Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

I have decided to come unhinged. Over the last few years, as things have gotten worse and worse, I have become increasingly serious, and dedicated to getting the word out.

I’ve watched as more and more Americans just tune out. The more outrageous the abuses of our government get, the less they pay attention. The more blatant Bush’s crimes have become, they less they care. The more bizarre the distortion of our democracy becomes, the more they pretend that nothing has changed.

I’d say that it seems that Americans are in training for living under totalitarian rule… except that tonight, I’m too tired to say that.

My sense of normalcy has been shredded by the way that most Americans shrug off what it has meant to be an American, and accept a monstrous replacement. The new normal is insane, and so tonight, I am insane.

I feel that my efforts to communicate warnings to other Americans have been about as effective as the voice of a microscopic organism. So, in this video, I speak in my true voice for these irregular times: The voice of Herman, the Activist Protozoan, who clamors in vain in the effort to convince multicellular organism to take action. That’s about as effectual as I’ve been, in my little bitty marginal pool of slime.

Pentagon Cover Up

By MIKE WHITNEY

The Pentagon has been concealing the true number of American casualties in the Iraq War. The real number exceeds 15,000 and CBS News can prove it.

CBS’s Investigative Unit wanted to do a report on the number of suicides in the military and “submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Defense”. After 4 months they received a document which showed–that between 1995 and 2007– there were 2,200 suicides among “active duty” soldiers.

Baloney.

RED DAVE

November 17, 2007 – Saturday

1693 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3867
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28489

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 77225
(MAXIMUM): 84140
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $469,377,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

Every so often I’ll see something that can fill me with such disgust and outrage it becomes difficult to express my feelings. This is one of those times.

And to anyone who claims that the members and writers of Irregular Times give Islam a free ride while harping on Christianity, I’m about to prove you wong.

Female rape victim gets 200 lashes and jail
From correspondents in Riyadh
November 16, 2007 07:15am

A COURT in the ultra-conservative Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail.
The 19-year-old woman – whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms – was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for “being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape,” the Arab News reported.

But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia’s Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.

A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.”

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine known as Wahhabism and forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

Last year, the court sentenced six Saudi men to between one and five years in jail for the rape as well as ordering lashes for the victim, a member of the minority Shi’ite community.

But the woman’s lawyer Abdul Rahman al-Lahem appealed, arguing that the punishments were too lenient in a country where the offence can carry the death penalty.

In the new verdict issued on Wednesday, the Al-Qatif court also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.

The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia’s Shi’ite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.

Mr Lahem, also a human rights activist, said yesterday the court had banned him from handling the rape case and withdrew his licence to practise law because he challenged the verdict.

He said he has also been summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee in December.

Mr Lahem said the move might be due to his criticism of some judicial institutions, and “contradicts King Abdullah’s quest to introduce reform, especially in the justice system.”

King Abdullah last month approved a new body of laws regulating the judicial system in Saudi Arabia, which rules on the basis of sharia, or Islamic law.

This is the kind of people who the USA supports. We’re allies with Saudi Arabia even though the majority of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were from there and we’re even sending them military equipment.

When I first read this, I admit, I found I could easily renounce an anti-violence ideal if it meant I could deal some Old Testament type punishment on the people involved with this story, but right now it’s making me feel sick to my stomach.

Religion of peace my achin’ ass.

November 16, 2007 – Frinesday

1691 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3865
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28451

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 77213
(MAXIMUM): 84128
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $469,081,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

A new report out by the Democratic congressional joint economic committee says that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could end up costing America 3.5 trillion dollars, not 2.4 trillion dollars as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says.

You know what my reaction to that is? So what?

It has to do with the psychology of numbers. People regard their burdens in terms of relative, not absolute, scales. When the country is in debt 2.4 trillion dollars, what’s another 1.1 trillion dollars to add on?

Peregrin Wood tries to put these trillions of dollars into perspective by breaking them down into gumballs. That helps, but there’s only so far that the mind can stretch. What’s the difference in a line of gumballs stretching to the sun and back eight times and a line of gumballs stretching to the sun and back twelve times?

Who in their right mind would not be bothered by the loss of 2.4 trillion dollars, but then when 3.5 trillion dollars is lost, freak out? No one. If 3.5 trillion dollars is bad, then 2.4 trillion dollars is bad too. If 2.4 trillion dollars of burden won’t bother you, 20 trillion won’t either.

This game the congressional Democrats are playing, of saying, “No no, it’s 3.5 not 2.4″ shows a profound deficit of understanding of effective communication.

Through the Military Commissions Act, right wing Democrats and Republicans in Congress have helped George W. Bush revoke the writ of habeas corpus, which requires governments to provide specific information about the reason that prisoners are being held. Habeas corpus is an essential tool in the prevention of arbitrary imprisonment.

What would America’s founding fathers think of the Military Commission Act’s removal of this protection? Alexander Hamilton certainly wouldn’t have approved of it. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote that “arbitrary imprisonments have been in all ages the favourite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”

Hint to Young Republicans: Tyranny is a bad thing.

I’ve been browsing through some fundamentalist religious quotes on Fundies Say The Darndest Things and from what I can tell most of those quotes can be broken up into five basic categories:

-Anti-Evolution
-Anti-Homosexuality
-Anti-Abortion
-Anti-other religions
-Miscellaneous

Now, while I could go and tackle each and every one of those points and their reasons behind them, I want to focus on the Anti-Homo part of it during this entry.

I’ve heard many justifications for this type of bigotry and they’ve come in many forms from calm explanations to near hysterical SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS-LOCK!!!1!111!!

But whatever form it takes on it always seems to come back to one thing: “Its an abomination against God” and to support this stance and their own bigotry they’ll site Leviticus 18:22. However most of these same people, when you point anything else out they’ll say that the New Testament did away with the Old Testament and therefore the Old Testament is now invalid. Except, just now to confirm what I was already pretty sure of, I looked up the book of Leviticus, and guess what I found?

Leviticus is a part of the Old Testament.

Now, rather than use the point of eating shell-fish to counter their argument and show them as hypocrites, I’m just going to start pointing out what they already believe; that Jesus’ sacrifice rendered the Old Testament obsolete (seeing as they seem so intent on ignoring Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17 when it suits them) and that therefore Homosexuality must be just fine so long as those damn homos except Jesus as their savior. After all, the Old Testament is invalid according to them, right?

Now, if they somehow claim that homosexuality is a sin and yet the Old Testament is still void, I feel I’d be well justified in pointing out their hypocrisy.

As I wrote earlier, I have failed in my first attempt to write a novel during National Novel Writing Month. The goal was to write 50,000 words during the month of November. I burned out on the task on just the third day, finding it to be un-fun and feeling the need to accomplish other tasks.

I’m not going to jump back on the NaNoWriMo bandwagon for this year. But I have been thinking about why I fizzled. I think the answer is that I didn’t structure the attempt enough. I just had an idea in my head and jumped right in, flailing around for a few days and getting really tired in the process. I’m not ashamed to say I failed, big time. OK, maybe a bit ashamed. I’d like to do better.

So I’m going to start again at the beginning of next month, but I’m going to do things differently. December will be Figure Out the Parameters of How I’m Going to Structure My Novel Month. January will be Compose the Particulars of the Structure for My Novel Month, and the rest of the year will by my Novel Writing Year. It’s a longer period of time for a long project. I think this is more realistic, less rushed and panicky than National Novel Writing Month, and so I think I’m more likely to succeed. I will try again, at a less manic pace.

Wish me luck! I would appreciate any advice anyone might have to offer.

          History of the human race, so far it is available, says that people always were in debate on religion. Because, always there were people who were denying the existence of God and hence rejecting the necessity of religion and others were claiming the existence of God or more than one god. On the other hand those who were trying to prove the existence of God were differing about definition of His existence and attributes. Even followers of one religion were differing each other regarding the same and more than that regarding religious injunctions.

            Sometimes we see that people of different religions debate regarding one or more particular religious injunctions of a religion. It is not a wise method. Rather we should try to solve basic differences. If we can solve those then solving subsidiary questions will become easy.

The Standard or Criterion

            But before entering the debate we have to decide about the standard or criterion. This standard or criterion must be acceptable to all irrespective of religious faith and even to the atheists. Otherwise it will not be possible to reach a solution. We think, the only criterion that may be and should be acceptable to all, however to solve the basic queries of life, (not the queries related to expertise), is the reason.

            Now we have to serialize the questions according to logical preferences. When the first question is solved then we can enter the second one.

Is the Truth Attainable?

            Now the first question:

            To us the first question that must be solved is that whether the truth or the reality is attainable or not. This question always existed throughout the history. Always there were some people who used to argue that truth or reality is not attainable. Their argument is like such: When we are asleep we dream, but in dream we can’t understand that it’s a dream; we think it true or real. Then wake up and can understand that it was not real. May be also our present life is like something like dream and after death we would understand that it is not true or real. Another one of their argument is that our senses are not reliable means of collecting information; sometimes we can clearly understand that those are giving us wrong information. For example, we see a plane in the sky as small as bird, but when it lands in the airport we see that it is a large thing. So we can not trust our eyes. Then if I put one of my hands into a buckets of water having 60 degree temperature and the other in a bucket of water having 30 degree temperature, then I put both of my hands at the same time into a third bucket of water having 45 degree temperature then one of my hands will inform me of hot water and the other will inform of cold water, though the temperature of the water is same.

            The solution:

            Beyond doubt that we can not attain the truth or reality regarding every phenomenon, but we can attain the truth or reality regarding many. For example, may be that the reality of my existence is as I feel or may be actually it is otherwise, but at any condition I can not doubt about my very existence. Because, I feel, I observe, I think, so I have existence (1). I have five senses and five physical organs, so those are true or real (2), though may be those are giving me all the wrong information or some wrong and some correct information. There are some external phenomenon (beyond my existence)(3), though may be those are as I observe or those are different than my observation. I sleep (4), I dream (5) and I awake (6) and I will die (7), I eat and drink (8), I talk and debate (9), I live (10); may be real nature of these phenomenon are different than that I observe, but I can not deny very reality of those. I have an analysis power in me (11) other than my physical senses that can analyze information collected by the senses and detect at least some the wrong information. If we proceed in this way we must find that we can attain the truth or reality regarding uncountable number of phenomenon, though there remain other uncountable number of phenomenon that we know nothing about those or our knowledge is fully or partly incorrect regarding those.

            Human experience says that through sincere effort with truth-seeking mind one can attain the truth or reality at least regarding basic queries of life that are not related to expertise.

Is there any Creator?

            Now the second question:

            Is there any creator behind our existence?

            To reach the goal through a shortest possible way we should try to find the solution through philosophical argument based on reason:

            Any existence may be either essential or possible. A possible existence comes into existence when all the conditions of existence are fulfilled, otherwise not. All kinds of existence within the domain of our “experience” are possible existences which are depended upon causes and effects. The causes that brought a thing into existence are in fact effects of some other previous causes. Thus if we go back and back and back then we must reach to the starting point where there must be a cause or some causes which is or are not effect or effects of other causes. Or in other words there is no other cause or are no other causes before that. In other words, this cause is or these causes are the first cause or causes, or cause/ causes of all causes. Then this cause is or these causes are essential existence or existences which the followers of religions call God or gods.

            However, many material scientists tried to explain the beginning of the existence of material world, though it is not their subject, but it is beyond the jurisdiction of their experience and experiment. Previously in the name of science it was claimed that at the beginning there was motionless primary mater, then accidentally the motion was created and the process of change in the matter started. Recently
Stephen Hockings claimed that the creation started from the primary particle. But none of these theories told us wherefrom did that motionless primary matter or the primary particle come? If there would be nothing before that how did it get its existence? Then who created motion in the primary matter or explosion within the primary particle? When the primary matter or the primary particle was void of cause and effect process or in other words natural rules wherefrom it came? The strange and mysterious collection of causes and effects or natural laws transformed this complex world; who or what did form those laws? Can those come into existence accidentally? The natural rules are many time more complex than the rules conducting a super computer; but also the rules conducting the super computer are part of the natural rules of the world; scientists only discovered and utilized those. Yet the super computer has come into existence after hundred year’s restless efforts of dozens of top-ranking scientists, not accidentally. Then how can these natural rules come into existence accidentally? Moreover, what does the accident means? Does it mean that something may happen without any cause? Only ignorant people may believe it? We face accident due to our lack of previous knowledge about a happening, but no accident is void of cause or causes. When there was no cause and effect process or natural rule then how accident may occur in the primary matter or primary particle? So any reasonable human being must accept that the beginning of the creation started by a willful and conscious essential existence or an Everlasting Great Scientist, whatever may you name Him, Allah, God, Jehovah, Ishwar or any other name.

Oneness of the Essential Existence

            Now the third question:

            Can such essential existence or the primary source of all existences be more than one? The reply of the reason is negative. Because for being essential existence and primary source of all existences that existence must be everlasting, all-knowing, all-powerful, willful, sovereign, free of any need or imperfectness and beyond time, space, change, division or analysis. So He must be void of equals, partners, helpers, spouse or and children. We need those due to our weakness and imperfectness; the essential existence must be free of those weakness and needs. If there would be more than one perfect and sovereign essential existence then all the creations would be destroyed. Because, we know that having two sovereign kings in a kingdom and their peaceful coexistence is impossible. (However, may be two persons termed as ‘king’ may coexist in one kingdom under constitutional bindings, but it is quite clear that none of them is sovereign beyond constitutional bindings.)

            So it is beyond doubt that the essential existence is essentially one.

            Let us discuss about this subject with sincere and truth-seeking mind and arguments based on reason.

            Then we can discuss regarding attributes of the Essential Existence.