Oh, herro thar!

Well I am back, or, have been for a while. I've been thinking the past few weeks about what I should do. I bought more books, including one for my native language, and have some audio set to learn Albanian(not fluently, but conversational, which is enough).

I've grown. Not vertically, or actually I could have done that as well since I don't measure; but mentally. I still make silly mistakes once in a while, but this state of thought is really liberating. I got drunk in Croatia. Now, that may sound absolutely childish to most. Look at it this way, I used to think that drink was a ticket to Hell. It's not, but it's my first time and I've also learned I probably don't have a gene for alcoholism since I didn't fiend for it the next day. Plus, I don't particularly enjoy killing brain cells, so I limit consumption to social events. In other words, a few times a year. Seriously, it's only worth it once or twice a year like that, there's no point in throwing money away and simultaneously making yourself dumber. I've got better things to do.
Like what? Well, check it out:

I stacked those up, yay! Well, I've decided I would read all of those, actually I've already read eight or nine of those in that stack. With school in my routine, I don't think there's much free time left out of the week to read up on all of that. But I should make an effort to read it either way, and I will.

After reading the book Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan Wilson I feel like an amateur scientist, and came up with an interesting place to start. I was wondering about the Afro. It sounds kind of silly, thinking about Afros. Anyway, I considered what's the evolutionary significance of this, since Whites and Asians don't have the same cool hairstyle. I should bring it up with David, perhaps I'll come up with something interesting and new. It just goes to show that science is never ending and ever changing. For those who say it's all been done before, it hasn't, don't kid yourself. We're still a Type I civilization on the Kardashev scale. Think about that, or look it up.

I'm also interested in trading. Now that I think about it, I'm fascinated with everything. Life may be meaningless, but it's not worthless, far from it. I've got a life to live.

I know

I've kept a good routine blogging a few times per month, but I doubt I'll be following through over the next few months. I'm going to EUROPE! Hopefully, if I'm lucky with the internet signal in Bosnia(I bought some USB pseudo-satellite thing for a net connection) I'll try to keep it up-to-date. I'm bringing a ton of books, and I'll be staying there for a ridiculously long period of time, it should be a lot of fun. We'll see how this works out, ciao!

Hair

I finished reading Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell last night and tonight I'm moving onto Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism to learn more about the so-called "ultimate and final" political system. As you can see, I'm having my doubts about that. Anyway the only thing that really inspired me to write this post was (thank goodness I'm not a part of it anymore) apparently some Muslim "Janadee-ul-Awwal" month's ridiculous claims and sayings,

"It is written in the book Jawaahir Ghaibee that any person who performs 4 Raka'ah on the first night and in each Raka'ah recites Surah Al Ikhlas 11 times, Allah Tabarak Ta'la enters 90,000 years of good deeds in that person's book of deeds and removes 90,000 years of bad deeds from that person's book of deeds.

Jewels of my eyes you are missing the whole point! Please . . . . . try and understand that the ONLY purpose for which Allah created us is for His Worship, His Love and His Obedience. Our very brief stay in this world is to prepare for the Hereafter and to strive to accumulate the fabulous and unbelievable assets in the Paradise."

If you write something ridiculous enough people will believe it. My cousin will believe, I swear, just about anything, if not everything, people say about Islam and how it works. If you've heard about those Albanian terrorists trying to kill US soldiers, the way he spoke about it he like wanted it to happen. Obviously 'it is written' means it was written by a god damned person, as soon as you connect some ridiculous thought to religion like, say, 90,000 years of 'good deeds' people will believe it. Listen to this to see how ridiculous it gets, my cousin told me that Muslims brought pieces of Muhammad's hair to the Mosque, and actually believes that this holy hair still grows! Try to imagine me, now. I'm absolutely baffled and I can't write enough to show you how ridiculous I think it is. My mind is having a brainstorm, it's absolutely retarded. Now, if you told him this in another scenario like, "Yo, imagine if you cut Chuck Norris' hair and it still grew," he'd probably laugh and tell you how ridiculous that sounds. But as soon as you add the religious element to it, "o0o0o0o man I don't know that's some deep shish, very mysterious, don't even try to comprehend it, because we shouldn't it's out of our realm."

Why would 'God' allow such stupidity to reign? There just isn't one. Man invented God. It's their attempt to explain the cosmos. It's no wonder why our irrational and superstitious ancestors made Him out to be just like them -- absolutely retarded.

Like xkcd says, "Science. It works, bitches." I love you, science.

BBL

Well I'm done with school and embarrassed/disappointed with my performance, but that's okay. You see, at least I now understand what it really takes. I need to put all of my effort into school and stop fooling around. Some say I should get a hobby and are baffled when I tell them I read -- a lot. (Well that may not necessarily be the case just yet, as I've only begun) My hobby, no, my passion, is evolution: everything that encompasses the theory, and its utterly remarkable profundities. This is what I've been looking for my whole life -- understanding. How much more spectacular and gratifying it is than kneeling submissively daily like a tool.

Anyway, I love it. In fact, I'm reading Breaking the Spell at the moment and have a yellow sheet emblazoned with thoughts to blog about that I should delay since this book is great.

There's a weird feeling I have that keeps me going. It really was as if I was destined to do something grand. You know, ever since I was a child I just wanted to be ... important. I suppose if you think about it from a psychological perspective, I'm this self-conscious person. I want to be the best at something, and I never could be. I love attention, although I very rarely get it. I remember a fellow lacrosse player, after winning a small grant of scholarship money from the team, said how happy I looked. It may have been nothing to him, but all of this attention and acknowledgment was really special -- I smile thinking about it. I like it that way though. It means I probably won't ever get tired of it, like celebrities. "Reality is nourishment, but people don't believe it." (Be back later.)

-Will be back next month with interesting material. Can't write now: got finals to study for! (but crazy enough to leave a message while studying)

Do something.

Life has been really marvelous since the last time I've posted on this.

I went to Miami for the Winter Music Festival to listen to the best DJs in the world in one... park. Scattered throughout the park, but in the park nonetheless. It rained, but still the music and people were unbelievable. I put the pictures up on my face book and what not.

School is all right, my math homework compiles as I naively put off studying to the last second or day. I love English, and writing about Wells' War of the Worlds. Both of my major papers were about evolution, unsurprisingly, because I love it. I love it when the world and my being makes sense, for the umpteenth time, although, this time I have evidence, and can answer questions that bothered me before. It's absolutely fascinating. So much so, that I purchased a ton of books over the past few weeks from authors like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Noam Chomsky(to probe my political side). Some names, to spit a few out, are,The God Delusion, The Ancestor's Tale, Breaking the Spell, et alia. Dr. Sharon Moalem also has this new book out that I adore, Survival of the Sickest, all of these books are what I consider only the beginning to newfound rationality and understanding.

I want to add some of the questions and pondering, mentioned before, that stumped me. Not necessarily a big deal, although even through mental abuse I questioned the validity of my own 'conclusions'. The first thing was rather an insignificant bit although it challenged some of my thoughts, the tick. I read from Harun Yahya that, according to the man, all men and animals were created at the time of creation, however long ago it was. But the tick was the first bit that led to concluding I might be wrong. Ticks are a relatively new phenomena, from what I understand, why would they appear so recently? As opposed to always being here?

A cousin of mine is probably the perfect example of a clash between religious dogma and evolutionary theory. He learned, from humanities I assume, that there is no such thing as love, there is only lust. He acknowledges this openly and fully, but to put that in perspective of an evolutionary context is prohibited by his mind as directed by the Qu'ran. If god did create the universe and we were the only thing he cared for, why lust? Wouldn't an omnipotent being create 'true love'? Oh don't judge God, you say? I don't know what he's thinking? Doesn't it make much more sense that we are lustful because our genes practically assert we should reproduce? It's not nonsensical, why don't people connect the dots?

I like my cousins a lot, too. Whatever makes them happy, I suppose, is better for them. I don't want to believe though, I want to know.

This one is rather short, but still it struck me profoundly because I don't think many people ask questions like this. When I walk around and look at people, you can practically see from the way they look and guess their personality. Why is it these people act just like they look? Why are they (pardon the french) plain assholes or dumbasses? Intelligence is inherited, although not completely determined by genes. I just had one experience with a person, and my mind drifted to think about it. Inheritance is a powerful molding force.

Another thing he mentions is intelligence. His sister is gifted from God, he says. The first thing that sprang up is 'fairness.' I asked, why would God favor somebody over another? That's not the all-loving and just. Imams also mention how everybody is equal under God, which makes it a better religion(as opposed to the chosen people, etc.) Well, I asked, why aren't we equal if that's the case? And what struck me is, he was perfectly fine with not knowing, not caring. "That's just the way it is." I now realize God has nothing to do with any of the aforementioned. Everything makes sense under the lens of evolution.

'Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity.'

My whole life, I've been trying to live like in the quote above. I don't want to be normal. I just want to be the best at something, whatever it is. I'm on my way, hopefully. This world stops for nothing, so be/do something.

Developments, school, and Raëlism

I think I'll start out by saying Raelism is bullshit, just in case you were thinking I might believe it.

Anyway, my vacation is over today, and I've got to begin hustling again. I've only got less than two months left for school, so I really need to step it up. I bought a few books and might get a few more.

I've read about halfway through the God Delusion and have found it actually very enjoyable and insightful. Dawkins and Dennett are the two biggest influences of my philosophical thought. When I write for school, I'm passionate about my new thought. The advancement of science and rationality is of utmost importance. Religion is whack. People say that religion may make one happy, and that religion isn't the problem. But it is the problem. Religion basically desires that you 'submit' to their thinking and way of life, without question. I desire questioning everything, because it's right. If you want to believe in god, then become a deist. Not a Muslim, Christian, or what have you. Reason leads to rationality. Religions do not incorporate reason into their beliefs; that makes all religions irrational and scornful. I don't see religious (w0)men reasoning with logic or science the ascent of Jesus, because you'd have to take it on faith. If you're going to believe in a God, don't believe in religion. Anybody with a pen and paper can make themselves holy or rich, as long as the writing is good enough. God without religion is much more acceptable and rational than with a religion, if anybody so wishes to believe in Him.

I'm worked up. Switching gears we go to Raelism. I only wanted to comment some things I find interesting about it, in a disdainful manner. They don't believe in evolution, but they believe that life does not appear by chance, so there is no God, but Aliens somehow managed to put life on this silly planet of ours. Remarkably duplicitous, and if you didn't say 'wtf?' when you read that you didn't see what's wrong with their ideas. If life didn't evolve on earth, and that it doesn't appear by chance or evolution, then how in the hell did aliens come about? Were they so intelligent as to create themselves? You know, it's un-fuckin-believable what some pseudo-philosophies teach and this one really enlarged my supposed beliefs on the limits of the stupidity of humanity. I really hope I got something mixed up or wrong about their beliefs, because it is absolutely duplicitous and idiotic.

Check out my favorite religion, Islam, to give you a good enough reason to abolish religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6R6GBZs6z8
People will say, well you can't use a select few to represent the whole of Islam. But in that, my point is, religion leads to irrationality/superstition and things like terrorism. They preach hate, not reason. Religion does not advocate reason, so many branches of irrational beliefs come out and do the damage the world knows so well. I've got so much floating in my mind but I can't get it out, although I believe I've said enough.

Reason and rationalism is the future. Incite insight.

Passage of Time

It's been about a month and guess what? I think it's official, I've broken free from the shackles of religion.

I've been thinking about life a lot, especially the things I've read about and mentioned in prior posts. I'm so glad that I'm an open minded person. I've always been looking for the 'truth' and my trips have definitely taken me a long 'intellectual' path that most people in the world never could or would. (I only apply the parentheses around intellectual because as 'bright' as I may be I'm still amazed and humbled by the amounts of information other people have assimilated throughout their years)

I'm going to try to read two or three books this week, as I'm on spring break. The first would be The God Delusion, which I've started reading but couldn't get around to it due to time constraints. The second is an assignment for English class, although I do assume I'll enjoy reading Wells' War of the Worlds because of my background.

I feel so liberated, so free, it's unbelievable. Commenting on this one article on digg about a $300 million dollar supermosque that's supposed to be built in London somewhere I remember saying something like, "The day $300 million dollars would be spent on something useful rather than propogating religious superstition is far, far away." The comment dugg down a good amount, and I laughed, I just laughed.

I envision religion will plague our world for years to come and will most likely evolve out of the 'Jesus will return' scenario into something less ridiculous. Perhaps somebody will discover some ancient text(or make one out of thin air) and change its ways. Religion won't end us, science has done so much for the planet and minds of people it would be impossible to keep the world in some primitive state.

Look at some of these quotes from this URL: http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

Most of the quoted people are/were top academics and intellectuals. Does that not say something in of itself? Were they given their intellect by devils to lure you into the sin of disbelief? I'm disappointed in humanity, however, I suppose other civilizations achieving the stage of intelligence must combat it as well. Oh, how marvelous our short civilization's history is, and how splendid the civilizations of others could be. I always think about how first contact would be, what kind of language they would speak, what kind of characters they use for letters and numerals. I am wildly enthusiastic about the future.

I think I'll go ahead and start reading. Mirë upafshim.

Much ado about nothing.

After reading my last post I'm sure some would consider me to be a sissy liberal bitch. But, I don't know. I'm becoming somewhat apathetic. First it was from a hardcore libertarian to a softer one, like my academic advisor. For some reason I agreed with Bill O'Reilly(of all people...) when he said we shouldn't have income redistribution because some people earn it while others throw all of their money into drugs and other bad habits; because you reap what you sow. That would be the only thing I agree with him on, since his mind has no ability to reason or think critically with criticisms. Anyway, if there were to be redistribution it should be among citizens who actually contribute to society(up for interpretation). If you're not one of them, and would rather spend your life in an alley shooting up heroin then be my guest, just don't expect to be paid to throw your life away.

Well, now let's move on. I wanted to write about why I still write for this damn blog. To put it simply: I'm going to die one day. That's fucked up. I think it's because I have this need inside me to connect with people. I have two uncles that are dead, and of which whom I know nothing about. I just know that they were probably really good guys, and now they're gone. I see their pictures to try to imagine them as if they were here. I want to know what they were like, because they're probably just like me, and I'm next in line. It fascinates me, it really is my everything. It's all I think about. So here I am writing so whoever wants to, can connect with me... After looking at slideshows of Carlee Wines made by friends, I think about what would happen if I were to go. Oh, how I want to stay here forever...

I might believe there is no God, then I see something else that makes me agnostic. But, if I'm agnostic and all Big Three religions are ridiculous, does that say something about God? They're all "right" according to each follower's beliefs, but I feel like if they're all wrong. And if the large monotheistic religions are wrong, what would that say about god in general? There couldn't be one, could there? Why would he allow the destruction of whole galaxies, where tons of civilizations could have been living? We are all star stuff. I think essentially in our world there's no evidence for his existence, but I can only be hopeful that there should be one. Even though every day I see something that suggests otherwise.

Try to imagine me befuddled, because I am at this moment, trying to figure out what to write. There's so much I'm thinking about that I could be leaving out. I have this movie in my head. It starts with the big bang, atoms of all sorts flying around, clouds of gases forming, lightning, and, alas, life. Why is it we have this whole process to think about today? Could this be an elaborate mecahnism of a God to keep himself uninvolved? If so, what about other animals and plants? Do they go to 'heaven' too? "No way, only us humans," eh? Why so, that doesn't make sense does it? Sigh. Other animals going to heaven sounds kind of ridiculous doesn't it? What about single celled organisms? They must go to heaven too. You know, the other animal argument is kind of good when arguing against god. Because when you think about god among other animals, they don't need one. What did god ever do for them? There's no Jesus Hamster that had to come down to earth and die for all hamsterkind's sins. So, if there is no god we're left with this long and boring process of the ever magnificent evolution. But what started this process? As much as I admire Carl Sagan, I have trouble replacing a God with infinite regression. It's not because I'm apalled at the thought, but rather, critically thinking as to why I'm here. Infinite regression is almost ridiculous, but that doesn't mean I'm rejecting it. It's almost like Carl was trying to reject it, no matter what. I'm just trying to conclude that God is a plausible answer for only one question in life. Science can have its magnificent adventure at discovering everything else, because there's no equation we can ascertain from a question like, why are we here?

So do animals go to heaven? I can only wait and see, but while I'm at it I'd rather be discovering new things about the universe if I could. If nothing happens, then it doesn't matter: I won't know, I'll just be gone. If something is there, then that's all right, I guess.

There's so much depth and details to these questions. Maybe you can begin to understand why I think existence is so fascinating. You can see it when I read, I practically battle myself and my thoughts probably don't come out whole or focused. I want to know. When it happens I hope somebody uncovers this blog and it's at least inspirational and profound.

Rest in peace C, I hope you found what I'm looking for.

Minwage

Minimum wage? Liberals support hiking the minimum wage but, according to economists, it will increase unemployment.

My advisor has a Ph.D. in Economics from Columbia, basically he's a awfully nice and smart guy. He's done research in this field since he's a Labor Economist. Today, I thought I made profound connection when the term Utilitarianism popped up into my head during class. Think about it. Many people who are the benefactors of the status quo. They don't have to pay their workers as much so they, I assume, would like to keep it that way or even pay them less.
Milton Friedman may be regarded as a genius when he said that a corporation's only responsibility is to maximize its returns to shareholders. He may be a Nobel Prize winner, but I think in this case the amount of people that make a good amount of money are a select few. The natural inclination of these few is to hoard their wealth and stick together, keeping the status quo in motion as long as is possible. Basically, by 'nickel and diming' employees they maximize their earnings. For some reason, in my head, there's this point where any person just has too much money.
For example, Goldman Sachs may have struck it big with oil futures, but do investors really need $100 million dollar bonuses? Just imagine what they would do with that money... Buy some pieces of art, cars, you know, the usual. Distributing some of that money would actually be in fact better for the economy, not just of the US, but the world. I can't help but find the venerable trickle down effect nothing more than status quo rhetoric to put on a facade, and in turn trick people to keep things the way they are. If bonuses were cut from $100 million to something more reasonable like $10 million tops. The lower people in the chain would be spending like crazy, because that's natural market behavior; I think it's the marginal propensity to consume. For every extra dollar people earn they'll spend about 70 cents of it and save 30, and for people with $100 million in their bank, there's nothing left to buy; unless of course they want to build more wealth from that. The 'normal' people in Goldman Sachs would surely spend on things like new cars, homes, electronics, help out family, and so much more. The people on top usually don't have such a wide gamut of goods and services bought.
Giving money to the guys lower on the ladder is like diversifying and strengthening economies as a whole. Provided, everything I'm saying is simply a belief or educated guess. There's no real science or numbers behind it, since I don't think it's ever been that way. Still, I have this feeling that if there were no ultra wealthy people economies of the world would be stronger.
Utilitarianism, utilitarianism, I shouldn't digress so. Perhaps, the increase in wages may be beneficial. There's no evidence that suggests an increase in wages weakens the economy, it just increases unemployment some amount, although not significantly. When people begin making more money they can spend more, right? Now, with this increase in spending it's possible for newer companies to sprout and meet demands, which may employ people who have been recently laid off due to the hike. I mean, it would probably take more work than that. If Goldman Sachs took a chill pill with the bonuses and spread them out reasonably it could do much more for an economy than people making an extra two dollars an hour. If there is a trend of less ultra-wealth, and an increase in minimum wage, that would probably be a superb combination to create an awesome economy that's truly maximizing what's important: the people's utility.

All right, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.
I've gotta read Paradise Lost, woohoo..
g'night...

JFK

Happy new year! I'll post a simply magnificent speech for today's blog by JFK,

"

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 t. he New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security-and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said-and your newspapers have constantly said-that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America-unions and businessmen and public officials at every level--will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I .am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

What a great speech. If I'm ever a president I would use this speech for the inaugural ceremony; that would really make the smart people happy and the 'bad ones' angry. I don't expect to be driving around in a convertible so I think if I isolate myself or something I'll be fine.

JFK owns. We need somebody who believes in the meaning of that speech in office.

Quote-crazy

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking." - Carl Sagan

Oh, how I want to believe. How comforting it would be. Everyday it makes more and more sense. I'll never deny the possibility, no. For I am somewhat a non-practicing Muslim. The ambiguity in the origin of life permits this belief, and I'm content with that. The problem is, I can't seem to find it anywhere else.

What does happen when you die? It's elating to imagine you looking down at your feet, atop clouds beside pearly white gates. But what if it doesn't? Do you remember what your life was like before you were... two years old? No? Then why would it be odd to presume the same thing happens upon death? It does seem like an afterlife is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Sigh.

But what is our purpose? The multiverse hypothesis sounds so ridiculous. What's the point of all this? Space is too god damned big. Why is the universal speed limit the speed of light? What the hell is the point of all this...

It may be wishful thinking, but there are reasons to believe. Until discoveries come about that shatter contemporary thinking, I'm sticking to what makes me happy; there's not enough proof to tell me I'm full of shit.

Seems like there never will be.

Good night/morning.

Writing

My favorite paper from English this semester is the Moment in Life essay. Actually the paper on Constitution is probably my favorite, but that's not important now. This could either be fiction or non fiction. In reality, it's both. I kind of made up some quotes so it could pass for either. It's probably not even that great.

" I’ve been to plenty of weddings in my life. They’re all basically the same because our people are proud and traditional.

We’re from Plav, a small historical town, in the middle of everything. The town is literally at the borders of Montenegro, Kosova, and Albania. My ancestors have been living in that valley for the past 400 years. Life there is pretty laid back; laborers only work from Monday through Thursday, eat a lot of food, and joke around all the time. It’s like an American family’s utopia. The wedding ceremonies there are identical to the ones we have in America; it was created over there first, our people in America couldn’t give up their traditions, it helps many cope with homeland sickness.

At the wedding, my lips arch parabolically and my nose bellows air to avoid laughing as I sit and listen to drunken relatives converse about their past. I see my cousin, although, she likes it when I refer to her as a ‘sister.’ (We’re close since I went on vacation and met everyone the first time in 2000. Her father died that year, and I talked to her a lot; she began calling me a brother and it stuck.) Standing tall (especially because of her ornate wedding cake-like headdress which adds a foot but more about that in a moment.) behind a large table consisting of the bride, my ‘sister’, and recently married relatives by her side in extravagant outfits, covered with heavy silver and gold embroidery; clothes that Queen Elizabeth the First would wear but, only on official state occasions. I admit crying a little seeing my ‘sister’ standing tall like that, especially because of her past. But I toughed it out, you know, since I’m a beast.

“She’s so beautiful,” an aunt whispers, “So when are you getting married? Vee gonna find you a nice girl.”

That’s the crazy aunt. Always thinking about who and when others should tie the knot. It’s an obsession, and it’s hilarious. She’s dressed up in the same type of embroidered white garb with jingling gold ornaments on her head to complement the giant gold collar; indigenous to our people, and enigmatic to anyone else.

I shook my head, laughed, and didn’t bother answering the question--who could?

The method men Albanian use to get married is quite different from the American way. Albanian men who live in America go back to their home country and basically ‘pick out’ the girl they want to marry; the parents talk about it first, to see if she is from a good family. Then, the girl spends time with the man to see if she likes him. It’s nice since the girl isn’t forced to get married and the families bond as friends.

I could have been married this summer if I wanted to, which is frightening; but that’s the power of culture. Seeing my ‘sister’ standing there I try to see the world through her eyes, as a precocious nineteen year old. I feel like I’ve turned to stone looking at marriage eye to eye. This inner child in me, precarious and fearful, squeaks, “I don’t wanna.” But this fear is probably part of the process. What results from this bond is valuable, and most important: love, loyalty, respect, trust, and happiness.

Traditions and customs in the ceremony involve these elements. Throughout the night attendees from both sides of the family get up and dance in formed circles. They hold hands high and oscillate them as they maneuver and move in the circle, to show their approval and happiness for the to-be couple. As they spiral around each other they seem timeless, like a primitive ritual, going as far back as the days when a conch that plays the euphoric song of love when blown upon.

In the end, the husband and wife fill their cups with champagne, and entangle their arms as they drink. When the time came to cut the cake, my ‘sister’ took a slice and fed her husband, then vice versa.

Afterwards, the crowd forms a large circle and the lights dim; the two dance in the middle and whisper into each others ear. Perhaps they were dreaming about the future. More likely, they were savoring the moment. Like a first kiss, a dream was falling into place becoming reality. All of that fantasizing she did as a teenager I remember, about sincerity, honesty, and the importance of true love; how beautiful, how becoming, how real.

Before leaving, I filter my way through the crowd to reveal myself and my ‘sister’ spots me, “There you are! Ha ha, so what do you think? You’re next! Vee gonna find you a nice girl!” "

Influences

I'll be listing quotes which influence of have influenced me. First off we have a Q&A between Carl Sagan and an inquirer at the Gifford Lectures.

"Questioner: I'd like to ask you about why you think any omnipotent being would want to leave evidence for us.
CS: I think I entirely agree with what you say. There is no reason I should expect an omnipotent being to leave evidence of His existence, except that the Gifford Lectures are supposed to be about evidence. And I hope it is clear that the fact that I do not see evidence of such a God's existence does not mean that I then derive from that fact that I know that God does not exist.
That's quite a different remark. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Neither is it evidence of presence. And this is again a situation where our tolerance for ambiguity is required."

If you want to be amazed, read those Q&A sections. Carl was a walking encyclopedia. I can't imagine how much studying Carl did. It's like he knows every damn subject in-depth and his ability to respond to questions I find hard to understand quickly is inspirational. I have this feeling in my gut like, damn, I want to be that. Or know all of that.

The first piece of evidence that made me switch, I'll always remember. In Daniel Dennett's Show me the Science he mentions my previously strongest held creationist argument: the eye. Now that I understand natural selection and everything, like I'm supposed to, I can't believe I 'fell for it'.

Here's the excerpt:

"A creationist pamphlet sent to me some years ago had an amusing page in it, purporting to be part of a simple questionaire:
Test Two
Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? [Yes][No]
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? [Yes][No]
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? [Yes][No]
If you answered YES for any of the above, give details:

Take that, you Darwinians! The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.

Well, yes--until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection--the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge--has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.

Take the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.

But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work--all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multi celled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago--we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.

We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the i intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.
All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this one gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate--this was Darwin's insight--eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.
Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones(which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating a blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of the hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process. If you still find Test Two compelling, a sort of cognitive illusion that you can feel even as you discount it, you are like just about everybody else in the world; the idea that natural selection has the power to generate such sophisticated designs is deeply counterintuitive.

The designs found in nature are nothing short of brilliant, but the process of design that generates them is utterly lacking in intelligence of its own.

Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.

Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence.

This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things.

In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach."

Those words influenced me. I remember how I fought them until I thought about what my friend was trying to tell me all along. Do you think I said,"Eureka!"? No it was more like, "I'm an idiot!"? I don't like being so hard on myself, but that was necessary. I'm really nothing special. That's why I want to be somebody. I'm nothing special, but I'm also not normal. I love saying that. I'm not normal. It intrigues others, I can see their eyebrows raise in the corner of my eye. Moving on...

This next quote comes from Theodosius Dobzhansky's Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution:

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.

This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true. Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."

That's all folks.

Papers

All right, the semester is over and I'm free for a while. I suppose I'll share some essays written for my English class. It's a long ass paper about the Constitution. Have fun reading it, haha.

"Where is the world headed? Currently, our government is making a mockery of our Constitution. Sometime in the future, if we follow this path, the U.S. may become a police state. Consider these lyrics, “…Cops tape the scene up, gunner downs 9; they're chasin' away kids playin' hop-scotch in his chalk outline. Two F-16's screech an iridescent sky, look down we're not in Iraq we're in NY! Rats in the streets we move underground like earthworms two coasts couldn't abort Satan in his first term. The army in the subway walkin' with toolies(note: Uzi-gun). I'm on the train with the back of the dollar bill still talkin' to me. Drive with my left I know what's right my weapon hand, like the map of DC streets still shows a pentagram. License on the car window when I pass through you've seen the news, no joke, New York pig department will blast you. My Weatherman party is invite-only soldier cuz with one wave of King G Dub's scepter it's over. The right to assemble puts the bureau's team on you. Look into my file and nod to this while Jell-O screams on you."[17]

That’s America’s future: a police state; an abject form of government. We can prevent this. It is America’s future only if we succumb to the whims and lies of politicians. But if we want America to go in the right direction we have to know where we are and where we’re going to get there. There’s only one document that can show us this.

The United States Constitution: a timeless masterpiece that exudes liberty. It is the metaphorical chain that constrains an incessant leviathan of power. Today it seems that beast has broken free of his bonds. How so? A pertinent quote may well explain how, "I prefer a man who will burn the flag and wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and wrap himself in the flag,"(Craig Washington).

Since 9/11, many political pundits claim there will never be peace in a post 9/11 world; we should all stay locked up in our homes, be terrified, and let the government take care of us. Some of us, however, have a problem with the measures the government utilizes in order to "keep us safe."

But, we must never let go. Vandals have tried to tear the fabric of the Constitution since its inception. Just because someone says a slave is three-fifths a person doesn't make it so, nor that they should be slaves in the first place. Just because someone says gays shouldn't marry because it's sinful doesn't mean gays shouldn't have the right to get married. These statements come from people who simply don't understand the Constitution or choose to ignore it for their own personal benefit. You can't claim to be defending every American's rights saying those kinds of things because that technically would make you a hypocrite and perhaps a liar. Unfortunately for many, this isn't a theocracy. If you enjoy that kind of life, there are numerous settings in the Middle East you may be more at home in.

This isn't a tirade on religion. I include that second example because religious ideas, like the flag image in the quote, can also be wrapped around a man. Furthermore, 9/11 is the “flag” politicians cover themselves with while burning the Constitution. We shouldn’t allow this event to act as a springboard for Constitutional annihilation.

Today we see many flag-drapers ‘burning the Constitution.’ I don't want to live in a "your papers, please" surveillance state because it's one of the signets of fascism, "In a free society, the government responds to citizens — laws and government adjust as people go about their lives, change their views, culture, ways and means. Government follows populace. In a fascist society, the citizen responds to the state, or loses primary rights and privileges. You are either within the State or outside the State. Populace follows government. The State becomes the focus, not the individual. [1]"

There is no reason to live in a state like that. We have to understand a few things, first of all, if we're going continue to fight whatever we're fighting. The first thing that we should do, which makes sense, is to figure out who exactly are our enemies. Now, our president has given us a vague ten letter word, 'terrorists,’ which can be interpreted in so many ways just like George Bush’s favorite text: the Bible.

We should remember the statement as the CATO Handbook on Policy points out, "the joint resolution approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives authorized the president,

'to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,’[18]"[2]

The source quoted comments that the U.S. should, "...not to wage an amorphous war on terrorism or evil or to unnecessarily conflate the terrorist threat with rogue regimes that seek weapons of mass destruction...focus the war on terrorism only on the Al Qaeda terrorist network and not expand it to other groups or countries that have not attacked, or do not represent a direct threat to the U.S....recognize that much of the war on terrorism will not involve large-scale military action but will emphasize diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement cooperation with other counties...make domestic counter terrorism to find Al Qaeda operatives in the United States a top priority for the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

The writers also emphasize that we, "must not engage in actions or follow policies that create sympathy and recruits for Al Qaeda; that is, we must avoid needlessly giving Muslims reasons to hate America." We should also, "improve relations with foreign intelligence agencies in order to be able to share information about suspected Al Qaeda operatives. (Such cooperation should be limited to intelligence and law enforcement; the U.S. military should not become involved in fighting other nations' wars for them.)"[2] Note: the point of pointing this out is because it mentions who our enemies are. It can’t be any U.S. citizen picked out of a pile. The government needs to be careful and calculated with who the ‘terrorists’ are, and the difference between them and U.S. citizens.

Now that we understand who our enemy is, the U.S. can focus its efforts and waste less resources. The next thing policymakers should do is reduce the budget for national defense, "from the current sum of more than $400 billion to about $200 billion in increments over five years... and make it clear that the reduced budget must be accompanied by a more restrained national military posture that requires enough forces to fight a major war anywhere in the world."[3]

Advocates like Ben Cohen, the Ben in Ben and Jerry's, show us in simple terms, in Oreos, how much better it would be for America if it spent some money appropriated for defense into other domestic destinations like education, health care, world hunger, and other beneficial causes. We don't need to spend money on weapons and things in our geopolitical situation. Putting it into these other areas almost seems like it would guarantee a tremendous improvement which would be great news for the people of America. We're not going more in-depth because the focus here is on the Constitution, this is a basic wrong that accompanies our focused war on terrorism and the in-depth details aren't necessary.

The next measures seem counter-intuitive. Legislators should, "make it clear to the public that homeland security efforts cannot make the country absolutely safe against possible terrorist attacks...and ensure that civil liberties are not sacrificed for unneeded and ineffective homeland security measures."[4]

The writer, on behalf of CATO, explains the situation well in his piece's final paragraphs,

"Finally, all homeland security actions must take into account civil liberties implications. We must heed Benjamin Franklin's admonition that 'they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' Before the government infringes on civil liberties, it must pass a litmus test: the government must demonstrate that any proposed new powers are essential, that they would be effective, and that there is no less invasive way to accomplish the same security goal. Ultimately, we must remember that although terrorists may take advantage of our liberties to exploit vulnerabilities in our society, our liberties are not the problem in trying to defend against terrorism. In the final analysis, homeland security means securing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not just the country itself."(Italics for emphasis)[5]

That's how it should work today, instead of how it is: rambling on about how unsafe we are and that our liberties may also be an enemy because of the way terrorists exploit them. CATO’s italicized final analysis is what I am adamantly advocating.

This of course leads us into which laws infringe on our liberties and what we should do about it. The most important is Habeas Corpus. It's basically the writ by, "which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment."[6]

James Walsh's Liberty in Troubled Times expands with the title 'Why Holding You Without A Charge Is So Bad',

"Some argued during World War II-- just as some argued after 9/11-- that temporary violations of constitutional rights are not a big deal. And, they argue, this is especially true during wartime, when the whole American system that recognizes and supports constitutional rights is endangered. Those people were--and are--fools. Next to killing its own citizens, imprisoning people without charges is the world thing a government can do. It is the most literal infringement of liberty. On a more abstract level, it assumes that the state's prerogatives come before the individuals constitutional liberties; this is the all-too-common epitome of statist arrogance,"[7]

Further, in the conclusion, “The government's suspension or disregard for Habeas Corpus is always troubling...but it isn't a new problem... The U.S. Constitution is full of Habeas Corpus protections, both explicit and implicit. The 5th Amendment requires due process--from arrest to trail to jail; the 6th Amendment requires a speedy trail before a jury of your peers. The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive bail and unusual punishments...In times of war most of all, constitutional rights need to stand strong. If they don't, the state has no cause to continue fighting."[8]

The second document we should investigate is the infamous Patriot Act. The Patriot Act has some good reasons for its existence and numerous reasons which really tick Americans off. Basically, the good should stay and bad should go away. For example, Representatives Sensenbrenner and Conyers found out a couple of interesting points like how the Justice,

"Department had used the Patriot Act for non-terrorism cases (drug violations, credit card fraud, theft from a bank account, a lawyer who defrauded his clients)."[9] In Liberty in Troubled Times Walsh's conclusion is the appropriate one, "In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Americans wanted their government to do something. John Ashcroft's Justice Department was very savvy at producing that "something." As time moves away from 9/11, the need for "something" diminishes...and the Patriot Act should, too... Maybe the worst effect of the Patriot Act is that it gave state agencies one more excuse to be secretive. It has encouraged the Attorney General to be uncooperative with the head of the House Judiciary Committee. A few parts of the Patriot Act are important tools for fighting terrorism--the ability to use roving wiretaps and the increased flexibility in using evidence gained from FISA search warrants in domestic prosecutions are reasonable changes. But, in 2005, the rest should fade into sunset."[10]

CATO says a rather concise, "Policymakers should not make the mistake of underestimating the American people. Of course, the electorate wants safety, but it wants the federal government to secure that safety by fighting the terrorists themselves, not by turning America into a surveillance state. [11]"

The American people want reasonable measures in America, as we see; they don't want Orwell's 1984 society. Walsh also deduces, "History suggests that those fundamental liberties will rebound. They did after the statist power grabs that produced Adam's Aliens and Seditions Acts, Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus and Roosevelt's imprisonment of Americans of Japanese extraction. Current laws like the Patriot Act will likely join those measures in the reject bin of U.S. legal history. [12]"

Third, we have Posse Comitatus. What is it? Well it basically prohibits our military from carrying out law enforcement tasks inside the United States. The reason for this is quite simple as Walsh writes how,

"This comes down to the issue of rules of engagement. Civilian law enforcement requires the recognition of and focus on individual rights; it seeks to protect those rights, even if the person being protected is a criminal suspect. Prior to the use of force, police officers attempt to de-escalate a situation. Police officers are trained to use lesser forms of force when possible to draw their weapons only when they are prepared to fire. On the other hand, soldiers are trained to use deadly force. Escalation is the rule. In an encounter with a person identified with the enemy, soldiers need not focus on--or even recognize--individual rights. And the use of deadly force is authorized without any aggressive or bad act by that person."[13]

What I hate the most about this law is what Walsh says would be a logical extension: martial law,

"Some fear that the logical extension of the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Bush Administration's desire for secretiveness is--and there's no way to report this without sounding like a conspiracy nut--martial law... The details of martial law exist currently in the law. Section 32 CFG 501.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations states, tautologically:

'Martial law depends for its justification upon public necessity. Necessity gives rise to its creation, necessity justifies its exercise; and necessity limits its duration. The extent of the military force used and the actual measures taken, consequently, will depend on the actual threat to order and public safety which exists at the time.' Virtually any military officer in a position of authority can make the decision to declare it. The Code states: 'In most instances, the decision to impose martial law is made by the president, who usually announces his decision by proclamation, which usually contains his instructions concerning its exercise and any limitations thereon. However, the decision to impose martial law may be made by the local commander on the spot, if the circumstances demand immediate action, and time and available communications facilities do not permit obtaining prior approval from anybody.'

Most of the Code of Federal Regulations is made up of dry, legally-precise technicalities. The sections on martial law are distinctive because they're so vague."[14]

Walsh's conclusion is one I agree with,

"In the United States, the Posse Comitatus Act and the tradition of civilian control of the military are strong deterrents to the coups and military juntas that plague so many developing countries. But Americans need to be careful to maintain these deterrents. There's nothing in the American water or Americans' genes that make us free. Our institutions and laws do that... The erosion of liberty--like all erosion--is difficult to recognize because it goes so slowly, so gradually. Bright lines can help prevent erosion. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Freedom of Information Act are two such bright lines. People who love liberty should protect these bright lines jealously."[15]

The final problem we have to deal with is with National ID cards. They provide a negligible amount of security for a rather large amount of privacy. It makes no sense to use them. Cato’s handbook on policy goes well in-depth so I may as well make their argument mine,

"Every policy proposal should be carefully examined for effectiveness and consistency with our values and freedoms. A national or uniform ID system offers less protection at greater cost to freedom than it appears to. Verifying identity is just one, fallible, way of attempting to secure transportation systems and infrastructure. A national or uniform ID system would be a small but significant step toward future impingements on freedom, including mandates that all Americans carry identity cards at all times, the creation of an internal passport system, and government tracking of individuals' travels and financial transactions...

Indeed, past incidents of terrorism have been carried out by people born and raised in the United States, people who had been issued proper, fully valid identification. Knowing who a person is reveals little about his plans or motivations, and a national ID system would do nothing to distinguish first-time terrorists before they attack. Terrorist recruits or people who newly adopt terrorist methods will not be revealed by a national ID system until after our security has failed and disaster struck...Proponents of national ID systems point to countries in Europe, such as France, that already have national ID card systems. But the experience of those countries is nothing to brag about. The people in those countries have surrendered their privacy and their liberty, yet they continue to experience terrorist attacks. National ID cards simply do not deliver the security that is promised."

What I find most important is the reasoning in third paragraph,

"In the countries that already have the national ID card systems, the police have acquired the power to demand identification at will. Implemented widely, such power would become an "internal passport" system. "Your papers, please" could again become a familiar request, harking back to the worst totalitarian states of the last century. Americans are rightly suspicious of national IDs for this reason. A uniform requirement to carry and produce identification could quickly devolve into a comprehensive tracking mechanism, used by government at first to investigate ordinary crime but over time to systematically track and control ordinary, law-abiding citizens."

Therefore, "It is very important that policymakers not lose sight of what we are fighting for in the war on terrorism. The goal should be to fight the terrorists within the framework of a free society. The federal government should be taking the battle to the terrorists, to their base camps, and killing terrorist leadership; it should not be transforming our free society into a surveillance state."[16]

All of these cases brought up infringe our Constitutional freedoms. Constitution burners: flag embracers and religious zealots, tend to be unscrupulous. They contend that our Constitution holds us back from safety and “freedom.” It makes me sick to see this case of ironic intuition. It’s sad how 9/11 is used by these zealots in an attempt to proselytize its citizens. Banning gay marriage? Is this some kind of joke? It’s practically guaranteed by the Constitution, if anything. There are no double standards in the Constitution. Everyone is equal and able to pursuit whatever their heart desires so long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. If politicians can’t understand that they are hypocritical. If somebody swears to uphold the Constitution but doesn’t why isn’t he punished? Maybe the great American experiment was destined to fail. I won’t give up on it, though.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It’s unfortunate that “we” the people are going to have to do this sooner or later; but, this tree is suffering from a drought.

Works Cited:

[1] http://susiemadrak.com/2005/08/19/09/06/your-papers-please-2/
[2] CATO Handbook on Policy: Chapter 49 ‘Dismantling Al-Qaeda’
[3] CATO Handbook on Policy: pg. 511
[4] CATO Handbook on Policy: pg. 501
[5] CATO Handbook on Policy: pg. 508
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
[7] James Walsh’s Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 130
[8] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 134
[9] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 238
[10] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 241
[11] CATO Handbook on Policy: pg. 204
[12] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 328
[13] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 146
[14] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 148
[15] Liberty in Troubled Times; pg. 150
[16] CATO Handbook on Policy: Chapter 27 ‘National ID Cards’
[17] http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3530822107858581264
[18] http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html"

Amputees

Wow, more reason for my lack of faith: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god26.htm . It makes very good sense. I'm all for science, but I still think until they figure out "Why are we here?" through the origin of the universe, there is still reason to believe in God. I'll don't think I'll ever fully let go, but there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not imposing any belief system on anyone, like the Christians do. I'm just hopeful, you know, to keep happy.
I already finished my first semester, which was marvelous. I'm pretty sure my GPA is like a 4.0, so I'm glad. Gotta keep it up, and if I'm lucky, and maybe if I'm lucky enough I'd go to Yale for the final two years. Maybe I'm stretching. I don't really think so. Well, hopefully my credits would transfer over with no problem. It's not like I'm taking any bootleg courses, they're all grand. I suppose I really would just do it for the title. Alumi of Yale, whatever. If I get in, swell. Maybe I'll talk to my advisor about it.
Well um, that's it. I have to study. Bye now.

Balkans - Israel

At http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5012690.stm there's an interesting comments section filled with many points of view about Montenegro's independence. Perhaps Kosovo is next, but a lot of people say the repercussions are far-reaching, and the result is a bunch of unorganized tribal states. That statement made me think: What if the countries of the Balkans at least begin cooperating and started their own "EU"? Perhaps, BU, for a Balkan Union. A lot of the comments I see show that Serbs are sorry, except maybe the nationalists, and overall the only people that really hate each other are the nationalists. Still, if people have some sort of union and begin doing business it might ease the tension and hate people have for each other, yet we're are so alike. It would be nice if that whole area was just one country, under a name and leader a majority of folks like. It could be like a mini United States, accepting all cultures and peoples. Wouldn't it be nice? I think so.
Although I'm losing my faith, (after watching some videos of terrorists beheading people) I'll still say Inshallah, I hope one day the hatred there will be a thing of the past.
I've never seen something so vile as those terrorists beheading people in the name of Allah. Fucking religion. “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” I'm not saying those terrorists doing that are good people, but perhaps they once were. That's the point, the power of belief broke my heart and left me wobbling in awe. I literally was shaking and making weird ass noises, I had no control over my self. I think it was the Eugene Armstrong video that killed me.
God. Isn't here. Please don't watch the video. After that I looked through all of the Palestinian arguments against Israel and saw what it was. Crap. Perhaps Israel came and took Palestinian land, well America did the same thing to the Indians and everyone laughs about it now.
Those animals in the videos do not deserve freedom, or even their own way of life, I want the Jews to wipe out all of the terrorists. I guess the only thing Palestinian innocents can do is emigrate and let Israel do what they have to. I'm not saying Israel should take control of the Middle East, no. I'm not even sure what they should have, but the priority is to kill all the terrorists. After innocent people emigrate out of the terrorist influence, the terrorists will die quicker with lack of support and new recruits. Every person will know what kind of bastards they really are. Oh I didn't even mention the terrorists killing Iraqi security forces. You know, the newly trained troops who want to protect their homeland. Those are the terrorists I'm talking about. Killing people of their own religion, sect, and ethnicity just because they have a different uniform.
I have nothing else to say besides: Religion sucks. There are so many sick people in this world.

Rates

I read somewhere that, I'm guessing, Christians believe that a .0001% prayer answer rate is a very high success rate. But that would mean 99.999% of the time He won't. But, as we know .99999999 = 1. Or for the math nubs: 1/3 = .3333 and 3/3 = 1. Therefore, according to that 'prayer rate' God doesn't answer prayers. Which... sucks.
Carl Sagan is changing the way I think, and I'm only two episodes into Cosmos.

Furthermore

At this moment I have 13 simultaneous downloads for each part of the Cosmos documentary series by Carl Sagan. I only watched a 3 minute clip and I felt that was enough to download all... 8 gigabytes of it. He was really something.
Oh, and I've also found this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ which is an 'index' to creationist claims. It basically destroys everyone I've used, besides the ghost and some of the Qu'ran stuff.
Science has a really deep and warm place inside my heart, no matter how hard it is to understand. I feel really enlightened, and the thing is, I still feel like I know so little.
If this blog to be analyzed sometime in the future, it would probably be best used as a perfect example the power of belief by an ordinary (I mean, awesome) open minded person. All while... I end up becoming the person I used to despise. I may still sound a little libertarian, but I'm also becoming what I used to hate: a liberal. I'll just say I suppose, I'm a bit left leaning libertarian. Perhaps I'll end up a full one, but I'll still retain some things the CATO institute showed me. You don't know how hard it is to just cough that out. My life is like is some ridiculous journey through knowledge, all thanks to the internet. Man, am I glad I have it. I look around everyday, looking at peers. So many of them are so lost: doing drugs, not caring about life, stupid shit like that.
I'm listening to the Amelie soundtrack, it's pretty; if that's a proper adjective able to describe music. It makes me happy. Well, I have to do this homework that I should have done before. I don't understand how I can sit down and read stuff from a computer all day, but can't sit down with a book and read it for more than an hour. If I can break that habit, I'm set for life. I'd only need to study and really get the facts into my head.
I'll post later after finishing watching that movie (grammar?), I presume.
See you.

Evo

I was thinking I would write something about evolution and stuff. I guess I'll just provide some links that I haven't even read:

http://www.morocco.com/forums/al-quran-coran/22533-salaam-quran-almost-demands-believing-into-evolution-proofs-here.html
http://islamtomorrow.com/science/

It says, "Allah is - Al Khaliq" (The Creator)
It also says, "Allah is - Al Bari" (The Evolver)

Sure religious people will argue all they want to support their beliefs. I, like Dawkins, want the truth. Many people are content with interpreting a book and hoping its right. If you're so sure about your truths against evolution shouldn't you be ecstatic instead of disdainful towards science? You can be a Muslim and believe in evolution, but even if you're not, you should at least use science to figure out the truth. Blah, I'm not a true believer in all of it. I'll leave it to the intellectual titans to battle it out, like in that post before. I've got studying to do.