John 9:39-41

If you have argued religion with a believer for any amount of time, no matter what the faith, they have almost certainly pulled out their "knock out punch" for use on your disbelief: The scripture quote.  The biggest problem with this tool is that almost without fail the scripture is neither as meaningful as they think, or as valid as they hope.

John 9:39-41 is the scripture quote I was given last night for the purposes of converting my heathen ass into a member of the faithful. Let's take a look at it, shall we?

The first thing we should do is say a word about the author. The author of any text can tell us a good deal about the text itself. For example a text written a member of MLK's rights protests and a journal written by a Klansman may be about the same time period and even the same event, but have some important differences in slant, experience, purpose and meaning. So who is John?

Importantly, he is not the author of the Gospel of John. An issue that often clouds biblical passages is just how often the obvious author and the actual author are not the same. In this case, the Johannine literature (the gospel and three epistles) appears to have been written by several anonymous authors from about 90-115 CE, writing in a community that still defines itself as followers of a particular brand of the Jewish faith, and not yet part of the fledgling Christian community. John is a window on a group of people in the process of breaking away from the Jewish community to become a separate faith. While there is a good deal more to say about this (I recommend some of the Jesus Institute talks as interesting, though not always as scholarly as you might hope for, and Reza Aslan's Zealot for a pleasant and engaging, though not uncontroversial read) the key for our purposes right now is simply to recall that John is written some 60 to 100 years after the Jesus story is meant to have occurred. It is a collection of 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even more removed hand accounts that was assembled to reflect the beliefs of the community it was written for.

In fact we need to keep in mind that historical accuracy was neither a goal nor a concern for the authors of most religious texts in the Jewish community at that time. The religious texts written in first century Palestine simply weren't meant to be an historic record. These are testimonies of faith, written by people of faith, and meant only to reflect their beliefs. They are about Jesus the Christ, the founding myth of the faith, not Jesus the man, who may or may not have even existed. Treating them as useless because they are stories of faith and not accounts of history would be a mistake. Just as it would be to treat them as history.

It is also important to recall that the audience for John would have been roughy aware of these issues. In much the same way that fans of Batman today can argue about the relative merits of one comic books portrayal verses a particular films version of the caped crusader, the members of the fledgling Christian communities knew that differing versions of "Yesus" and his teaching existed. There is good evidence (see Rudolf Bultmann) that the Pauline version of Christos and the later Christian religion was seen as heresy to large parts of the early followers of the zealot Jesus who the Johnannine community would have been writing about.

Having set up some expectations, let's look at the actual story. The section of John recommended for reading is the end of the story of a blind man who is healed by Jesus, and then goes about proclaiming him. Several other Jewish faith members doubt him, and ignore him. This leads to Jesus making an allegorical claim about being the Judge of the world and telling the unbelievers that they are guilty because they have a chance to see the truth I him, but reject it.

So how do we analyze this text? Importantly, that depends on your belief. If you were a Jew in the time in question, the story has an obvious point: "this is the person who is going to save us, can't you see he did miracles?" This was a fairly common method of arguing for the validity of the teachings someone gave in that time and place (as it is in some circles even today) to a degree many don't realize. In fact the itinerant preacher wandering the desert proclaiming God and performing "miracles" to support the claim was such a common sight in Jesus time that it was a subject of jokes, farce and even a passage in a play from the time period. Wandering miracle workers were the "trust fund hipsters" of first century palistine. They were everywhere, and most people ignored them.

But to the believer of the time this is simply a way for Jesus to establish his credentials. He did miracles, healed people, raised the dead. Just like a few hundred other wandering preachers of his time.

But what does this mean to the unbeliever today, or the person actually interested in evidence for claims? Honestly, it isn't worth the electrons the web server used to send me the quote. A man named Yesus who may or may not have existed is claimed to have healed the sight of a man, without evidence or corroboration, and used this as a lesson to people who have no impact on my life in this current time. And all of this comes 3rd hand, repeated as hearsay and recorded not as truth but as a lesson...

Batman has more supporting evidence. Maybe we should worship him? Thanks but no thanks.

Risk-less warfare, part 2

Part 1 is here.

In part 1, i discussed how risk-less warfare is both immoral, and practically speaking highly likely to create terrorism. Somewhat ironic since we are in the midst of a war on terror, that will create what it it is against (and has already done so) in the very act of carrying out the war. No wonder it is seen as an endless war.

But i personally think that the 3rd issue is where the true cost of risk-less war lies, not because of a higher monetary value, but rather due to the hidden nature of the cost itself.

Risk-less warfare is a product of technology. It takes place in a sort of "virtual warfare" setting. The nature of risk-less war is such that the only way it can be achieved is through sufficient technological advancement that humans are removed from the location of the conflict. We direct death at the targets of this style of warfare from miles, hundreds or even thousands of miles, of distance. The machines and technology required to do this have certain things that are characteristic about them.

First, they are expensive to build. Not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of allocation of resources. Unfortunately we don't have a simple metric for determining the cost of lost production and innovation due to the war machine. But we do have some staggering figures.

In 2006, the United States spent over 528 billion dollars on defense. 2.3 million people work for the department of defense in the US. Roughly 75% of all US federal research dollars go to military projects.

Ever wish that the batteries and electric engines in a hybrid car were more efficient so that you could not worry about gas prices? Ever wish you could get all the power you need from the sun? Ever wish that products were safer or that they lasted longer? How much difference in these areas would we see if the massive kinds of money going to military research went to these projects instead?

To be fair, and to answer critics before they ask, a great many military projects have had later civilian uses. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am suggesting that research directed at solving the above problems is more likely to produce results than directing research at military problems and awaiting secondary or even tertiary benefits.

As i pointed out, i don't mean this solely in terms of dollar cost, however they are also expensive in this way as well. A single cruise missile can cost several million dollars. And remember, this is a single use weapon. It is quite literally throwing money at a problem. A lot of money.

Surely this is inexpensive compared to lives that may be lost if it were not used, isn't it? Let us assume that a military target is identified in a small village. Let us further assume that we can choose between "sending in the marines" in a very literal sense, or firing a cruise missile into the area. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely that we will lose one or more marine lives if we choose the first course of action. No lives will be lost (obviously) if we choose the second.

Astute observers will notice that that the question is misleading. Lives will be lost if we fire a cruise missile into a village. In fact despite the talk of so-called 'smart missile' in the military and press today, it is highly likely that innocent lives will be lost. But the math is seldom if ever done in that way. The lives of the 'enemy' simply don't make it into the loss column in the calculus of war. That is is one part of the cost. There is a great deal of talk about "winning hearts and minds" in the war on terror. But it largely remains talk. You can't win them if you are blowing them to bits.

There is a great deal of risk in sending troops into a situation verses simply playing the video game of virtual war and destroying a "target" from long range. But there is a benefit as well. Cruise missiles don't capture people. They don't discriminate between targets. They don't destroy potential members of your cause. They don't make judgement calls about when it is better to abort a mission rather than killing innocent civilians.

The costs of risk-less warfare are moral, in that they abandon the moral high ground. They are strategic, in that we lose the opportunity to bring others to our cause when we abandon that high ground. They are tactical, in that the very nature of risk-less warfare means that we abandon the decision making process at the point of the encounter. The cost is further both strategic and tactical in the manner in which it actually creates enemies and encourages terrorism as the only effective response. And finally it diverts large amounts of capital, resources, development and research into the war machine. This, in turn, makes war profitable. And if war is profitable, rather than expensive, then we can hardly blame a capitalist society for doing what it does best. Chasing the dollar signs into the battle field.....

on the true costs of risk-less war

There is a concept in political philosophy, specifically in regards to the just war concept, called "risk-less" war, or risk-less warfare. The discussion surrounding this concept generally centers on two issues: moral issues, and terrorism issues. i think that there is a third. And i want to say a few things about each of them...

The first issue is the moral one. It seems odd to many people that there is a discussion about the morality of warfare. And it doesn't always get clearer when you engage the actual substance of the issue. Still, it is a topic of some concern in philosophy. Generally in warfare the moral issue of multiple people trying to kill each other is dealt with by assuming the the parties involved are acting in self defense with reference to each other. In short, it is ok that i am trying to kill you in a war, because i am only trying to defend myself from you, because you are representing another country or side in the conflict. Why is ok that you are trying to kill me? Why because you are acting in self defense to my trying to kill you, which is in self defense of your trying to kill me, which is......

Now you might reasonably ask yourself, "but if we are both acting in self defense, can't we both simply not be trying to kill each other? Wouldn't that end the entire conflict? Surely someone has to start the action! We can't both be trying to kill each other first in order to defend ourselves from an attack that hasn't come, can we?" I can't answer that. As someone who is essentially a pacifist, i am just as confused as you. But to quote one philosopher i have read on the matter, "wars have been and will continue to be fought. the self defense notion and just war theory allow them to be fought on moral grounds."

Got that? No, neither did i. I have some suspicion that this sort of ad hoc adjustment to the ideas of ethics and warfare is just an excuse to allow us to do what we wish and yet feel good about behaving ethically. Morals are not determined by actions, rather morals determine our actions. War remains inherently immoral in any case that is not true self-defense. And even then it may not be a moral endeavor depending upon the ways and means that are used to execute that war.

Which brings us to the moral issue of risk-less war. Even if we are to assume the questionable stance of mutual self-defense, risk-less warfare destroys this concept. The american military, as well as any other technologically advanced military, are simply immune to the self-defense concept when engaging less modern forces. In earlier wars, a technologically advanced military was an asset on the battlefield, but it was hardly an automatic success. More advanced and better supplied armies fell to lesser equipped forces with some regularity. But not always. The gap between the technological haves and have nots was simply no sufficient to guarantee success.

But the advanced technology of the modern battlefield is quickly approaching the point that this is no longer true. A single man in a modern stealth jet fighter is simply not at risk to a man with a rifle on the ground. Or even ten thousand such men. But he is certainly capable of destroying them....

So in what way is he acting in self-defense? He is not threatened. We might as well claim that a tank platoon is threatened by a kindergarden class. Would we think that the tank commanders have a moral right to open fire on the class? That would be a ridiculous claim. Similarly, it makes no sense to invoke self-defense in the case of our above mentioned fighter pilot.

This is the moral crux of the concept of risk-less war. We would not ask that soldiers go into battle less well protected or armed than they are capable. To do so would be both immoral and unreasonable. Yet if we send them into a conflict in which they are (nearly) invulnerable, they cannot act morally under even the already questionable concept of war as mutual self-defense. Practical reason demands that we protect soldiers. Morality suggests that the more protected they are, the less able they are to follow the dictates of morality.

Risk-less war and Terror

But practical reason also suggests that we have still further problems. Contrary to the oft discussed view of terrorism that we see in the news, terrorism is not a tool used only by a particular few, or an ideology that will be defeated, or a force that can be engaged. Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic engaged in by any group that sees no legitimate method of engaging a foe. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and fear in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism is the refuge of those who have no legitimate voice in a political system that they see as constraining their rights of capabilities. Terrorism is a natural outgrowth of risk-less war.

Any group seeking a political goal that is totally denied to them, who further perceive that they have no voice or options in the determination of policy, and who are unable to resist in anyway against a technologically superior force that is in effect practicing risk-less warfare, is highly likely to resort to terrorism. When all other possible avenues of addressing the concerns they hold are exhausted, terrorism becomes a highly likely option.

Our ability to make war at extremely little risk to ourselves, greatly increases the likely hood of terrorism against us. Presented with a force that they have no option of swaying in its opinion, and no possibility of defeating in a conflict, any motivated group that is not deeply pacifistic in nature will strike instead at the targets that they can hit. the civilian population. They become terrorists.

And yet, i will argue that neither of these things is the true cost of risk-less warfare.

america's manhood deficiency

i know, what you are likely thinking. what with America having a massive 2% of the members of congress being female over the years, and even today being under the global average for elected females, clearly we have the manhood.

and remember that is the global average. that includes countries that don't even allow women to vote let alone run. we are below that average. chew on that awhile.

Finland, Indonesia, Ireland, Latvia ,Panama, the Philippines, Sri Lanka; the Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, Britain, Finland, New Zealand, Peru, Sâo Tom and Príncipe; the Vice Presidents of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Gambia , Palau, Taiwan; and the Governor-Generals of he Bahamas, Canada , Saint Lucia, New Zealand? all women!

in 1995, Sweden became the first country to have an equal number of women and men in ministerial posts. by the end of 2002, Argentina, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Mozambique, the Netherlands Norway, South Africa and Sweden had reached a goal of 30 percent of parliamentary seats being held by women.

we are behind all of those countries.

but the real problem in America is, it seems, that we aren't manly enough.

behold the evidence:

Palin And America's Manhood Deficiency
By Pastor Matt Trewhella

no, seriously. that is the trouble, and this guy is a pastor, so you know it must be true.

"I was never keen on McCain to begin with, and his decision to add a woman to his ticket sealed my decision. I won't vote for them. Why? Because I'm a sexist (as many accuse)? No. But because I'm a theist."

that is right people. if you believe in god you don't go voting for women. all good god fearing people know a woman's place is 8 months pregnant, barefoot, nursing, and yelling at the 11 other kids. it is right there in the bible. book of asshat chapter 11 i think.

"From the time they are young boys, the onslaught to effeminize, neuter, and rob males of their manhood begins in this culture and continues relentless upon them till the day they die. The agenda creates confusion in males regarding what exactly their role as men is. The agenda results in rampant male irresponsibility."

at this point you kinda have to wonder what color the sky is where this guy lives, don't you?

i have lived here in what some of us refer to as the "real world" for pretty much whole life (not counting that vacation when i was 15) and i am just not seeing it. culture is pretty clear on mens roles so far as i can see. does this guy not have TV? does he see ads? i am pretty sure mens role in the world is to wear suits, make money, and be incompetent when it comes to children and emotions. right?

oh, and we ogle women, buy sports cars, and do manly mechanical things, right? i am pretty sure i got all of this drilled into me during my entire life. so where did pastor moron grow up?

"They have no problem with the man staying home and the woman being the provider. They pompously challenge me (as they condescendingly look at me as though I'm some kind of cultural Neanderthal)"

those bastards!

oh and the cultural neanderthal thing? if the shoe fits...... but i am sure it is a manly steel toed shoe.

but it is the next paragraph that i just love.

"The egalitarian agenda has been pushed in this nation for about 100 years now, and is historically rooted in socialism. The Suffrage movement, wherein women obtained the right to vote, was manufactured by socialists who - because of the Christian consensus in the country at that time - guardedly used Christian words (and dress) to move their God-hating agenda forward. You can go to countless pro-abortion and pro-homosexual (lesbian) websites today which boast of their roots being founded in the Suffrage movement."

those socialist suffragists! they are canny. they are willy. those nasty socialists invented women's suffrage (1718 in Sweden) before there was even socialism (1859), that is how deceiving they can be! and time travel! they invented time travel!

and we know they are god hating, because only god haters would want women to have opinions. the jerks.

but i especially like that he points out that lesbian web sites are rooted in suffrage. i wonder how much research he did on that? and does he know the difference between lesbian sites and all girl porn? (no honey all those girl on girl sex sites are just research for a sermon. what? oh i don't know, maybe next month. second sunday i think. multimedia? oh i haven't decided yet.)

"Men being led by women is also a sad commentary on the state of manhood in a nation."

ya know, (princess bride moment) you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means.

is that really what "manhood" means?

as a taoist i have a natural distrust of words. they hide meanings a lot. so i fire up the ol' dictionary app, and.....

manhood: noun
the state or period of being a man rather than a child : boys in the process of growing to manhood.
• men, esp. those of a country, regarded collectively : Germany had lost the best of her young manhood.
• qualities traditionally associated with men, such as courage, strength, and sexual potency

we have a shortage of that around here do we?

lemme try out my theory. pastor shinky-dink has such a pathetic manhood himself that he personally is projecting just a bit. i mean we are talking about a man whose courage, strength, and sexual potency are threatened by women being treated as if they might actually be human. the gall. damn uppity women.

just a thought here, but not everyone thinks that manhood equals the worst of the bravado style of stupidity. some of us have evolved a bit from that.

....but i guess as a right wing christian nutbag american taliban type, evolution is something you don't believe in, is it?

so in the end i leave you with a different conception of manhood.

You are the bravest man I've ever met
You unreluctant at treacherous ledge

You are the sexiest man I've ever been with
You, never hotter than with armor spent

When you do what you do to provide
How you land in the soft as you fortify

This is in praise of the vulnerable man
Why won't you lead the rest of your cavalry home

You, with your eyes mix strength with abandon
You with your new kind of heroism

And I bow and I bow down to you
To the grace that it takes to melt on through

This is in praise of the vulnerable man
Why won't you lead the rest of your cavalry home
This is a thank you for letting me in
Indeed in praise of the vulnerable man

You are the greatest man I've ever met
You the stealth setter of new precedents

And I vow and I vow to be true
And I vow and I vow to not take advantage

This is in praise of the vulnerable man
Why won't you lead the rest of your cavalry home
This is a thank you for letting me in
Indeed in praise of the vulnerable man
-Alanis

yeah, me and Ghandi and Buddha and Jesus and a whole lot more are going with a different definition that you are pastor. just a heads up.

women's rights as human rights

i am reading a brief philosophy article titled "are women human? feminist reflections on 'women's rights as human rights.'" i have read it before. what i find baffling about the article is in fact something it takes for granted, that there is a serious split between the "liberal" and "cultural" feminists. despite having read the article several times, and generally understanding its view point and direction, i keep coming back to this point of splintering in feminism. the tiny bit of research i have done says that this split in american feminism is identified in about 1985.....

a quote: "American Feminism has been dominated by two interrelated but often conflicting propositions: that women should be treated as the equals of men, and that feminine qualities deserve to be revalued and their power in society acknowledged."

now granted, as a feminist male, i may not be fully up to date, but i see a lot more interrelation than conflict there. perhaps i am too simple minded.

one key issue in the possibility of seeing women's rights as human rights is the simple fact that rights and laws and systems of justice tend to be male dominated and based on a series of male ideals. they are, for example, seen as a system of "independent rationally self interested individuals" rather than, for example, dependent or social creatures. this is amazing to me.

while cultural feminists see this as reason to not seek to include women's rights as human rights, or even to question if women are "human" by this overtly male definition, i see this as all the more reason to seek inclusion. first, to assert that humans are "independent rationally self interested individuals" is nearly senseless. certainly this is a view that is popular in america, but the lone cowboy spirit in the USA in more an aberration to the rest of the world than a norm, isn't it? isn't this mad-cowboy disease something that we should be trying to change rather than just stepping away and attempting to ignore?

as the rest of the world slowly comes around to the nonsense of the "independent rationally self interested individuals" idea, isn't this something that feminists should be leaping at? a chance to fill the void and make some corrections? or is that just me being male?

i know i for one would like to see a more balanced world. how about we try finding some feminine systems of rights and laws? or better yet, can't we at least try a system that could steer a path between them both?

i don't know, maybe you can't teach an old male philosopher new tricks, but i am willing to try. is someone willing to teach?

Stan Winston

Stan Winston has left this world. he isn't somebody that most people knew something about. the news of the day wasn't replaced by stories about him on 24 hour news networks. thousands of people didn't do TV interviews about him that day. the president didn't mention him. many people have no idea who he is.

some do though. some might have caught a little about his death in the news. hollywood mentioned it. many there knew him.

he was the kind of person the geeky types might have known. he did things we respect.

what did he do? he brought aliens to life. he gave rise to the terminator. he helped dinosaurs walk the land. he gave vampires the power to frighten us.

Stan was a makeup/special effects/CGI wizard.

when i was still pretty young, i recall watching "Aliens" and "Terminator" and being scared outta my wits by the incredible effects. that was Stan.

Predators? he brought those to life too. Dinosaurs? them too.

T3, Ironman, Bigfish, Pearl Harbor. what he did best was mix together makeup work, animatronics, models, and CGI. he did a little of it all. that is why the stuff he did looked so good. it never depended on a single method, but used every possible tool in the box to make the effect look as real as possible.

he won an entire closet full of awards, including 4 oscars, by making things that couldn't possibly be real, exist on the screen.

i am geek, i admit it. when i heard that he had died, i actually knew the name without hearing the rest of the news blurb. my first thought was that without him, some of the scenes that snuck into my nightmares would never have happened.......

damn he was good. i am gonna miss his work.

critical thinking

there are two kinds of idiots in our climate

Part whatever in a series...

in what may have to be an on going theme, i post another comment on critical thinking...



that is not a great picture. i mean it is ok, but nothing special. i took it, and post it here for one reason only.....

imagine standing in front of this view. imagine that it is about 40 degrees. imagine that you have just learned that the weather is so cold and the growing season so short that the trees in the distance stand only 3 feet tall, even though they are 400 years old. imagine that you just learned that 3 glaciers feed into the lakes in this valley. imagine that all you can smell is pine, and the ice floating on the water. you can actually Smell the ice....

now imagine that you stepped into the edge of the lake, in about 8 inches of water, in sandals, and then turned and yelled at the tour guide who told you all of the above information, "You didn't warn me that it is cold water!"

cause about 4 seconds before i took that picture, that is what i watched a woman do.

it boggles the mind.

the stupidity goes on

"“John McCain stood up to the President and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago. Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions,” an announcer says in the ad. The 30-second spot also says that McCain’s plan “will help grow our economy and protect our environment.”"

As mentioned below, the "realistic plan" includes drilling for less than a years worth of oil that we won't see for 17 years. By destroying ANWR.

I missed the realistic part. And the protecting the environment part. And the part where giving more cash to the already loaded oil companies is an economy grower. And the part where that cuts emissions.

OK, not one word of the plan actually relates to one word of the claims. Except as an antonym.

McCain, not just fail, Epic Fail.

how do these people walk and chew gum at the same time?

there are two kinds of fools in our government

Part whatever in a series...

John McCain, today:

""We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production,” McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will say at a Houston speech late Tuesday afternoon, according to advance excerpts released by his campaign. “And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.""

So lets do some math...

1. America currently uses 22 billion barrels a year.

2. McCain, is wrong (or lying, he is a republican after all) about the figure. 21 billion was 2 years ago. It hasn't stayed at that amount, and it isn't growing. The current estimate is 18.

Even if he was right, and we could get at all of it, (which we can't, and not because of a moratorium) that is a whole year of oil. Less actually.

So Mr. Straight talk, what do we do for 2010?

Naturally that is an oversimplification. First of all, we can't get it all. Some is simply not accessible by modern technology. And the stuff we can get too? Well it will take about 17 years to get a meaningful amount to market. Won't that be helpful? If it is going to take 17 years anyway, why not use that time and money to develop alternative energy?

And when it does get to the market, it will make a huge difference. In fact the department of energy estimates that if the current price holds until then, that drilling will drop the price 50 whole cents! Go wild! Buy an SUV! Buy 2! Buy a Hummer!

But then that is assuming that the oil companies pass the savings on to us.

....you know, those companies that just posted record profits even though they are getting record size tax breaks?

Yeah, I bet they slash prices to the bone......