Milano's Blog

 

4/29/06 - Final Project

Posted here and at MilanoBlogFinal.

 

A culture clash rages through the world today. Like most important disputes, it is a war of ideas. Although the clash’s precepts rest in politics and philosophy, the ideas carry over into most every aspect of their supporters’ lives, affecting everything from interpersonal relationships to an individual’s sense of life.

 

The clash has churned across the face of the globe for centuries. Since recorded history, the idea of property has governed politics, the method by which people are organized into civilizations. The debate’s participants have only relatively recently been molded into familiar organized movements. Though there are innumerable sides, takes, and beliefs that arise from them, the main and largest philosophies are the modern ideas of capitalism and socialism.

 

Modern capitalism, as described most thoroughly by John Locke in the late eighteenth century, stresses the importance of a government that holds individual rights as the highest standard. These individual rights include the right to life, the right to reasonable liberty of action, and the right to property. Modern socialism, as proposed by Karl Marx, posits the existence of a class structure from which an upper class wrongly exploits the lower class through ownership of property. Socialism supports the abolition of the upper class’ property rights for the benefit of the lower class. Although both of these men are long since gone, their ideas still live and fuel a fierce debate.

 

Capitalism is the only economic system that truly upholds the ideals instilled by the United States’ creators. Why is this so? This requires a closer examination of both philosophical structures.

John Locke was a political philosopher of the late seventeenth century. He advocated individualism, reason, and skepticism with regards to dealing with authority. These ideals, especially individualism and reason, are central to the capitalist philosophy. They also greatly influenced the Constitution’s signers, and played a direct hand in the creation of the world’s first successful democracy based on individual property rights. He expressed these main points in the Two Treatises on Government, his most famous works. Property was his primary focus in these essays, but he also introduced the revolutionary idea known as the “social contract,” which explains the relationship of those who live in a country but did not necessarily have a direct hand in its construction.

 

Capitalist theory holds individual property as necessary to human life. Locke points to the example of eating an apple. A person cannot eat an apple without first claiming ownership of the apple, implicitly or explicitly. After all, once an apple is eaten, the ownership of the apple is quite clear, and for all intents and purposes nontransferable. So how does a person go about claiming ownership of property? Capitalist theory holds that it must be the product of labor. Locke writes that the products of labor rightfully belong to those who have labored to produce that property. This was a revolutionary idea for the time, since individual autonomy was only a relatively new idea. In the ages before Locke, the property skilled labor was owned by the king and government.

 

Following closely the idea of individual property ownership is that of trade. When it was first realized that it was possible to engage in equal trade for mutual benefit with other producers of wealth, the idea of free trade was introduced. Yet who determines what equal trade is? Nobody can determine what constitutes fair trade except those engaging in the trading.

 

So how is fair trade possible? Certainly if both parties engaging in trade have different ideas of what constitutes a fair trade, it would be impossible. To counter this claim, Locke brings up the natural human faculty of reason. By definition, all sane people have the ability to use reason. Reason is the method by which fair trade and justice can be attained. If two parties seeking to engage in trade come to a reasonable compromise, free trade works perfectly.

Thus was the moral and philosophical groundwork for capitalism laid by John Locke three centuries ago. At odds with capitalism is socialism. Socialist theory was introduced by Karl Marx two hundred years after John Locke formed his ideas.

 

Karl Marx is called “without a doubt the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century.”(1) He was a German journalist who saw modern capitalism as immoral. His most famous works are The Communist Manifesto and Kapital, in which he outlined his alleged problems in capitalist society and his suggestions for resolving them. He is widely recognized as the father of modern socialism. His proposal was based mostly upon discrediting Locke’s ideas of property rights to enhance the state of the working class.

 

Marx divided society into classes of people, an upper class and a lower class. He defined these two classes to consist of the owners of the means of production in the upper class, and the laborers who are exploited by the owners of the means of production in the lower class. Today, socialists often include racial, religious, sexual and other inequalities in the scope of artificially produced hierarchies created by the capitalist system. Regardless of their specific makeup, the modus operandi of the professed class structure is always the same: exploitation of labor by the owners of the means of production. Marx’s claim is that the owners of the means of production create and perpetuate a class structure through actions in support of capitalist ideals. He says that they may or may not intend to continuously commit injustice by perpetually holding down the lower classes, but it is irrelevant to the actions that he supports to fix this structure. He also claims that the class structure is held firmly in place through the dissemination of a false consciousness perpetuated by the upper class owners of the means of production. This false consciousness is the result of the upper class insisting that as the lower class laborers work hard, their position will improve, convincing them to work harder. Yet Marx believes that the more a laborer produces, the worse his or her situation becomes.

 

Marx supports communal ownership of the means of production. In practice, this most readily translates to governmental ownership of the means of production, as a government is supposed to be the unified voice of the people under its auspices. Thus also is the gap between political and economic systems bridged in socialist philosophy. He believes that this will put an end to the unjust class structure of capitalism. His argument is that when the means of production are owned by everybody, there is no incentive to exploit the laborers who work on or with those means of production.

 

Socialism is defined by a philosophy of economic egalitarianism. Socialists believe that justice is an equality of conditions enforced by whatever means necessary, namely a redistribution of wealth enforced by the government. The moral justification for this enforcement is more often than not the advancement of the “common good,” or the “need” of certain groups of people. The problem with this statement is that more often than not, it is not mutual good for all individuals, but rather an undeserved reward for the perceived lower class and an undeserved punishment for the perceived upper class. But there are other problems.

 

What is the “common good?” What exactly are the merits of a “basic need?” Does invoking the “right” of eminent domain to take a farmer’s land to build a new sewer treatment plant fall under the category of the good of the wider frame of people? Perhaps monetary punitive damages rewarded to a person insulted by an offensive idea are justified by the common good. What about needs? If one man claims that he needs a car to get to work, should the car be supplied for him? What if the resources needed to give that man a car conflict with the needs of another who needs to clothe his children? The problem with the “common good” or the “basic needs” of life are that they are entirely subjective. Any decision based on basic needs or common good is completely at the whim of the decision makers. No objective standard exists by which to judge the needs of an individual or groups of individuals. The result would be chaotic. The only true means of ensuring rights for all citizens is the establishment and enforcement of universal individual rights.

 

The problem that a socialist perceives in a capitalist society is the theft of the laborer’s property by higher classes. After all, if the right to property is defined as the right to keep what has been produced, what right does the owner of the means of production have to claim ownership of any property made by laborers? Unfortunately for him, Marx’s argument is undone by his own terminology. Because the owner of the means of production owns the means of production, he or she has the right to do with them what he pleases. This usually means that the owner of the means of production enters into a contract with the laborers working for him. This contract generally states the negotiated terms of trade, which usually involves the exchange of capital for property created by the laborer. The act of entering into contract is completely and absolutely voluntary to both parties. If physical coercion is employed by either party to enter into the contract, then the contract is morally and legally voided.

 

In most businesses in the United States today, these contracts are not always written per se, but are guaranteed by the principles of free trade and individual rights covered in the Constitution. Also, these contracts are almost always temporary in the sense that when one party wishes to dissolve the contract, it is completely with his or her right to do so. If the owner of the means of production decides that he or she wishes to no longer render payment for services rendered, it is perfectly within the right of the owner to no longer offer use of his or her property to the laborer for the purpose of producing (i.e. fire them). Conversely, it is perfectly within the rights of the laborer to refuse to continue using the means of production of the owner to produce for him or her (i.e. quit). The only obligation in this case is to the owner to render equal payment for services already provided by the producer, or to the producer to complete production for payment already made.

 

Problems arise when encountering the idea of a redistribution of wealth. These problems both moral and practical, especially in modern America. First, a universal redistribution of wealth would require vast government intervention, which would increase the cost to taxpayers by a large amount. Businesses would suffer horribly. A redistribution of wealth would greatly and directly reduce the profits of a business and its owners. Without the owner’s profits being reinvested in their business, a business will quickly lose money, and fail. These are compelling reasons. Yet the moral problem is far more important. Any redistribution of wealth would violate a fundamental right to property held by all individuals. When any property, including money, objects, or land, is taken in the name of the “common good” it is a violation of the right to own the products of the labor of the victim. If the government were to take money for the purpose of redistributing it, it would be through physical coercion (threat of punishment). Taking money through physical coercion is never moral. Money should only be taken when being traded for mutual benefit as agreed upon between two reasonable individuals, not through violence or fraud.

 

Morality is the basis of any system – political or economic. Therefore the main problem with socialist ideologies is that it ignores the individual’s fundamental right to property in favor of the subjective (and therefore flawed) standard of the “common good.”

 

There is an ideological war being waged among the intellectuals of the world. Modern liberal democracy and capitalism face a very real threat in the form of modern socialism and collectivism. Yet as long as capitalism has morality and reason on its side, there will always be hope for the rights of the individual above the rights of the collective.

 

Bilbliography

The Cato Institute. Fifth Amendment (property rights). The Cato Institute, Washington DC. 7 April 2006. 7 April 2006. <http://www.cato.org/ccs/prop-rights-takings.html>

Kreis, Stephen. “Karl Marx (1818 – 1883).” History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History. 28 February 2006. 7 April 2006. <http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html>.

Locke, John. Second Treatise on Government. Hacket Publishing Company: Indianapolis, 1980.

Rick Kuhn. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party. 20 May 2004. 7 April 2006. <http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html>.

Uzgalis, William. “John Locke.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 26 September 2001. 7 April 2006. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#LimHumUnd>.

 

4/24/06 - Right Before the End

I hate the end of school. It apparently doesn't change from high school to college (not that I expected it to). The last few weeks are completely overloaded with work. Studying for finals, and for the classes you don't have finals, you have final projects. Aside from that, there's trying to find work back home for the summer, setting up scheduling for next semester, trying to get that last bit of money for schooling for this year and for next year, planning for moving out, planning where to stay when you go back home. . . it's nuts. But, none of it has any effect on my ability to feel righteous rage at the perceived problems in the world.

 

4/20/06 - The Good Kind of Insane

Thank God for people like Ted Rall and Michael Moore. I have the great luck of being a native born citizen of a country in which these men can spew whatever crazed nonsense strikes their fancy without the slightest fear of physical government retribution. They're what I like to call the good kind of crazzy. They're utterly devoid of common sense and reason, yet they recognize the fact that violent-crazy is a bad thing. In fact the government they hate so very, very much will go out of its way to ensure their personal safety from people who are violently insane. Plus, their crazed rants serve are very good at keeping me well-grounded. Often I think that there are people who can't possibly think that people think like that, that everyone, regardless of political leanings can come to an agreement on certain reasonable things, like the Danish cartoon scandal. You know, you'd think Ted Rall of all people would support freedom of expression when it comes to cartoons. Sadly, he seems to be of the mind that everyone who's a registered Republican has a secret plot to assassinate him.

 

4/12/06 - White Privilege

I considered spending time rendering a well-reasoned response to debunk this argument. But then I realised that, being a white male, I have no right to speak of such things. Any argument I could conceive is instantly invalidated because of my race and gender. I am merely the byproduct of a corrupt system set to destroy the rights of every man and woman on Earth. My duty, therefore, is to merely nod and comply with demands that reparations of some kind be paid for the atrocities committed by ancient people I've never met or influenced.

 

Am I still allowed to try my best at college, compose a resume, and try to get a job? Or should I not act to oppress through individual success? Wait, I'm going to college now. I should probably drop out, because I've been given this privilege wrongly. I certainly didn't earn it, what with my horrible SAT score of 1480 and class ranking in the top 10%. Certainly there is someone more deserving for my position.

 

Hide behind whatever euphemisms and rhetoric you want, the message is coming through clear. I am evil because I am white. Individualism mean nothing.

 

4/10/06 - This Is Pretty Cool

http://www.playpumps.org/

 

4/10/06 - Ignored 911 Call

I was checking out AP News stories earlier and I found this disturbing article. It seems that a six year old boy in New York attempted to call 911 to help his mother, who had an enlarged heart. The operator believed the boy's call to be a prank, and as a result help did not arrive before she died. Whether or not she would have died had help arrived in time is debatable, but it does not change the fact that help was not sent as soon as it should have been.

 

I put as much blame on the operator for her skepticism as is due; there is no doubt that she should have reported the call sooner. Yet I cannot help but sympathize with her. If a call is a prank, then it consumes time that could be used for an actual emergency, so judging a call's validity is vital. It must be understood that not only are prank 911 calls annoying, they can be deadly. If there were no problem with prank phone calls, the operator might have believed him sooner, and the boy's mother might be alive today.

 

4/7/06 - Final Project Proposal

John Locke was a brilliant political philosopher who lived and wrote in the late seventeenth century. Property was his primary focus, but he also introduced the revolutionary idea known as the “social contract,” which explains the relationship of those who live in a country but did not necessarily have a direct hand in its construction. Locke’s ideas and philosophy greatly influenced the Constitution’s signers, and played a direct hand in the creation of the world’s first successful democracy based on individual and property rights.

Years later, Karl Marx hit the scene with an idea no less revolutionary. He is called “without a doubt the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century.”(1) He divided capitalist society into two fundamental classes: the bourgeois owners of the means of production and the exploited proletariat workers who worked on and with the means of production. His proposal was based mostly upon discrediting Locke’s ideas of property rights to enhance the state of the working class.

Debates based on the fundamentals of both philosophies rage to this day. These philosophies, their implications, and their conflicts shape every facet of American life, from political legislation to personal existence. Countries have based their governments on consistent applications of each philosophy, with mixed results. Which is superior?

If given the chance to meet, how would they argue their case? What exactly were the problems with Locke’s ideals that Marx found objectionable?

I will attempt to answer these questions, analyze both philosophies and their disagreements, and finally take a side (Locke’s, for those curious) and explain why his philosophy is superior. I am considering making an online poster for a visual argument, and I’m also considering using graphs and charts as visual arguments included in the written report.

 

Bilbliography

The Cato Institute. Fifth Amendment (property rights). The Cato Institute, Washington DC. 7 April 2006. 7 April 2006. <http://www.cato.org/ccs/prop-rights-takings.html>

Kreis, Stephen. “Karl Marx (1818 – 1883).” History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History. 28 February 2006. 7 April 2006. <http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html>.

Locke, John. Second Treatise on Government. Hacket Publishing Company: Indianapolis, 1980.

Rick Kuhn. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party. 20 May 2004. 7 April 2006. <http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html>.

Uzgalis, William. “John Locke.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 26 September 2001. 7 April 2006. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#LimHumUnd>.

 

 

4/3/06 - Proposal Paper

It's posted here and at MilanoBlogProposal.

 

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty amongst a number of nations to curb emissions of greenhouse gasses through restrictions on both the public and private sectors of participating nations. The United States did not ratify but signed the treaty. By signing they showed support for a document that opposes the ideals of individualism and capitalism upon which the country was founded. Signing was a mistake. The most helpful and cost-effective manner to show the world that the United States does not support this endeavor to punish private business for reasons without merit is to withdraw its signature altogether.

 

Environmentalism is the key supporting idea of the Kyoto Protocol and is widely accepted as a noble cause. Those who laud the untouched natural world as the ultimate goal often use scare tactics and vague warnings of a dire future in which industrialization that is meant to make man’s life better leads to his destruction. Popular mainstream movies such as The Day After Tomorrow foretell total and immediate doom as a direct result of the industry’s hubris. Yet industrial innovations such as indoor plumbing, automobiles, and mass manufacturing processes have improved the length and quality of life by leaps and bounds. Should the government really curb this progression in technology with regulation and restrictions? Many claim that restrictions are necessary to improve the health and well being of the nation. But in Eastern Europe and the former USSR where government controls on industry were by far the strongest, pollution and disease was much more rampant than in capitalist nations with little or no restriction. Without modern plumbing systems, waste would putrefy in the streets. Man must change the environment to suit his needs. Members of the environmentalist movement hope to use this fear mongering to institute widespread trepidation with regard to the future. This apprehension is used as self-evident justification for legislative action such as the Kyoto Protocol.

 

Arguments brought to bear in favor of the Kyoto Protocol include the threats of mass extinctions, and increased disease, and rising sea levels. Claims of mass extinctions fall on deaf ears. There have been at least four major natural ice ages during Earth’s history, through which animals lived. On top of that, species of plants and animals become extinct often, most of them completely naturally. Ninety-nine percent of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, virtually all before manmade global warming ever hit the radar of today’s alarmists. Common intimidating predictions quoted by environmentalists are that the purportedly inevitable rise in temperatures could interact with rainfall to increase the breeding grounds for more mosquitoes, which could lead to an increase in the cases of diseases such as malaria. This argument appears often, although the relationship between global climate and disease is tenuous at best. Another argument in favor of legislative action against global warming is the alleged danger of globally rising sea levels due to melting polar ice caps (Waterworld anyone?). Yet there is a great deal of dissent in the scientific community over the extent that the sea would rise, or even if a rise in sea levels is even probable. Most believe that the sea may be raised a couple of feet, nothing that would annihilate the planet or even make life discernibly more difficult. This is certainly no more difficult than getting by without a free market.

 

The latest trend in curbing capitalist ideals in the name of preventing environmental disaster is global warming. The phrase global warming generally refers to the theory that there exists a gradual heating of the global climate as a result of increased use of “greenhouse gasses”, such as carbon dioxide. Most of these gasses exist as byproducts of industrial processes that have greatly improved modern life. As such, a great deal of pressure is put on businesses by interest groups and public opinion to reduce these emissions, usually at great expense to these companies. Yet problems arise when tax monies are used to enforce compulsory restrictions on businesses that are justified with environmental effects.

 

In December 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was opened for signing. It includes obligatory limitations on businesses operating within each of the effected countries. The United States signed but did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty. Yet by signing, the US has demonstrated support for the ideals of the treaty. This is not the kind of support the greatest bastion of capitalism in the world should convey. With so much stress put on the role of all people in the international community, it behooves all people to repeal the restrictions on progressive commerce and industry involved in the Kyoto Protocol. As such, it is important that the United States displays support for the repealing of the Kyoto Protocol to uphold the national ideals of capitalism upon which the country was founded. This can best be achieved by the withdrawal of its signature.

 

Discussions, rhetoric and debate about the nation’s disagreement with the accord play an important role in displaying the Kyoto Protocol’s problems. Yet it is not enough. The symbolic act of withdrawing its signature from the Kyoto Protocol would do much more than discussions to exhibit the country’s disapproval of limitations on industrial progress that lack warrant. It would exhibit to the international community a concurrence amongst the nation’s reasonable people that the Kyoto Protocol is unnecessary and wasteful. This action would also be of little cost to the taxpayers, especially when compared to the costs of international business restrictions on commerce and trade that they would face otherwise.

 

The Kyoto Protocol calls for the curbing of industrial processes falsely perceived as dangerous. The restrictions placed upon industry by the Protocol are counterproductive, and the fears upon which it is based are unfounded. When the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, it sent the wrong message to the rest of the world. Therefore, the United States should not only refuse to ratify the treaty, but also withdraw its signature from the document.

 

 

 

4/3/06 - Humor in Arguments/A Modest Proposal

Humor is a very powerful tool for arguments, especially as an initial draw. I for one am much more likely to pay attention to the opinion of someone who can make me laugh then an off-putting ranter. And I think that when more people get their news from the Daily Show than CNN, I tend to think that the rest of the country agrees with me. That's why I like Penn Jillette and Cox and Forkum. They definitely successfully mix humor and opinion in a hilarious fashion.

 

A Modest Proposal, I'm sure, was funny for its time as well as relevant. It lampoons aspects of the potato famine by suggesting that children be eaten, and I don't really find it funny. This is not because of any moral objection to its subject matter, but it doesn't meet my comedic standards. I do respect its significance, though.

 

3/21/06 - More Global Warming

Check out the very first sentence of this article by Christine Gorman for Time:

 

 

That is to assume at the very least 1) Global warming is happening and 2) Global warming will kill.

 

Do people really believe that an exponential increase in death and destruction is constantly looming over the horizon all the time? They sure seem to, to judge from the papers.

 

3/20/06 - More Evolution

This was posted on a forum frequented by my friends:

 

 

To which I responded:

 

 

I figured it was worth a post since it's what passes for the most intelligent discourse I believe I've ever had with this group. And it's interesting.

 

3/28/06 - Immigration

Time feels like it's overtaking me. I still feel like I just graduated high school. My senior year was a blur and now my freshman year of college is almost over, and it's just as blurry. I guess it means I'm having a good time, then.

 

Anyway, there's little that I can often think of to discuss on this blog since I rarely enjoy discussing my political opinions. But immigration is in the news right now, so I figured I'd talk about that really quickly. I believe that all people should be able to move freely between borders with a minimal amount of grief. The arguments for immigration limits are pathetic at best: if a business decides that it wants to hire someone who does equal work for less pay, it's their right. Work harder and make yourself more marketable. It's certainly no responsibilty of the government's to solve the workers' problems.

 

 

3/23/06 - CNN Cries Wolf

Aha! I love it. I went to check out CNN to see if there was any interesting news to blog about, and I find right there in the video section "Study: Earth is Warming Quickly." The summary blurb reads "CNN meteorologist Bonnie Schneider reports on a study that says global warming may be more rapid than expected."

 

As though the gradual warming of the Earth was a foregone conclusion, to say nothing of the insinuation industrialization and manmade products are the cause. You would think that a few ice ages before mankind's existence would be kind of convincing that the natural world goes through huge temperature fluctuations naturally. Not to mention that most of the information indicating a gradual increase in temperature comes from cities prone to urban heat. Cities generate heat themselves, which shows up on the measurements in the weather centers near those cities. Rural weather stations have shown an overall decline in temperature over the past few decades.

 

Read Michael Chrichton's new book, State of Fear. It's really good, and has tons of research to back it up.

 

3/21/06 - Proposal Proposal

The world is falling apart! Air pollutants, water pollution, and especially global warming are consuming the planet! So what is to be done? Well, everybody knows that the cause of the current problem is industrialization.

But how bad is the problem really? Industrial innovations such as indoor plumbing, automobiles, and mass manufacturing processes have improved the length and quality of life by leaps and bounds. Should the government really curb this progression in technology with regulation and restrictions? Many claim that restrictions are necessary to improve the health and well being of the nation. But in Eastern Europe and the former USSR where government controls on industry were by far the strongest, pollution and disease was much more rampant than in capitalist nations with little or no restriction. Without modern plumbing systems, waste would putrefy in the streets. Man must change the environment to suit his needs.

In December 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was open for signing. It includes compulsory limitations on businesses operating within each of the effected countries. The United States signed the Kyoto Treaty, but did not ratify the treaty. Yet by signing, it demonstrates support for the ideals of the treaty. This is not the kind of support the greatest bastion of capitalism in the world should convey. With so much stress put on the role of all people in the international community, it behooves all people to repeal the restrictions on progressive commerce and industry involved in the Kyoto Protocol.

 

 

 

3/20/06 - Causal Paper

It's here and at MilanoBlogCausal.

 

The media is its own worst enemy. This has become increasingly apparent in recent years with increased news coverage about the hypothetical correlation between violent youth crime rates and violent video games. Media coverage of young people committing violent crimes has increased greatly since the school shooting incident at Columbine in April 1999. To watch the news coverage, it would lead many to believe that an epidemic of homicidal children has overcome the country, and that most of the blame can be set upon violent movies, television, and most of all video games. Should the blame for murderous children be put on the violent video games they play? Can a reasonable causational correlation be drawn? If there is a correlation, should regulations be imposed upon the industry? The answer to all of these questions is no.

 

Surprisingly, one of the most potent and prevalent arguments for each side of the causation debate is that of statistical analysis and “objective” data. A host of statistical information is available on the internet for public review on the subject. Yet most of the debate boils down to this: those who believe there is a direct correlation rely heavily on data from scientific research simulations that indicate that there is a relationship, while those who do not believe rely heavily on statistics gathered and funded by both private and federally funded organizations that show a significant, continuous, and consistent decline in youth violence in recent years. Although both have a certain amount of merit, simulations will always be simulations; they cannot reproduce every contributing factor to human psychology changes and therefore are not as reliable as a host of statistical data that points to the contrary.

 

For example David Walsh points to a handful of simulations and laboratory tests that indicate a relationship between aggressive behavior in very young children and their exposure to violent media. Although this lends support to his claim, it is hardly as damning as he and his supporters would have the country believe. There is general research and laboratory bias present in any study, despite any precautions taken to eliminate it. On top of that each study he names indicates that there is a correlation between the aggression of test groups and the level of violent content in the video games they played. Yet a correlation does not necessarily indicate a causational correlation. Duke Ferris offers a practical explanation for this perceived relationship: “Even if true, this does not necessarily mean violent media has created aggressive people. It is more likely that aggressive people are attracted to violent media. Blaming violent media would be like going to the opera, noticing that most people there are rich, and concluding that opera makes people rich.” Certainly this would not be reasonable.

 

Using the more reliable resource of statistical data collected by federally funded institutions is Game Revolution, a community dedicated to the dissemination of facts and news about the video game industry, a causal correlation does not exist between the violent crime rate and the availability of violent video games. To illustrate this point, they point to the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics research that indicates a decline in violent crimes over the past 12 years. It also indicates a sharp decrease in violent crimes committed by juveniles aged 17 and below since 1994. If in fact there were a wave of homicidal children laying siege to the country due to the propagation of violent video games, should not the numbers reflect this augmentation?

Some would point to the increasing rate of violent crimes committed by juveniles in the chart before 1994. Yet 1994 saw the releases of enormously popular violent games such as Warcraft and Killer Instinct. This is yet more evidence that the proliferation of violent video games is unrelated to violent crime rates among juveniles. If they did adversely affect children the rates would not sharply turn down right after their release.

 

That is not to say that violent video games and media presentations have the reverse effect on the youth of the population. Opponents of legislation against violent video games who refuse to advocate reason often fallaciously point to studies and statistics indicating an overall decrease in violent crimes in recent years. Since the availability and selection of video games has increased greatly over the years, it is all too easy to adjoin the data into a false conclusion that directly opposes the logic of their ideological enemies. The two are unrelated.

 

Although potent arguments are found in statistics for both sides of the debate, they are hardly objective. The greatest argument against a causational relationship of violent video games and is an analysis of reasonable people. Do levelheaded, sane people commit violent crimes as a direct result of viewing violent media or playing violent games? No. Practical people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. If a person cannot understand the divide between the fantastic and the realistic, then they are by definition not reasonable or sane. There is not even a question as to the propagation of video games leading to an epidemic of insanity in the country; it is common knowledge that most psychological problems are physiological. If video games and violent media are blamed for physiological problems, it is a great detriment to both the victim of the psychosis problem and the companies brought to bear the financial burden of blame.

 

The Electronic Software Rating Board (ESRB) was created to apply ratings to video games, much in the same fashion as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rates movies. It is similar to the MPAA in that it is an internal organization of video game companies and is not governmentally mandated. This is perfectly fine, until taxpayer monies are used to enforce legislation involving the sale of games based on the ratings of the ESRB or MPAA.

 

Like many hot button issues a historical example may offer perspective on the current argument. In the 1950s a social uproar occurred over a popular movement among the nation’s youth that many thought would bring the country to the brink of collapse. It was rock and roll, and the moral crusaders believed that its promotion of violence and sex was so dangerous. Legislation was proposed to curb its influence. Yet rock and roll became ever more popular (and remains so to this day), and the country still stands strong as ever. People would do well to learn from history. So do the sanguinary video games cause violence? Absolutely not. Do not fix what is not broken.

 

 

 

3/19/06 - Marx and Engels

Ah, the Communist Manifesto. I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll just say that the entire idealogy is predicated on inheritly evil ideas. Rather, it's predciated on a single inheritly evil idea. That is that property rights are wrong. When Marx claims that an upper class, the owners of the means of production, implicitly exploit laborers (the "lower class"), he is saying that they have the responsibility to sacrifice their property to those who use it. Payment for services rendered does not suffice, they must give whatever is demanded of them (according to the ambigious "need").

 

3/17/06 - Civic Responsibility

Seeing that the newest blog prompt is the Communist Manifesto, I decided that I might lead into the next blog entry by discussing something I heard mentioned on the radio earlier. A caller brought up the idea of the civic responsibility of a business with respect to the Mohammed cartoon fiasco. I couldn't help but laugh; the idea of civic responsibility is an outdated, useless, simply dumb idea. If a business or individual is expected (with threat of government rebuke) to be his "brother's keeper" so to speak, then nobody would have claim to any individual property, because a consistent application of this logic leads to anyone having claim over the property of anyone else at their discretion.

 

3/15/06 - This I Believe

I noticed that a lot of my entries are pretty negative, where I rant about what I don't believe and complain about the problems I perceive of the world. So I decided that today I was going to take a positive perspective. Half the time I seem to think that people are nuts or misguided in almost everything they do. I tend to think this about people as a whole. But on an individual basis I tend to believe that people are generally reasonable. Whenever I meet someone I try to start out liking them, although oft I find myself falling short of my goal.

 

3/14/06 - Penn Jillette

This guy is awesome. He puts a hilariously funny spin on politics and life in general, I highly recommend listening to the radio show. The Penn and Teller TV show on Showtime Bullshit! is great, too.

 

3/13/06 - Back from Spring Break

I had a great deal of fun this spring break, even though I didn't really do anything out of the ordinary. I was just glad to be home for the first time in months, and enjoyed the company of some good friends. For no real reason at all one night we pulled an all-nighter and went to Kutztown and Shenk's Ferry in Conestoga (reportedly haunted). We parited at another friend's birthday and just chilled and enjoyed ourselves most of the other time. I didn't want to leave, but part of me is glad to be back.

 

3/3/06 - Causal Proposal

The media is its own worst enemy. This has become increasingly apparent in recent years with increased news coverage about the hypothetical correlation between violent youth crime rates and violent video games. Media coverage of youths committing violent crimes has increased greatly since the school shooting incident at Columbine in April 1999. To watch the news coverage, it would lead many to believe that an epidemic of homicidal children has overcome the country, and that most of the blame can be set upon violent movies, television, and most of all video games. The Electronic Software Rating Board (ESRB) was created in 1994 to apply ratings to video games, much in the same fashion as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rates movies.

 

Should the blame for homicidal children be put on the violent video games they play? Can a reasonable correlation be drawn? If there is a correlation, should regulations be imposed upon the industry? The answer to all of these questions is no. I plan to analyze data put forward from both sides of the debate. Most of the information that I have compiled from the internet boils down to this: those who believe there is a direct correlation rely heavily on data from scientific research simulations that indicate that there is a relationship, while those who do not believe rely heavily on statistics (gathered and funded by both private and federally funded organizations) that show a significant, continuous, and consistent decline in youth violence in recent years. Although both have merit, simulations will always be simulations; they cannot reproduce every contributing factor to human psychology changes and therefore are not as reliable as a host of statistical data that points to the contrary.

 

 

Both sides will be analyzed and approached with cautious skepticism in the paper, but ultimately my argument will be that the cause of youth violence can not be found in computer game violence.

 

 

 

3/2/06 - Hooray, I'm 19 Today

Hooray, I'm 19 today.

 

2/28/06 - Political Leanings in Rhetoric

Where am I on the political compass? I'm pretty much right with Milton Friedman. According to Mr. Lazere, this means that I support the "middle and upper class" in that I believe those who own capital through honest means are the only ones who have claim to that capital. I am for "inequality," in that I disagree with the principle of egalitarianism: that everyone has entitlement to the property of everyone else. I am certainly not in favor of racial or sexual inequality; in fact I consider character the only factor when judging character. Anything else is illogical. I also find it funny that on the chart on the page it lists leftists in favor of civil liberties, but makes no mention of the controls of economic liberties that most favor. Yet it is carefully noted that rightists favor controls on civil liberties as well as economic liberties. I am in favor of both civil and economic liberties, anything else in unreasonable. Gays should be allowed to wed, all recreational drugs should be legalized (not just alcohol and cigarettes), education should be privatized, environmentalism and "multiculturalism" should not be mandated in education and art. So there you have it, my political leanings.

 

As for the Daily Collegian or evening news, most every story has an obvious political leaning. Often it is obvious right in the headline. There's nothing wrong with that, nobody can see evidence or events without forming an opinion about it. Without a personal philosophy, it is impossible to live. As a consequence of philosophy, opinions about most everything arise. Whenever I read an article in the paper or see the televised news, I form opinions about most everything, but I'm not filled with righteous fury and a reckless desire to fix all of the world's problems.

 

2/26/06 - The Death Penalty: An Evaluation

Here's my evaluatory argument. It's here and in MilanoBlogEvaluation. Enjoy.

 

The death penalty is a hot topic today. Everyone has an opinion about it. Some question if the sanctity of human life is upheld when death is delivered as punishment for society’s most serious crimes. Others believe that the death penalty is not doled out enough. Some even have a misconception that racism is the main motivation behind the support of capital punishment. Some falsely believe that it is much easier to be sentenced to death than it is.

 

The correct penalty for a crime is determined by not only its effectiveness to curb crime but to uphold justice as well. A punishment should not be too socially or financially costly on the taxpayers. The purpose of

government is to protect the individuals in a society from forceful destruction or theft of their property (this includes their possessions and lives). If this occurs, the proper action on the part of any government is retaliatory force against the offending party. The purpose for this is twofold; it exacts justice upon the individual or group of individuals responsible for wrongdoing in compensation for the victim(s) and dissuades other looters and killers from exacting similar wrongdoings on others. The death penalty is an effective and just punishment. A just punishment is one that offers retaliatory force against an aggressor. An effective punishment is one that renders equal retaliatory justice upon those who have committed a forcible injustice upon another individual, and discourages the crime among others.

 

Society exists on the premise that individuals may live and trade together for mutual benefit. When one person comes to believe that they are entitled to something owned by someone else and decide to force others into sacrificing for them, that person has shown themselves to only subject themselves to the law of the jungle and must be punished accordingly.

 

Capital punishment is indeed justified. Turning to the philosophical foundations laid by the great man John Locke, it can be seen that a man’s life is his greatest property. This is intuitive. A person would not be able to act on his thoughts or ideas if his body or mind were not his own. A person also has a right to his lesser property, the fruits of the labors of his mind and body. When a brute decides to use force, and not their mind or body to obtain property, they have forfeited their right to that property. Justice stems from this idea. Equal compensation for wrongs committed is not only justified, but expected. If a thief were to rob three hundred dollars from a man one day, he would expect a repayment in the amount of three hundred dollars from that robber when captured by the authorities. If a vandal were to smash a window worth a hundred dollars in someone’s home, they would rightly be entitled to a full repayment of a hundred dollars from that vandal. If a murderer takes a life, equal compensation would be the life of the murderer. Capital punishment is the logical application of justice in the extreme, for the most extreme crime. Therefore capital punishment is also effective, as it is the equal retaliation for equal offense.

 

What of the inherent right to life and property shared by all people? Does this apply to the murderers? No. The right to property, including the right to own one’s own life, is indeed intrinsic; it is shared by all individuals upon birth. This right includes the right to dispose of this property. You have the right to your life and property, until you deny the right to life and property of others. If you have chosen to reduce yourself to forcibly taking the lives of individuals in the marketplace of ideas known as the world, you have no right to exist in it. Yet retaliatory force is not only justified, it is essential. To exist in a world in which there exist those willing to kill and steal for that which is not rightfully theirs, it is necessary to physically act against them to punish and prevent those attacks.

 

Capital punishment’s opponents often point to scenarios in which the justice system fails and an innocent man is killed. How could anyone support a system in which it is possible to kill innocent people? This is an application of the “better safe than sorry” philosophy; which claims that all risk must be avoided at all cost, otherwise there exists the possibility that something could go wrong. Yet most will recognize that risk is an essential part of life. Without investors risking capital in the economy, nothing would ever be done. Without venturing out into the world for fear of risking life and limb to airborne diseases, life would become stale and stagnant. In the exceedingly rare cases in which innocent lives have been lost, it should be noted that the institution of capitol punishment was not to blame, but the circumstances.

 

Look to the case of Federico Marcias, who is listed on the American Bar Association website as having been sentenced to death because his court-appointed defense attorney neglected “considerable evidence” pointing to (his) innocence.” The website continues to claim that “Cases involving innocent men condemned to death are not all that hard to find and are not as rare as the public might imagine,” as though it is an institutional stipulation that innocent individuals are killed. Yet this is not the case. Marcias’ problem was that he had an incompetent attorney, not that capital punishment is utilized. This problem was resolved in appeals and Marcias was released later. Many opponents still indicate that the problem is the institution by pointing to examples of innocent men executed due to individual court problems. Why cut off the leg if it is the toe that is gangrenous?

 

Marcias’ case also leads to an important factor in risk evaluation. The risk of innocent people being killed is greatly reduced through institutional checks and balances such as automatic appeals with different juries, waiting periods, and reasonable doubt. Each greatly reduces the likelihood that an innocent will be killed. The risk is sufficiently reduced so that it is even more defensible to institute the death penalty.

 

So capital punishment is just and effective. Those who refuse to exist by the reasonable exchange of ideas in modern society but rather turn to the brute force of the law the jungle also choose to die by that law. If you kill another person like an animal, then you must be put down like an animal.

 

Bibliography

 

2/26/06 - Special Note

For my Evaluation paper, an argument I used was about risk. I claimed that the argument about accidentally killing innocents was an application of the philosophy that risk should be avoided. The examples that followed are not a rhetorical use of the "slippery slope" tactic, but an indication of similar ridiculous conclusions that can be drawn from a consistent application of that philosophy.

 

2/26/06 - Rwanda and Genocide

The cause of the genocide is clear. It is racism. The correct evaluation of racism is more clear than ever: it is bad. It is foolish; it is unreasonable. The problem lies not in this evaluation, but in the definition of racism.

Many today view racism merely as an elevation of one race over another: i.e. whites are better than blacks. It is true that this is a form of racsim, but racism's most prevalent form today is the belief that a person's mind is not his own, but generated solely through physiological or tribal beliefs. That is, a person is not an individual, but rather a representative of his race or ancestors. This blatant denial of individuality is exceedingly dagnerous. If people are taught that their duty is martyrdom for their race or the destruction of individuals because they are merely representative of a group that share the same ideas because they have similar genetic traits or ancestry, destruction is inevitable.

The slaughter among the Tutsis and Hutus of Africa is the sad result of these ideas indoctrinated into children's minds through resentful parents and elders. The children are taught that they are not human, but that they are Tutsi or Hutu. Then they are told that they have a moral obligation to defend this mysterious and amorphous idea from an indistinct amalgam of enemies: the other race. Some blame the other race, others attempt to wipe out the other race through indiscriminate slaughter.

 

2/21/06 - Andrew Sullivan's "My America"

As much as I appreciate the fact that Sullivan enjoys the liberal freedoms that we in America enjoy, I find some of his other comments confusing. By that I mean the indication that he enjoys American "contradiction." What he doesn't seem to understand is that there is contradiction in the country because not everybody shares the same convictions. Nobody's connected to the great hive mind in the center of Washington, from which we receive our daily instructions for the good of the Collective. Not yet, anyway. Both the fact that slavery existed in this country longer than any other civilised culture in the world and the fact that people have "struggled more honestly for the notion of racial equality than any other (country)" is because the beliefs and acts were those of different people with different opinions, for better or worse. His reasons for loving America are far different from mine. I love America simply because its founding principles were based on individualism and reason, not egalitarianism or totalitarianism. It's a simple fact, but one that many, many other people have yet to grasp.

 

2/17/06 - Evaluation Proposal

The death penalty is a hot topic today. Everyone has an opinion about it. Some question if the sanctity of human life is upheld when death is delivered as punishment for society’s most serious crimes. Others believe that the death penalty is not doled out enough. Some even have a misconception that racism is the main motivation behind the support of capital punishment. Some falsely believe that it is much easier to be sentenced to death than it is.

 

The correct penalty for a crime is determined by not only its effectiveness to curb crime but to uphold justice as well. A punishment should not be too socially or financially costly on the taxpayers.

The purpose of government is to protect the individuals in a society from forceful destruction or theft of their property (this includes their possessions and lives). If this occurs, the proper action on the part of any government is retaliatory force against the offending party. The purpose for this is twofold; it exacts justice upon the individual or group of individuals responsible for wrongdoing in compensation for the victim(s) and dissuades other looters and killers from exacting similar wrongdoings on others. The death penalty is an effective and just punishment.

 

Society exists on the premise that individuals may live and trade together for mutual benefit. When one person comes to believe that they are entitled to something owned by someone else and decide to force others into sacrificing for them, that person has shown themselves to only subject themselves to the law of the jungle and must be punished accordingly.

 

 

Bibliography

 

2/14/06 - Independence

The Declaration of Independence is a recognition of the reasonable, universal rights of man as well as an evaluative argument. It is a simple matter to see that the Declaration uses reasonable arguments as to why the rule of the British king was a bad thing. It certainly was a courageous move as all of those involved committed treason against the crown. Fortunately, they were aware that to not act to preserve the rights of the individual would be treason to a higher authority: treason against their individuality and treason against their minds. They knew that they had the right to live and work as they wished (as all people do) and that the king's use of force against them was a violation of those rights. These translated into evaluations of all the wrongs committed against them piece by piece until they equated into an overall declaration of a fundamental problem; the king's refusal to recognize the human rights of the individuals in his colonies. After this evaluation came a proposal that they pretty much knew for a fact the king would not follow, so war was inevitable. In the end, they understood that retaliatory force was preferable to submission and the deprivation of their freedoms.

 

2/12/06 - Another Blog

I finally decided to start another blog. Check it out. Today I discuss the horrors of integration and hope that a crude cartoon of a zombie incites world panic.

 

UPDATE - It no longer exists. I disbanded it.

 

2/12/06 - Definition Paper

It's posted here and at MilanoBlogDefinition. I'm proud of it. I meant every word of it.

 

Intelligent Design – Faith is Not Science

 

Four hundred years ago, a scientist of worldwide renown proposed a controversial hypothesis. It contradicted established scientific theory and the common beliefs of the people. It was contrary to what was being taught to the nation’s youth and brought outrage and righteous anger to most who heard its tenets. No, the theory was not intelligent design or creation science. The scientist Galileo Galilee, and his theory was that of heliocentrism, or the theory that earth and other solar system bodies orbit the sun, rather than celestial bodies orbiting the earth. For his hypothesis, which was seen as atrocious blasphemy, Galileo was tried, convicted, and eventually executed. Yet because he had researched, experimented, observed, and documented the natural phenomena related to his hypothesis, his theory lived on. Eventually, the global scientific community could no longer ignore the surplus of empirical evidence in support of heliocentrism. Galileo’s theories eventually became common knowledge and generally accepted by the scientific community as fact, and the man himself internationally recognized as a hero of scientific reform. Galileo’s theory of heliocentrism is an excellent example of a contentious idea that is undeniably science. It falls into the category of science because it was a testable hypothesis that weathered incalculably vast numbers of tests that attempted to prove it otherwise. The theory that has recently been referred to as intelligent design does not fall into such a category.

 

Recently, the academic world has been aflutter with dispute over the newest idea that is opposed to evolution to hit the limelight: intelligent design. The basic premise of intelligent design is that evolution as explained by Darwin cannot explain various changes in the fossil record or certain living examples of biological efficiency, and that this lack of support for evolution constitutes verification to the idea that there is an intelligent force directly responsible for biology’s continuing alterations. A fierce debate has raged over the virtues of instituting the teaching of this theory in America’s public science classrooms. It supporters claim that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, and therefore deserves coverage in the public academic realm. Intelligent design is a theory that attributes the modification of life to faith, and therefore is not science. Thus, it has no basis to be taught in any public science curriculum.

 

What is intelligent design? A commonly held belief is that the theory merely states an intelligent creator deity is responsible for starting the process of natural selection, the driving force of evolution. Another popular idea holds that intelligent design glosses over the fundamental aspects of evolution and portrays the Biblical tale of creation under a new guise that is diametrically opposed to evolution. Neither of these is the case. According to the Discovery Institute, an organization that produces the leading intellectuals who are proponents of the theory, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” The “intelligent cause” to which their definition ambiguously refers is unquestionably an omnipotent deity. As such, the theory hypothesizes that because there are gaps in evolutionary theory, intelligent design is a necessary alternative.

 

Regrettably for the advocates of intelligent design, this argument works against their claim that intelligent design is valid scientific theory. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has an extended definition of the scientific method on their website, http://project2061.org. This definition is widely accepted in the academic world, especially the public schools of America. Most important in this definition is the tenet that “science demands evidence.” That is to be a valid scientific theory, a hypothesis’ evidence must be put to the test and pass reproducible experiments time and again. Using this tenet’s logic, the “gaps” in Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection do not make intelligent design a valid scientific argument. Yet there are still those who claim that intelligent design is science because it offers answers to questions about nature and life that science, by its very nature, tries to answer. Upon closer analysis of the scientific method, we see that it simply is not so.

 

Turning once again to AAAS for their excellent definition, we see that “(Scientists) tend to agree about the principles of logical reasoning that connect evidence and assumptions with conclusions.” Although a scientist’s personal preferences do not constitute a valid justification for any theory, the point being made is that a valid scientific theory is based on reason and logic that flow from clearly defined facts extrapolated through tested hypotheses. Thus is found another flaw in the idea that intelligent design is science. Intelligent design theory claims that natural selection is not explanation enough for the universe’s complexity. So what can explain this complexity? Although its supporters are hesitant to admit it, intelligent design offers to fill this vacuum of facts with faith.

 

Faith is a belief that is held without any empirical evidence, and therefore is diametrically opposed to scientific methodology. Intelligent design theory states that a force with intelligence greater than humanity and far greater power is responsible for the construction of species and the universe as known today. The belief in such a force or entity is only attributable to faith. The existence of God can not be proven or disproved by mortal man, and therefore is not a testable hypothesis.

 

Intelligent design’s merits are not proof that it is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a philosophical and religious conviction that is used to supplement the scientific hypotheses of Darwin. Intelligent design devotees are quick to point out the great number of like-minded intellectuals who ascribe to intelligent design theory as though to convince the world of its place at the forefront of scientific entrepreneurialism. Yet this argument offers inadequate justification for the consideration of intelligent design in the scientific arena. As can seen in the tragic account of Galileo, the mutual belief by even a majority of people that faith is grounds for scientific theory simply can not stand against the scientific method of collecting hard evidence.

 

Galileo died a martyr for reason and empirical evidence, yet his vast and impressive accomplishments live on. His tale is also a cautionary one. The prevalent theories at the time were based in faith, and were also considered scientifically sound. When they were questioned with facts and evidence to the contrary, there was no way for Galileo to make the populace consider his genuinely valid arguments against those theories. This is because a theory based in faith can only be changed by alterations in faith, which can neither be supported nor disproved with evidence. When a theory’s foundations are steeped in faith rather than this reason and evidence, it can not be considered science. Intelligent design is a theory that is steeped in faith. Therefore, intelligent design is not science.

 

Bibliography:

 

2/9/06 - I'm Still Awake, So I Consider it Thursday

I just finished my essay. I am seriously considering starting up my own blog on this pbwiki thing, it seems pretty cool. If I do, I plan on writing another essay for that blog called "The Merits of a Movie that Consists Entirely of Explosions." I think it'll be a big sell.

 

Looking back on my essay, I am pretty proud of it; I wrote about intelligent design, which I care pretty strongly about. I made a lot of good points, and I think it may be one of the most convincing articles I've ever written. I'm really all out of pharisaic magniloquence now. And I'm not going to pretend that I didn't just use a thesaurus, either.

 

2/6/06 - Review of Proposal

I reviewed the proposal of Kesha's blog. You can read it at IntroductionBlog.

 

2/5/06 - Proposal for Definition Paper

Recently, the academic world has been aflutter with dispute over the newest idea that is opposed to evolution to hit the limelight: intelligent design. The basic premise of intelligent design is that evolution cannot explain various changes in the fossil record or certain living examples of biological efficiency, and that this lack of support for evolution constitutes verification to the idea that there is an intelligent force directly responsible for biology’s continuing alterations. A fierce debate has raged over the virtues of instituting the teaching of this theory in America’s public science classrooms. It supporters claim that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, and therefore deserves coverage in the public academic realm. Intelligent design is a theory that attributes the modification of life to faith, and therefore is not science. Thus, it has no basis to be taught in any public science curriculum.

I plan to approach this paper through this venue. First I will show evidence that the roots of intelligent design lie in Christianity, which is important to establish that intelligent design is based in faith. Then I will reference the specific case in Dover, Pennsylvania, to explain some of the judicial definitions of intelligent design in the public arena. I will wrap up my argument by showing how intelligent design is rooted in faith, defining faith as a belief held with a specific lack of empirical evidence, presenting the scientific method, and ultimately showing that intelligent design violates the scientific method because it is not a testable hypothesis. Due to this violation, it can not be considered science, and therefore has no place in any science department of public education.

 

 

 

2/3/06 - Sufficiently Weird Music

I have a few odd tastes in music. You've probably heard of one or all of these, but I highly recommend them.

They Might Be Giants - These guys have been around for a while, and I guarantee that you've heard something from them at least once. But check out the rest of their music if you haven't already; they have a lot of good ones.

Primus - Weird, but Les Claypool has a lot of talent.

Cake - I've heard them described as a "mellow Primus with a salsa beat." I really don't think they sound anything like that.

Lemon Demon - All I can say is that "your evil shadow has a cup of tea."

 

1/31/06 - New York Times Article

Today an article was published in the weekly Science Times section of the New York Times about the "effects" of popular media on the sexuality of younger teenagers and adolescents (Children, Media, and Sex: A Big Book of Blank Pages by Jane E. Brody). It describes a scientific effort to study a possible correlation between adolescents' exposure to popular forms of media like music, television, movies, or the internet. Brody uses an effective slew of scare tactics to convince readers that morality is in such a state of degradation that blame must be set against the media enterprise, and action taken to halt the nigh unstoppable parade of moral depravity endangering the children.

 

The problem with this argument is not so much that the data does not support the correlation. On the contrary, it is very likely that there is a relationship between adolescent sexuality and the media to which they are exposed. The problem is the inference of the article that action must be taken to punish the big broadcasting companies and the amorphous entity casually known as "Hollywood" when they create sexual materials for airing. The problems stem from parents who believe that the burden of raising children should fall upon "society." And who better than the evil corporations? This is immoral. There is no logical reason why a completely voluntary service should be restricted by any force other than the market, especially the government. There is no requirement to own or watch a television, or even particular channels or programs. There is no obligation on any indivdual to see objectionable movies. What any company produces, it produces because the information supports the idea that it will sell, and that the company will make money. Individuals go out and buy goods and services from a company that sells things that they want, and rightfully get upset when their right to buy and use things that do not directly injure others is revoked by force. Pressure or restrictions on a business come from a free market. Once it is understood that it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers to raise the children of certain individuals with lofty, self-righteous ideals of governmentally enforced morality it will certainly make for a better place to live.

 

Reason magazine participated in an interesting debate that appeared online that relates to this story. I highly recommend Reason to anyone who supports a reasonable society of individuals and enjoys the philosophy of politics.

 

1/29/06 - Terrorism Defined

The terrorism definition wikipedia entry starts out with a few formal definitions from dictionaries that are widely accepted as reliable sources, which is to be expected. Formal definitions like this help frame the argument and introduce the ideas to people who may be unfamiliar with the term. It continues with operational definitions according to certain organizations generally considered to have experience with the subject (EU, UN, etc.). This constitutes the main portion of the article, giving more obscure definitions that the average reader may not have come across in his or her regular activities. The article ends with a few knowledgeable individuals and their definitions. The article is found wanting for a few example definitons, the most obvious of which might be bin Laden and Mcveigh.

 

1/28/06 - Superhero

Yeah, I thought that we were supposed to try and guess Kem's favorite superhero, much like his birthday guessing game. I put down Voltron, because from what I remember they were cool and I didn't see that on the list already. My favorite superhero is Spider-Man though, has been since early childhood, and I can even tell you why. I admired him because he didn't have limitless resources like Batman, or supreme power like Superman, but he solved all the world-threatening problems with his own cunning, which is respectable.

 

 

1/25/06 - President Bush's Address to Congress (2001)

The context of the speech was a little bit more than a week since the worst act of terrorism against Americans in recorded history, which was about five years ago. George W. Bush made this speech in an atmosphere of fear and bewilderment as to why the attacks came or if they would be followed by others.

 

Bush's intended readers are obvious in the opening statement of the address, those being the American people, for the most part. There are also other indications of intended readers not listed in the very beginning. "And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:. . ." is quite obviously directed at the Taliban, a known terrorist state. Lines like "We ask every nation to join us." carry implicit warnings to nations not necessarily involved in harboring terrorists or supporting terrorists that a stand must be taken in the international community.

 

1/23/06 - Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does rely heavily on emotions and values. In fact, that's almost all that it relies on for the basis of its arguments. There are also references to fact and reason to help support their claims. "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind. . ." This is a reference to past events to support the idea that all individuals on the planet are born with certain rights, but also judges these past events regarding solely on values and emotions. The document has many other references that serve multiple purposes like this. I would argue that the values that are used are based on reason (i.e. it is unreasonable to expect to live in a world in which individual rights are not universal), which is a more important factor than values, character, or emotions in reason's ability to validate an argument. Anything based on values runs the risk of being countered by the commonly held idea a value system is no better or worse than any other set of values, only different. This is a dangerous fallacy. Yet the idea of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights is completely justified in reasonable values.

 

1/22/06 - FDR

FDR definitely had an established trust with the people of the country, which can be told by the fact he was elected to the presidency so many times. So a great deal of his argument was based on the trust of the audience, who believed in his character. He certainly gives the impression that he knows what he talking about, which is obvious through his use of arguments based on facts and reason that he uses throughout the address (references to Versailles Treaty, etc.) He also comes off as honest through his many appeals to values, which are omnipresent in this address. It's also important to note that his speech is simple and down-to-earth, which I think was appreciated by his audience. The success of his simple "fireside chats" support this theory. So even though FDR uses all of the important argument venues to make his points in this address, it relies heavily on the authority of his character.

 

1/18/06 - USA Today Snapshot

In today's (1/18/06) USA Today Snapshot, US coal exports are shown in millions of tons between five different countries. The two proceeding comments represent different ways statistics such as these can be spun to show apparent support to two conflicting claims.

 

 

1/17/06 - Don's Introduction (DonsBlog)

The following is a rewrite of Don's introduction found in DonsBlog.

Greetings, I'm called Milano and I am in my second semester here at State. So far it's been a lot of fun and I've made a lot of friends. Like Don, I was unsure of where I was going to go to college through most of high school but PSU ended up being my first choice, into which I was lucky enough to earn entrance. I was also fortunate enough to get season tickets to the football games this year, and what a season they had! I am majoring in Chemistry because I believe that the degree would be marketable and I am interested enough to pursue a career in the field.

 

1/16/06 - Dr. King

Certainly Dr. King was a man worthy of a national holiday if ever there was one. The focus of his life became a single laudable goal based on reasonable ideals. One of the most important ideals was that a reasonable argument (and therefore the right one) could be won simply through logic and reason, not backed up with violence. This rational approach can be seen in Letter From Birmingham Jail. King uses a rational and logical approach to argue his case with his critics, presenting facts to convince them of his views. It is a convincing argument as well.

 

1/12/06 - Meet Milano

I am Mike “Milano” James. I grew up around Richmond, VA, and moved to Lancaster when I was ten. Once there, I adopted the pseudonym “Milano.” The story behind this nickname is so great and terrible that to speak it aloud is to be visited by certain, perilous doom. I then ingratiated myself with a group of people all named Mike, and we set about making violent and profane home movies with our unscrupulous cohorts. Then I went to college, where I enjoy movies, computer games, and books (Dan Abnett and Douglas Preston are my favorite authors).

 

 

Cool Links:

Reel Splatter Productions - Free independent movies.

Baron von Brunk's Website - Cool website, guy's a friend of mine.

John Feilmeier's DeviantART Page - A friend's art page.

Break.com - Hilarious videos of people injuring themselves.