Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Why the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Must Be Solved in 20 Years, For Israel's Sake


I don't want you to get the wrong idea from the title, I'm very much pro-Israel. Israel is, however, facing a crisis.

Its not the Iranian bomb, the fictional Palestinian demographic explosion, or imminent invasion. No, those are manageable.

Take a gander over to your left please. Forgive me if I make the wild presumption that you don't regard yourself as a terrorist, because each and every day I become less sure.

Israel's problem started a while ago, in an unlikely place. You see Israel one had what were widely regarded as the best diplomats in the world - not anymore. No, instead of steadily articulating Israel's side of issues on the world stage, as they used to, the country's diplomats changed course. They took an approach that allowed Arab propaganda to pass by in order to further the "peace process". Myths and lies were propagated on the world stage.

Myths and Lies like:
1. Israelis stole the land.
When in fact the Bedouin tribes living in the area were squatters and landowners in Cairo + Damascus held the titles. The Jews then bought the land over time from these landholders, and held the property deeds when the UN and Britain(who controlled the area) declared Israel a sovereign state.

2. Jews committed ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
Is just a flat out lie. Palestinians moved voluntarily or stayed(see Israel's over 1 million Israeli Arabs) during Israeli independence. If you want to see true ethnic cleansing see what happened in the Arab countries during this time period. And understand that in the peace deal there are no Jews allowed in Judenrein Palestine.

3. Jews used terror to establish Israel.
They point to a single "terror" attack in British mandate Palestine, the King David Hotel Bombing. In fact the Kind David Hotel Bombing was being used as a military installation by the Brits. The Arab workers inside were told to leave so they wouldn't be hurt and the French consulate across the street was told to shut its windows so that they wouldn't be hurt by glass shards.

Of course, there are many more myths propagated but discussing them would derail us from the point.

These idea were propagated on the world stage, and with the advent of Haaretz a Jewish run publication that advocates Post-Zionist revisionism media outlets in Europe(mainly) were quick to pick up what they perceived to be "Ok" because Jews had said it.

The ideas were eventually picked up by University faculty through their systems of tenure and liberal adoption of Arab beliefs. The New Left adopted Arab beliefs because:

1. Israel is perceived to be a proxy of the US. As such, the disdain filters down the grape vine.

2. Arabs, as the weaker side, are an easy fit into the little guy vs big mean guy idealogy of the New Left.

3. Jews just let those beliefs pass by. Giving them legitimacy.


The problem is when the Universities pick up these ideas they indoctrinate their students. Universities are just companies that churn out products in the form of students and the curriculum is the same for all students. See the problem? The demographic time bomb is not in Israel, its in the US.

When these kids hit the point where they control the system it'll be endgame for Israel. That's why peace needs to come within twenty years.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Political Correctness and the Oppression of Free Speech

Just when you thought that you were guaranteed the right to free speech by the state... Political correctness is a here to take it away, by limiting both your freedom of speech and your freedom of thought!

Despite what the American government proclaims, free speech in modern American society is merely an illusion, and this is in great part due to political correctness. If we truly had freedom of speech, we would be able to express our ideas openly, no matter how socially or politically unacceptable they are, without the threat of persecution. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The persecution of those charged with making politically incorrect statements is so prevalent today that I hardly need to present any examples.

But, of course, the state has very few legal restrictions on free speech; yet the state still manages to covertly restrict it through the imposition of political correctness upon the people, which is generally, conveniently enforced through persecution by the mob, and silently fueled by the state’s encouragement and occasional intervention.

The ideology of political correctness aims to label certain speech, actions, and even thought that is considered "offensive" as wrong. This is contrary to both human nature and what is reality. Political correctness is a tool of mental oppression and an affront to our rights and our freedoms and should be disregarded, except, perhaps, in politics.

- Voice of Reason

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Christianity is Just as Bad as Islam?


This is a controversial topic even among staff of this blog so writing about it will probably cause certain amounts of outrage.

The topic, which I'm about to introduce, was prompted by a comment I read on Planck's Constant:

"And if we're going to deport people on religious grounds, why stop with the Muslims? Christianity is just as bad as Islam. It's not Islam per se that is the problem, it's Islamic *totalitariansm*." - Valda Redfern

Well Valda, that's where you're wrong. Christianity is not "just as bad as Islam" - that's just perverse political correctness. I wish it was only her that shared that opinion, but quite frankly its a widely believed myth.

Let me take you back to ancient Greece for a while - togas not required. We're going to visit three very important figures in philosophy, mysticism and science(but we'll forget the latter for today).

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are our subjects - they were all titans of the mind and their philosophy all originated in the same place. They all had schools and many people who followed their particular branch of thought, they all had digressed significantly from their common root.

Examine these men for a minute, they all had philosophies that told you how to live and what to believe. So even though we just call them philosophers now, their philosophies answered the same questions that religions answer today. They had religions.

Humor me and imagine that Socrates and Plato's branches had reformations, they abandoned a lot of the principles in their original guiding texts, they condemned the misdemeanors committed in their names. What they had now was what they believed to be a clean, more perfect, more humanitarian guide to life. It was effectually neutered of all its dangers.

Let's dissect the believers of all three of these religions. The religions are a guide for their lives and all believers try to keep as close to them as possible. In all of these religions there are people who selectively believe(or pick and choose which parts they commit to) , and the proportion is much larger in Socrates + Plato's branches. There are also many people who vehemently think a minor deviation from the philosophies is a crime, and these people are much larger in proportion in Aristotle's branch. There are also many people in the middle who follow almost completely the things that their local religious leaders tell them.

In Aristotle's branch the radicals are the ones that control the local and global religious leaders. In Socrates' and Plato's branch the religious leaders are generally in the middle or to the selective beliefers' side, and yes, there are still a large number of radicals in charge of local affairs.

Aristotle's branch was forged out of a time that necessitated brutality and great violence, and so it incorporates it into the philosophy. There was no and for the immediate future will be no reformation in this religion.

These branches are embroiled in bitter conflict with each other throughout the world.

Aristotle's branch generally views itself as perpetually embattled and persecuted, there are a very large number of them. They are at war.

Which sounds more dangerous to you? Socrates? Plato? Aristotle?

Aristotle obviously.

Aristotle's is Islam, Socrates' is Judaism and Plato's is Christianity. There is no equality among them because they happen to be religions from the same branch.

Thanks perverse political correctness, but you can leave - and never come back.

- Spero





Thursday, April 3, 2008

How The US Government Should Work

I don't know how many easily excited souls actually do tune in to C-SPAN regularly but even they must notice the lack of well - vegetable level energy present in the US legislative branch.

Take a gander for a minute at this video of the people who make our laws in roaring, full scale, unbridled, uninhibited action.



Well if that didn't get your adrenaline rushing there's not much hope for you. Now, quite frankly, when "all the best men go into business" we know why. As Americans we have to ask ourselves "What the hell is that?"

Why are people who have all the explosive energy of rocks making our laws?

The legislative branch should be a place of bare knuckled ideological combat, it should be a theater of the mind, a forge of grand ideas - hammered and polished(by both sides) until something elegant comes out.

It should be more like the British House of Commons.




Less speech and more debate is just what the doctor prescribed. People like Senator Harry Byrd from W. Virginia would not survive. They would be eaten alive or relegated to obscurity in the back of the room.

People might actually watch the government in action. They might actually say, "Hey that's what I want to do!"

Because I guarantee you right now that no 12 year old is sitting at home saying he wants to be the next Larry Byrd - he has a hard time competing with 50 cent.

Maybe we'd get some bright minds back into politics, maybe as a people we wouldn't be amazed that some one as unique as Obama (for his many faults) managed to appear.

- Spero

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Created Equal? Racial IQ

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

"I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true. If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society." The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals."

(Please read the article)

I waited a long time to post on this because I frankly wasn't comfortable, I didn't like having to make the decision whether to believe sound scientific evidence or my values. I searched and searched. I found even more evidence that I just didn't like one bit.

It made my stomach writhe when I learned that Black Nigerians have a slightly higher average IQ than Black Brits despite their massive education and wealth advantage. Black Americans follow the exact same IQ trend as other African countries too.

If you follow the equator around the globe you find the same trend of low IQ, South East Asians 85-90, Africans 80-85, Arabs 83, Latinos 85-90 (Full blooded American Indians even lower).

Yet after you make a slight geographic jump to the north you have: Asians(Oriental: China, Japan, Korea ect.) 104, Europeans 100(plus a couple points maybe), Russians(who've gone through a huge amount of internal strife themselves) 96, Americans 100.


Jews and Asians have a high occurrence of Goucher's and this is one way scientists try to explain why they score the highest on IQ tests(110 and 104 respectively). If you take a look at it objectively also, mass murder and persecution probably helped the Jews obtain a high IQ average - natural selection in progress.

Because of the massive difference between Black and Jewish IQ's there are probably more Jews with an IQ of over 140 than Blacks despite the fact that blacks have over 200x more people in their category than Jews.

I find some consolation in the fact that society fictionally created IQ. If we were living in a society based around hunting in the Serengeti than the standards of intelligence would probably be much different. But that doesn't help much - the society we have proved superior over that one. Plus, no matter how you look at the situation, present reality doesn't change.

People will claim that by evolution's standards there wasn't enough time for such a difference. But they must realize that this is a very small change by evolution's standards - magnified to catastrophic consequences by the power of modern society. It is not a question of the ability to do math, but a question of the ability to do math slightly faster.

From this comes only one possible conclusion, everything else(less an earth shattering revelation be found) just doesn't work. There is a genetic difference in racial IQ.

- Spero

PS: Sign the Geert Wilders' free speech petition - Here

Thursday, March 27, 2008

The Science of Religion(Economist)


"Science and religion have often been at loggerheads. Now the former has decided to resolve the problem by trying to explain the existence of the latter


BY THE standards of European scientific collaboration, €2m ($3.1m) is not a huge sum. But it might be the start of something that will challenge human perceptions of reality at least as much as the billions being spent by the European particle-physics laboratory (CERN) at Geneva. The first task of CERN's new machine, the Large Hadron Collider, which is due to open later this year, will be to search for the Higgs boson—an object that has been dubbed, with a certain amount of hyperbole, the God particle. The €2m, by contrast, will be spent on the search for God Himself—or, rather, for the biological reasons why so many people believe in God, gods and religion in general.

“Explaining Religion”, as the project is known, is the largest-ever scientific study of the subject. It began last September, will run for three years, and involves scholars from 14 universities and a range of disciplines from psychology to economics. And it is merely the latest manifestation of a growing tendency for science to poke its nose into the God business.

Religion cries out for a biological explanation. It is a ubiquitous phenomenon—arguably one of the species markers of Homo sapiens—but a puzzling one. It has none of the obvious benefits of that other marker of humanity, language. Nevertheless, it consumes huge amounts of resources. Moreover, unlike language, it is the subject of violent disagreements. Science has, however, made significant progress in understanding the biology of language, from where it is processed in the brain to exactly how it communicates meaning. Time, therefore, to put religion under the microscope as well.

..."

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875666


I found this to be one of the most fascinating articles I've read in a long time, you should all take a look!

- Spero

Sunday, March 23, 2008

US Gov Bans Easter Eggs


Deemed potential danger to national security.

Millions of Americans never expected to hear this type of news on Easter Sunday. Yet, at a press conference early this morning, Secretary of State Condoliza Rice revealed a new "Potentially catastrophic" threat to the American People.

It seems that the cute little multi-colored eggs of our youth have been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda, with help from the Easter Bunny him(or her) self. "Our wiretapping programs have paid off", says President George W. Bush about uncovering the threat, "The Easter Bunny was either with us or against us - and he chose against us".

The controversial (Patriot Act) wiretapping program uncovered terrorist plans to put explosive devices inside these small multi-colored packages in an attempt to "Strike fear into the hearts of Americans" says a senior NSA official.

Early diagnostic efforts have placed the bombs construction' in Iran, with possible help from the Revolutionary Guard. A plant near Tehran, tentatively labeled site 5022, was identified as the most probable manufacturing area. The Iranian government has yet to issue a long official response, but, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was overheard retorting "Damn the American Infidels and curse their goats" - and as usual denying the holocaust.

As for the Easter Bunny, the NSA does not believe he placed the eggs in millions of houses in America by himself. It is believed that his proxies have infiltrated many families, neighborhoods and communities around the country. "Times like these no one is above investigation" says the President Bush. Bush, after seeing bright green eggs on the White House lawn, immediately quarantined many members of his immediate family. "The threat" he says, "is everywhere".

This reporter's efforts to obtain access to the reports that lead to the current Administrations conclusion about the threat were met with stern rebuttal. "Why do you hate America?" fired back a senior State Department official. When this reporter protested, he was met with a brick wall of logic: "Then, why do you love terrorists?"

Faced with this level of argumentation, our news agency has abandoned efforts to read the documents for now.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Dear Europe

This is an old open letter that I thought might spark some provocation, and show everyone that we are still alive!



"Hi. Are you nuts?

--Outdated--
"Forgive me for being so blunt, but your reaction to our reelection of President Bush has been so outrageous that I'm wondering if you have quite literally lost your minds. One of Britain's largest newspapers ran a headline asking "How Can 59 Million Americans Be So Dumb?", and commentators in France all seemed to use the same word - bizarre -- to explain the election's outcome to their readers. In Germany the editors of Die Tageszeitung responded to our vote by writing that "Bush belongs at a war tribunal - not in the White House." And on a London radio talk show last week one Jeremy Hardy described our President and those of us who voted for him as "stupid, crazy, ignorant, bellicose Christian fundamentalists."
---------


"Of course, you are entitled to whatever views about us that you care to hold. (And lucky for you we Americans aren't like so many of the Muslims on your own continent; as the late Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh just discovered, make one nasty crack about them and you're likely to get six bullets pumped into your head and a knife plunged into your chest). But before you write us off as just a bunch of sweaty, hairy-chested, Bible-thumping morons who are more likely to break their fast by dipping a Krispy Kreme into a diet cola than a biscotti into an espresso - and who inexplicably have won more Nobel prizes than all other countries combined, host 25 or 30 of the world's finest universities and five or six of the world's best symphonies, produce wines that win prizes at your own tasting competitions, have built the world's most vibrant economy, are the world's only military superpower and, so to speak in our spare time, have landed on the moon and sent our robots to Mars -- may I suggest you stop frothing at the mouth long enough to consider just what are these ideas we hold that you find so silly and repugnant?

"We believe that church and state should be separate, but that religion should remain at the center of life. We are a Judeo-Christian culture, which means we consider those ten things on a tablet to be commandments, not suggestions. We believe that individuals are more important than groups, that families are more important than governments, that children should be raised by their parents rather than by the State, and that marriage should take place only between a man and a woman. We believe that rights must be balanced by responsibilities, that personal freedom is a privilege we must be careful not to abuse, and that the rule of law cannot be set aside when it becomes inconvenient. We believe in economic liberty, and in the right of purposeful and industrious entrepreneurs to run their businesses – and thus create jobs - with a minimum of government interference. We recognize that other people see things differently, and we are tolerant of their views. But we believe that our country is worth defending, and if anyone decides that killing us is an okay thing to do we will go after them with everything we've got.

"If these beliefs seem strange to you, they shouldn't. For these are precisely the beliefs that powered Western Europe—you—from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance, on to the Enlightenment, and forward into the modern world. They are the beliefs that made Europe itself the glory of Western civilization and - not coincidentally - ignited the greatest outpouring of art, literature, music and scientific discovery the world has ever known including Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Bach, Isaac Newton and Descartes.

"It is your abandonment of these beliefs that has created the gap between Europe and the United States. You have ceased to be a Judeo-Christian culture, and have become instead a secular culture. And a secular culture quickly goes from being "un-religious" to anti-religious. Indeed, your hostility to the basic concepts of Judaism and Christianity has literally been written into your new European Union constitution, despite the Pope's heroic efforts to the contrary.

"Your rate of marriage is at an all-time low, and the number of abortions in Europe is at an all-time high. Indeed, your birth rates are so far below replacement levels that in 30 years or so there will be 70 million fewer Europeans alive than are alive today. Europe is literally dying. And of the children you do manage to produce, all too few will be raised in stable, two-parent households.

"Your economy is stagnant because your government regulators make it just about impossible for your entrepreneurs to succeed - except by fleeing to the United States, where we welcome them and celebrate their success.

"And your armed forces are a joke. With the notable exception of Great Britain, you no longer have the military strength to defend yourselves. Alas, you no longer have the will to defend yourselves.

"What worries me even more than all this is your willful blindness. You refuse to see that it is you, not we Americans, who have abandoned Western Civilization. It's worrisome because, to tell you the truth, we need each other. Western Civilization today is under siege, from radical Islam on the outside and from our own selfish hedonism within. It's going to take all of our effort, our talent, our creativity and, above all, our will to pull through. So take a good, hard look at yourselves and see what your own future will be if you don't change course. And please, stop sneering at America long enough to understand it. After all, Western Civilization was your gift to us, and you ought to be proud of what we Americans have made of it."

"An Open Letter to Europe", was written by Herbert E. Meyer. Meyer

- Spero

Monday, March 3, 2008

As Promised

Before reading, keep in mind that, as with all such posts, this is purely based on opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of In Cogito as a whole.

What is Christianity, and why oppose it?

· Christianity is a religion that is based on blind faith in the Bible’s stories and teachings.

· Christianity is an imperialistic religion that intrudes and imposes upon people in their daily lives.

· Christianity spreads ignorance and delusion and is frequently imposed upon children who are young and impressionable enough to believe everything that their parents tell them; thus involuntarily internalizing the Christian faith without actually having made a rational choice to do so.

· Christianity was created during a time when it was necessary and common for man fabricate tales in order to conceptualize and to explain phenomena that was beyond science at that point, assign meaning to their lives, and motivate and unify societies.

· Christian ideologies are obsolete, and no longer apply to modern society.

· Christianity demands the utter devotion of its members, pressuring them to attend church regularly, and sapping them of their precious time.

· Christian mythology defies all established modern scientific principles.

· The Christian Church has opposed and sabotaged nearly every scientific innovation and discovery since its beginning to this day.

· Christianity flaunts itself as the moral authority to the world.

· Christianity has hijacked, influenced and twisted social values and standards such as morality to force even non-believers to conform to its irrational ideologies.

· Christianity is a hypocritical and intolerant religion that labels all non-believers as “fools”, and condemns them to eternal suffering in hell.

· Countless people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity.

· Countless crimes have been committed in name of Christianity.


I am not going to go into any detail to try and disprove Christian mythology because that would be simply too easy. We all already know that the Bible is composed of myths that contradict all proven scientific principles and rationality, and that it is full of inconsistencies, intolerance, and lies. Belief in the Bible is belief in talking animals, giants and unicorns, the magical parting of seas, the impregnation of a virgin, magical healing powers, the possibility of a man walking on water, flying chariots of fire, that the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago, that dinosaur fossils are only “a test of our faith,” etc...

Many theists at least have the intelligence to see through these myths, but use the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible as an excuse to cling on to their faith because they are too scared not to, much like a child that is attached to a security blanket. The most common argument supporting the Christian metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is that the Bible is a good source of moral influence. Of course, this is complete nonsense; The Bible condones war, slavery; intolerance, and other ideas that are generally considered immoral, such as polygamy; and in any case, the notion of morality is in no way an inherent human trait, as it has been shown to change in regard to developing social ideals; so why allow the Bible, an ancient book, to define morality in our modern society?

If God isn't the answer, then what is? I certainly do not claim to have the answers. The truth is, we do not know, and people have to learn to deal with that. Science is not flawless, there is very much that science can not explain. However, perhaps it is for the best that we simply accept that the human brain has limits and that there are certain things that are beyond our comprehension. It would be arrogant to think that we live in a universe that we fully understand. At least this is a better approach than to put all of our faith in ancient fairy tales.

I bring up many points against Christianity, but I do not expect anybody to believe it because I am telling them to. I want for people to make their own rationalizations, and to see the truth for themselves through each person's own perception of reality. To define the universe on one's own terms is a fascinating journey, and to simply believe in the words of others based on blind faith is being robbed of that experience.


Finally, here are some biblical quotes that I’m sure you can appreciate:

Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Matthew 5:29-30 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22573021/

GE 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

CO 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

CO 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

EP 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

EP 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

EP 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

CN 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1PE 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


I know there are many points that I have not addressed, but I do not want to crowd too much into one post. If you have any counterarguments to offer, feel free to do so by posting a comment, and I will most likely respond promptly.

To anybody I have offended:

Please do not regard this post as hateful. As I have said before, I have nothing personal against Christians at all. Christians and all theists for that matter, have the right to any faiths they choose to believe in. At the same time I have the right to criticize these faiths if I choose.

Christians believe that all nonbelievers are fools and they condemn them to burn in eternal hellfire for it. So, who is intolerant?

- Voice of Reason

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Democratic Economics and Parallels to the 20's


I was going to write a more targeted article even before this weeks issue of The Economist
arrived at my doorstep, but after reading the magazine(and their view on Democratic Economic Policy) I've decided to expand my frame of reference. Because well, they're right.

Miserabilism as Democratic Policy

I'm sure everyone has heard about Hillary and Barack threatening to withdraw from NAFTA in an attempt to woo Ohio voters.
They both, but especially Barack Obama, portray the United States as a place where a mother must compete with her child for minimum wage employment - at a time when unemployment is low by historical standards.

They've been quick to blame NAFTA for job loss that is probably better attributed to the Chinese or Indians. NAFTA definitely isn't the demon they've created in the minds of the American voter; free trade allows consumers to get better items at cheaper prices. This increased purchasing power is exactly what we need at a time when the dollar is ruined and we're heading into a recession.

Mr. Obama has sponsored two bills in his short history that seem to indicate he's thrown away his common sense. The failed Fair Pay Act would have ensured that women and men get the same pay, not for the same work, but for what the government deems equal. His second bill is called the Patriot Employers Act which would reward American companies for NOT expanding overseas.

Naturally, the rich (who already bear nearly all America's tax burden) will not be voting for a Democrat in 2008. But if Mr. Obama is to be believed he intends to raise their tax burden to around 62.3%. Hope - but not for all americans.

Luckily for us, the Democrats always veer populist during the primaries. It is merely a question of how much they do in the Presidency.

Parallels to the Great Depression

Recently I've compared Barack Obama to FDR. Their "Change" and "New Deal" programs sound similar - both are very vague during the race for the White House. And both men are silver tongued and charismatic. The problem with that comparison is that FDR had the experience(as governor of NY) to cobble together a policy on the fly, and I doubt Obama will be able to do the same.

The whole era in general has stark similarities to the depression: the United States is burdened by war debt(WW1 in the 20's), people have mortgages that they can't pay(buying stock on margin in the 1920's), a depreciated dollar might have the same effect on purchasing power as overproduction and subsequent unemployment of farmers in the 1920's; the straw that may break the Camel's back is electing a protectionist president(the tariffs in the 20's were the highest in peacetime history).

For many, this is unsettling - and unfortunately it gets worse.

If Barack Obama truly has become the demagogue that his new speeches indicate then he seems to resemble not FDR but one of the fascists that arose in the Europe during the same period.


- Spero

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10766009

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Questions and Comments


We plan on regularly taking some time to answer starred questions you guys ask in a short post every once in a while. Here's our first edition!

Questions and Comments:

Fletch wrote,
"Though I don't know how fair the analogy of a six-year old is, it's certainly fair to say that Obama lacks a lot of experience in leadership positions. However, isn't the simplest (and best) defense of this to ask what and how all that experience has helped Bush? Is it really necessary? It's hard to say going in - it's not as if there is a class to take, unless you count being a governor, which sounds valid enough to me.

Nevertheless, I'll be voting Obama in the fall with a clear conscience. Perhaps a lack of experience is what is neeeded - I can't anticipate it being worse."


Valid point that Obama's capabilities probably are not as ill suited to the Presidency as a six year old's to Toys 'R Us. However, I do believe that experience being a leader helps people be better leaders. The first time one gives a speech will probably not be the best time.

JerseyJack wrote:
"Hi this is Jerseyjack21 from my view I saw your comment and I came to your blog and I was wondering how you got the digg.com block to show up because i've tried it and it does not work. Please respond.
jerseyjack21@gmail.com"



Of course. If you go to Digg.com and go to the bottom you should see some text and images. Look for a digg tools link. It's pretty self explanatory from there, just click on the image with the desired button and they have instructions. We sent this to you on via email a couple days ago, also.


Ruby Wrote:
"The primitive man vs elk is a bad analogy. Firstly, what we regard as morals are a modern day pehenomena. Ethics, like all other aspects of humans, evolved. Thus, the hunter-gatherer in your story would have felt no moral dilemna, his instinct would simply have taken over.

Secondly, even if you did apply modern day morality to the story, you overlooked one simple solution. Since the competition for the elk is, in your own words, very young and unlikely to have a family of his own, then why not share the elk? Surely, there would have have been enough elk to feed one more mouth?

Live and let live, my friend. Live and let live."


I believe you proved my point, friend. And managed to add a little humor!

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Cogito Ergo Sum


Why should anything exist? Since the beginning of time, man has always been preoccupied with the quest to assign meaning to the existence of the universe as we know it. We have searched endlessly for any kind of evidence that can confirm or characterize existence. We have fabricated myths that attempt to apply meaning to existence. We have approached the question scientifically, using mathematics and the laws that govern the physical universe to attempt to quantify the concept of existence. But nevertheless, we have always found that the more we discover, the more we discover the less we know. For all these ages of searching, what do we have to show? Are we really any closer to the answer than we were when we first began? Is it possible, perhaps, that all along, we have been asking the wrong questions? We yearn to know why there is existence, yet we have no definitive answer for what existence is in the first place.

Could it be that the physical universe is nothing but an idea, a construct of the mind?

Imagine yourself as a human being born into this world, but devoid of any form of sensory perception. With no knowledge, no memories, and no way of perceiving anything that is happening around you, you would have nothing but your thoughts and your emotions. But how could your mind function properly; what would your thoughts consist of, what would they be composed of, and what would your emotions be based on? How would you define your existence? Naturally, you would be unaware of even the concept of any form of physical existence; so what would there be? Perhaps your mind would fabricate a “physical” universe in order to put your thoughts and emotions into context.

Let us take a look at another example. In our dreams, our minds often create alternate universes that temporarily become our realities. So what is the difference between a dream and our waking reality? Well, we are certainly more lucid when we are awake, but then again, lucidity is relative. Dreams generally involve absurd and irrational themes, but they certainly make sense to us while we are still experiencing them, so is rationality relative as well? It seems inconceivable that something so concrete such as mathematics, which is the essence of logic and rationality, might be a humanly conceived notion; but what is the nature of mathematics that makes it so concrete, other than the mind’s own conceptualization of it?

Regardless of our efforts to define existence, it will always remain an enigma to man. So in world where we cannot even be sure of its existence, what can we hang on to so as to base our perceptions of reality on? It seems that the only definitive truth in the universe is, “I think, therefore I am.”

- Voice of Reason


Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Turkey to Issue Re-Evalution of Islam


"Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion" - BBC


Islam, as most people know or should know, is around six hundred years behind Christianity and other western religions(Judaism ect.) in terms of its progressiveness. And so, in a partially politically motivated attempt to dispel European fears and make a bid for EU membership, Turkey will issue a new interpretation of the Hadiths. The Hadiths, the second holiest texts in Islam, are basically a guide for interpreting the Koran.



The BBC because it is a European news agency, and pre-occupied with appeasing Britiain's(and Europe's in general) unruly Muslim minorities*, is understandably blowing it all out of proportion. Keep in mind throughout the rest of the column that this is one government agency, in one country, issuing a recommended Hadith interpretation.

The new interpretations are unlikely to catch on in countries like Saudi Arabia(where it is illegal to build a church), Iran(where the government is controlled by a non-democratically elected fundamentalist ayatollah) or Sudan(where Christians and non-Muslims are in the midst of a government sponsored genocide).



Even in the less fundamentalist dominated Muslim states(fewer and farther between) these interpretations will take at least a few generations to catch any fire. Muslim culture is arguably even more dominated by reactionary fundamentalists than pre-reformation Europe. In Europe there was not much worry of outside influences corrupting the Church; Islam's fundamentalists today have been weeding out horrible progressive ideas for at least a generation.

The Hadiths supposedly were all written by Muhammad. Felix Koerner, however, claims that some "
can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society." The article then skips(the BBC does this a lot) to Koerner talking about how some Hadiths justify female genital mutilation; whether these were actually written by Muhammad the BBC conveniently leaves out.

Impressively, they didn't entirely miss the target. The realized that many of the 1,400 yr old Hadiths are no longer relevant and will be removed, an important step.

But basically the article can be summed up as this. A great thing, blown one thousand times out of proportion. The BBC is doing a disservice to the original Britons by publishing this type of article. People on the left will gobble it up, and it will be easier to ignore the fact that right now extra-legal Sharia Law Courts are being set up in the country.

We have a long way to go before we see an Islam committed to progressive principles, at least fifty years until the oil money runs out and from then probably a hundred years before we see a new religion. A religion not committing genocides around the world, subjugating over 50% of its population to discriminatory laws worse than Jim Crow in the US or sponsoring terror and honor killings.


- Spero


The BBC Reports - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm

*




Sunday, February 24, 2008

Introduction

I am thrilled to be the second columnist for In Cogito, and I believe my first post should offer an adequate introduction of myself, so that you know what to expect as a reader. My most important goal is to approach every issue I address as purely objectively as possible, of course while at the same time maintaining an appropriate level of rational human subjectivity. After all, one could always argue under any circumstances that all human logic and rationality is an illusion. Thus, even our perceptions of reality are utterly flawed, which would effectively render any issue and any discussion pointless and redundant. So, unfortunately, I must generally neglect such an abstract school of thought in my writings. But I digress.

I do not belong to any political party in particular, nor do I adhere to any kind of established general political ideology. I follow my own political agenda, which has been known to vary, and besides, is too complex to go into in this introduction, but you can be sure that you will hear more of it in the future.

I am an Atheist zealot, and will undoubtedly be attacking various theologies in my column, but I will focus primarily on Christianity. I have nothing personal whatsoever against Christians, but because I have been surrounded by Christianity for my entire life, as my own mother is a Christian, and Christianity is the most influential, imperialistic and widespread religion of all, I find that I am most knowledgeable about this particular faith, and therefore it is the easiest one to target.

For future reference, if any readers are religious, please do not be offended, as I am only advocating my “beliefs” in the same way that you would advocate yours. My beliefs are all based on my own rationalizations, not fairy tales, but I am ready and willing to listen to any counterarguments you have to offer, or even any attempts you may wish to make to convert me, as admittedly I have imposed my opinions upon you, so it would only be fair for me to allow you to do the same.

Thanks for reading, I am looking forward to writing more for In Cogito.

- Voice of Reason

Friday, February 22, 2008

Obamania

I'm going to post two articles in a row, both I believe to be quality. But don't worry, expect a post by another author tomorrow or the next day. That said:

I'm sure every six year old has grand aspirations of running Toys 'R Us, but would a six year old child really be capable of doing so? Well the average six year old would certainly have the necessary enthusiasm, creative capacity, charisma, and loads of idealistic notions of how to run a company as well; so what could go wrong if we were to simply hand them the keys?

This is the same logic that the Democratic Party and the American people are using to hand over the nomination to Obama. He's definitely charismatic, he's definitely a talented orator - but we have to stop and ask ourselves what he has done to prove himself.

Why does Obama deserve to be President? He has yet to do anything earth shattering(campaign organizational skills aside). He's an active participator in the Senate, and is very bright - but his record reveals nothing exceptional so far. Pinning the hopes of the most powerful nation in the world on the belief that he's more than what he has shown is at best extremely risky.

His supporters would point to his record in the Senate as an indicator of the man's greatness. In a short amount of time he has created a good(not fantastic) portfolio. Yet, the record of a member of the legislative branch may not serve as the best indicator of their executive branch prowess. The same way that your ability to cook steak may or may not mean that you know how to make a great cake - even though they are both food.

Obama says he'll bring change. But then he surrounds himself with a foreign policy group that is older than Stonehenge. Zbigniew Brzezinski his main guy, is over 79 years old and served in the Carter Administration. How, exciting! Changing to be like a man who had one of the most controversial and divisive foreign policies in recent history. Sounds like politics as usual, doesn't it?

He's a big idea man as opposed to Hillary's more targeted reforms. Vision is what we need right now in America, that I have no doubt - and he certainly has it.

Yet for a man aspiring to be the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military ever on earth, he has dangerously little familiarity with our army or military in general. His supporters are not exceptionally pro-military so that issue may not disturb them, but a person kids himself when he believes that the commander in Chief of a nation fighting two wars need not be more intimate with the military.

Bernie at http://plancksconstant.org/, pointed out this video of him possibly fictionalizing a story about the US military.



Captains actually do not actually command platoons. Even given the benefit of the doubt, it exposes a large hole in his abilities.

Americans need to set some more bars for Obama before we get swept away in the tide. He's inspiring and I want to believe him, but we shouldn't be so eager for change that we elect a false messiah.

- Spero



Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Modified Nihilism

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

I'm honored to be one of the first of our columnist group to write for In Cogito, and I know everyone here hopes that this site will grow to become popular and successful. My first order of business then, naturally, is to introduce my basic view on society from which I will base my other columns on. In Cogito's columns are opinion based, so don't be surprised if you get offended by or have different opinions than things our columnists post. Please feel free to voice yourself by posting comments in response to the columns, or on the forums. Our goal is to encourage enthusiastic rational and intellectual discussion, and to create a vibrant community.

Imagine yourself as a primitive hunter-gatherer, arrayed with a variety of pelts to keep yourself sheltered from the winter wind. Food is sparse, yet your family depends on you to nourish them and your newest member - a newborn girl.

It is twilight now, and you are returning from your hunt empty-handed. Suddenly you see an elk bound out from the forest followed closely by another foreign hunter. This may be your only chance to feed your family in the coming weeks so, instinctively, you join the pursuit. To your extreme displeasure, his spear strikes its mark seconds before yours. He's young, too young to have a family to provide for - your anger builds.

He eyes you and moves towards his quarry, what is your course of action? Your family may starve to death in the coming frosty weeks - and genetically with it your lineage. It is imperative to the survival of all that is important(genetically, emotionally, physically) that you take all action to feed your family, even if it means transgressing what we would regard as morals. You know that he will fight you to the death for this catch - yet you must rip it from him. You must ensure the survival of your family. But even moreso, we are vessels of our genes, you only must ensure the survival of your family to be a successful organism.

From this scenario we can establish that it is necessary to transgress moral boundaries sometimes to survive. Since in our natural state we only must always do what best ensures the survival of ourselves and our family at the expense of others, we now know that in its purest form nature is a Nihilist place.

I'm sure you are glad that the umbrella of society prevents people from encountering situations like this on a daily basis. Organized society, we can all agree, is definitely a blessing. Though, if you are like me, you know that society can sometimes constrict you in undesirable ways.

These constrictions are generally for our safety, not all the times to be sure, but on the whole laws exist to keep us safe and happy. The law system of the United States and most every nation give us a set of things that are ok and not ok to do - in effect a system of morals. So if laws are morals that means morals exist to make us safe and happy.

Society is fundamentally a great covenant. Each person makes such a covenant that trades liberties for safety and happiness when a society is formed. This is a fundamental truth for every single society ever founded to date in history. Objectively all societies boil down to this.

This leads to my final observation, societies(all formed under the same covenant with the individual) create the same objective moral truth everywhere. Moral relativism is thusly naive and nonfactual. It seems wrong to us Westerners that a woman should be sentenced to death for being raped; not because our culture is so different than their culture, but rather because it violates the fundamental way we as humans form societies.

- Spero