In the context of the current presidential race, pundits and pendants alike are maligning each other over the place of faith in politics, levels of acceptable morality, and which minority should we elect this cycle (the woman, the black, or the mormon). In my private reading of these articles, it occurs to me that there is a general trend toward discrediting the concept of "truth" and "certainty", especially when it comes to politics. This is not without merit, but as far as I've seen, the concept is in its infancy, and therefore half-baked.

Ira Chernus, a Professor of Religious Studies attacks both parties for their increased religious rhetoric, but especially the conservatives, in this election cycle. He takes them to task for flinging religious platitudes at the masses in an effort to apply their brand of certitude. Amid the tumults of a depressed housing market, a war in Iraq, and skyrocketing oil prices, Chernus claims that the candidates are abusing the notion of certainty to bring the uncertain into their fold. This claim is founded in some measure of truth, but the underlying premise that certitude cannot or should not exist in politics or in the world is false.

Candidates can and do enumerate their positions on everything from steel tariffs and war, to AIDS and health care. This is a necessary function of the election process. What Chernus wants changed is not speaking to the issues, it is the use of words to create an appearance of certitude. He states, "When words and policies become symbols of moral absolutes, they are usually about preventing some "evil" deed or turning things back to the way they (supposedly) used to be." That's all well and good, but it misses a much more important point: Certainty is not a variable.

I can understand Chernus's position, but there is a moral absolute and people should be able to talk about it and claim to have it, especially in the context of a political debate. Having absolute truth is not the real issue. The issue is trying to get people to agree on what absolute truth is.

I credit the wholesale adoption of the scientific method for ruining this. Its process of peer review and consensus-based validation has made it hard for real truth to come to the surface. When people are unable to recognize a tool for what it is, they fail to use the tool properly. So it is with the scientific method. It has its place in determining truth, but we should be careful in how we apply it, or in how we categorize truth attained from other sources.

Let me offer some words from another source of truth and see what you think:

"Truth is the only meaningful foundation upon which we can make wise decisions."

"More people are finding that making wise decisions is becoming more and more difficult..."

"The scientific method is a valuable way of seeking truth. However, it has two limitations. First, we never can be sure we have identified absolute truth, though we often draw nearer and nearer to it. Second, sometimes, no matter how earnestly we apply the method, we can get the wrong answer."

So the debate is increasing its pitch with the anti-Bush crew harping the WMD issue into the President every chance they get. So what? I would like to ask you if anyone really believes that Iraq *never* had WMD. If there are those who don't, I would suggest they go talk with the thousands of Iranians and Kurds who's family members were gassed. Then explain to me where the hundreds of thousands of tons of bio weapons he admitted having went. We also found centrifuges and calitrons that can only be used for one thing, making nuclear weapons.

There seems to be this notion that there exists in Iraq this room, that has a sign on it which reads, "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; and finding this room is what needs to happen to justify Bush's claims. Bio and Chem weapons don't have to made until moments before they are used. Only nukes have to be assembled before hand. Chem weapons are made in the same places that pesticides are made. One literally switches a lever and you go from pesticides to chem weapon agents. Bio weapons are made in a similar vein and we *have* found the mobile labs they were using...

Where the anti-Bush pundits fail most miserably is that they are attacking Bush where it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Hussein had WMD and if they are still in country. What matters is whether or not Iraq posed a serious enough threat to the United States to justify war. That is where we should be demanding answers. American's died and their families have the right to know why. What were they defending America against? Even if the whole thing was about freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, then Bush should have been more up front about it. Instead, he chose to hide behind something identifiable to the American people. Everyone is afraid of WMD, but it was too weak of an argument and he is paying the price for it. Weaker still is any claim that America was threatened by Iraq. We are more threatened by North Korea than at any time by Hussein. At least Kim-jong Il admits he has a nuclear program...

As a guy, I have been exposed to porn. I can remember seeing it as far back as five years old. Most of my friends growing up think of porn as normal and even essential. I grew up in the 80's when cable TV was just taking off and my dad had the Playboy channel. It didn't take long for me to find it and spend many hours watching unbenownst to my parents.

Many people think that looking at porn is normal and natural, but it was not always so. Before Playboy came out in the 1950's, it was very hard to get access to and was looked on as 'dirty'. So what? Sex in our society is ubiquitous, especially outside of America where topless news shows are common. The problem is that it is destroying society bit by bit.

Although there are exceptions to every generalization, I find that pornography and excessive sexuality are some of the largest contributors to the breakup of the family and therefore, society. Dr. Harold Voth said, "By permitting the ever-expanding display of pornography, or sexually explicit material on the printed page, in theaters, on television (regular TV, cable and satellite), our social structure is being bombarded continuously by powerful erosive stimuli. Sexuality in its mature form is a necessary aspect of the heterosexual bond and the stability of the family. The massive unleashing of sexuality which is occurring in Western civilization is a reflection of cultural decline. It is well-known that an inverse relationship exists between indiscriminate sexual expression and cultural excellence." (Emphasis added)

WOW. That's pretty strong language and I don't claim to know this guy or his credentials, but want to know: Does anyone think that there is a causal relationship between "cultural excellence" and "indiscriminant sexual expression"? It makes sense to me and it does explain a great many things that have been questions in my mind for a while. For example, why is it that "popular" movies released today are so underwhelming in their intellectual engagement? Even those with some promise tend to include sexuality just for heck of it.

In conversations with friends and random web surfers, I have seen a general disillusionment with this understanding. Most people feel that there is nothing wrong with pornography or overt sexuality, they are quick to point out that I am a prude for thinking anything else. The fact is that I view sex as vital to a healthy relationship. However, as with anything, too much of something good can be bad. Pornography can be addicting and divisive, which like drugs or alcohol can destroy familial relationships.

So now the question is what do we do with it as a society? I am personally opposed to most governmental meddling in personal freedom issues. Therefore, I don't advocate any regulation above that which we already have. I also discourage censorship and place the burden of filtering appropriate material for children in the hands of the parents. The only viable solution that will effect change is for people to choose to refrain from consuming pornography. As a multi-billion dollar industry, clearly there is room to decrease its use. The only way to effect this change in societal choice is to teach children that while sexuality is good, it belongs in the bedroom between consenting adults and not in the movie theater, magazines or television. Therefore, the sanctity of freedom is maintained while the seeds of change are sown.

In attempting to understand the Arab world, western scholars and politicians have applied the same tools and reasoning that has worked for centuries in other regions. However, early attempts baffled most and led them to the conclusion that Arabs were "illogical, untrustworthy, passive before domineering rulers while given to intrigue and violence--all in all, an unsavory lot". As I have walked down this same path of research, a thought has occured to me, "Arabs are people, and at the very least share those things common to all people". I want to attempt to do something different in my analysis of Arabs and by extension, Muslims. Instead of trying to figure out why they aren't like me, I am going to analyze why they are the way they are and figure out what they want to be and how they are going to get there.

There exist a multitude of explanations for why Arab politics exist the way they do. Why does there seem to be a predisposition of authoritarian regimes and only two (non-Arab) democracies in the Middle East (Turkey and Israel)? Some point to the Arab cultural history of tribes, clans and the patriarchal order that they evolved from. Others claim that there exists "traditions of domination" that permeate social and political life in the Arab world. Still others point to Islam and tell us that it is wholly incompatible with democratic rule. Of all these and the many others presented elsewhere, none answers the most important question: What do the Arab people really want? Since no one has bothered to explore this, we are left with speculation and a decidedly "Western" view of the political culture of the region.

Islam is a difficult religion to democratize because it does not seperate "God from Ceasar" or politics from religion. However, it contains elements that are both compatible with democracy and clearly undemocratic. What most Western analysts seem to miss is that all religions can be categorized this way. Catholicism and Protestant religions have both an undemocratic past and persistent features that today fly in the face of true democracy. It is the myopia that I believe prevents the United States from using its power to effect positive change in the region.

Current peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine are doomed to failure with traditional political methods because of the lack of attention to the human factor. The militant groups who want to "eradicate Jews from the region" are not going to negotiate easily and have a lot of backing. Why do they have so much support? Because the Palestinians don't have water, food, and medicine or any guarantee of safety. They are on the wrong side of a power struggle and feel like they don't have much to lose. Success depends on providing these *people* with what all other people need and want in life: water, food, shelter and some semblance of security. The promise of a Palestinian state is a good thing, but if that state is dysfunctional, the militants will continue to bomb and shoot until their demands are met. Regardless of the politics and religion of Palestinian Arabs, the United States needs to spend its resources on nation building and securing the lives of the people that make up the nation. One hopes that current efforts in Iraq are no indication of the capability of the U.S. to do so.

So I am reading this story with the related comments and I get to thinking about how confused so many people are about the issue at hand. What we need is some way to sort out the facts of the story and a guide to common misconceptions. Too much time on my hands? Perhaps, but it only took an extra 25 minutes to write this up after reading through the thread. Suffice it to say that I would never do this for *every* story one /.

Facts:

1. Monsterpatterns.com is selling sewing patterns that it obtained as "discarded" property. It includes pictures of the items in its effort to make the sales.
2. McCall and Simplicity are makers of the patterns found on the Monsterpatterns.com website and hold the copyrights for them. They have used the DMCA to cause the ISP (Digital River) for Monsterpatterns.com to disable access to the website. They claim copyright and trademark infringement.
3. Monsterpatterns.com is now suing McCall, Simplicity and Digital River for blocking its right to sell discarded property, the right to display pictures of copyrighted property it owns (under fair use) and for the revenue it has lost because of this action.

Common Questions/Misconceptions:

1. How is this piracy?

   Piracy is defined as " The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material". Therefore, if McCall and Simplicity are correct in their assertions and Monsterpatterns.com is using the patterns in an unauthorized way, it could be considered piracy. However, it has been pointed out that "you only need permission to copy, perform, or create derivative works". Even so, you also may need permission to distribute copyrighted material, but not sell it as Monsterpatterns is doing.

2. DMCA confusion?

   Some may question whether the use of the DMCA was appropriate in the instance. However, McCall and Simplicity are claiming that the pictures on the website were violations of copyright and trademarks. That covers the copyright question. Since Monsterpatters.com is a web based business, it covers the digital portion. AFAIK, the DMCA does not distinguish between digital content and digital distribution in terms of applicability.

3. I thought garbage was abandoned property?

   The legality of taking trash from cans can vary from state to state, but generally is considered abandoned if left on public property. Trash on private property is still in possession of the property owner. The other issue is tresspassing which coincides with where the trash receptacle is physically located.

   Here is a good post on how and why merchants discard merchandise.

I just stumbled upon the FortKnox journal entry on evolution. In it, gmhowell begins an interesting line of reasoning that I wanted to get some more information on. So gmhowell, if you read this, I would be interested in some more information.

For those who don't know me very well, I don't agree 100% with the theory of evolution per se, but am intrigued by science's attempt at explaining how man arrived on planet earth. Although I have my doubts, I would like to better understand, if at all possible, why some people so violently adhere to their beliefs in evolution or creation. I believe in the creation, but not the same way that many who call themselves Christians do. For example, I don't believe that the six days referred to in the bible are literally days. I do believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, created literally in the image of God and that man was not found on the earth prior to this event. However, I don't automatically discount evolution just because it is different than the beliefs I espouse.

It is debatable, therefore to determine what certain things regarding the origin of man mean and indeed if they are comprehensible by man. I won't jump into the ship that says evolution is all wrong, with no truth at all. By the same token, I won't say that the biblical account of the creation has all the facts or is 100% correct. So here is my question: How did man arrive on the earth? Was it divine intervention or the random chance of evolution. Someone once pointed me to a web site that gave all the odds for each event in the evolutionary process. While I don't recall the site, it was an astronomical amount for each condition for life to begin, and for each step in the ladder from single celled life to human beings. Obviously I am biased in my views and none of this addresses the (IMHO) more important issue of sentience. But that is another debate.

There are those who claim that evolution is fact and that the theory is only a monniker. Why is this true? It seems to me that the evidence at best points to evolution, but is far from proving it. Am I wrong? Why? For example, fossil records and observation of microevolutionary trends proves that the idea has merit, but does not prove that man evolved from apes. Likewise, the persistent tradition of the creation and the existense of a written record does not prove anything either. What it boils down to for me is that we have to make a choice. Believe in science (appealing to the empirically minded among us) or believe in religion (a very transcendental option). I have so far chosen religion, but am open to the ideas and knowledge others have collected.

Submitted to Slashdot on 5/22/03 at 12:10:57 EST.

The NY Times has an update to the previous stories on Slashdot. The F.C.C. is poised to decrease regulation on media ownership rules. This would have the effect of further decreasing competition in media outlets. Conspiracy theorist quote: "The F.C.C. proposal remains officially secret to avoid public comment but was forced into the open by the two commission Democrats." Other news stories are also revealing the concerted effort by Washington to make this happen.

Does anyone else have information on the reasoning behind this? With the commission closing the session to public input, it seems that they want to pass this without a chance for the voters to know about it. And it is precisely this kind of thing that turns Republics into Totalitarian regimes...

Updated

Apparently the FCC is also now accepting free trips from broadcasters according to IMdB. Also, Spots 'n Dots is telling us that newspapers are already looking to buy TV stations when the decision is made.

Not to take anything away from you EM, but here is a poll I submitted to Slashdot yesterday.

The relationship with my S.O. is like...

(A) Chess

(B) Monopoly

(C) Chutes and Ladders

(D) Candyland

(E) Battleship

(F) Sorry!

(G) Solitaire, you Insensitive Clod!

I usually have a strict policy of not seeing rated 'R' movies but made somewhat of an exception for this movie. I found the original Matrix to be philosophically stimulating with the added bonus of technically impressive Kung Fu and innovative special effects. Judging on the trailers and previews, it seemed like this one was headed in the same direction. My hopes were not realized.

In the first movie, I tried to bend my mind around the concept of "there is no spoon". In Reloaded, I cringe at lines like "there is no lipstick". Why sex up the Matrix? Certainly not to attract more geeks to see the ultra dorks Keanu Reeves and Carrie Ann Moss get it on. And what was with the dance/orgy thing in Zion? The Wachowskis should have stuck with the elements that made the Matrix a sensation: fighting, philosophy and special effects. They created a world that isn't real, with a hero that is unbeatable. Why spoil it with unsexy love scenes and atrocious innuendos?

Keanu was as wooden as ever and I would not have it any other way. He is a hero and heros have often killed their characters by talking too much. Overall, I would give it a 7.5 on a scale of 1-10. Kill the time from the end of Morpheus' speech to the moment Neo wakes up to take a walk and you would have a much better movie, IMHO.

Power is the capacity to influence another person's thoughts or actions directly or indirectly. Every personal relationship we have involves power. As children, our parents have great power over us. As adults, we have power relationships with our peers, spouses, superiors, co-workers and family. Power is both respected and hated because of its ability to corrupt and control.

According to Raymond Aron, there are three main types of power that can be used between people. Macht is conventional power or force. Pouvoir is the action of using power or the power of the office. Puissance is the threat of using power or inner power. You will find some combination of these three power types in all great leaders. However, those who have chosen to abuse their power tend to focus on Macht and Pouvoir to attain their goals. Whereas those rare persons that can wield greatness with humility focus on puissance to inspire their people to do good.

If a man or woman were to be given absolute control over another person's life without consequence, you would usually see a sadistic tendancy to abuse that control. There is the story of the experimenter who used two people in two booths. In one booth a person is wired to an electric device and asked questions. In the other, a person has a button which applies electricity and a dial which controls the amount. The scientist tells the person with the button to apply an increasing amount of electricity with each wrong answer given. The person believes that the one being asked the question is the one being studied. Interestingly, the person controlling the electric shocks was found to apply lethal voltages to the questionee even though the experiment was limited to around 9 volts. It was the control over a person that became intoxicating and caused a complete disregard for life or pain.

History is replete with examples of this behavior, from Stalin and Hitler to Hussein and Kim Jong-il. As Macchiaveli put it, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely". This penchant for domination has its roots in the base instincts of humankind: survival. In order to survive, many would choose and have choosen to abandon all reason, morality and virtue. Abuse of power is but one of these methods that unscrupulous men have used to survive. Although it could be argued that individual survival is different that state survival, some leaders see them as inseperable. This is why Hitler committed suicide when the Third Reich was crushed and why Sadaam refused to leave Iraq even though he knew victory was never within his grasp. The intoxication of power and control had absolutely corrupted them.

In our every day relationships, these type of power are also manifested. People tend to have great respect for people who seem to have "inner strength" or the ability to cope with difficult circumstances. This inner strength is puissance and is the key to all the great men that ever lived. George Washington had it because he was able to step away from the presidency in America after 8 years. Lincoln had it as he held together a nation divided against itself. FDR had it when he carried America through a great depression and a world war. Ronald Regan had it because he was able to stare down the USSR and win the cold war. Not to leave the women out: Joan of Arc, Abigail Adams and Elenore Roosevelt all possessed this character quality. It is inner strength, not force or a simple title that inspires men to give up their life for a cause or leader. We desire to be like these men and women because they are inspiring and engender trust and respect. Although these things are intangible, they have great influence over our thoughts and actions.

So the question is: how do we gain puissance? Every person has different capacities for greatness, but we all have the ability to show extraordinary strength. Only through living a virtuous life can we create within ourselves that inner strength. Like exercising a muscle, inner power only becomes potent through its exercise. Making virtuous decisions is the key to exercising inner power because to do so frequently goes against the accepted norms of society. Undeviating virtue is not a common personality trait and therefore is not expected. To show such would be a true display of confidence and power.