They live for irony and are constantly skeptical of anything taken seriously.

Hipstersare inseparable from the postmodern philosophy that they follow. Which is tosay that they are attached to nothing, not as individuals and certainly not asa collective. A steady stream of misleading advertisements, political deceit,and untrue entertainers has left them with nothing to buy in to. Any moderately exciting cultural movement in the last 15 years has been bought up, watereddown and sold back for a premium. And the only logical conclusion when there isnothing genuine left in the world? Reject it all.

Forillustrative purposes let me offer up two real world examples of such hipsters.Exhibit A: Your author. Now, although I feel as though I am fairly self-aware,I am also aware that there exists a massive amount of literature suggestingthat we are poor judges of our own character, so rather than give my ownaccount of my hipsterness, I offer you an apt description taken from an essayby a good friend of mine, Joe. He writes: “Take for example my friend Taylor, aperfect model for our inquisitive minds to rest upon as we consider thehipster. He’s around five foot eight, waifish, hasn’t shaved in a few weeks,and his beard is growing in splotchy. Taylor wears box frame glasses, which area common hipster accessory, and they are completely cosmetic, his eyesight isfine. His sense of humor is typical for the Americanus hipsterus, he makes corny puns not forthe corny laugh, but rather for the laughter at how uncomical it is. The lasttime we were together we sat and drank Pabst primarily because it was theworking man’s beer and we were philosophy and mathematics students.” (Read Joe's description here.)

This lastline is of particular importance and brings us to Exhibit B: Joe. It isimportant to note that Joe would reject my labeling of him as a hipster. Hewould insist that he hates hipsters and that he is so “posthipster”. Of course,this idea is nothing more than another ironic joke. In rejecting the oneidentity that can somewhat fairly characterize him, Joe has shown his truehipster colors.

After waking up one morning at a friend’scabin outside of Gouverneur, Joe began driving back to St. Lawrence University.Because of the narrow winding roads and a tired mind (presumably from too muchPabst the previous evening) Joe lost control of his car. After a number offlips, twists, and trees he comes to a stop. He is alright. The police comeand an officer tells him it is a miracle that he is alive. Joe swiftly assureshim that it was simply random chance.

In his essay Joe pointsout that we are philosophy and mathematics students. While these disciplineshave wildly different syntactic systems, the individuals within themessentially carry out the same intellectual functions. Both offer their astuteconclusions obtained in an abstracted “if-then” environment. And in this processthey both avoid ever having to make any claim about the real world. What couldbe better for a hipster to study?

Take forinstance a class that I am currently taking, Abstract Linear Algebra. We havespent the last twelve weeks building a syntax to describe the abstract idea ofa vector space. Now, there are plenty of things in the world that resemblethese vector spaces, but they are of little interest to us. We only care aboutthe qualities we can derive in this abstract box we have created. This isessentially the sole purpose of pure mathematicians such as myself. And atfirst this process is very engaging. The endless twists and turns allow you to feel asthough you are completing a perfect puzzle. A puzzle in which the pieces can be assembled in many different ways, yet always result in the same final image. However, after three and a half years of this type ofmind-bending, I am finding the process tedious, and worse yet, disheartening.

I feel asthough this type of pursuit ultimately leads to complete detachment. Isolatedby this endless wall of arbitrary symbols and scribbles, I stutter through thisweek’s homework assignment. Staring at the page I wonder how a definition canbe so meaningless. I grab my phone and call an art student from a neighboring university tosee if she would like to meet me for coffee. In a candid moment this particularart major had expressed a specific guilt to me. It was a guilt pertaining tothe very quality by which I have chosen to define her here.

“Art, Ilove it, it’s the best feeling in the world, but… it feels so selfish.”

I nodhesitantly and make my best attempt at empathy. In truth, I know exactly howshe feels. All youth, and perhaps all people, seem to have these two competing fears,the fear of becoming useless and the fear of becoming soulless. And in a worldwhere the most talented of artists and most brilliant intellects can be channeledin seconds from my dorm room, we have plenty of opportunity to pale incomparison. These fears can become paralyzing. This, I believe, is at the rootof hipsterism.

Manyof the world’s most beautiful works of art have come from depressed, deprivedartists and some of the greatest advancements of science have been the resultof individuals locked away in basements or in attics, lost in a drug inducedintellectual mania. Striking a balance between fighting off the uselessness and fighting off the soullessness may work for some,but for others it will be nothing more than a series of compromises, leavingthem exhausted and unfulfilled.

Theendless philosophical questioning postmodernism has led tohesitancy and the indecisiveness in today’s youth. They are all too well awarethat running down any of life’s paths will eventually have them smacking theirheads against some paradoxical wall. They have seen the monumental splitting ofthe atom run its course to the point where multiple nations possess enoughnuclear weapons that they are able to completely destroy the earth. They haveseen the over prescription of wonderful antibiotics elicit fear that we arebreeding an extremely resistant super virus that will cause an unprecedented epidemic.And they have seen the amazing utilization of the earth’s resources be abusedto the point where the environment is threatening us with earthquakes frombelow, overwhelming heat from above, and massive hurricanes from all sides.

We havebecome terrified by our effect on the world. Disengaged and uninvested we willhide by an elaborate series of abstractions. Some of us will escape to a pagefull of numbers and scribbles, some will evade concern with sarcastic quips to apolice officer, and some will get lost in a self-indulgent art. Inthe end someone will have to step up and make our global decisions. Someonewill have to say, “This is the best I’ve got, let’s live with the results.”

The Problem with Islamic Sharia Law

2012-02-03T09:30:00.000-05:00

Ruhi Al-Ahmed

http://visionfirstnow.org/2011/07/01/eu-court-of-human-rights-against-deportation/

Sharia law is a holy regulation thatinfringes on our human rights. Women, children, homosexuals,non-Muslims and apostates in particular, non-practicing as well ascultural Muslims, and nonconformists are all closely monitored andpunished based on a medieval criterion under this form of theocraticrule. Sharia cannot and refuses to coexist with vicissitude and thisis an impediment we all should consider and keep an eye out for.There is a reason why people fear and oppose Sharia and all thearchaic negativity it generates within societies.

Sharia is the sacred law ofIslam. All Muslims believe that Sharia is Allah's or God'slaw, but they have differences among themselves as to what exactly itentails. Modernists, traditionalists, and fundementalists all holddifferent views on Sharia, as do adherents to different schools ofIslamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultureshave varying interpretations of Sharia as well. So where does Sharialaw derive from? Muslims believe that this religious jurisprudencedepends on two primary sources: the divine revelations set forth inthe Koran (the holy book for Muslims) and the sayings and examples setby the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Fiqh, or jurisprudence,deciphers and extends the application of Sharia to questions notdirectly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondarysources. Secondary sources may vary from the consensus of thereligious scholars embodied in ijma (the consensus of theMuslim community), and the analogy from the Koran and the Sunnahthrough qiyas (the source of deducing the law). Sharia dealswith many topics addressed by secular law including crime, politicsand economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality,hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, bonds of common ancestry formed the basis for tribal association. The spread of Islam brought the tribes together underone religion. For Muslims, Islam is not just a religion but anabsolute way of life. It is because of this belief that a new common basis of law and personal behavior (Sharia) began to take shapewithin certain Muslim countries and/or families. The topics of Sharia law range from ibadah(ritual worship), mu'amalat (transactions), adab(morality), itiqadat (beliefs), and uuqubat(punishments). According to Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri of “Relianceof the Traveller,” sharia law can be organized into the followingtopics: purification, prayer, taxes, fasting, pilgrimage, trade,inheritance, marriage, divorce, and justice. I will go over only afew of these subjects and themes associated with the Islamic divinelaw.

Prayer or salat is one of thefive pillars of Islam. It is an obligation for each and every Muslims topray five times a day each day, with certain exceptions. A practicingMuslim faces and bows down to the Ka'aba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia inbelief that their prayers would not be accepted if this drill is notdone. The adhan or the Arabic call to prayer can be heard fivetimes a day, every day in Muslim countries.

Sawm or the fasting in the monthof Ramadan is another very significant pillar of Islam (there arefive of them). During this holy month, Muslims abstain from food,drink, drugs and sex from dawn and sunset. Of course, there areexceptions for per-pubescent children, pregnant and menstruatingwomen, the mentally ill and disabled, travelers, etc. People who missa day of fasting must make it up after Ramadan. In some countriessuch as Egypt or Libya, people who eat in public during Ramadanregardless of difference in religion may be fined.

Inheritance in Islam is the following:a female's portion is generally half the amount a male would receiveunder the same circumstances. The justification behind this notion isthat it is the responsibility of the males in the family to take careof the women (mothers, unmarried sisters, wife) (“What is Islam,” p. 52). Islam teaches that“women are precious and should therefore be treated as a pearl init's shell.” This is a very common analogy Muslims all over theworld use when speaking to their daughters and sisters in order to“protect them from evil” - otherwise known as controlling whatthe women in their life can and cannot do according to proper Islamicmorality. Inheritance under sharia is based on this.

Niqah or marriage in Islamvaries between sects (Sunni, Shia'a, etc.) schools, states, andcultures. The Koran specifically mentions niqah (permanentmarriage which can be undone through divorce), and niqah mut'ah(temporary marriages which is acceptable for men only in Muslimsocieties, generally speaking). Though mut'ah marriages are a practicefor Shia'a Muslims even today, Sunni Muslims have their very ownversion of temporary marriages: niqah misyar. These temporarymarriages don't count towards the maximum of four wives the Korangrants to Muslim men and to Muslim men only. Muslim women are onlyallowed to marry one Muslim man whereas Muslim men can marry up twofour wives ranging from the three Abrahamic faiths: Islam,Christianity and Judaism. A Muslim man can marry as many temporarywives he finds fit. The amount is limitless. This explains thehistory of the many Muslim caliphs of the Middle East. It is veryimportant to note that the man is not economically responsible forthe welfare of the woman in either forms of temporary marriages. Yes,these temporary marriages exist even today in countries like theIslamic Republic of Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc. In sharia law, aMuslim man is permitted to marry up to four wives as mentioned in theKoran so long as they each receive an equal amount of wealth,treatment, inheritance, and love. This is usually done if the firstwife is infertile. Polygyny is regulated in countries such as Egypt,Saudi Arabia, etc. But it is also abolished in some Muslim states.Basically, polygyny is reserved for the rich men. This custom ofmarriage is still existent today.

Requirements for Islamic marriagesare listed:

-the man who is not currently afornicator can marry a woman who is not a fornicatress and is from thepeople of the book (Jews, Christians, and Muslims).

-a Muslim woman can only marry oneMuslim man.

-permission for a virgin female tomarry must be given be her male guardian, normally her father.

-any Muslim woman may demand herguardian marry her to a Muslim male, provided he is suitable. If theguardian refuses; a judge will effect the marriage.

-the father may choose a suitablepartner for a virgin girl.

-the guardian may not marry thedivorced woman or the widow if she did not ask to be married.

-without permission of the girl, themarriage is invalid (though oftentimes we see this rule beingabandoned).

-Muslim men are obligated to give abridal gift to the woman or women he marries.

According to the European Court ofHuman Rights (ECHR) in 2003 and 2004, “sharia is incompatible withthe fundamental principles of democracy” (February 13^th,2003) because the sharia rubric on women rights, inheritance andreligious freedom violate human rights (Cambridge Encyclopedia, Vol.24). As one may assume, the perception of justice in sharia isentirely different and foreign to the secular law (for the most part)in the Western world. Muslims have a very sacred and seriousconnection and relationship to God or Allah. So the strict guidelineslaid down by Him in the Koran and the Hadith must be followed whetherby law politically or by the spirit at home. A crime in Islam suchas adultery, robbery, murder, etc. is regarded as a grand sin andshould therefore be punished however it has been arranged in theIslamic holy books.

Here, we have a few atrocities thathave occurred recently around the world. They have been labeled as“justice, fairness, and reasonable” based on sharia law:

Christianwoman sentenced to death in Pakistan ‘forblasphemy’http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html

“It makes religious minoritiesparticularly vulnerable because it’s often used against them.”

SaudiArabia: Journalist Sentenced to PublicLashinghttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/11/15/saudi-arabia-journalist-sentenced-public-lashing-0

"Free assembly and expression areboth hallmarks of open, accountable societies, but they are in shortsupply in a country as repressive as Saudi Arabia."

80-year-old man marries 14-year-old(Saudi Arabia)

http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/80-year-old-man-marries-14-year-old-2010-11-03-1.312713

“A Saudi old man aged above 80 yearshas married a 14-year-old girl and is refusing to divorce her unlessshe pays him back his wedding money, the Saudi Ajel Arabic languageonline paper reported on Wednesday.”
This can be justifiedIslamically because the prophet Mohammed himself married 8-year-oldAisha when he was in his 40s.

Child brides as young as 5 married offin secret to middle-aged men

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001029/Child-brides-young-5-married-secret-middle-aged-men.html

“…in Yemen, Afghanistan, Ethiopiaand other countries with even higher rates of marriage at an earlyage, the husbands may be young men, middle-aged widowers or evenabductors who rape first and claim their victims as wivesafterwards.”

More hands amputated in Iran

http://wwrn.org/articles/34380/?&place=iran

“More and more people are gettingtheir hands chopped off in Iran. In the last few months, seven havehad a hand amputated by the state to serve as an ‘example’ forothers, this despite the fact that Ali Shahrokhi, head of the Majlisjudiciary committee, announced a year ago that the Iranian parliament(Majlis) would pass a bill to eliminate stoning and amputationsentences.”

Saudi Arabia: Where Fathers Rule andCourts Oblige

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/18/saudi-arabia-where-fathers-rule-and-courts-oblige

“Saudi judges have repeatedly grantedfathers the right to interfere arbitrarily in their adult children'sprivate lives, in serious violation of their right to privacy and toestablish families freely, Human Rights Watch said today. Fathershave imprisoned their adult daughters for ‘disobedience’ andprevented their marriage, and have been granted custody over agrandchild without valid reason, all with the support of the courts.”

NoArab Spring withoutwomenhttp://english.alarabiya.net/views/2012/01/25/190506.html

“In Egypt, there are now voicessaying that women should leave the revolution to men, and during ademonstration on International Women’s Day in March, men jeered atthe women marching, telling them to go home and feed their babies…

Women in other Arab countries such asSaudi Arabia, who are already struggling with religious leaders, areworried that sterner and discriminatory laws against women in theregion will have a negative impact on the few rights they haverecently gained through a decision by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullahto allow women to vote in municipal election and become members ofthe consultative Shura Council. Women in Kuwait are also strugglingwith Islamist members of parliament (MPs). While the emir hasinsisted on introducing female MPs, Islamist MPs have introducedsegregation in Kuwait’s universities…

As the machinery of Islamist partiessweeps across the region, Arab women must think of establishing aunion or organization to strengthen their rights, boost civil societyand challenge patriarchal interpretations of Islam. Since women’sstatus in one Arab country, especially a large country like Egypt,affects how women are treated in other Arab countries, establishingsuch a union is crucial…”

AfghanWomen: Symbol of Past Oppression, Future of EqualRightshttp://www.forbes.com/sites/worldviews/2012/01/19/afghan-women-symbol-of-past-oppression-future-of-equal-rights/

“Discrimination against women willcontinue to be a problem so long as (religious) fundamentalists andthe uneducated see women’s rights initiatives as threats ratherthan opportunities to develop communities. There must be vocalsupport and calls for clearly defined female roles in public lifewithin Afghan society.”

Berlin: Sharia law in office building

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/10/berlin-sharia-law-in-office-building.html

“German newspaper Bild published thisweek that a clause in the rental contract stipulates that selling andproducing alcohol and pork is banned in the building, as isinterest.”

Indonesian women caned for selling foodduring Muslim festival of Ramadan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/8037264/Indonesian-women-caned-for-selling-food-during-Muslim-festival-of-Ramadan.html

“The two women were found guilty ofselling food during the fasting hours of Ramadan, thereby violatingIslamic sharia law.

Hundredsof people gathered to watch as Murni Amris, 27, received three lashesand Rukiah Abdullah, 22, received two at a mosque in the city ofJantho, southeast of the provincial capital, Banda Aceh, Indonesia.”

(Indonesia)Aceh enforces women trouserbanhttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2010/09/20109214758219240.html
“Tighttrousers are off limits to women in West Aceh, Indonesia.

The Sharia police stop women who breakthe dress code, forcing them to wear a long skirt handed out by thegovernment.”

ShariaDegradation ofWomenhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/sharia_degradation_of_women.html
“Theunremitting degradation of women in most of the Mideast, Africa, andother parts of Asia where Islamic law plays a huge role is horrifyingand appalling. Islamiclaw endorses slavery,demands executions for apostasy, and condones the repression ofwomen.
The debasement of women plays a critical role amongPalestinian women, where little girls live under a death threat ofhonor killing. The male sexual abuse of female children is quitepervasive. It traumatizes and shames women into obedience and rendersthem incapable of resistance or rebellion. This degradation of womenis not restricted merely to the Palestinian community, whose liveshave been repeatedly squandered by their terrorist leaders. In Iran,for instance, the Islamic government does not recognize women asfully human. In 1992, over 100,000 women were arrested in Tehran for"improper veiling" and "moral corruption." Scoresof pregnant women were flogged in public on the same charge. Womenappearing in public without traditional veiling are sentenced to upto 74 lashes…
The ageof marriagehas been lowered from eighteen years to nine years of age. Stoning isa punishment for adultery and prostitution. Women found guilty of anyinfraction are forced to wash toilets, fined, jailed, and flogged.Humiliation is the source of the Islamic fundamentalist power…”

Saudidiplomat seeking asylum ‘My life is indanger’http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39118941/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/saudi-diplomat-seeking-asylum-my-life-danger/#.TydW5WO-2So
The diplomat, Ali Ahmad Asseri, the first secretary of the Saudiconsulate in Los Angeles, has informed U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity officials that Saudi officials have refused to renew hisdiplomatic passport and effectively terminated his job afterdiscovering he was gay and was close friends with a Jewish woman…If he is forced to go back to Saudi Arabia — as Saudi officials aredemanding — Asseri says he could face political persecution andeven death.”

Islamand capital punishmenthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/capitalpunishment.shtml
“Islam on the whole accepts capitalpunishment.

...Take not life, which God has madesacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does He command you,so that you may learn wisdom

Qur'an 6:15…Whatconstitutes the crime of 'spreading mischief in the land' is open tointerpretation, but the following crimes are usually included:

Treason/apostasy (when one leaves the faith and turns against it)
Terrorism
Piracy of any kind
Rape
Adultery
Homosexual activity”

Religiousfreedom at stake inEgypthttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/08/egypt-elshabini-ramadan-police
“Tarek Elshabini, a 21-year-old engineering student, is Muslim,but only according to his personal ID card. Every year when Ramadancomes, he faces a dilemma: he doesn't fast because he's an atheist,but everyone, including police officers, expects him to fast becausehe was born into a Muslim family… The arrests also show thatfreedom of religion and belief is in danger in Egypt, which has longbeen known for its relative religious tolerance, especially incontrast to the theocratic regimes elsewhere in the region, such asSaudi Arabia, most of the Gulf countries, Sudan and Iran. But itseems that, for the second year in a row, this is changing, at leaston an unofficial level.”

The reason I provided so many examplesfrom the past year is to show that sharia law is still very muchalive unlike the heinous rabbinical, Christian, and Hindu law.Indeed, various other religious laws in the past have created thesame types of atrocities, if not more malevolent, than sharia law.The difference is that all of the laws, for the most part, have beenabandoned. Parts of the Christian law are still flourishing within U.S. governance, but the difference we in America have is that we have thefreedom and right to petition, protest, and lobby against certainedicts that may have a Christian influence. We do not even dare totake that kind of chance in a country where sharia law plays thepredominant role in the government and politics. There is no room fornegotiating God’s words; His religious law in this context. We seethat sharia law is still stuck in medieval times.

Speaking for myself, I’m not againstthe belief in a god or even a million gods. One’s relationship togod(s) should be a personal holy communion. It is something veryprivate. I understand religion may provide positive and motivationalspiritual guidance for many people. But for the rest of us such asmyself, we do not need religion and specifically Islam to dictate ourlives and illustrate what constitutes as moral conduct in “God’seyes.” I do not oppose people of faith. However, I strongly opposeany form of theocracy (the reason that I speak of sharia law here isbecause we see it introducing itself into Western countries such as theU.K.) since it violates our human rights. We are all human beings nomatter what creed, sex, age, or racial background we may hold. Andsharia law like any other theocracy infringes upon these rights andthreatens the lives of women, children, homosexuals, ex-Muslims(which exist believe it or not – we should have the right to raiseour voices without fearing for our lives), and so forth. We cannotafford to lose another life due to an honor killing or any otherdeath due to God’s scriptures. Be a noble Muslim/believer and leavethe judging to God alone and let us humans focus on the problems andcomplexities here on Earth. We can make heaven on earth instead of adaily judgment day for “criminals.” We certainly do not have theexpenses and time to devote to the religious wrong-doings of people.We have advanced and let’s keep moving forward. There is no timefor regression and sharia law cannot adapt to modernity. Takendirectly from the One Law for All against Sharia Law in Britain,“Proponents argue that Sharia courts are an alternative method ofdispute resolution and curb legal aid costs. When it comes topeople’s rights, however, cuts in costs and speed can only bringabout serious miscarriages of justice. Many of the laws that Shariacourts and religious tribunals aim to avoid have been fought for overcenturies in order to improve the rights of those most in need ofprotection in society.” Rights, justice, appropriation, equalityand respect are what a government should practice and applythoroughly for its people and not beliefs.

Some of you are probably thinking thatthis has nothing to do with you and that if Muslims want to practiceSharia in their country for whatever reason, they should feel freeto. Wrong. The UK was under attack by pro-Sharia activists, trying toimplement the Islamic law there. The debate about the burqa ban inFrance and other European countries show some Sharia influence. Butit is the United States that the radical Islamists are trying toimpose this law.

With where our (the U.S.) government isheaded now, the last thing we need is Sharia law or any othertheocracy. This is not a war on Muslims. I find it absolutelyfascinating how many Muslims take it to heart when they hear aboutthe banning of Sharia law yet they lack the heart and believe overruling Sharia law impossible. This allows the cultural mentalities it contains topercolate subsequently and people, specifically women and children,suffer and die from it. I do not care whether you label theseactions of Sharia law or not. The fact is that these actions havereligious, Islamic roots. We know that some people misinterpretcertain verses and sayings and we know people, no matter howirrelevant to today’s mentality, would actually agree with certain elements ofArabian desert culture or Islamic rulings and norms from back then.This is why we cannot have religion of any kind infiltrate ourgovernment. People, specifically Muslims, fail to embrace our freedomof religion – our constitutionally guaranteed right. Where I live,I see Muslims praying even outside their mosques and their homes. Theypray outside when its prayer time and no one ever says anything tothem. They have the freedom to wear their hijab and the liberty ofeating halal food that is made available in a non-Islamic country. Ifeel that Muslims are asking for too much; you people really have itall here. Remember the separation of church and state and apply thisconcept to Sharia law. Again, the ban is not on Muslims. The ban ison the Sharia law. It isn’t prevalent to Western modernity nor willit ever reform. If you choose religion to govern you, let it onlygovern you and no one else. Pray, fast, give to charity, practiceabstinence, etc. but do not have your lifestyle forced upon others.Tell me how you’d feel if the U.S. happened to turn more Christianthan it already is, Muslims? Or Jewish or Hindu. How would you feel?No, you would not like it because they’re not of yourpersonal, religious beliefs. Bingo. Now you know why the vastmajority of the Western world dislikes anddeclares a ban on the Sharia law – it’s not applicable to us.

In America and all Western countries,if a man or a woman is caught in adultery, they have the liberty toget divorced. I would like to present to you the numerousdomestic violence organizations and shelters made available to womenand children in each and every state. Here in America, we havehotlines designed to assist battered women that are open 24/7.We women have the right to leave an abusive husband and many womenhere happen to use their right to do so. The women who choose tostay due to financial dependency, low confidence and self-esteem,restriction of reaching out to society, having children, etc. israther irrelevant to the question proposed. These organizations donot only help these women stay safe but they advise them and helpbattered women in terms of getting a new job, gaining confidence,etc. Abuse goes on everywhere but in America, you have support frompeople. In other countries, particularly in Muslim countries, thatsupport is absent.

Homosexuals are forced to be publiclyexecuted. If you were to change your religion, in this case fromIslam, you have committed a crime under the Sharia law. Apostasy inIslam is synonymous to signing your own death certificate. Unmarriedfornicators are to be whipped and adulterers are sentenced to bestoned to death. You can only imagine how it would be like living asa non-Muslim in a Sharia ruled, Muslim dominated country – not verywell. Non-Muslims under Sharia have to pay a special tax or “jizya”for simply being non-Muslim. If you happen to be critical ofMuhammad, Allah, the Qur’an and Sharia itself, you can be given adeath sentenced. This includes merely speaking about those topics,making art or music of it or creating a blog like I have that focuseson such ideas.

Below is the One Law for All againstSharia Law in Britain demands:
We call on the UK government torecognize that Sharia and all religious laws are arbitrary anddiscriminatory against women and children in particular. Citizenshipand human rights are non-negotiable.

We demand an end to all Shariacourts and religious tribunals on the basis that they work againstand not for equality and human rights.

We demand that the law be amendedso that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within andoutside of the legal system

Embrace your liberty and freedom ofspeech and religion. Women and men who support men and womenequality, realize that you would be willingly depraved of yourwomen's rights under Sharia. Think about it in this manner: You’redenying your mother, grandmother, sister, etc. rights to justice andindependence. Will the restriction and suppression on women as wellas other groups result in a progressive society?

Updated Susan G. Komen Foundation Declares Religious War

2012-02-02T18:51:00.001-05:00

Sean Ewart

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-susan-komen-planned-parenthood-breast-cancer-20120201,0,6257433.story

*UPDATE* 2-7-12
Karen Handel, the Vice President of Public Policy for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, has announced her resignation over the controversy with Planned Parenthood. Again, this only proves the power of citizen engagement. Well done. The Washington Post

*UPDATE* 2-3-12
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has reversed its decision to withdraw funding to Planned Parenthood after the efforts of activists and politicians demonstrated the gravity of the mistake. This proves the power of citizen engagement and, more cynically, the power of threatening funding bases. Keep up the good work! CNN

It just has to be said. The recentdecision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut itsfunding for Planned Parenthood is a part of the on going war againstreproductive rights in this country; a war being brought by thereligious right. I have previously written about attempts by the GOPto overthrow Planned Parenthood (The Abortion of Title X), and of thebellicosity of the religious zealots who make up the Tea Party (TheTea Party Hates America). The guns are aimed, once again, at PlannedParenthood, yet this time the religious right is attempting toenforce their theocratic demands from a remarkable platform: one ofthe most respected organizations working on protecting and caring forwomen with breast cancer. This is a despicable move, and one whichhighlights the true fissures in American society. There is no war onreligion in America. However, religion has declared war on America.

Even Planned Parenthood is blaming this recent move on politics. "We are alarmed and saddened that theSusan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed topolitical pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsiderthis policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many womencount," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood,discussing the dropped funding. But let us not mix words: the KomenFoundation is not bowing to political pressure,they are bowing to religious pressure.Sure the line between the two is a fine one, but that is exactly theproblem. This is an attempt by the Komen Foundation which has beenco-opted by religious fundamentalists to deny women the ability toexercise their reproductive rights. Even worse, however, is that theKomen Foundation is willing to sacrifice one of their strongestallies in the fight against breast cancer: Planned Parenthood. Inorder to score a point for Jesus, they are willing to let womensuffer. Not only is this sad, it nearly fits the definition ofinsanity.

Planned Parenthood preforms a wide range of services. One of these happens tobe preforming nearly 750,000 breast exams every year. As far asabortions are concerned, they only make up 3% of Planned Parenthood'shealth services and are not funded by federal money, as per federalregulation. However, the Republican establishment which runs theSusan G. Komen Foundation has decided, in its infinite wisdom, thatcutting funding to this organization is the best way to move forwardwith its mission of aiding America's women. And while Komen'sfounder, Nancy Brinker, is assuring people that the decision was notbased on Planned Parenthood's abortion services, the former Chief ofProtocol for the Bush Administration is far from convincing. Forstarters, last year's hire of Karen Handel is telling of thedirection the Foundation is wanting to go.

Handel is the former Secretary of State of Georgia and a recent contenderfor the Governor's office. Running as a Republican, Handel staked outa strong position based on her “pro-life Christianity.” In 2010 she wrote the following: “I am staunchly and unequivocallypro-life. I believe in the sanctity and inherent dignity of humanlife, and I will be a pro-life governor who will work tirelessly topromote a culture of life in Georgia. ... let me be clear, since I ampro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.” Andwhile no direct link has been established tying her to the recentdecision by the Komen Foundation to cut funding to PlannedParenthood, the position she currently holds is Vice President ofPublic Policy. If she did not have a hand in the decision, it meansshe was derelict of duty. Make no mistake, Vice President of PublicPolicy, former anti-choice gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, KarenHandel is directly involved in the current absurdity.

CanPlanned Parenthood make it without the Susan G. Komen for the CureFoundation's support? Yes. Last year the Komen Foundation gavePlanned Parenthood $680,000; within one day, after Komen's decisionto cut ties with one of their strongest partners, Planned Parenthoodwas able to raise over $650,000 in small donations. The issue isn'twhether or not Planned Parenthood is going to have to close down, butthat it is being taken to task in the first place. The KomenFoundation has attributed their decision to an on going investigationinto Planned Parenthood's finances to ensure that no federal dollarsare being spend on abortions. As of now, no wrong doing has beenidentified. However, as in all theocratic regimes, in the eyes of theSusan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, you are apparently guiltyuntil proven innocent. Shame.

Redistricting Democracy

2012-02-01T12:33:00.000-05:00

Sean Ewart

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=5nJCJQPvEhKUE&b=7498587

Before observing the political firestorm of redistricting, Inever fully understood what makes up that other pillar of democratic inaction.Obviously the overt and covert political power of money is an obstacle tofunctioning democracy; political inaction, due to ignorance, feelings offutility, and apathy is another, and specifically public, ill; but the actualprocess of representation itself is a mind blowing example of just howpolitical power is maintained. I am not speaking as someone who is unsupportiveof the general process of American democracy. Indeed, even in the face ofabsolute and often inscrutable stupidity, I press on in my belief that this isthe best working process in the history of the human species. But let us behonest about just how well the process is working. As with all aspects of ourexistence, only by confronting our reality will we be able to successfully dealwith it.

I love that moment in a discussion about American governmentwhen one party says, “we live in a democracy!” only to be countered by somesmug character who interjects, “a representativedemocracy.” What I love about this moment is the absurdity of the suggestiontacitly implied that representative democracy is somehow of lesser quality thandirect democracy, the process wherein each and every member of society votes oneach and every decision: government by referendum. First of all it should benoted that this has literally never existed. Direct democracy, historicallyspeaking, has always been a collection of elite men pandering to the one orseveral among them with the greatest relative power. Representative democracyis instituted for reasons both practical and political. We could never fit theentirety of the American public into the Congressional chambers, we could neverconvene an assembly of the entirety of the 300,000,000 members of the Americanbody politic, and even if we could, this would provide a poor platform for theacquisition of power – both personal and national; both of which are important.

The fact of the matter is, however, that whilerepresentative democracy is what makes political participation in government bythe people even possible, it has its own problems. We do live in a democracy, arepresentative democracy, and we do get to vote for our representatives. Wechoose who among us will make up the government and make decisions which are inour interests. This is generally well understood, even among those who do notvote. The problem is not that we vote for representatives, but the way it isdetermined how many representatives each population is entitled to, andfurthermore, what defines a population?How are districts of representation determined? Of course, the very fact that weelect representatives who then are entrusted with drawing district maps createsa situation where voters choose representatives who also, in a surprisinglydirect way, choose voters. Obviously there are supposed safe-guards in place,for example, there are ideal population sizes for districts both on a federaland state level. But the principle remains the same, and ideal population sizesare mostly ignored, or at least, are rarely ever met.

Redistricting, the processes by which old districts arerearranged in order to better represent updated census data, is by nature apartisan issue. Because the representatives control the process ofredistricting, they are able to determine how populations are grouped. Thisenables, not so much abuses of power, because there is nothing unconstitutionalabout it, but gerrymandering which produced predictable political results.Politicians are able to group people of one political bent or another togetherand call them a population of interestor, on the flipside, slit them apart based on some other marker to createdistricts which are tailor made for one party or another. And this is not agame played only by the political “bad guys.” Indeed, as with any arms race,once one person or party begins to mess around with districts in order toharvest electoral certainties, the others must compete just to stay relevant.If New York State Democrats in the Assembly are going to draw districts whichensure the status quo, the Senate Republicans must follow suit if they want tostay politically relevant, and vice-versa. But the reality isn’t that there areonly a few people rigging the game; it’s the few who aren’t.

So while the nation grapples with Congressional districtswhich are irrational by all accounts, and while New York is dealing with aflare up over a 63rd state Senate seat, the essence of the problem really isn’tthe political power struggle – that’s a given. The problem is firmly rooted inthe powers given to our representatives. But this power isn’t a new phenomenon;we just happen to be in a position now, probably for the first time in history,where the general population is both aware of the issue and potentially capableof doing something about it. Even the Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo,who has wielded executive power with remarkable force, has called for an“independent” committee to go about the process of redistricting. But unlessthe independent committee is chosen by popular referendum, or perhaps, the mapssuggested by the legislature themselves, the process will always be weighted infavor of the political establishment. Only a vigilant citizenry is able tocounter balance the pressure of a top heavy political environment.

Proud and Atheist

2012-01-30T21:43:00.000-05:00

Brittany EG

http://foreverliberal.tumblr.com/

People feel pressured to be religious. When they question God, His"plan", or the Bible, they are told that they are ungodly,impious, and wrong.

Living in Texas, I am bombarded by religion wherever I go. It isnot uncommon to see bedazzled crosses hanging in shop windows withjewelry adorned with engraved scripture underneath.

There are churches on every corner. ShepherdsGuide.Com just put aChristian yellow pages on my doorstep. There are around 300 churchesin my town, and over fifty Christian schools. Naturally, I pass bythe same churches every day -- some of which can be called "megachurches" with huge parking lots that span the width of seas.

Families go to these churches together on Sundays, and many otherdays of the week. You can always tell because the traffic isterrible, and the restaurants are full of people wearing their"Sunday best". They baptize their kids, send them toconfirmation or Confraternity of Christian Doctrine classes, andteach them about Jesus, images of which can be found hanging from carmirrors. People get Virgin Mary or Jesus tattoos on their arms, andwear them proudly.

In order to fit in here, it's necessary to believe in some sort ofGod. Sure, not everyone is religious, but the majority sure is(according to City-Data, 65.14% belong to a congregation, and thatdoesn’t even account for people who adhere to a specific religionor believe in God but don’t belong to a congregation), and theywill definitely let you know their opinion if you bravely reveal thatyou are not one of them. And this is a natural desire -- to be ableto stand around the figurative water cooler and say, "I agreewith you” and "We understand each other". Not just withsociety generally, but also with family, especially with family.

This isn't only a reality for southern states like Texas; it'salso a reality for many other places too. For example, in the UnitedStates, an estimated 83.1% of the population claims to be religious(The Pew Forum). And I know for a fact that there are many closetatheists out there, including in my pious hometown, but society andtheir families keep forcing them back into the closet.

This isn’t surprising, as the attitudes towards atheists aren’texactly the best. A Gallup poll showed that 48% of people would stillnot vote for an atheist as president. 52% had a “mostly unfavorableor very unfavorable” attitude towards atheists according to the PewResearch Center, done in another study. Research done by Will Gervaisshowed that atheists are trusted to the same degree as rapists. Pewalso revealed that around 40% wouldn’t want their children marryingan atheist.

This partly comes from stereotypes and misinformed beliefs thatpeople have about atheists in America. They believe that they areanti-American, worship Satan, and have no morals, amongst others. Astudy done by Pew actually showed that half of Americans believe aperson can’t have morals if they don’t believe in God.

So this is my chance to say: stop standing in the closet. Get outthere and voice your opinion. Do not be afraid of what you believe in- like the people that you are afraid will look at you differentlybecause of this revelation. Show them that the stereotypes are nottrue. Educate them.

We all have a duty to use our voice, because a lot of the time, itis the only thing we have -- and oh, is it powerful.

What really happened that day

2012-01-24T16:56:00.002-05:00

Joe Chiarenzelli

http://themediansib.com/category/thats-my-life/photography/

If there is onedefining moment in my schooling, not specifically formal schooling,but schooling in life, it would have to be in my first year atClarkson University. I had graduated a naïve junior from highschool, a year before my peers, and entered into college a yearearly. Before going to Clarkson I had never touched a drop of booze,a puff of smoke, or, more importantly, a hit of acid. Some may findmy quick descent into the debauchery of something akin to Thompson’sGonzo alarming, but I had always had the Gonzo in me, and I only needa push in the right direction to send me into pyschedelia.

On the morning ofmy current reflection, I was standing outside of my building complex.A brick modernist building that the architects certainly had notthought of from an aerial view (it looked like a swastika). A scruffylooking skater-punk rolled up to me, his grinding wheels seemed toecho off every surface, a foreshadowing of what was to come later inthe day (damn Bulgarians). This bean-pole with the gaunt features ofa medieval serf was my friend Craig. An amazing artist, Craig is nowat a prestigious art school, he was a bit crazy and very solitary. Hewas often given to fugues of melodic genius on his guitar, they neverwere repeated.

“Acid son,” hesaid to me with a manic smile not unlike a man on a five-day methbinge.

“Alright,” Isaid, as we took the little sheets out of the tin-foil it wasenveloped in.

We set off, acrossthe yard behind the hockey rink, a hulking feature of green and glassthat was the pride of the University at the time. We ran into myfriend Jane, and swerved to the left only allowing a quick “hi,”between us, a result of the tension we felt after a horrible drunkenhook-up.

This was the lasttime Craig and I really saw each other as who we were. He was still astudent at the local high school, and I, a freshman up on Clarksonhill, on the other side of town. We had had plenty of fun togetherin school, making jokes at the duller student’s expenses. Ourrelationship was more than this because we understood each other.Craig knew when to call me on my bullshit. When I would go off on ahyperbolic rant, espousing my own views and draconically crushingothers, he would say, “Shut-up Joe your being a jackass.”Contrarily when he was subject to his fleeting depressions I would bethe one who drove into town to walk the cold streets of Potsdam withhim while he sorted out his head.

We headed towardthe water tower that would lead us to the woods, we couldn’t feelanything yet and supposed that it would be the best idea to removeourselves from the rest of campus and embrace our natural roots.Walking through the woods I noticed the blooming flora, it wasspring, as we walked towards the observatory we were headed towards,a half hour away, it started to hit us.

Let me tell you,you know your tripping when the air starts to be malleable, awater-like substance that responds to your every touch and pullslittle streamers off your hands as you move through it. We got to theobservation deck up above the swamp. On a later voyage we arrived atnight and the phosphorescent lights squirmed like worms among themud. This day though, we spent little time.

From an impartialpoint of view I’m sure any bystander would have been alarmed at ourswollen pupils, dark masses surrounded by a corona of iris. The waywe seemed to be swimming through the air, deluded in ourintoxication. If they had realized that we were on Captain AlbertHoffman’s trouble child they certainly would have thought we weremiscreants, slaves of our own youthful stupidity. They would bewrong. We were on a quest to find what ails us, the gland in ourpsyche that was beginning to shrivel up and die.

The pineal glandis an ancestral organ, in humans located about in the middle of thebrain. Evolutionarily it was close to the outside of the organismfunctioning as a third eye, one that could sense the light. Thisgland produces DMT a compound that is released three months intogestation and right at the moment of death. LSD also activates thisgland. Some posit that this is the seat of the soul, the third eyethat can sense the light of the world, in some sense. The lack ofstimulation from the contemporary mental market left us lacking inthe most important things (or so we thought).

We set off againdetermined to get into the shamanic state we used to admire so much.This was indeed the shamanic ideal set forth by the sixtiescounter-culture, being one with nature, learning the hidden truthsthat one could bring back to the tribe. Craig and I had prepared forour voyage several days prior, exchanging money and making playlists.We decided on Tuvon throat singing from Bulgaria for the first leg ofour trip. The Tuvon are a shamanic tribe from Bulgaria who havelearned to sing eerie notes in their larynx, turning their throatinto an organic piano, otherworldly in pitch and harmony. We woundthrough the woods, listening to the earthy tones of vocal chords.What a musical oddity.

Being the eruditeyoung hipsters we were we decided to split up and take our ownspiritual walks and agreed to meet up later. This is right beforefate intervened. My path took me towards a road, and right after Iheard the trucks rumbling near me, I ran head-first into a boy scouttroop. Their faces were morphed. When on LSD, that primordial beastof the counter-culture, those who you typically should trust take onthe strained faces of the most foul of beasts. They sneer in theirhappiness, monsters of the society that made them little soldiers,tin in their ideas and lemming-like in their disposition.

What a sight theymust have seen, a frightened deer with headphones perking up its earsand turning to run. This only shows that they are susceptible to thesame faults we all experience every day, even those out of theirminds. A favorite author of mine speaks of how he sees UNFO’s everyday. He says that these unidentified non-flying objects are seen inour daily lives, even walking down the street. We see things flash byus all the time; we assume they are cars or people on bikes. How dowe know? How do these boy-scouts know what I am? I could very well bea deer, if one young boy-scout suggests to the other young boy-scoutsthat I was a deer, they would all believe it. I would be a deer, justas everything Craig and I saw together must have been real, to us, atthe time.

As I ran back downthe path I ripped out my headphones and started yelling Craig’sname, a shrill cry that echoed against the empty forest, resoundingwith the force of my desperation. No answer. I found him lying in thegrass a few feet off the path moving his fingers in ethereal patternsamong the liquid air, as I roused him he saw my face and we both tookoff running.

Being thoroughlylost in the right state of mind is akin to being totally free, readyto test yourself against the ancestral challenges ourfor-for-for-fathers must have faced. However, in a less sober stateof mind it tends to be fairly frightening. Our fright made us searcharound for any sign to direct us.

What are thechances, dear reader, that a sign can cause an existential crisis.They typically say stop, yield, merge, or slow ahead. But this day,this fateful day, Craig and I ran into a sign that completelyperplexed and filled us with Sartian Nausea. The sign we came acrosssaid, “You are here.” The next day I realized that the map hadbeen broken off, but at the time it plunged us deep into our ownpsyches.

“We are here.”Craig cackled.

“Are we?” Isaid.

“Of course.”Craig said.

“Yeah but howdoes the sign know?” I replied

We continuedrunning.

The fact thatneither of us was sure that we were there would haunt me the rest ofthe day. How could I know that Craig was not just a figment of mydrug fueled imagination? More importantly how could I know I wasn’tone of his?

We finally foundthe train tracks running along the back side of the Clarkson campus.Craig dissuaded me from following it until we ran into a town, a wisechoice. We continued along our path, weaving in and out of treessearching for something that looked somewhat like a path. The treesgrew larger, or at least I remember them doing so, as clouds moved inand it started to drizzle.

Craig spotted theoctopus tree first and directed us towards it. He grabbed me by theshoulder and commanded that I climb. Climb I did. I arrived at thehollow where the eight branches (I confirmed later there were eightbranches) divided from each other. When Craig reached where I was heimmediately took off up a tentacle, skateboarders have great climbingability oddly. We chatted as he climbed.

“Dude I swearthis thing is alive.” I said sweating in my nervousness.

“You’re aparanoid pansy Joe, of course the trees alive.” He replied

“No dude, this isa fucking octopus man, no way this is a tree, it has eight legsdude.” I jumped from the tree as I yelled this at him and took offup the path.

“Jesus, yourright!” he seemed astonished, although it had been obvious allalong.

We ran furtheralong the path, for what seemed like the rest of our lives, but fromwhat my watch said it was less than 2 minutes.

In the TwilightZone Rod Serling constantly presents the viewer with a moral atthe end of a voyage of the mind like this. I have no moral foranyone, I can’t know for sure that my life after that day has notbeen a figment just as I can’t know that I’m even here. But ifthere’s one meta-physical truth to be found, it is that neither younor I can prove the other is here, or that we both aren’t imaginingeach other. Maybe that’s why Craig and I ran so much, why we arestill running, we are frightened by our own lack of existence.

The Art of Synthesis

2012-01-17T18:19:00.004-05:00

The purpose of journalism

Sean Ewart

It is incredible howmuch harder synthesizing a cohesive narrative covering the events ofreporting is than actually reporting. Beginning an article aboutanother self-aggrandizing political event is about as easy as readinga press release; as if the political circus that we cover has gone togreat lengths to be “press presentable.” Each event is handed tous as an entity unto itself and entirely removed from all else thatis. Senator so-and-so's newest bill is toted out as the definingmoment of whatever cause the Senator happens to be championing forthat luncheon. Indeed the nature of the news seems to be mostly aregurgitation of rehearsed and fine tuned rhetorical devices designedfor the world which observes via catch-phrases and slogans.Synthesizing just doesn't appear in my job description.

But it should. Thecomplexity of the political field is very nearly overwhelming uponfirst glance. It is a world unto-itself which plays by rules it seemsto create, and is supported by traditions built upon traditions. Yetthe political pecking order is a pecking order nonetheless. Whoreceives the most money to rebuild main street in their district is aquestion which is as mundane (and exciting) as which hen scores themost corn from the pile. Redistricting is about reasserting thedominance of the political alliance which has successfully garnishedthe most corn, figuratively speaking. Even choosing the statevegetable is a simple act of political posturing. Local, state,federal, and global politics are all games where scores are kept interms of resource allocation.

Not to be overlysimplistic, but we often get so bogged down in the details that wefail to miss the whole picture. As journalists we are tasked withreporting the news, but are only vaguely told what that is. I wouldpostulate that the news is anything relevant to the divvying up ofresources which manifest themselves socially, financially,politically, of course, but above all, genetically. That's what itsall about, isn't it? All of this pandering and prancing about insuits and ties is really just the continuation of the “struggle forlife” (as Darwin would say). We elect those who will serve ourinterests, both somatic and reproductive, who in turn serve theirinterests, and so on and so forth. Complex political arenas are theresults of complex societies with complex needs. But the crucialneed, the one shared across all cultures, is genetic success – theneed for replication. Our job as journalists is to sniff out how theneeds of powerful individuals are interacting with the needs ofothers, and then share what we find. Without an inquisitive press,the needs of the few will more easily trump the needs of the whole.

The synthesizing iswhat separates an inquisitive press – here read: “functioningpress” - from a PR company. We absolutely can be the mouthpiece ofthe government, or the lobbying firm, or the activist group, or thebusiness conglomerate, or what-have-you, but the real value lies inour ability to find out whythey say what they say, and how thesevarious groups interact. The news isn't the campaign debate, but whythe candidates are saying what they say, how these views willinfluence us... do my needs fall in line with theirs? Journalists aretold to stay objective, and they should, but objectivity doesn't meanreading off a cue card. It means digging and finding out what theobjective truth is, and then saying that. If people wanted to knowwhat politicians are saying, they can subscribe to the daily pressreleases they put out. However, if people want to know what isactually going on,they should be able to turn on the news or open a newspaper.

Journalismis the art of synthesizing the various opinions and facts which arethrown at the public into a cohesive narrative which does nothingmore than tell the truth. We do not represent the politicians or thepeople, we represent the facts – and in doing so, we enable thepoliticians to lead better, and the people to make better choices.

A Failure to Occupy

2012-01-14T20:39:00.001-05:00

Sean Ewart

The rhetorically retrograde movementknown collectively as “Occupy” has failed. Now an unorganized anddisconnected system of cells across the United States, it hassuccumbed both to inclement weather and to the ineptitude of themultitude. What is remarkable, and indeed shameful, is its stayingpower; as if the Left is so desperate for a movement that it willcling to whatever rag-tag collection of trust-funded college studentsand schizophrenic anarcho-socialists that come its way. After theso-called “Day of Rage” on September 17, 2011, parks from NewYork to L.A. were held hostage to press a message which was not justlacking in definition, but somehow self-righteously emboldened bythat fact. It should be clear, however, that the failure to Occupy isnot a failure of the Left, but the defeat of the degenerate refuse ofthe Left – that mass of philosophical filth which views fightingfor internet freedom in the same light as freeing the slaves. We cando better.

We can, of course, agree with thereasons for the rallies. Economic injustice is very nearly a pillarof our government which seems more kleptomaniacal than ever.Corporations are now viewed as individuals, at least in campaignfinancing, and yet not a single person has been penalized for the2008 financial meltdown – business interests clearly trump theinterests of American citizens. Furthermore we have had a series ofleaders who have done little good for the public: we have beenengaged in a war in Iraq since 1990 (and while we may be pulling out,it is nothing like a victory); we have been in bed with dictators theworld over and seem little interested in the democratic movementscurrently ongoing; we have increasingly deregulated our businesssector while cutting back on protections for the weak and the poor.Americans are angry, and for good reason. We don't need a day or rageso much as an entire election cycle of it. Voting out incumbentsseems a veritable civic duty.

We can even see the malcontent withinthe Right. The Tea Party movement, of which I have previouslywritten, is composed of misguided Americans who have bought into apolitical snare paid for by corporate interests with the sole purposeof reducing our government to nothing more than a means for advancingbusiness ventures across the globe. The public relations brillianceof the Tea Party is in its ability to get the poor and oppressed tovote for their own oppressors. It is a strategy that is working andhas, in just a few years, already managed to build a Republican Partywhich has radicalized far beyond even the insanity of Reagan. Thepoint is that the Left, even as embodied by the ineffective andmojo-lacking Democratic Party, has something to offer the average TeaPartier far and above corporate welfare and decreasing wages. TheLeft has somehow managed to bungle the job of selling a betterquality of life, social justice, human rights, and economic securityto those people who need it most. The Tea Party surely does hateAmerica, but the Left seems entirely removed from it.

The problem with Occupy can be summedup pragmatically: it has inexplicably terrible public relations.Occupy has yet to actually identify why it exists in the first place.It calls for an end to corporate greed, the war in Afghanistan,Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, theFED, and seeks to raise the national minimum wage to $20 an hour. Butit also pretends to have no leadership, to be “undefinable” andthus unadulterated by the warping influences of power, and to be amovement made up of equals where the new comer is ranked the same assomeone who has been involved from the beginning. This is all verynice, but worthless for several easily identifiable reasons. Thefirst is simple: without a system of leadership, whoever speaks theloudest gains authority. Occupy has implemented mob rule and calledit democracy, and I suppose this is democratic in the most primitiveunderstanding of the term, but there is no system to balance thetyranny of the majority established within Occupy. Furthermore as amovement without a message, it has become a mass of angry peopleprotesting real crimes, but with nothing to actually say about them.Just being angry doesn't change the world.

Occupy painted itself into a corner asit early on seemed to reject working “within the system” due tothe corruption of the “system.” Well, OK Che, but the only actualway to work “outside the system” is to violently overthrow it(even MLK Jr.'s non-violent protests were working within the systemas they were accepting the punishments they were given and wereconstantly lobbying the government). Occupy is currently stuckbetween not having the courage to throw a Molotov and not having theability to win at the ballot box. The former would demonize them inthe public eye, and the latter would mean working within a systemwhich they either don't understand or are philosophically opposed to.It must be a painful position indeed.

There has also been a repeated cry bymany that Occupy is useful to the Left because it has gotten ideaslike “income inequality” into the mainstream thought process.While we can agree that this is a positive, the Occupy movementitself has only decreased in its public support. Even as early asNovember, 2011, Occupy had a lower approval rating than the Tea Party– which is just absurd. The point isn't that Occupy is “wrong”to be upset, but that it not helping anything; Occupy is a hindranceto the Left.

Occupy has seen its day and failed totake advantage of it. The Left deserves a movement with substance, amessage, and a contingent of people who care more about advancingsocial justice than creating a public spectacle. Zombie-walks andcommunal camp-outs have nothing to do with economic inequality: thefocus should be on the problem not the protestors. So while I am surethat this will enrage those who participated in the Occupy movement,know that I too have been in the camps and engaged in the protests.Don't let pride get in the way of making a difference. Occupy hasfailed to connect with a population that so desperately needs to knowthat there is an alternative to corporate greed and kleptocracy.Please continue to protest, but leave the freak show for the circus.The Left deserves better.

6

2012-01-13T18:30:00.002-05:00

Democracy gives every person a stake ingovernment, and then asks them to defend it. -- Sean Ewart

Monied Interests

2012-01-12T07:30:00.000-05:00

Why the Democratic and RepublicanParties are Obsolete

Jacob Sherretts

The current party system in the UnitedStates is an insult to the idea of democracy. Voting with theDemocratic or Republican parties only gives the illusion of choice. Your true interests and desires held when voting for a candidate isseldom ever met. In the current political landscape, politicians areextremely polarized. While their disagreements do reflect conflictbetween constituent factions within the United States, the trueinterests of those constituents are not being met. It should also benoted that the political differences between these factions may notbe as large as they are perceived. The current political system mustbe changed in order to obtain candidate choices that will accuratelyreflect the interests of the voters.

Politics in the United States is muchlike a game of Red vs. Blue in Halo.

Thereisn’t much difference between the two sides and it doesn’t matterwho wins. The goal of the vying parties is power. Party ideologyhas not really been of very much importance for some time. We cansee this in our federal elections. The media talks about votes andpolls, but does not talk about the policy implications that will cometo pass if a certain side wins. CNN will spend six hours talkingabout the race in the Iowa caucus, but will not speak criticallyabout what would actually happen to the United States if Romney won.

The similarity between PresidentBush’s and President Obama’s policies illustrates the lack ofdifference between party members once elected. George Bushcampaigned on a platform of small government and non-interventionaround the world. When he got into office, however, he increased thepower of the government and intervened in many countries. PresidentObama has followed in Bush’s footsteps and has continued a foreignpolicy of aggression. President Obama has also followed inoverstepping government boundaries by renewing the Patriot Act and byauthorizing the controversial National Defense Authorization Act for2012. Although NDAA is meant to create a defense budget annually,the 2012 NDAA will have implications that will severely limit therights of dissident Americans, including indefinite detention ofcitizens suspected of terrorism. Despite rhetoric and campaignpromises, there has not been significant change under the Obamaadministration. Whether you agree with his policies or not, many aresimilar to those of Bush.

To further this idea of poorrepresentation, the indicators should be observed. Politicalmovements are one extreme indicator of a lack of representation. Theformation of the Tea Party as well as other alternative groupsdemonstrates the interests present in the political realm that arenot represented through the Republican or Democratic parties. Although Republican politicians such as Joe Walsh have been electedon a Tea Party platform, the interests of many “Tea Partiers” arestill not being met. Because of the co-opting of the Tea Partymovement by the Republican Party, politicians speak of Tea Partyideas and then do not follow through. In the case of the Tea Party,they have not found adequate representation. Occupy Wall Street isanother example, but is different in that it does not have strictplatform and ideology like the Tea Party. While one solution forthis representation problem may be addressed by forming parties fromthese movements, there are other things that must be done for such asolution to work.

Why we are now in this state ofmisrepresentation is a complex issue, but there a few things that areat the core of it. Special interest lobbyists groups are the crux ofthe problem, along with the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Statistically, a congressman willspend thirty to seventy percent of his or her time while in officeraising campaign funds.

With this much dependence on the lobbyistswho fund the campaign, they become representatives of the lobbyinggroups instead of the people. This is especially disturbing whenconsidering where the majority of their campaign contributions comefrom. According to an article by Lee Drutman, 25% of campaigncontributions in 2010 came from just 0.01% of the United Statespopulation.

One group of individuals that federalpoliticians actually represent can be found in the company LockheedMartin, one of the largest military contracting companies in theUnited States. In the 2008 election cycle, the company spent about1.2 million dollars each on Democrats and Republicans in Congress. This seems to suggest that each party, in Lockheed’s opinion, wouldsupply defense contracts; something that would be indicative ofsimilar foreign policies.

While the two party system would beimproved if special interest groups did not have as much power, theproblems that exist within it would not be completely alleviated. AsI stated earlier, the current political parties have more concernover staying in power than they do over the actual issues. This isshown in their lack of agreement on issues that are supposed tobenefit everyone. The payroll tax cut, for example, is somethingthat many people agree with despite party affiliations. The partiescould not agree, however, because many Republicans would not vote for the tax cut unless provisions for the Keystone Oil Pipeline weremade. At the same time, NDAA, which allows for indefinite detentionof Americans, was passed almost unanimously – something that is notin the best interest of most American citizens even if some agreewith the new measure. While the oil pipeline shows Republican tiesto oil lobbyism, NDAA does not show any ties to particular interests beyond expanded governmental control.

We need to bring representation andpower back to the people. Votes need to be placed intelligently. Donot vote for those who are in the pockets of those who seek to takemore power away from the electorate. Money should be spent with evenmore consideration. Dollars, in many instances, are much strongerthan votes as they allow the donor to project their voice furtherthan the ballot box. Recent surges in lobbyist power are eradicatingwhat democracy we have left and it is up to an informed andresponsible citizenry to restore the democratic principles on whichthis nation was built.

For more information on the crossroads of money and politics see: http://maplight.org/

A Libertarian on Linux

2012-01-10T17:42:00.003-05:00

By

Chris Hall

Sobe it. I dumped Steve Jobs from my computer. I have used Applecomputers since elementary school, and have owned the same crustyblack MacBook for the last four years. Today, I erased the partitionson “Macintosh HD,” reformatted them for the MBR partition table,and installed Linux Mint onto all 160 GB of the cranky old disk. Mycomputer now displays all directories in the root file-system, runsfaster and cleaner than it ever has, and is ready to install the50,000+ software packages that are available specifically for thisversion of Linux. Why do I care so much about the operating on mycomputer? Am I just a victim of upgrade fever? Nay. I am notrevolting against the brilliant manifestations Apple computer hasbrought to humble UNIX code (as Linux and Mac-OS X share the sameUNIX foundation), I am revolting against what is outside the binary.

Thecomputer is currently the cybernetic system hurtling us most towardsparadigm shift. Through intellectual speculation which has grownaround computers, many minds have seen their emergence assatisfactory to emergent systems of order in the physical universe.The predictions of Ray Kurzweil make heavy use of the laws of physicsto support a justification of the importance of the computer to theexistence of living men. Studies of artificial intelligence have mademany wonder about where to distinguish what is cybernetic from whatis not. It is becoming increasingly pragmatic for those involved inthe study of cognitive neuroscience, to support the view that all ofhuman cognition can be described as a cybernetic system. Holding thisview opens up the head-space of neuroscientists to continue mappingout the patterns of the human mind, as a computer programmer maps outthe algorithms of his code. It is not hard to imagine what anintegration of the fields of cognitive neuroscience and computerscience can produce. I have already witnessed a friend of mine (amath and physics major at Purdue pursuing a study of neuroscience)run a program on a common command-line interface that simulates thefiring patterns of human neurons. This is the edge we are running ourhand against. Today I can feel comfortable speaking grandly about theparadigm shifts to come.

Sowhy then, if we are approaching such grandeur, should one beconcerned about booting their laptop into one operating system oranother? When I began studying artificial intelligence it becameclear to me that it poses a kind of threat to material objects. Notin that the infrastructure we run algorithms on will become forsaken,but that the perceived value towards the information these algorithmscontain may vastly overshadow that of the infrastructure itself. InKurzweil's books, he discusses the mind as a kind of software, whichwill become increasingly compatible with the software that I am usingto write this now. Intellectual property rights then, will continueto accelerate in their importance.

WhenI first began using computers, I was of course quite taken by theease in which an operating system such as Mac-OS can be learned. Yetthere always remained the odd importance of being connected to theInternet, for the operating system to function properly. I saw thatan operating system such as Apple's required one to be integrated andcooperative with the company's infrastructure, to provide anoperating system which has continual service. But there was always atipping point to these free upgrades, when the user would findhimself obsolete to any further upgrades without paying for the nextedition of Mac-OS. For much of its history, Apple computers wereunable to run any operating system other than Mac-OS due to such ahigh level of hardware/software integration. However, when I boughtmy MacBook in 2008, Apple had begun using Intel CPU's in theirhardware. This did not prevent Apple from offering the usual highdegree of hardware/software integration that they are known for, andMac-OS X is heavily dependent on the structure of Apple hardware. Itdid open up the floodgates however, as Intel processors can of courserun a multitude of non-Apple operating systems, most notably Linux.An Apple computer running Linux will operate with the same high levelof functionality and hardware/software integration, but thisintegration does not come at the cost of incompatibility, as it didwith Mac-OS. Every advancement made to the Linux operating system isfree of charge, and builds upon the existing free operating systemone may be running. The entire code of the operating system isavailable for modification and re-distribution, a model which wouldhave driven Apple and Windows into bankruptcy.

Onemay argue that anything as cheap as Linux cannot be as good as theexpensive software sold by the high-profiting Apple and Windows. Itis true, for the most part, that these companies will sell you aworking product. But these products are weighed down by the corporateinfrastructure and business-plans of these companies. Linux isdeveloped by those interested in the advancement of a computerlanguage that is unbounded by the world of politics and capitalism.

BeingalibertarianIwouldneverwishthatAppleandWindowswereremovedfromyourpalatteofchoices.Butbeingastudentofphilosophymakesthischoiceeasyforme.Theimportanceofintellectualpropertyinthecomingfuturewillforcegreaterdiscussionontheinfrastructurethatweusetocommunicateintellectualproperty.Wordsarefree,itiswhatawriterdoeswiththemwhichgivesthemmonetaryvalue.Inthatrespect,Iwouldarguethatbinary[i.e.thecodeofanoperatingsystem]shouldbefreeaswell.Thealgorithmsthathumanityisposedtobecreatinginthecomingfutureshockmewiththeirpotentialbeauty;thelastthingIwantisapoorly-runcompanytoinhibitthetoolsavailabletotheaverageuser,therealbloodwithinacomputer.

Adapting to Climate Change

2012-01-08T02:17:00.001-05:00

Solving the Environmental Prisoner's Dilemma

Sean Ewart

The question of what is or is notnatural to humanity is, bluntly, ridiculous. Are we not in ournatural environment? Even synthetics are, by necessity, made up ofcomponents which we find in nature. To say, as it has often beenposited, that it is unnatural for humans to live in cities or drivecars is purely fallacious. Do beavers cease to exist in their naturalenvironment the moment they fell a tree or change the course of ariver? Is that not the nature of beavers? The logic is explicit. Yet,unlike beavers, humanity is capable of a more profound impact on theenvironment. We not only down trees, we demolish forests; we not onlystop up streams, we carve canals through continents. Humans arespecial, perhaps uniquely so, in our scale of operation. We areclearly the first species on planet Earth capable of destroying her –and as the cliché goes: with great power, comes greatresponsibility.

Modern man is, however, living in agreatly altered environment. 99.5% of our evolution was spent insmall bands of hunter-gatherers, tied together by the bonds ofkin-selection and observable mutual reciprocation. The evolutionarystate of nature, thus, is indeed different than the environment inwhich we now find ourselves (Gat, 133). Resource exploitation takesplace on an unprecedented level, pollution has literally reach apoint where we are apparently incapable of cleaning up our mess –we kick the can down the road, but the end is fast approaching.Surely there is a means to rid ourselves of our own filth, but it hasnot yet shown itself. We are hunter-gatherers living in the nuclearage.

Indeed, like population growth,technological advancement is an exponential endeavor. Technologicalgrowth spurs technological growth. Just as warfare encourages an“explosion” of arms development (an arms race), the advancementof human technology in the fields of energy cultivation, massproduction, resource development, and scientific progress moregenerally arise out of basic forces. Why do trees grow tall? Becauseother trees nearby are trying to reach the same source of energy(sunlight) and are trying to do so more effectively (Gat, 139). Whydo humans, beavers, ants, termites, and other creatures of creationbuild such elaborate environments? Because they are trying toincrease their genetic success, like trees, through betterutilization of the environment (Dawkins, 7). This is the underlyinglogic of all life: genetic reproduction.

Life isanarchic in the purest sense of the word. Evolutionary contests aredecided, not by who plays by the rules, but by who is left alive.There is a reason we no longer have Neanderthals among us: ourancestors killed and out-bred them. Even before humans, why diddinosaurs rule the world, while they were alive, and not mammals?Because they were better suited to the environment of that time. Andthen it changed. The only 'friendly' relationships that exist innature are those which are mutually beneficial – indeed, as weshall see, this is the same essential logic which pervades all humaninteractions as well.

Human society has tended towardsincreasing complexity. As Robert Wright put it, “archaeologistscan't help but notice that, as a rule, the deeper you dig, thesimpler the society whose remains you find (Wright, 16).” Socialcomplexity has proven to be a better adaptation for humanity. Thereis strength in numbers, and our ancestors found that the best way toovercome enemies was to overwhelm them (Gat, 192). That being said,there have been collapses. The destruction of Rome by NorthernEuropean tribal contingents, for example, plunged Europe back intothe iron age (Gat, 155). However, the trend is irrefutable andeverywhere consistent.

Indeed, with the rise of state systemsand centralized authority came the solution to many of humanity'sgreatest problems: who will protect me? How do I know my property issecure? Who will provide for my basic needs? The intrinsic problemwhich has frustrated and limited the potential gains possible fromcooperation is trust. Game theory has proven itself capable ofhelping us understand the issue better through the prisoners dilemma:there are two prisoners brought in for questioning and are unable tocommunicate. If they both deny the charges they will only serve 1year in jail. If one calls out the other, the silent one will get a10 year sentence while the snitch goes free. If they both call outeach other, they will both serve 3 years. Clearly the best solutionis cooperation. However, each one is attempting to minimize theirsentence, and, without knowing how the other will act, chooses thebest unilateral option: they both rat out each other. Thus, as AzerGat points out: “In the absence ofa strong central authority, a lack of information about the other andan inability to guarantee an agreement of mutual security frequentlybreed suspicion, hostility, and conflict, seemingly 'imposed' on thesides against their wishes and best interests (Gat, 139).”

We can even see thelogic of centralized authority being played out in economics in theform of regulation. Unregulated capitalism, as pointed out byeconomist Hernando De Soto, ends up with extreme wealthconcentration, and thus undermines its own existence (De Soto, 212).Even Adam Smith knew that “people of the same trade seldom meettogether, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation endsin a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raiseprices (Smith, 177).” Centralized authority, to a certain degree,is needed to ensure that the logic of cooperation is made clear. Withnothing to ensure that both sides maintain their end of the bargain,cooperation is far more challenging. Just as the prisoners needed ahigher authority in order to lubricate the mechanisms of trust,corporations – and modern states – need a higher authority toeliminate the element suspicion.

Planet Earth is now in a period ofclimate change. This is a normal event which happens on a small scaleevery several hundred years, and on a large scale every severalthousand years. As PBS so aptly puts it: “During the past billionyears, the Earth's climate has fluctuated between warm periods -sometimes even completely ice-free - and cold periods, when glaciersscour the continents.” This fluctuation between warm and coldclimates has been an ongoing reality of our planet, long beforehumanity discovered how to harness the potential energy of oil andbegan filling the atmosphere with chemicals. The last ice age, or“cold period,” was about 20,000 years ago... modern man managedto survive it, even without Al Gore. This warming process which weare currently experiencing has happened at least a dozen times in thepast million years and occurs in between periods of global cooling.

This visualization has been developed at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences

by Adrian Meyer and Karl Rege. It shows the earth starting at the last glacial maximum 21'000 years

ago and ends 1'000 years in the future.

However, unlike our ancestors whomanaged to scrape a living under the towering ice shelves which,during the last ice age, reached southern Europe, we certainly have amuch greater environmental footprint. The most extreme example ofthis reality is our ability to use nuclear energy with we couldliterally destroy the planet – or at least a substantial part ofit. We likewise are perfectly able to pollute the world to the pointof making available land resources unusable. Hydraulic fracturing,for instance, the process where water mixed with carcinogenicchemicals like benzene is blasted at shale deposits to releasenatural gas, has a long track record of contaminating drinking water aquifers. This is poor resource management at best, and suicidal atworst.

The fact of the matter is that climatechange is a reality we are going to have to live with regardless ofour carbon dioxide output. Sea levels will rise - probably by about a foot in the next 100 years – regardless of what we do. The realquestion is how we are going to survive the next round of globalclimate change. Out of all the life forms which have ever lived onEarth, most are now dead. It did not take humans to kill off thedinosaurs, and there is certainly nothing special about human lifewhich makes it immune to extinction. We live on a finite planet withfinite resources and we need to use the wisely. When America, 5% of the world's population, consumes 25% of the world's fossil fuel output per year, we are merely sowing the seeds of our own downfall.This is not a sustainable system; this is obviously an “unwise”allocation of material resources.

We have a situation in which all ofhumanity would benefit from better resource management, and yet, inthe anarchy of the international system, we do not have themechanisms to move beyond systemic distrust. Whereas internationalpolitics is an arena governed by the quest for power, an effort tobetter manage our environment must be governed by a quest forresponsibility – these are conflicting terms (Morgenthau, 29). Forinstance, America certainly could reduce its intake and use of oil,but what if another nation steps up and just replaces us, therebyeclipsing us as a world superpower? As we see now, with the slowlycrumbling Kyoto Protocol exposing itself for the hopeless failurethat it always was, international treaties are worthless without ameans of enforcing and ensuring the cooperation of the concernedparties. Just as city states originally coalesced in order to dealwith the threats associated with living in smaller groups, we arefast approaching a point where we need a global power capable ofdealing with the global threats which face us now: climate changetopping that list (Gat, 278). We are prisoners in desperate need of ahigher authority capable of allowing us to cooperate.

Whereas in the past technologicalinnovations have, in some ways, been largely beneficial to humanity,now technological growth is hitting against a very important barrier(“beneficial” here is used purely in survival and adaptive terms,as Azer Gat notes: “hunter-gatherers were overall healthier thanagriculturalists.” Technological innovation has not always madelife “better” for humanity, just better adapted) (Gat, 159). Theproblem isn't that technological growth in and of itself is a badthing, by any measurement, but that the type of growth can be. Goingback to the example of hydraulic fracturing, this is a technologicaladvancement which, in an unregulated market, certainly has thepotential to make someone a lot of money while at the same timedestroying aquifers and – in some cases – increasing seismic activity. Or take nuclear energy (without mentioning nuclearweapons), which clearly produces a wealth of energy and profit, alsohas the potential to ruin the surrounding environment for centuries(look at Chernobyl). Technological development has the capacity to doirreparable damage to the environment, especially when it isunregulated, thus spoiling resources which, in an ever more populousand energy dependent world, could otherwise be put to better (albeitmore cautiously examined) use.

Human activity is clearly not thebiggest factor driving global climate change (cows produce about as much methane as cars). We are, however, the only animal capable ofdestroying our environment on a scale the likes of Chernobyl or thesteady reduction of the Great Barrier Reef. Rampant pollution,sprawling landfills, nuclear energy, hydraulic fracturing... theseare all the results of poorly thought out strategies of adaptationwherein groups of humans are competing against each other for powerand resources (both somatic and reproductive) with no considerationfor the future. When unmitigated technological growth results in suchincredible destruction, it is clear that it must be rethought. Justas unregulated capitalism cannibalizes itself, technology, withoutthe proper oversight, can cause more problems than it is capable ofsolving. While we are not driving climate change, but we aredestroying the only land, air, and seas that we have.

The facts are irrefutable: globalwarming and, gradual, sea level rise is beyond question. As the humanpopulation rises, the demand for resources grows, and ourtechnological advancements continue to give us unprecedented powerover our world, we must rapidly learn how to best adapt. There isnothing that says that humans cannot go extinct; just ascivilizations have risen and fallen, so have species on Earth. But wehave survived periods of intense climate change in the past... thequestion is whether we can do it again, and whether or not the logicof cooperation, mutually beneficial agreements and actions, willtrump the quest for national and individual power.

The Gadfly Press

Let Us Fight Better: American Muslims and the War on Radical Islam

God or Country: The Fight for Church and State

Cosmetic Psychopharmacology Part Two

Broken Wings

Chance Encounters of the 1,387,438th Kind

The American Night

Clarifying Cosmetic Psychopharmacology

Does God exist? - a dialogue between Freud and C.S Lewis

The Conflict Between Salvador Dali and Immanuel Kant

The Curious Case of Whale Enslavement

The Demolition of Democracy: NDAA 2012

The Singularity is Near for Artificial Intelligence and Man

Racism and the Illegal Arrests by the New York City Police Department

Abbas's Deal with the Devil: the Fatah - Hamas Coalition

Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Jesus: a Love Story

Do What Thou Wilt is the Whole of the Law

A Portrait of the Hipster as a Young Man

The Problem with Islamic Sharia Law

*Updated* Susan G. Komen Foundation Declares Religious War

Redistricting Democracy

Proud and Atheist

What really happened that day

The Art of Synthesis

A Failure to Occupy

6

Monied Interests

A Libertarian on Linux

Adapting to Climate Change

Updated Susan G. Komen Foundation Declares Religious War