Wednesday, October 25, 2006

(Republican) Generals Back Democrat Takeover


Sorry for the infrequent posts... one word: MIDTERMS. I'd much rather be blogging, so this is my quick break from studying.

According to Salon.com:


Two retired senior Army generals, who served in Iraq and previously voted Republican, are now openly endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress. The generals, and an active-duty senior military official, told Salon in separate interviews that they believe a Democratic victory will help reverse course from what they consider to be a disastrous Bush administration policy in Iraq. The two retired generals, Maj. Gen. John Batiste and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, first openly criticized the handling of the war last spring, when they called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"The best thing that can happen right now is for one or both of our houses to go Democratic so we can have some oversight," Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, told Salon. Batiste describes himself as a "lifelong Republican." But now, he said, "It is time for a change."

Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, agrees that Democratic control of Congress could be the best way to wrest control from the Bush administration and steer the United States away from a gravely flawed strategy in Iraq. "The way out that I see is to hand the House and the Senate to the Democrats and get this thing turned around," Eaton explained, adding that such sentiment is growing among retired and active-duty military leaders. "Most of us see two more years of the same if the Republicans stay in power," he said. He also noted, "You could not have tortured me enough to vote for Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore, but I'm not at all thrilled with who I did vote for."

An active-duty senior military official who also served in Iraq said that, among a surprising number of his otherwise "very conservative" colleagues, there is hope that Democrats will gain control of Congress. "I will tell you, in the circles I talk to, the only way to enable or enact change is to change the leadership," he said.

"The rest of us still in uniform cannot publicly articulate our own concerns, but there is a whole bunch of people out there who feel [this] way," said the active-duty senior military official. When asked if he was a Republican, he responded, "I was in the past." He railed against the Bush administration's head-in-the-sand approach to the war. "What do we have today? Holy shit. Now you have sectarian violence? That is a new term, by the way," the official fumed, emphasizing that before the war and even well into a volatile occupation nobody in the Bush administration "would even believe there would be an insurgency."
-----------------
Read more Here

Friday, October 20, 2006

Kevin Tillman Speaks Out

I thought this was a great commentary on the state of our nation. What makes it particularly powerful is that it's from a former soldier who served in both Iraq and Afgahnistan with his brother Pat who was killed there in 2004. Here's a portion of it, although all of it is very good.
(Pat's on the left, Kevin's on the right)

-----------

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

---------

Read the rest of it here.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Mind / Brain

Is your mind something different from your brain or are they one and the same? Is your consciousness something that's merely dictated by the interaction of neurons and chemical processes in your head or is there something else?

There are no real concrete answers to these questions. For me, just thinking about it generates a million other questions... do we have a soul, is there an afterlife, so on and so forth.

Most people assume that there are two general attitudes that arise when trying to answer these questions. There's a spiritual/religious one involving a general faith in God and some underlying purpose to life and than one that involves scientific reasoning. Neither come close to explaining why humans are aware of themselves and faith isn't merely the domain of religion. Scientific explanations of mental processes and how they relate to consciousness also rely on basic assumptions that can't be proven. The lines are becoming more blurred these days as neuroscience and genetics tell us more, literally everyday, about how the biology of our bodies and particularly our brain works. The two new attitudes taking on these tough questions are more appropriately referred to as materialistic and non-materialistic.

There are many scientists today who believe that the brain is merely an instrument utilized by something (call it what you will) intangible to generate common experience. This isn't a scientifically proven fact, but is an assumption reached by a process of reduction. It's kind of like how the software on your computer is using the processor, monitor on your computer to produce the image of this webpage.

Many physicists believe that there is an underlying "intelligence" to nature, all the way down to sub-atomic particles... look up the Double Slit Experiment (another post).

None of these views are easily proven and they're often subject to much scrutiny by many people in the scientific community that see it as a slippery slope towards bad science. Many believe that the non-materialistic stance is extremely flawed because of it's reductionist point of view.... but there really isn't any way of explaining why our brains work the way they do (with our current knowledge) that doesn't take into account some kind of outside, unseen intelligence.

The point is that science and spirituality aren't two completely seperate things. They both attempt to explain the same mysteries and answer the same questions. It's nice to see them complement each other, narrowing the gap between faith in religion and faith in science.

Deepak Chopra, my favorite modern philosopher has been posting and debating about this for the last week on IntentBlog. His posts deal with genetics and how they relate to intelligence in the mind. Basic biology: genes map out the the structure of every cell in your body and influence or control (depending on which world view you subscribe to) the actions of cells, including the neurons in your brain. Here are some excerpts that I liked:

Basic science depends on certain assumptions that may not be tenable. These include:

1. The brain is the source of mind. Mind can't exist outside the brain. Intelligence is the result of chemical reactions.
2. In an even broader sense, life is the result of chemical reactions.
3. Genes are fixed, deterministic agents that do not respond to the immediate environment, bodily functions, or thoughts.
4. A complete biochemical analysis of DNA will eventually answer all questions about life.
5. Intelligence outside the brain is paranormal tripe, to use one objector's colorful language.

Despite the vehement objectors, I still believe that geneticists are far from understanding how DNA replicates, because the word "how" connotes more than observing a molecular process of chemical binding. Most explanations of DNA--not just its ability to replicate but many other factors--are post facto. We observe the process, therefore we think we understand its purpose. This is like observing the brain of someone who is depressed without knowing that the person had a child die that day. We cannot explain grief as a brain function. It is a human response that uses a physical organ to mediate it, just as an artist uses his hand to mediate his artistic vision. A chemical analysis of Michelangelo's hands can't explain the Pieta.

Genetics presently is approaching a remarkable mechanical understanding of its subject without advancing very far into the mystery of human intelligence, life in its relation to mind, consciousness in relation to the brain, and other fundamental questions. In a materialistic worldview, brain equals mind. This is far out of the mainstream of world philosophy and religion, not to mention wisdom and common sense. Consciousness, in the great human tradition, is a primary fact of existence, not an epiphenomenon created by brain chemistry.

In common understanding, we are intelligent because of our brains, our brains are intelligent because of the operation of brain cells, and brain cells operate because of genes. By this reasoning, either genes must be intelligent in their own right, or by some magic of chemistry, molecules that lack intelligence produce it when combined in various ways.

So, is this whole line of thinking false? To a materialist it must be true without question, and any attempt to find intelligence outside the brain--meaning outside DNA--is preposterous. Except that it isn't.

Consider the now-famous and much replicated studies at Princeton in which ordinary people were asked to sit in a room with a computer that generated a random string of zeros and ones.They were asked to try and will the machine to produce more ones than zeros or vice versa. In trial after trial the subjects succeeded in this challenge (on average, the machine produced extra ones or zeros about 2% more often than random), and there was no need for the subjects to have ESP or any paranormal abilities. This is a primary example of mind operating outside the brain.

We also have numerous examples of patients who died after cardiac arrest--to the point of exhibiting no brain function--only to be resuscitated and tell vivid accounts of the afterlife. They had mental experiences--seeing light, hearing voices, feeling emotions-- without brain activity. Are these cases to be denied wholesale?
----
He goes on to investigate the differences in genetically identical twins, and discussing the classic nature vs. nurture argument.

Read the rest here

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Why Does Habeas Corpus Hate America?

The Bush administration and our honorable republican leadership have a reputation for defending our american freedom's by taking them away. Makes sense right? Take away the basic rights of american citizens and strip away the very foundations upon which this great country was founded, so that you can feel safer in your daily life.

The Military Commissions Act recently passed by the house and senate with the approval of Bush indefinetly suspends the right to habeas corpus by people who are kept prisoner by the "land of the free".

What is habeas corpus? Wikipedia it: In common law countries, habeas corpus - Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment.

Our so called "Constitution" mentions this habeas corpus only once, saying: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Are we being invaded by anyone? Are we in the middle of a rebellion?.... you be the judge.

The basis for supporting this type of legislation is the idea that it doesn't affect you unless you're Osama Bin Laden or one of his cohorts. After all, most of the people who were detained in Guantanamo and are still being sent to secret CIA prisons that "may or may not exist" (meaning, yes they do exist) aren't Americans! As I've pointed out in previous posts, american lives are held above all others. Smirking Chimp elaborates on my opinion:

... how are we to compare the public revulsion over Foley's indiscretions with the widespread acceptance, or even support for abuse of American captives in the War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and the so-called "War" on Terror, which has included rape, sodomy, sexual humiliation and torture of all kinds, and murder--especially when it is known that the vast majority of those captives were either guilty of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or of simply being honest fighters for their respective countries, deserving of decent treatment under the Geneva Convention, and of a fair hearing into the propriety of their detention?

What kind of nation have we become?

Olbermann asks: Why does habeas corpus hate america? Watch it here-through Raw Story. It's pretty funny, in a sad, depressing kind of way. I swear, he's the only respectable reporter left on television.

According to the ACLU, this bill "removes important checks on the president by: failing to protect due process, eliminating habeas corpus for many detainees, undermining enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, and giving a "get out of jail free card" to senior officials who authorized or ordered illegal torture and abuse." According to Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel, "nothing could be less American than a government that can indefinitely hold people in secret torture cells, take away their protections against horrific and cruel abuse, put them on trial based on evidence that they cannot see, sentence them to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and then slam shut the courthouse door for any habeas petition, but that’s exactly what Congress just approved."

Snow? In Minnesota?!?

I was doing my usual data entry at work today when I looked out the window and saw a blizzard outside! Granted, it only lasted for about 5 minutes but it made me think about the five months of biting cold that I'll have to endure once winter officially gets here. I text messaged my buddy Petey about it, and his response was: SWEET! (hockey player) So I guess not everyone is dreading the premature drop in temperature. I'll get used to it, but it's still October! That's just not fair... are you listening God? Sorry about the bad cell phone pic, it's the best I could do.

Monday, October 09, 2006

An American Prophet


Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness, in a descending spiral of destruction. The chain reaction of evil must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Nobody has ever said it better.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Burn Baby Burn

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Loss of Trust














Arianna had this to say on huffingtonpost today about the whole Foley thing:

I just read the perfect summation of why the Foley scandal threatens to become the nail in the GOP's 2006 coffin:

"This isn't an isolated situation. It is only the most recent example of Republican House leaders doing whatever it takes to hold onto power. If it means spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on questionable projects, they'll do it. If it means covering up the most despicable actions of a colleague, they'll do it."

Quick HuffPost Quiz: Can you name the source of this damning quote?

A) MoveOn
B) Harry Reid
C) Nancy Pelosi
D) Daily Kos
E) New York Times Editorial

Actually, it's F) None of the Above. The stinging words were delivered by Richard Viguerie, one of the founding fathers of the conservative movement, in an e-mail to his supporters [via AMERICABlog]. You know you're in trouble when your base starts accusing you of doing whatever it takes to hold onto power.

It's not about sordid IMs; it's about the loss of trust.
......
The current narrative -- that the American people can't trust these guys to look after the interests of vulnerable children -- fits in perfectly with the building narrative that the American people can't trust them in so many other areas: We can't trust them to tell the truth about the war in Iraq. We can't trust them to tell the truth about who really benefits from their tax cuts. We can't trust them to tell the truth about what they are doing to protect us at home. We can't trust them to tell the truth about the predatory actions of their point man on child porn.

The other piece of good news for Democrats is that the Republicans have started forming a circular firing squad.

Rep. John Boehner points the finger at Hastert. Rep. Jim Gerlach cancels a fund-raiser with Boehner. Rep. Rodney Alexander passes the buck to Hastert, then takes it back. Rep. Tom Reynolds washes his hands of the actions of his just-resigned chief of staff (while failing to explain why, after Reynolds learned of Foley's e-mails, Foley contributed $100,000 to the campaign committee Reynolds chaired). And while President Bush offers tepid words of support for Hastert -- "he is a father, teacher, coach, who cares about the children of this country"-- he's keeping the trap door control switch in reach.

In the end, it looks like the Republicans will succeed where the Democrats failed: in making the case for why the GOP needs to get the boot in November.

PS From the beginning, the Foley scandal was loaded with You Can't Make This Stuff Up details, starting with his co-chairmanship of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus.

In this same spirit, here is a trio of actual, true, real, I'm not kidding you Foley quotes:
On the FBI's Crackdown on Child Predators: "If I were one of those sickos, I'd be nervous."
On Teen Nudist Camps: "It's putting matches a little too close to gasoline."
On Bill Clinton (circa 1998): "It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Paging, Dr. Freud!

Friday, October 06, 2006

We Just Don't Get It


Watch this segment from The Daily Show last night. It was a particularly good one. Bush says in the history books, Iraq will be seen as "just a comma", constantly reminds us that he is the president, and vaguely points out what that entails. Is the president doing a horrible job, or are 65% of us just stupid? Watch it, it's really good.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Sickening

If you haven't heard of this already, you obviously don't pay any attention to politics. I'd rather not repeat the horrible things that Republican Representative Foley (bottom right)did that made him decide to resign after being caught, but here's a quick summary of what happened just to give you context:

Foley, the Republican representative from Florida resigned from office as he was exposed this week as a child predator. Various emails and instant messages surfaced with graphic sexual overtones that he had been sending to a 16 year old boy. The kicker is that Foley has been a strong advocate of harsh laws on child predators, specifically internet predators. What's truly sick about this is the outright hypocrisy of representative Foley and the tenacity of thinking that he would never be caught. It's yet another example of the two-facedness of our republican leadership.

It gets worse. According to the Washington Post, Republican leaders knew of Foley's inappropriate contact with children.

WP:

The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.
----------------------
Many predictions have already been made by political analysts as to how this will affect the mid-term elections. Some say it will discourage voters in general from voting. Others say it will discourage voters from voting republican specifically. Let's hope it's the latter. Let's get these sickos out of congress, they don't deserve to be making the decisions that affect all of us on a daily basis.