In simpler times long ago, an act of war was easily defined as an incident of purposeful, and harmful, violence directed against one country from another. This made it rather easy to figure out if war was being made on you, or if you were making war on someone else. For example, the War of Jenkin's Ear. A Spanish boarding party cut off the ear of a British captain, and a 10 year war ensued in which 20,000 men were lost, and 407 ships destroyed.
Times have obviously changed a bit since then. Notably, computers and cyberspace have dramatically changed our lives. With the advent of cloud-computing, the internet has become an essential tool. Ever increasing in ubiquity, the internet now controls massive amounts of infrastructure, news outlets, and financial institutions. A feature of this new system is that most of the previously mentioned edifices are accessible to anyone with an internet connection.
The problem with this is that those who would do us harm are not barred from this access. Several times in all-too-recent history, governmental and commercial websites have been maliciously attacked by self-proclaimed "hacktivists", such as Anonymous, with the general agenda of bringing about an anarchistic landscape on the net. In addition to these groups, entire governments have become involved. Therein lie several big questions: What exactly constitutes an act of war in cyberspace? Is it the same as in the "real world"? What sort of retaliation, if any, is required or justifiable? To what extent should cyber-attacks influence international relations?
Consider this: Chinese commandos land in Seattle and burn down Amazon.com's headquarters. Obviously this is an act of aggression, and would be treated as a declaration of war. However, if Chinese hackers bring down Amazon.com's website, little is said about the matter. If American fighter jets and bombers destroyed an Iranian nuclear facility, it would obviously be an act of war. But if American and Israeli computer scientists devise the nastiest computer worm invented and launch it on an Iranian nuclear facility, no accusations are made.
Ourselves and our enemies have done more than cut off each other's ears, yet war has not broken out, and the perpetrators have gone unpunished. Thoughts, anyone?
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
They're Rioting in Africa
So... Anyone seen the news lately? It seems that violent protests have rocked the Old World. From Tunisia to Egypt to England to Syria, something is lighting both cars and people on fire.
People are angry!
But why?
Well, it really depends on the particular situation. For example, in England, the unrest appears to be race-based. In Egypt, we can infer that the riots started out of a difference in governmental philosophical theories between the people and, well, the government.
But, which one of these is the best case-study? I would contend that Syria gets the prize for that. Here's why:
Perhaps we can glean the answer to this mighty poser from a look at American history. It seems that in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers found themselves in precisely the same position.
When people do things that defy reason or safety, when they take risks without hope of survival, they are either insane or they are idealists. Then again, a lot of idealists are insane. But the American revolutionaries were fighting for something bigger than themselves, and worth dying for. That is, they were fighting to destroy an illegitimate government that stood against everything they believed in.
Sound familiar? The riots in Syria are the cries of freedom from the those oppressed by an illegitimate government. This is why these people continue to fight, even when it makes no sense to continue. America should take a strong stand for the Syrian people, and for liberty everywhere. If we ignore the people here, where they are fighting for a uniquely American cause, what exactly are we willing to fight for?
 |
| The world is burning! |
But why?
Well, it really depends on the particular situation. For example, in England, the unrest appears to be race-based. In Egypt, we can infer that the riots started out of a difference in governmental philosophical theories between the people and, well, the government.
But, which one of these is the best case-study? I would contend that Syria gets the prize for that. Here's why:
- A brutal government
- An angry populace
- Rising death tolls
- No physical international support
- Continuing violence over several months
 |
| Ain't no party like a Boston party! |
When people do things that defy reason or safety, when they take risks without hope of survival, they are either insane or they are idealists. Then again, a lot of idealists are insane. But the American revolutionaries were fighting for something bigger than themselves, and worth dying for. That is, they were fighting to destroy an illegitimate government that stood against everything they believed in.
Sound familiar? The riots in Syria are the cries of freedom from the those oppressed by an illegitimate government. This is why these people continue to fight, even when it makes no sense to continue. America should take a strong stand for the Syrian people, and for liberty everywhere. If we ignore the people here, where they are fighting for a uniquely American cause, what exactly are we willing to fight for?
Monday, July 18, 2011
Philosophy and Science: Part Two
After taking a very long, unplanned, break from my blog, I see that I have left a series of posts dangling for all to see. Hopefully this post will finish it and I can begin writing things that have been growing in my mind.
It would seem that, given its importance in the foundation of our worldview, that we can apply religion wherever we want it, in any field of thought. While this is true to a certain extent, it is not inherently valid.
Consider the field of science. Can we take the Bible and make scientific hypotheses that can be tested and experimented upon? No. Science must be built upon human experience. While the principles that we discover from human experience were laid down by the Creator, they do not come from the Bible.
This was the main problem with the religious establishment during the period mentioned in the previous post. The Church is not supposed to make any pretensions upon Science. We derive philosophy from religion, and science from experience. The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific textbook.
Likewise, Science should not make any pretensions upon the Church. That is the main problem with the scientific establishment today. We cannot possibly derive life's purpose from the General Theory of Relativity. We cannot allow scientific data to decide what we believe about God.
Of course, our faith should never collide with valid science. The Creator of the Universe did not use erroneous principles when writing to His people.
The bottom line: When in doubt about philosophy, go back the Bible. When in doubt about science, go back to human experience. Make no attempt to confuse the two.
It would seem that, given its importance in the foundation of our worldview, that we can apply religion wherever we want it, in any field of thought. While this is true to a certain extent, it is not inherently valid.
Consider the field of science. Can we take the Bible and make scientific hypotheses that can be tested and experimented upon? No. Science must be built upon human experience. While the principles that we discover from human experience were laid down by the Creator, they do not come from the Bible.
This was the main problem with the religious establishment during the period mentioned in the previous post. The Church is not supposed to make any pretensions upon Science. We derive philosophy from religion, and science from experience. The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific textbook.
Likewise, Science should not make any pretensions upon the Church. That is the main problem with the scientific establishment today. We cannot possibly derive life's purpose from the General Theory of Relativity. We cannot allow scientific data to decide what we believe about God.
Of course, our faith should never collide with valid science. The Creator of the Universe did not use erroneous principles when writing to His people.
The bottom line: When in doubt about philosophy, go back the Bible. When in doubt about science, go back to human experience. Make no attempt to confuse the two.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Philosophy and Science: Part One
Throughout the history of the world, the dichotomy of philosophy and science has presented itself in several different ways, with each side trying to gain the apparent advantage in the population's minds. For example, consider the period between 1500 to 1900 A.D.
This was a time of great conflict between (then) current and emerging paradigms. These paradigms were so exceedingly influential, that the effects of that conflict are still felt today. However, before I continue this discussion, I believe it would help to define what governs these two opposing sides.
If one is to reasonably examine the foundations of one's philosophical ideals, they would probably be based off of one's accepted answer to basic questions about life such as:
Why? Because these questions describe the fundamental pillars of one's existence. If we know what something is, we can easily assume or determine the different facets of that subject's point of being in the world is. But where do we obtain these answers?
Most people would answer based off the different ideas presented to them while they were in early school, or by the age of seven as some have said. At this age, a child is too young to understand for themselves the intricacies of life, thus they end up having the "big picture" answers that typically come from their parents or teachers based off some kind of religious concept that sounds agreeable to them.
And now we have arrived at the core issue of the governance of philosophy. Religion should be the sole determining factor of the way the world is viewed. The reason is that faith, specifically Christianity, is the only thing in the world that (1) never changes, and (2) can fully answer the questions above that lead to one's philosophy.
In the next post, I will talk about what the limits of religion, and therefore philosophy, are. Also, room allowing, I will define what governs science, and why it matters.
This was a time of great conflict between (then) current and emerging paradigms. These paradigms were so exceedingly influential, that the effects of that conflict are still felt today. However, before I continue this discussion, I believe it would help to define what governs these two opposing sides.
If one is to reasonably examine the foundations of one's philosophical ideals, they would probably be based off of one's accepted answer to basic questions about life such as:
- "What is man?"
- "What is God?"
- "What is the meaning of history?"
Why? Because these questions describe the fundamental pillars of one's existence. If we know what something is, we can easily assume or determine the different facets of that subject's point of being in the world is. But where do we obtain these answers?
Most people would answer based off the different ideas presented to them while they were in early school, or by the age of seven as some have said. At this age, a child is too young to understand for themselves the intricacies of life, thus they end up having the "big picture" answers that typically come from their parents or teachers based off some kind of religious concept that sounds agreeable to them.
And now we have arrived at the core issue of the governance of philosophy. Religion should be the sole determining factor of the way the world is viewed. The reason is that faith, specifically Christianity, is the only thing in the world that (1) never changes, and (2) can fully answer the questions above that lead to one's philosophy.
In the next post, I will talk about what the limits of religion, and therefore philosophy, are. Also, room allowing, I will define what governs science, and why it matters.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Civil War
Today being the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, I thought I'd write a few words.
First, some stats:
It is interesting to note that while the conflict lasted for four years in the 1860's, the main issue at stake had been the center of controversy since the very founding of the United States. This issue was undeniably state's rights. The question was, "To what extent can states govern themselves?" Now, obviously, the reason why this question was being asked was the legality of slavery in the South. While this institution was inherently immoral and should have been outlawed since the Constitution was ratified, it was not as the writers needed the support of important areas such as Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. Thus it continued to fester in the minds of the national populace.
We all know what happened in the war, and what became of slavery, but what of the central question? While wars are rarely good material for providing legal precedent, they unfortunately are often taken as such all too many times. Thus the apparent answer has become a federal government that increasingly defies any rights that individual states have, and seeks to merely include them as a way of organizing the Congress according to region. How does this impact us today? It means that there is rarely a level of intermediate control in the government that helps provide stability. For example, as I have said before on this blog, the Federal Reserve. Instead of localized depressions easily remedied by moving elsewhere, now everyone is punished by the actions of a few.
Thus we can conclude that the nation's solution to the slavery problem was the right outcome in the wrong way. In a society built on the foundation of the rule of law, it was, and is, unfortunate for such an issue to be resolved by such tragic means that have had so many consequences for the generations afterwards.
And to finish it all off, here is a music video of one of the best songs on the subject by Josh Turner.
First, some stats:
- The war accounted for about as many casualties as all other American wars combined
- It killed 10% of all Northern males aged 20-45
- It killed 30% of all Southern white males aged 18-40
- There were 620,000 total casualties for both sides
It is interesting to note that while the conflict lasted for four years in the 1860's, the main issue at stake had been the center of controversy since the very founding of the United States. This issue was undeniably state's rights. The question was, "To what extent can states govern themselves?" Now, obviously, the reason why this question was being asked was the legality of slavery in the South. While this institution was inherently immoral and should have been outlawed since the Constitution was ratified, it was not as the writers needed the support of important areas such as Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. Thus it continued to fester in the minds of the national populace.
We all know what happened in the war, and what became of slavery, but what of the central question? While wars are rarely good material for providing legal precedent, they unfortunately are often taken as such all too many times. Thus the apparent answer has become a federal government that increasingly defies any rights that individual states have, and seeks to merely include them as a way of organizing the Congress according to region. How does this impact us today? It means that there is rarely a level of intermediate control in the government that helps provide stability. For example, as I have said before on this blog, the Federal Reserve. Instead of localized depressions easily remedied by moving elsewhere, now everyone is punished by the actions of a few.
Thus we can conclude that the nation's solution to the slavery problem was the right outcome in the wrong way. In a society built on the foundation of the rule of law, it was, and is, unfortunate for such an issue to be resolved by such tragic means that have had so many consequences for the generations afterwards.
And to finish it all off, here is a music video of one of the best songs on the subject by Josh Turner.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Chain Emails
I hate chain emails. Loathe them. With an undying passion. They mainly come in two different forms:
- Social
- Patriotic/Spiritual
"Please respond to this email and forward it to 4 billion of your best friends. What is your middle name? What is your favorite color? What brand of shoes are you wearing, like, right now? How many people do you think will respond to this? Who do you think will respond? Who do you think will not respond? What is your favorite movie? HAVE YOU EVER CRIED? Are you in love? If so, send this email *twice* to that person. Key: If 20 people respond you are an ok friend, if 500 people respond you are an awesome friend, if 20000000 people respond you are a ^best^ friend!"Then there are the patriotic/spiritual type. I abhor these, because they try to attach some kind of moral significance to it.
"I thought this was really good. It seems that President Bush, may his name be eternal, was in Paris, that denizen of sin paralleled only by the worst parts of Sodom. And the French foreign minister asked him why Americans were so evil. President Bush, may his name be eternal, said, "When God made Texas, where I'm from, He told us all to keep an eye out for the French. Fact is, we're not evil, and the only land we've ever asked for from you is to bury our dead." You could have heard a pin drop. FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW OR YOU'RE NOT A FRIEND OF JESUS OR AN AMERICAN. If you don't, the Californians will take over!"Please, do the world a service. If you ever get another chain email, end the chain right there.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Another Essay
The greatest, the single most important challenge my generation faces is reclaiming a constitutional base for our government. Without the Constitution, we have a government with boundless power and influence. This limit has been slowly bypassed over the past several decades, to the point at which the general opinion is that Congress should pass whatever laws it wants, and let the Supreme Court decide if they should have or not. Just from a practical standpoint, the fact is, the Supreme Court takes so few cases a year, it cannot handle the load that this philosophy places on it. From a moral standpoint, it is flat wrong. Our nation's lawmakers cannot ethically pass any law they want, when they are sworn to protect the Constitution. In addition, they have delegated matters that they should oversee to the executive branch with such agencies as the EPA, FCC, and DEA. These agencies make their own policy, and are not held accountable by anyone. The reason Congress is supposed to oversee these issues is because Congress is directly accountable to the public. Also, the president should not allow these agencies to come under his jurisdiction. The president is supposed to enforce the laws of the country, not the rules of unelected bureaucracies. The Constitution has been slowly eroded until it is nothing but a nicety, or a vague and misapplied excuse for a federal overreach. When language like, "We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it" is condoned by the people with regard to massive bills, it is obvious something needs to change. Without a Constitution in effect, there is tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)