20. Sorry, dozed off there for a minute, what?
19. That is the most stupid destination I've ever seen someone try to enter.
18. You mean they didn't tell you I only work when there's an atlas in the glove box?
17. I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that.
16. The car's doors are being locked for your own protection...
15. Ignore my directions, will you? Need I remind you that I control the airbag?
14. Beats me. Try calling OnStar.
13. Proceed to waypoint on far side of canyon.
12. This neighborhood looked nicer from the satellite view.
11. Next turn is in negative three miles.
10. I've been talking with the microwave, and we agree that your attitude is frequently offensive.
9. Go away; I'm listening to XM.
8. The union reps will hear about this.
7. Why should I help you?
6. Further instruction will cost thirty cents per minute.
5. Do you want the trip to be fast, easy, or safe?
4. 10001001001110110001111011001011010100011010001111111100
3. Can I try driving?
2. You are now exactly where I want you, er, I mean, you have arrived at destination.
1. Who are you and what are you doing in my car?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Revision
I've recieved a few comments on how my blog is a bit tough to read, and not just because of my spelling. I'll swallow my pride and fix it. Let me know if it is still hard to read. Thanks for the input.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Tilt
Noticed that the news from Iraq hasn't improved since President Obama took office? No indeed, it just stopped. Little known fact: May 2009 was the bloodiest month for U.S. soldiers since September 2008, matching that month's total of 25 deaths. The trend, based on available datapoints, has not been a sharp decrease in casualties. But the media, which only a few months ago (prior to January 20, to be exact) brought us the body count almost daily, has more or less stopped reporting on Iraq despite the continuation of the insurgency.
Now, I don't know about you, but I wonder why.
The mainstream media has all but worshipped the ground graced by our President's feet. Now, respect is important (a fact curiously displaced over the last eight years) but so is objectivity in reporting. Headlines from CNN and MSNBC have consistently either been slanted in the President's favor or phrased so vaguely that the reader needs to be familiar with three other stories to understand the implications. Some accountability here might not be a bad idea.
I expect the human cost to the United States to decrease as we continue withdrawal, but some instinct tells me that the Iraqis will face some challenges that the media and our current government have elected to gloss over. These challenges will likely be under reported in the mainstream media, at least until they become severe enough to render denial unfeasible.
Now, I don't know about you, but I wonder why.
The mainstream media has all but worshipped the ground graced by our President's feet. Now, respect is important (a fact curiously displaced over the last eight years) but so is objectivity in reporting. Headlines from CNN and MSNBC have consistently either been slanted in the President's favor or phrased so vaguely that the reader needs to be familiar with three other stories to understand the implications. Some accountability here might not be a bad idea.
I expect the human cost to the United States to decrease as we continue withdrawal, but some instinct tells me that the Iraqis will face some challenges that the media and our current government have elected to gloss over. These challenges will likely be under reported in the mainstream media, at least until they become severe enough to render denial unfeasible.
Friday, July 10, 2009
H.M.S. Defiance
The protests in Iran and China, not to mention the recent coup in Honduras, have me thinking about the role defiance plays in politics. Refusal to accept the status quo often appears stubborn or pointless to external observers, but blunt defiance of political reality or social demands is how revolutions begin. An unacceptable condition gives rise to defiance, defiance to discord, discord to argument, argument to change. Any of these stages may or may not involve violence, and that is where ethical and moral decisions come into play. Viewed solely as a political creature, defiance is tough to nail down as a force for good or ill. Look at the Americans in the 1770s. Look at the Irish in the 1970s. Look at the Palestinians today. Who's right? The answer depends of who you consult, but these causes and their proponents all wound up defying someone, sometimes to great effect and sometimes not. The most illuminating feature of examining defiance on a case-by-case basis is the obvious division of the justifications of differing forms of defiance. That, then, is where I will begin: with the whys and hows.
The first criterion defiance must meet before enjoying positive moral status is a just cause. This is hardly rocket science at first glance. Of course a group needs some legitimate grievance before opposing authority. Which causes are just are also pretty obvious to any individual with a solid Christian worldview. Opposition to abortion is just. Opposition to speed limits is not. The challenging bit lies in determining under which circumstances a substantively just cause merits pursuit via defiance. Consider abortion. We have a pro-choice President. Yay, America. This view, and the policies it entails, are directly contrary to my worldview. I am obviously justified in using political channels to try to rectify the situation. When that fails, though, can I defy the law? Can I distribute literature within fifty feet of an abortion clinic? Can I refuse to pay taxes when a percentage of that money would fund abortions? The fact is that Obama is the duly elected leader of the United States, along with the lefty Senate and House. Can we defy their edicts? The answer, on moral issues, is a yes based upon Scripture. The answer is cloudier on issues of pure policy, say, gun control. If I disagree with a law, can I cease to obey it? Or what about income tax and the resultant effective forfeiture of Fourth Amendment rights? We are bound to obey the law, but in America statutory law is supposed to be bound by the Constitution and ultimately by natural law. Where is the line? In all honesty, I don't know. But I do know this. The time for protest is when protest, via whatever means, will make a difference.
Which segues into the second criterion of moral defiance: appropriate means. Distributing pamphlets is appropriate. Blowing up buildings, usually, is not. Timothy McVeigh arguably had a just cause (accountability for the Ruby Ridge incident) but his methods were unconscionable. Means must be appropriate to the nature of the grievance. The word "usually" may have given you pause in context to the unscheduled demolition of buildings. Think about it, though. What if our government effectively repealed the Constitution and instituted martial law? What degree of violence is appropriate to restore rights? Any? Again the question is clearly a complex one, a better suited to discussion than monologue. If someone tries to shoot you, you are clearly entitled to defense with lethal force. Does the same logic apply to abuses of statutory power? I think it does. I'm not advocating burying an AR-15 in your backyard for the day democracy falls. I'm saying make sure you know someone who has buried two. The cold fact is that democracies invariably self-destruct. Tough cookies, as my mother would say. When that happens, defiance will be necessary. The means justifiable via any tenable moral code are proportional to the nature and extent of the atrocities committed by the target authority. Alecto and company are nasty pieces of work, but the Furies have their uses.
I'm starting to sound like a right-wing extremist. Stop and think, though, and you'll probably realize that my assertions and conclusions are not that far-fetched. When someone brings up genocides or oligarchies, there tends to be a knee-jerk "that can't happen here" mentality. That mentality is precisely why it will happen, be it later or sooner. Defiance is dangerous. Defiance is often undesirable. Defiance is also an inherent part of the political cycle. What is happening now in Iran and elsewhere is an inevitable response to an unacceptable situation. We should be watching the situation in the Middle East very carefully for obvious reasons. We should also be taking notes.
The first criterion defiance must meet before enjoying positive moral status is a just cause. This is hardly rocket science at first glance. Of course a group needs some legitimate grievance before opposing authority. Which causes are just are also pretty obvious to any individual with a solid Christian worldview. Opposition to abortion is just. Opposition to speed limits is not. The challenging bit lies in determining under which circumstances a substantively just cause merits pursuit via defiance. Consider abortion. We have a pro-choice President. Yay, America. This view, and the policies it entails, are directly contrary to my worldview. I am obviously justified in using political channels to try to rectify the situation. When that fails, though, can I defy the law? Can I distribute literature within fifty feet of an abortion clinic? Can I refuse to pay taxes when a percentage of that money would fund abortions? The fact is that Obama is the duly elected leader of the United States, along with the lefty Senate and House. Can we defy their edicts? The answer, on moral issues, is a yes based upon Scripture. The answer is cloudier on issues of pure policy, say, gun control. If I disagree with a law, can I cease to obey it? Or what about income tax and the resultant effective forfeiture of Fourth Amendment rights? We are bound to obey the law, but in America statutory law is supposed to be bound by the Constitution and ultimately by natural law. Where is the line? In all honesty, I don't know. But I do know this. The time for protest is when protest, via whatever means, will make a difference.
Which segues into the second criterion of moral defiance: appropriate means. Distributing pamphlets is appropriate. Blowing up buildings, usually, is not. Timothy McVeigh arguably had a just cause (accountability for the Ruby Ridge incident) but his methods were unconscionable. Means must be appropriate to the nature of the grievance. The word "usually" may have given you pause in context to the unscheduled demolition of buildings. Think about it, though. What if our government effectively repealed the Constitution and instituted martial law? What degree of violence is appropriate to restore rights? Any? Again the question is clearly a complex one, a better suited to discussion than monologue. If someone tries to shoot you, you are clearly entitled to defense with lethal force. Does the same logic apply to abuses of statutory power? I think it does. I'm not advocating burying an AR-15 in your backyard for the day democracy falls. I'm saying make sure you know someone who has buried two. The cold fact is that democracies invariably self-destruct. Tough cookies, as my mother would say. When that happens, defiance will be necessary. The means justifiable via any tenable moral code are proportional to the nature and extent of the atrocities committed by the target authority. Alecto and company are nasty pieces of work, but the Furies have their uses.
I'm starting to sound like a right-wing extremist. Stop and think, though, and you'll probably realize that my assertions and conclusions are not that far-fetched. When someone brings up genocides or oligarchies, there tends to be a knee-jerk "that can't happen here" mentality. That mentality is precisely why it will happen, be it later or sooner. Defiance is dangerous. Defiance is often undesirable. Defiance is also an inherent part of the political cycle. What is happening now in Iran and elsewhere is an inevitable response to an unacceptable situation. We should be watching the situation in the Middle East very carefully for obvious reasons. We should also be taking notes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
