A report from Iraq

My opinion of mainstream journalists has been on an accelerating decline in recent years. All the speaking to the audience as if they are children, the misleading headlines leading to articles of little substance, and the false outrage that seem endemic to mainstream reporting have left me easily shocked to see normal honest reporting and real outrage. This video served to remind me that there is more than one calibre of journalist. Lara Logan is a credit to her profession:

“Eight days?“

Why does religion seek out a place in government?

Religions seek to grow. Those that didn’t have long since perished, each silently disappearing and forgotten; a natural selection on a cultural scale. It is not so much the focused intention of a motivated individual as it is the sum of its followers, all shaping their lives around a belief system that is so acculturated into their being as to be inseparable, each trying to prevent those around them from falling into sin by steering them down a path to salvation.

By venturing out of the realm of souls and into the real world, religion becomes subject to its rules. It is not free to go to the airport in a veil, to sacrifice heathens upon a mountain top, or to occupy land simply because it is holy. It is a double edged sword. The theology in power gets their god entrusted on our money, their morality made law, and the security of not having another religion in their place, yet they must accept women into their leadership, silence their hate for rival gods, and provide marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

Promethius

“The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.”
Einstein, Albert

I once read a science fiction book in which mankind had discovered the means to travel the galaxy. They discovered life to be commonplace, and found thousands of civilizations, but none much more advanced than our own, just burned out worlds. After much study they determined that once a society reaches the technological point where the average citizen possessed the knowledge to create a weapon of terrible destructive power, some nut would use it.

When the second amendment was drafted in 1791, about the closest one man could likely come to a massacre with a gun was to fire a musket into a crowd and then stop, pack some powder etc. for a firing rate of about three rounds per minute. The second amendment was drafted, not as most people seem to believe, to protect hunters and shoot burglers, but rather to keep the power in the hands of the people should they need to rise up against oppressive rule.

Today, we find ourselves somewhere in between these two times. The reason for the second amendment still stands, perhaps stronger than when it was written, but weapons have evolved to the point where one person can easily conceal weapons capable of inflicting hundreds of casualties. How should we deal with this problem?  The obvious answer would be to limit the potential lethality each citizen is allowed to bear. The problem is, making something illegal doesn’t make it go away. According to the department of justice, 80% of gun crimes are committed by people who had come by the guns illegally. I think whatever efforts we make, it is imperative that rather than hiding from the technology,  we embrace it for the good it can do. You can’t uninvent fire, you can only use it and prepare for its misuse.

Should felons be allowed to vote?

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

Why not? What are we afraid of? Are the axe murderers going to muster up enough of a coalition to legalize axe murdering? The only way felons would be likely to change the system is if they were with the majority. The most common response I hear is that voting is a privilege, and those people should lose it for doing something illegal. I think Dr. King would disagree, especially considering the disproportionate percentage of felons who are minorities, and are now silenced. Preventing them from voting only serves to make them feel like they are no longer a member of the society, to resent it, and in the end to work against it. One quarter of our inmates are in for drug offenses. Caging them as punishment for addiction, cutting them off from our democracy, and then setting them loose in the middle of it does not strike me as an optimal policy. There are only two states currently allowing felons in prison to vote, and only 13 that allow it after you have done your time. Thank you Vermont and Maine.

Who should be the guardian of the environment?

Scientists have a problem. Average people, politicians, and religious zealots have no problem speaking in absolutes. They will pound their fists and say with unwavering conviction that what they are saying is truth incarnate. Scientists on the other hand have dedicated their careers and their world view to truth, the real thing, not that ‘I believe it, so it is true’ type the rest of us use. They can study the world around them and see the huge impact humanity has on the planet; see the dying species, track the changing climate, and still say only that it looks very likely that we are causing irreparable harm. It is therefore up to the rest of us to lend additional weight to their warnings. On an individual level we should be conscious of the impact we have and make an effort to do no harm. We should use our power in the free market to support and labor for only those companies which are environmentally responsible.

Environmental crimes should be prosecuted as strongly, if not more so, than crimes against humanity, if for no other reason then because they are; but who should decide what is ok and what is criminal? Who decides when salmon have been overfished and forests overlogged? Who does the oversight to make sure the crimes aren’t ignored, and the penalties are worse than the benefits? Who has to tell people that their food will be more expensive and their job may be lost? In a monarchy, a king knows that if he thinks in a shortsighted fashion, he, or perhaps his children will likely have to clean up his mess and take the blame. In our current system as a federal republic our elected officials either serve short terms or are oft up for reelection. In a few years, they may be out of office, maybe even handing it over to a rival party. Whenever the media stirs up the latest circus, the politician needs to look busy if they are going to keep their position. If even every tenth politician sides with jobs over sustainability, or short term economics over long term environment, it still causes permanent damage. The diversity of an ecosystem can take thousands of years become healthy and well established. Government agencies such as the Forest Service (an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture) are only as good as those who pull their strings.

The question remains, who should be the guardian of our environment? I would support an environmental amendment to the constitution. I think the environment is important enough that it needs to be everyone’s responsibility, both individually and collectively. The agencies can provide an important role, but should not be allowed to hinder the efforts of others. If California wants to reduce its pollution, it is not ok for the executive branch to hinder them. We need to care for the environment with the same fervor we claim for protecting our children and loving our country. It is both of these things.

Next Page »