BrickBlog

Random Stuff

2005-09-15T07:49:00.000-07:00

BrickWife's big sonogram occurred last week, and we received some good news. It seems BrickBaby has a pecker. So, unless we've spawned a hermaphrodite, it appears that our home will be blessed with the presence of BrickSon in about four and half months.

Well, despite all good intentions, the free will shit has not come to fruition... yet. My best friend's bachelor party (two weekends ago) and wedding (this weekend) have occupied all of my energies, both creative and administrative. The recent revelation that my 2-hour seminar course will require 350-400 pages of reading per week, plus weekly "reaction papers," an in-class presentation and a 30-page paper, has altered my schedule somewhat. I know what you're thinking: "A 2-hour course that requires a shitload of reading and the production of an enormous pile of busy-work? AWESOME!" But, hold your horses, because doing that much work for such a small payoff is not awesome. It sucks. Oh well, at least the topic (Constitutional law and the strategy of war and statecraft) is fascinating.

Also of interest, the Daily Show has focused its programs this week on the debate over evolution and intelligent design. Unfortunately, I missed the first two episodes, but I was able to catch the show last night. Lucky me - I caught the panel discussion in which noted a-hole William Dembski participated. No video is available on the Daily Show website, but suffice it to say that Dr. Dembski was as smarmy and weasely as ever. At least he admitted that his conversion to religion preceded his conversion to pseudoscience.

Essays on Free Will: Introduction

2005-08-31T11:11:00.000-07:00

Over the next few weeks, I will be posting a series of essays on the concept of free will. This is a topic that fascinates me, primarily because belief in the existence of human free will is so widely held and yet so obviously inconsistent with other fundamental philosophical, scientific, religious and legal concepts. That the vast majority of human beings cling to a notion that flatly contradicts one or more of their other beliefs is, at the very least, a curious fact that merits reflection.

In my view, the concept of free will is a cognitive short-cut that aided the complex social animal that is the human being pass through the gantlet of natural selection, and thus lingers in our species today. Such cognitive short-cuts, while aiding animals whose survival depends on quick, simple and statistically beneficial guidelines for decision-making, often obscure the true nature of reality. And so it is with free will: we believe in free will, because it is an efficient and generally useful model of human behavior; however, the theory that humans are capable of decision-making free of external influences and of altering the course of the future is almost certainly not an accurate reflection of reality. This central idea will be expanded upon in the subsequent essays, which are listed below along with short descriptions of what I will (or, rather, intend) to detail in each one.

1. The Definition of “Free Will”

Before embarking on an investigation of the existence of free will, it must first be established exactly what we mean by “free will.” In this essay, I will evaluate several considerations and formulate a reasonable working definition of free will that provides a basis for further analysis.

2. Is Free Will Required to Explain Empirical Data?

One key argument in favor of the existence of free will is its power to explain human decision-making. In this essay, I evaluate whether the concept of free will is a necessary component of theoretical models of human behavior. Emphasis is placed on the scientific notion of the relative “truth” of one theory in comparison to others; on this metric, the truth of a theory is established by demonstrating that it is Pareto optimal on the parameter of predictive accuracy when compared to other competing theories. Additionally, the preference for theoretical simplicity is discussed. The notion of free will can be shown to be theoretically superfluous and only equally accurate, at best, when compared to other theories.

3. Free Will and Causality

The notion of causality is one of the central assumptions underlying human understanding of nature: for every occurrence, we ascribe a cause. The concept of free will is shown to be only partially consistent with the notions of causality, and entirely incompatible with unique causality, also known as determinism. Free will is shown to be impossible not only in a strictly deterministic world, but in a strictly non-deterministic world as well. The causal system in which free will is possible is constructed and analyzed.

4. Free Will and Omniscience

It is important to understand the relation of free will and omniscience because the two concepts are often preached in tandem within religious systems. This essay presents a simple proof that free will and omniscience cannot coexist. A broader theory, which proposes that free will cannot exist in a determined system (a class which includes deterministic worlds and worlds in which omniscience is possible), is discussed.

5. Free Will and Legal Culpability

Religion is not the only realm in which we find notions of free will. The concept that man can freely choose his actions also plays a central role in the law. In fact, it might be argued that law is the primary realm of free will, as religious doctrine surrounding free will is almost always centered on sacred law. This essay will discuss the utility of the free will concept to legal systems, and analyze several problems that arise from misguided focus on free will in evaluating culpability.

6. Why Do We Believe in Free Will?

With the concept of free will relegated to theoretical trash heap, one final question remains: if free will is so obviously a fantasy, why do humans so strongly believe in its existence? This essay provides some answers to that question.

Of course, I reserve the right to adjust this outline as the essays are developed. Enjoy!

BrickBaby

2005-08-19T10:14:00.000-07:00

Okay, I'll admit it. I've been a lazy sack of shit since last December. Today's posts are the first new additions to this blog since Anthony Flew made his mental illness public. But, I've been busy. I've been REALLY busy. Since last December, I have accomplished the following tasks: (1) I finished my Fall semester finals, (2) I started and completed a Winter semester, (3) I started and finished a Spring semester, (4) the wife and I tripped to Playa del Carmen, Mexico, (5) I knocked up the wife and (6) I started and finished my summer associate jobs with a couple of law firms in Austin, Texas. Yes, humble reader, you read that list correctly... I had to take classes in the winter.

Also, of lesser interest, is the news that BrickWife and I are expecting our first child, which will be named "Hellspawn" - if not by us, then certainly by the poor souls unfortunate enough to live under our child's iron-fisted reign of terror. Yes, I fully expect my firstborn to rise to power in a violent revolution, only to brutally oppress his subjects and establish an empire of the cruelest and most bloodthirsty temperment. Ah... what idealistic hopes we new fathers hold for our future children! Anyhoo, below is an image from BrickBaby's first sonogram.

Aside from the impending birth of our little eating-and-pooping machine, I have very little news to report. I plan to start posting, in serial, my thoughts on the concept of free will. Deja vu? Yes, I've made such promises before, only to deliver JACK SQUAT. However, I'm staring 2 weeks of freetime in the face and am already bored of doing my wife's laundry. Do you know how awkward it is to walk into the public laundry room with a basket full of nothing but frilly panties? Well, it's even more uncomfortable when I have to wash my wife's clothes!

Since I've already put together an outline of my free will diatribe, I figure, what the hell?, I might as well choose to spend my free time explaining why I believe we are incapable of truly choosing what we can do. I hope that after several months of seclusion in my own little personal bubble of non-bloggery, I still have some readers out there. If not, well fuck it - I'll just have to amuse myself with what amounts to partnerless rhetorical masturbation. Enjoy!

The Case for Christ

2005-08-19T10:11:00.000-07:00

I recently picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's much-heralded defense of the historical (and spiritual) Jesus Christ, The Case for Christ. After reading approximately 50% of the work, I am convinced that a better title would have been The Case for Christian Credulity.

For those who are unfamiliar with Strobel's work, here is a brief summary. Lee Strobel is a graduate of Yale Law School (he earned something called a "Masters of Studies in Law," which indicates that he completed what roughly amounts to the first 1/3rd of a JD program) who formerly served as a legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. His pedigree is unforgettable, if only because, throughout the book, Mr. Strobel constantly reminds the reader of his credentials. In any case, the book basically presents a litigation-style case for the historical reality of the Jesus of the Bible. Strobel seeks out and questions various experts, whose fields of study include theology, history, liguistics, archaeology, psychology, etc. Although Mr. Strobel would like his readers to believe that his role is akin to that of an impartial judge or jury member, it is more analagous to that of an attorney interviewing potential expert witnesses. Strobel chooses only experts who agree with his final conclusion; this is true even when he seeks to evaluate the merits of work that contradicts his views. What's more, the author's selection of experts includes only men who are devout Christians. In short, Strobel is looking for reassurance from scholars who he knows will vigorously uphold his final, predetermined conclusion. His quest is to construct one-sided advocacy, not find the truth.

All the while, Strobel nods approvingly to even the most plainly absurd of explanations. One example, which I will share below, was the inspiration for creating this thread. When reading TCFC last night, I came across this doozey and about fell out of my chair from laughing so hard. So, without further ado, I present my Case for the Credulity of Lee Strobel.

In his chapter dealing with the work of the infamous Jesus Seminar, which Strobel labels the "rebuttal evidence," the author interviews "Ivy League-educated theology professor" and pastor of the Woodland Hills Church, Gregory Boyd. See Strobel at p. 112. While the entire interview is full of logical fallacies, my favorite occurred during Strobel and Boyd's discussion of the non-canonical Cross Gospel. When queried as to the credibility of the Cross Gospel, Boyd responded:

"No, most scholars don't give it credibility, because it includes such outlandishly legendary material. For instance, Jesus comes out of his tomb and he's huge - he goes up beyond the sky - and the cross comes out of the tomb and actually talks! Obviously, the much more sober gospels are more reliable than anything found in this account."

Strobel at p. 123.

Strobel never questions this assessment. He moves on to another gospel, presumably satisfied with a theory that distinguishes the genuine accounts of Jesus Christ from the frauds on the basis of the "outlandishly legendary" nature of the material. Strobel is comfortable with the idea that a giant Jesus and a talking cross are too obviously mythical to be believed. However, he completely ignores the necessary consequence of such a test: the canonical gospels, along with pretty much the entire Old Testament, Acts and most of the New Testament epistles, must fail this same test of legitimacy. Talking crosses are too outlandish to be believed? You'll get no argument from me, but don't try to sell me on the idea of having a conversation with inflamed shrubbery. A giant Jesus is absurd? Fair enough. But, so also is a giant Philistine, or a Jesus who walks on water, or a Jesus who flies into Heaven.

Boyd's major basis for distinguishing between one set of gospels and all of the rest is simply laughable, and yet Yale Law School partial-graduate Lee Strobel (did I mention that he has years of experience as a legal reporter and is Ivy League-educated?) failed to pick up on such an obvious flaw.

While the scene above is clearly one example of an error of logic in TCFC, it is important to note that it is representative of an epidemic of fallacy in Strobel's work. Throughout the book, Strobel employs specious reasoning and demonstrates an inability to recognized or challenge obvious flaws in the rationale of his supposed experts. Strobel introduces each of his chosen experts with an embarrassing appeal to authority; their education, publications, and even their stereotypically intelligent appearance are described in excrutiating detail as if such superficial nonsense will lend credence to the snippets of opinion that follow. Each interview is a series of softball questions followed by hollow answers lacking detail followed by either a softball follow-up or a gullible affirmation by the author. The expert "testimony" is generally lacking in substance and very, very few citations are made. We are supposed to believe the expert's typically summary conclusions for no other reason besides their impressive resumes and nerdy personas.

I will continue to read the book, if only because it is an incredibly easy read and a fertile source of ammunition with which to critique fundamentalist "logic."

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

2004-12-13T13:09:00.000-08:00

The philosophers of Christianity are giddy over the recent news that famous limey philosopher and atheist Anthony Flew has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and personal Savior and has bathed in the waters of baptismal redemption. Well, that may be overstating the truth a tad bit. Flew didn't quite endorse the divinity of Jesus Christ, per se. Nor did he give a clear endorsement of Yaweh, the God of Judeo-Christian lineage. However, it seems pretty clear that Flew is just as devoted to Jesus Christ as any NASCAR-lovin', Saddam-hatin', Bible-totin' American when he states - in response to the question "what he would mean if he ever asserted that 'probably God exists?'" - that "I do not think I will ever make that assertion." Flew Article Yep, Flew has been born again.

What Flew's new position boils down to is this: given recent scientific evidence, the most rational assumption regarding God is that some form of ultimate designer created the universe. Despite the fact that Flew's new opinions conflict with their dogma, Christians are trumpeting Flew's second thoughts as evidence that even the staunchest atheist can "wise up" and see the light. But, one has to wonder: is an 80 year-old convert really the mose effective poster boy for the Christian cause? Flew, by his own admission, no longer "keeps up with the relevant literature in science and theology" and he "confesses [that] his memory fails him often now." What we have here is an old man who has lost touch with the recent research in his field and is under pressure to answer questions for which his capabilities to resolve have diminished. It is unfortunate that, despite his contributions to the philosophy of science and religion, Flew may end his life best known as the senile old man who converted to Deism against the better judgment of his younger self.

The primary crux of Flew's change of heart is his inability to rectify the complexity of the first self-replicating DNA molecules with a random origin. However, many scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have shown this argument to be a red herring. The complicated structure of molecules and life on Earth may not have arisen randomly, but fortunately, it didn't have to. The universe is ordered by simple rules governing the interaction of its constituent components. As anyone familiar with cellular automata will tell you, very complex, intricate order may arise from chaos when the evolution of such chaos is governed by simple rules. And, when such patterns occur in cellular automata, they do so necessarily - there is no room for error. The simple rules ont only improve the chances for intricate order, they demand it.

So, God is not necessary to create order, even highly improbable and intricately arranged formations. But, is God necessary to design the rules themselves? That is a more interesting question. Physicists and philosophers puzzle over the unique combination of physical constants that governs our universe. There is a wide (in some instances, infinite) range of possible values for fundamental constants, but only within a certain window of values will the laws of nature permit the evolution of life. As luck would have it, we fit within that window. Many theologians propose that this fortuitous circumstance is evidence of Godly design. But, there is an equally compelling answer known as the anthropic principle (or, as the multiverse theory). According to this principle, all possible universes possessing all possibilities of fundamental constant values exist somewhere. But, it is only within those universes whose combination of constants permits - or even necessitates - life that there is any observer to puzzle over the question.

The anthropic principle is at least as powerful an explanation for our fortuitous circumstances as Flew's newfound Deistic view, but it requires no foray into the realm of the supernatural. All propositions regarding alternative universes involve parameters scientists have measured within our own natural universe, but with values that are slightly (or greatly) modified. Our current understanding of physics enables us to understand the exact laws of physics within these extra-universal realms, and to make predictions regarding their behavior. Given that both the anthropic view and the Deistic design view provide the same answer in regards to our own universe, it seems only logical to place one's "faith" in the theory that provides verifiable predictions. The better view, contrary to Flew's recent statements, is not the god hypothesis.

The "Liberal Media"

2004-12-02T08:34:00.000-08:00

According to CNN, CBS and NBC recently refused to run an 30-second spot by a liberal church advertising its openness to gay men and women. CNN Story CBS cited a policy against "advocacy advertisement" as the rationale for refusing to run the ad; NBC relied on their "long-standing policy of not accepting ads that deal with issues of public controversy." The networks' stated rationales simply don't hold water. As the article notes, both CBS and NBC aired controversial advocacy ads during the recent presidential campaign.

This decision was nothing more than an economic maneuver, designed to avoid offending a vast and newly coherent voting bloc in this country: the Middle American Evangelical Conservative. Who can blame the networks - which are, after all, businesses - for refusing to air an advertisement that would offend, and likely run off, a large portion of their viewing audience? The Religious Right demonstrated that they will vote against homosexuals in the voting booths, so it's only logical to believe that they would cast a similar vote with their remote controls. The networks simply can't afford to insult a viewing audience as large and as belligerent as the Religious Right.

The critical lesson of this story is that the "liberal media" is a will-o'-the-wisp. The media is in the service business. To operate successfully, the networks must cater to the wishes of their audience. Network executives don't base advertising or programming choices on political beliefs. Rather, executive decisions of this type are based solely on the impact to the bottom line. As the nation moves right, so will the media. Anyone who has listened to AM radio in this country knows that the talk radio airwaves are dominated by conservative voices. The cable news channels, while more concerned than talk radio stations with maintaining pretensions of journalistic objectivity, present largely conservative views. This is especially true in foreign policy matters, where the cable news networks report from an assumption of American benevolence. How many cable news programs have attempted to estimate the number of Iraqi casualties, or questioned the United States' motives* in this war?

That the broadcast networks are moving to the right should come as no surprise given the success of the right-leaning cable networks and talk radio stations. Success breeds imitation, and the cable news channels have found a truly successful business model in parroting the ignorant, myopic viewpoints of the Religious Right.

* Many news networks have questioned the US's justifications for the war, but have uniformly approached the issue from the angle that Bush, while acting in good faith and with good intentions, merely acted rashly and misread the available "evidence."

Majority of US Population Believes in Strict Creationism

2004-11-26T07:45:00.000-08:00

According to a recent CBS poll, 55% of the US population believes that God created the human race in its current form. See CBS Poll Not surprisingly, the populace's beliefs respecting evolution split dramatically along party lines. Only 6% of Bush voters believe humans evolved without the aid of God during the process, while 21% of Kerry voters hold this scientific view. An overwhelming 2/3rds majority (67%) of Bush voters believe in strict creationism, while only 47% of Kerry voters place faith in such nonsense.

What this poll suggests is a partisan split in the country between the rational and the irrational. The nation is now in the hands of the Republican Party, where God, and not science, rules. Fortunately for Bush and his cronies, God never says or does anything directly. God's beliefs are untestable, His actions unobservable, His opinions undecipherable. Thus it falls to our worldly spiritual leaders to "interpret" (read, "completely fabricate") God's directions for His people. Hell, it's even up to our worldly leaders to determine who God's people truly are (one thing we know for sure - it's either us or them, but it certainly isn't both). Ironically (or maybe by divine design), God's perspective on world events always seems to resonate with the personal desires and ambitions of those who purport to channel His voice.

That a majority of our nation is willing to place unbending faith in the translated opinions of a silent God ought to alarm most scientifically-minded citizens. A shocking majority of those who voted for the current president hold grave misconceptions about the respective roles of science and religion. Science is seen as an area in which deception and personal ambitions direct results, where religion is viewed as the only outlet for pure factfinding. One poster on Hornfans.com - a man who has apparently received a college degree from one of the most well-recognized universities in the world - made the following statement in a recent debate about the creationism/evolution issue: "You are a stereotypical scientist. You make decisions about someone or something and immediately think you are right, even though you don't know anything." Of course, many of us recognize the folly of such a role-reversal. But, "many" apparently doesn't amount to a majority.

When scientific curiosity takes a backseat to religious fervor, empires crumble and Dark Ages commence. Unless we reverse the alarming trend of growing faith in arbitrary religion and its dangerous partner, a growing distrust in scientific thought, America will be headed for a truly dark era of her history.

The Candidate's Dilemma

2004-11-17T16:22:00.000-08:00

“We the People.” We’ve all read those words. They form the opening statement of the Constitution, the document that gave birth to the United States of America. The familiarity of the phrase has had the unfortunate effect of diluting its power. It is striking that, in constructing a new nation, the Framers of the Constitution were careful to identify the source of governmental power in the first line of the new government’s blueprint. The People are the authors of the Constitution, and the People are the source of the United States government’s power. After generations of increasing centralization of government power and a trend towards paternalistic socialism, Americans have largely forgotten that it is they, and not their elected officials, who rule. We have given too much authority and bestowed too much trust in the officials of our federal government. The imbalance of power favoring the government is dangerous for many reasons, but recent events have highlighted the danger such an imbalance might pose to the very foundation of our democracy by attacking one of its most vulnerable points: the electoral process.

The events of the recent presidential election could aptly be described as the proverbial “emotional roller coaster.” Politicos on both sides of the aisle likely experienced dramatic swings in their respective states of mind over the course of election Tuesday. Early exit polls showed a commanding lead for John Kerry. Later exit polls verified the early poll results, and it looked like Kerry would win in a landslide. Approximately six hours after the final exit poll results were released, a domino string of news networks called the election for George W. Bush.

The exit polls were wrong – uniformly wrong. How could this have happened? The first – and for most voters and commentators, the final – instinct would be to assume that the exit polls were simply inaccurate enough that disagreement with the final vote counts was not unexpected. That this view dominated the media and voter base is obvious from the startling silence on the issue. Only one mainstream media source, Keith Olberman on MSNBC, has commented on the issue. See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/ However, the work of at least one professional statistician calls this summary dismissal of the exit poll accuracy into question. According to Dr. David Anick, a former professor of mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the odds that the final vote tallies would differ from the results of the final exit polls by 4.15 points* is 1 in 50,000. See http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=405 In other words, given the exit poll data, there was only a 0.002% chance that Bush could have legitimately “gained” as much ground as he apparently did. While a showing of extreme improbability is not tantamount to a showing of foul play, the accomplishment of such an amazingly improbable act generally inspires reasonable men to seek for evidence of human design. The reason is simple: the improbable is much more probable when human interference is involved. But, if there was fraud, how was it accomplished?

A stream of stories detailing purported incidents of voter fraud followed immediately after the election. Much of it was anecdotal – someone in Florida found a pile of ballots in the trash, boxes of ballots were destroyed in transit, voters in economically depressed districts were intimidated, etc. While these stories are disturbing, their veracity is too uncertain to warrant serious concern. However, at least one study, using official election data from the Florida Secretary of State’s office, produced empirical evidence indicating possible voter fraud. The study, available at http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm and http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm compared the ratios of registered Democrats and Republicans to the election returns in each Florida county. The results revealed an interesting trend: in counties that utilized computer touch-screen voting machines, the election results closely tracked the party registration data. However, in counties that employed optical scan voting machines, the election results varied dramatically from the party registration figures – each time in favor of the Republicans. The key observation is that the only uniform distinction between those counties that closely tracked the registration data and those that varied wildly – namely, the type of voting machine employed – also neatly divides the counties into two groups based on ease of perpetrating voter fraud. Computer voting machines perform many of their critical operations in a parallel mode, making it quite difficult to doctor the results. However, optical scan machines feed their data back to a centralized Microsoft Windows computer for tallying. At least one author has suggested that these machines may easily be manipulated to distort election results. See http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804Z.shtml

At this point, it would be wise to take a step back and clarify my goal in writing this entry. I want to make it perfectly clear that this analysis was not motivated by partisan animosity. In fact, I should point out that the Olberman article cited above highlights potential voter fraud by the Democrats in Ohio. Rather, my intent is to shed light on a pressing issue in American politics: namely, that we the people are running a grave risk in transferring too much of our responsibility to the government. Our nation belongs to us, not the government. If we want to retain our rights, we must be vigilant in guarding the integrity of the voting process. Our voting rights represent the entirety of our collective voice in government; if we lose the right to vote, we lose any control over our national destiny.

As a people, we should be oversensitive to evidence of voter fraud. Humans are generally oversensitive to sensory data indicating the presence of a nearby predator. When we hear a rustling in the bushes, our first thought is to assume agency and investigate. The reason for this is simple: it is far safer to assume danger where there is none than to assume the absence of danger in a perilous situation. The downside to unnecessary investigation and caution is the loss of a small amount of time and effort; the downside to unjustified confidence could be the loss of life and limb. The same logic applies to voter fraud. We should diligently investigate any reasonable accusation of fraud. If no fraud is found, then we have done nothing more than assuage our fears and increase confidence in the election process. However, if fraud is found, then we have a chance to eliminate it and prevent future injustices.

While it is obvious that vigilant investigation of voter fraud is critical, it is not so obvious where the responsibility for conducting such investigations should lie. The purpose of this entry is to argue that it is we the people who must conduct such investigations and oversee elections. It is we who possess the requisite incentives to ensure fair elections; we cannot trust the candidates to self-police, nor can we trust the various departments of government – who are, after all, the employees of the winning candidates – to expose voter fraud. Government officials are inspired by only one goal, the acquisition of power. As such, an interesting dynamic governs the decision to cheat in an election. This dymanic, as it turns out, is very similar to the “prisoner’s dilemma” of economic game theory.

A nice summary of the prisoner’s dilemma is available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/#PD The dilemma occurs when two individuals (i.e. the “players”) independently make choices that collectively affect the outcome for both players. The prisoner’s dilemma goes like this: two criminals are brought into custody for the same crime. Each is told that he may confess or remain silent. Each is also told that the following possibilities will occur, depending on the answers of both players: (1) if A confesses and B confesses, each will receive 5 years in prison, (2) if A confesses and B remains silent, A will receive 0 years in prison and B will receive 10, (3) if A remains silent and B confesses, A will receive 10 years in prison and B will receive 0, and (4) if A and B both remain silent, each will receive 2 years in prison. The situation may be charted like this, where the numbers in parentheses represent (A’s prison term, B’s prison term) for each set of choices:

		B
		Confess	Remain silent
A	Confess	(5, 5)	(0, 10)
A	Remain silent	(10, 0)	(2, 2)

Obviously, the globally optimal situation (i.e. the result that would be best for the aggregate of all players involved) would be for both A & B to remain silent. In that case, the total number of years in prison would be 4. In all other cases, the total number of years spent in jail would equal 10. However, the rub of the prisoner’s dilemma is that the globally optimal result will not be the outcome of a game played by rational actors. In fact, the result of such a game will be not only suboptimal in a global sense, but will be one in which each player is worse off than they could be. The reason is that “rational actors” seek, at every decision point, to optimize their own interests.

In this case, regardless whether A chooses to confess or to remain silent, B’s best choice is to confess: if A confesses, B has a choice to confess and take a 5-year term or remain silent and go to jail for 10 years; if A remains silent, B can confess and go free or remain silent and take a 2-year stint up river. In both cases, B’s best option is to confess. Knowing that B will confess (because it is always in his best interest), A must also confess to avoid a 10-year sentence. The result is that both A and B will confess and take 5-year prison terms (this outcome is termed the "Nash equilibrium"). If both had remained silent, each would have received only a 2-year sentence and both would be better off. (NOTE: The preceding discussion provides only a very cursory analysis of the prisoner’s dilemma. Careful study of the link provided above is recommended.)

A similar dilemma is created for politicians running for office. In such a situation, both candidates have a choice: to cheat or not to cheat. For the purposes of simplicity, we will assume that the candidates are able to cheat in a way that is undetectable. This assumption might seem suspect, but the level of sophistication required to deal with a variable probability of detection is beyond the scope of this analysis. Additionally, the assumption may be justified by recognition of the fact that any candidate that cheats and wins will exercise significant authority over those charged with investigating any allegations of fraud. Another assumption made in this analysis is that each candidate cheats equally effectively. It should be noted, however, that both assumptions are irrelevant to the main point. When both are incorporated into the analysis, the result is basically the same.

The dynamics of the candidate’s dilemma may be represented in the following chart, which evaluates the results in terms of the candidates’ probability for election.

		B
		Cheat	Not cheat
A	Cheat	(50%, 50%)	(100%, 0%)
A	Not cheat	(0%, 100%)	(50%, 50%)

The end result of the candidate’s dilemma is that both candidates have an incentive to cheat - even though each candidate's probability for victory is no better if both cheat than it is if neither cheat. Dual cheating is the Nash equilibrium of the candidate's dilemma. This result occurs because, whether the opponent cheats or not, it is too the benefit of each candidate to cheat. For example, whether or not A cheats, B’s best move is always to cheat (and vice-versa). And, thus, political candidates have an incentive to commit voter fraud in their own favor. Perhaps even more importantly, the winner will inevitably have no incentive to investigate allegations of cheating. This is so for two reasons: (1) any effective investigation would likely uncover evidence of his own cheating and (2) he (and his party) is likely to have benefited from the cheating, and thus would be foolish to support the eradication of a useful tool.

The only candidate who might have an incentive to initiate a post-election investigation would be one who did not cheat and, likely, lost. However, at this point the candidate is most likely either a private citizen (and thus, one of the “people” whom I assert bear the burden for investigating voter fraud) or a government official in a lower capacity (i.e. a senator, governor, etc.). Of course, if he is a government official of any capacity, it is possible that he had perpetrated voter fraud to win his election to that post and would thus be unlikely to bite the hand that, at least in one instance, served to feed him.

The sad effect of the candidate’s dilemma emerges when we include a third outcome which represents the “value” of the public’s collective voting rights. In an honest election, the value of the public’s voting rights is at a maximum. But, in a dishonest election, there is little or no value in the right to vote. In such a case, the act of voting is an absurd and meaningless exercise.

The following chart details the candidate’s dilemma with the resulting value of the public’s voting rights included as the third number. We will represent the "value" of voting rights on a 0-10 scale, with 10 representing the highest value.

		B
		Cheat	Not cheat
A	Cheat	(50%, 50%, 0)	(100%, 0%, 0)
A	Not cheat	(0%, 100%, 0)	(50%, 50%, 10)

As the chart shows, in only one outcome - the one in which our votes, and not the cheating of candidates, determines the election's outcome - do the voting rights of the people retain any value. Unfortunately, the "clean election" result is not the Nash equilibrium and is thus unlikely to occur. The inclusion of the value of voters rights has no effect on the candidates' decision whether or not to cheat, because that value is an externality in their decision. In other words, the diminishing value of a vote is a detriment that falls on other people, and not the decision makers. Therefore, the decision makers have no reason to account for it.

The lesson is that the candidates’ incentives guide them towards a set of decisions that renders our voting rights entirely worthless. If we delegate our responsibility to police the voting process in this country to our government, we place our candidates in a situation that rewards their dishonesty and theft of our democratic rights. Thus, it should be clear that, if we the people are to retain our democratic voice, it is we the people who must fight to maintain the integrity of the election process. No one else can be expected to do it for us.

* The “swing” between the final exit poll results and the final election results was 4.15 points, in favor of George W. Bush.

Going... going... gone.

2004-11-17T13:32:00.000-08:00

During the build-up to the election, I broke my promise and returned to posting on Hornfans.com. But, I promise not to return hereafter. In fact, I can guarantee that BrickHorn will make no further appearances on Hornfans.com. The reason is simple: Queen Katy hath swung her mighty axe of on-line judgment and sliced off my Hornfans.com head. For my efforts to post a series of satirical posts questioning the intertwining of religion and politics, I was permanently banned. The rule of law on Hornfans.com is apparently this: post either banalities or obnoxiously verbose, unnecessarily detailed comments.

I think many who read this blog would agree with me that Hornfans.com has, to state it elegantly, gone to shit over the past year or so. What was once a haven for intellectual discourse on a wide range of diverse topics is now a virtual primate house, filled with ignorant baboons slinging feces at one another and periodically thumping their chests in celebration of their vulgar triumphs. Certainly a stalwart few remain and attempt to maintain order in the zoo. While I applaud their patience, I must question the wisdom of their efforts to reason with apes.

In any case, I did not post this entry as a means to vent. Rather, it is a notification to those who would otherwise attempt to contact me on HF.com. As I can no longer respond to PMs on Hornfans, please feel free to contact me through this blog (comments are sent to my e-mail address).

NOTE: I am currently working on an entry examining the dynamics of voter fraud. It's about 75% complete, and I intend to post it this evening. I look forward to hearing your collective thoughts on the issue.

"We Beat Up the Smart Kids!"

2004-11-04T13:16:00.000-08:00

Well, it's 2:30 PM on Thursday, Nov. 4 and it' been about 36 hours since I officially gave up on John Kerry's chances to replace George W. Bush and his cadre of butchers in the White House. As everyone surely knows by now, the Republicans thoroughly depantsed the Democrats in the recent elections, garnering much of their support from the Religious Right. Despite Bush's record of dishonesty and failure, the voters of the American Heartland (as opposed to its Brainland) flooded the polls, motivated by their consciences, and voted for Bush. Exit polls showed that 80% of those who listed "moral values" as their top concern cast their vote for the W. Exit Polls

But, one has to ask: what exactly were the "moral values" with which these voters were most concerned? Certainly, the voters could not have cast a vote for Bush on the grand-daddy of all moral values: murder. The Sixth Commandment clearly dictates: "Thou shalt not kill." And yet, as documented in previous entries, George W. Bush is guilty of launching an unjustified war that has, to date, resulted in the deaths of as many as 100,000 innocent victims. You might counter that Bush was not alone in this endeavor, that Congress and the American people backed him during the march to war and have only recently withdrawn their support. To a point, this is an accurate - if broad - portrayal of the history of the Iraq War. However, in drumming up support for his campaign of conquest, the President broke yet another of his God's commandments. The Ninth Commandment commands: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor." And yet, our President did just that. He lied about Iraq. What's worse, he lied so that we would support a horrific and unjustified war of aggression.

How can voters who are, ostensibly, most concerned with moral values (presumably, moral values of the Christian variety) cast their lot with a man who has clearly broken at least two* of their God's sacred commands? The answer is simple: the morally-concerned voters of this country do not base their moral intuitions on the teachings of their own God nor Savior nor His sacred texts. The salt of America decide for themselves what is right and wrong, whether consistent with their God's statement on the issues or not, and vote accordingly. And often, those moral decisions are founded more on obstinance than deliberation: the moral beliefs of a Christian Conservative is often nothing more than a reaction to the ideals of the dreaded East Coast Librul. The Religious Right in this country does not found their beliefs on rational analysis, but on a flat hostility towards progressive thinking, or as they would call it "permissiveness."

So, what we haveis a bloc of voters in Middle America who are entirely unreasonable. What they claim to believe, they disregard. What they actually believe is founded on hostile opposition to another group, not reason or strict textual adherence. The Religious Right is willing to believe that they are in danger of a terrorist attack, despite the fact that the "Red States" are at practically 0% risk of a such an attack in the foreseeable future. The Religious Right is willing to support a man because he has vaguely stated support for their view on abortion, despite his apathy towards pro-life efforts in practice. And, the Religious Right is even willing to oppose the Democrats based on an assumed equation of their beliefs on gay marriage with those of East Coast Libruls in general, despite the fact that the Democratic candidate's own stated views exactly mirrored those of their candidate. In summary, the only motivations relevent to the voting habits of the Middle American Moron are hatred and fear of the unknown. They cannot be reasoned with, especially if they are frightened and rancorous. And, the Bush Regime has done a fantastic job of keeping them that way.

So, what happened on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 was that the big, dumb, frightened and angry countryfolk of this nation took a stand against Reason. The Religious Right marched defiantly to the polls and cast their vote not for George W Bush, but against those East Coast Librul smarty-pantses who would dare to tell them how to run their country. They voted against the damned Frenchies who hate America. They voted against the Arabs who have the gall to oppose America's history of violence and oppression in their homeland. They cast a vote for defiance of Reason. They beat the hell out of the smart kids in this country by voting en masse for an idiot. And now they, along with us, will pay for it.

QUICK NOTE: There's one more thing I'd like to mention really quickly: it's good to see some familiar names now commenting here. I realize much of the discussion has been motivated by the recent election disaster. However, I'd love to continue to receive comments from y'all (and anyone else who reads this blog). Y'all's comments are greatly appreciated, and your contributions so far are priceless. Thanks for posting, and please send the link to this blog onward to your friends, family and well-wishers who might be interested. Now is the time to reorganize the progressive, empirical community to take back this country. We have to fight what's happening to America, one mind at a time.

*And possibly more. There is a good case that Bush's intent for this war is to obtain Iraqi positions for US military bases as well as Iraqi oil. Achieving these objectives would, of course, violate the Eigth Commandment, which sets forth a prohibition against theft. Another of the Commandments, the Tenth, might also provide a prohibition against this very action. And, of course, George W. Bush has worked on the Sabbath and has caused others to do the same (in violation of the Fourth Amendment).

The face of war

2004-10-29T07:33:00.000-07:00

War is hell. War is death and destruction. This is what George W. Bush has done to the people of Iraq:

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm

Vote him out.

30 x 9/11?

2004-10-28T19:47:00.000-07:00

We've heard the case for war. Again and again, we've been given reasons for the US invasion of Iraq.

Iraq supported Al Qaeda.

Nope? Well, Iraq had WMDs.

They didn't? In that case, Iraq was a gathering threat.

Not really? Well, at the very least Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people by the thousands. This is unquestioned. We've been told for over a decade and a half that the self-styled Stalin of the Arab World was one of the most bloodthirst, vicious and inhumane dictators in the history of mankind.

But, alas, as dangerous as Saddam may have been to his own people, it is now clear that the United States and its president, George W. Bush, are far greater risks to the lives of Iraqi citizens. A recent study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University reveals that as many as 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US invasion. This number is not a gross total, but rather a net increase in Iraqi mortalities over those expected to occur within the same time period given the mortality rate in Iraq before the war. That pre-war mortality rate figure includes deaths due to both the brutality of Saddam's regime and the smothering UN sanctions imposed on the country after the first Gulf War. In sum, our war has caused 100,000 more deaths in the past 15 months than Saddam and rampant starvation could have achieved in the same period.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5qWDoyceuDI&refer=us

While the 100,000 number seems high, other reports place the minimum level of civilian deaths in the range of 14,000 - 16,000. Notably, this number does not include the young men - sons, husbands and fathers - of the Iraqi military who were slaughtered while serving (mostly involuntarily) their country.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Pegging down the exact number to an exacting degree of precision is unimportant. 15,000? 100,000? It doesn't matter. What matters is this: there are tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who, were it not for this US invasion, would be alive today. And there was no justifiable reason for their deaths.

These reports, while not at all surprising, are sobering. What has been portrayed - sold, if you will - by the Bush regime as, alternatively, an unfortunately necessary act of preemptive defense and a humanitarian campaign is clearly neither. There were no terrorist ties, no WMDs. There are 100,000 unnecessary deaths. If anything, it has been simply a slaughter of innocent men, women and children who happen to live in a nation sitting directly on top of a giant pool of oil.

My fellow Americans, our president is a murderer of the highest order. On September 11, 2001, the murderer Osama bin Laden and his henchmen succeeded in killing 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington, D.C. Since March of 2003, George Bush and his henchmen have succeeded in slaughtering 30 times than many innocent men , women and children. THIRTY TIMES. The number of innocent Iraqis killed due to the unjustified US invasion is equal to the number of Japanese killed by the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm

If any group of men ought to be tried for terrorism and war crimes, it is the vile and despicable gang of villains known collectively as the Bush Administration.

Bush and the Failure of Faith-Based Rationale

2004-10-20T11:49:00.000-07:00

NOTE: My entry here is merely an analysis of and further commentary on an article by Ron Suskind that is linked in the text below. I encourage everyone to read the full article for an accurate and complete understanding of Suskind’s thesis. The work is 11 pages long, but a relatively quick read. And it is well worth the time.

As the November general elections approach, I become more convinced that the American public is about to make an enormous mistake. Despite the continuing (and growing) corrosion of the Bush Administration’s case for the Iraq war and the continuously escalating casualties in the Middle East and Afghanistan, domestic support for Bush has remained largely constant (and seemingly sufficient to carry the current President into another term). What this indicates, in my opinion, is that Americans either have bought into the need for war in Iraq irrespective of a rational and judicial justification or believe that Bush’s views on issues outside of foreign policy (or, more specifically, preemptive war in Iraq) outweigh the failure of his leadership in the War on Terror. Both types of Bush supporter display an inability or refusal to apply analytical reasoning as a guide to their political decision-making. The former fail because they support the war without any need for analytical or empirical justification; the latter fail because they largely support Bush’s policies on the environment, energy or morality – policies that Bush has based largely on faith in either his own, highly-specific version of Christianity or his own misguided and simply inaccurate beliefs regarding science, economics and politics.

A recent article in the New York Times Magazine – available on-line at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=d2355b163338765d&ex=1099142633 - highlights Bush’s faith-based decision-making process and the problems that flow from his blatant disdain for empiricism and analytical policy construction. The author, Ron Suskind, paints a frightening picture (largely pieced together through discussions with politicians and leaders of special interest groups from both sides of the aisle) of the current president as a man who is overly confident in his own “instincts” for governance and highly skeptical of rationales based in science or empiricism. Suskind refers to Bush’s as the “faith-based presidency.” In place of investigation, analysis and debate, Suskind argues, Bush would place rash conclusions rooted in little more than gut feelings and preconceived biases. According to Suskind, Bush views confidence and decisiveness as the paramount quality of the American President. Anything that undermines the appearance of confidence in his decisions, including debate or critical inquiry, is viewed as counterproductive and must be rooted out. As Suskind notes, “[t]his is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker.”

At this point, you might be thinking: “that’s neat, but who cares how Bush makes his decisions? Faith, instincts, gut feel – these all sound like good methods for leadership.” Well, as I detailed in an earlier entry, good leaders make decisions based on evidence and reason. Faith is a fickle instrument – while blind, gut-feel decisions may sometimes lead to favorable results, often such willy-nilly action will yield a low probability of success. Science, when applied correctly, will lead to a greater understanding of the relevant situation and thus give the decision-maker a vastly improved probability of success compared to faith-based “reasoning” alone. By acting impulsively on faith, gut feels and instincts at the expense of prudent deliberation, President Bush sabotages America’s opportunities for success.

Furthermore, the problems caused by Bush’s reliance on faith are exacerbated by his arrogant confidence in such careless bases for action. Not only is the bus driver blind, but he refuses to ask for directions from the seeing. Bush’s unflappable confidence in his own unexamined and irrational decisions has been mischaracterized (by his campaign managers) and misinterpreted (by his constituency) as “conviction.” This purported conviction is contrasted to the “flip-flopping” of Senator Kerry (who is, admittedly, a pure politician if there ever was one). But, as Kerry said in the first debate (paraphrasing): “you can be certain and still be wrong.” The blind bus driver may have faith in his chosen route, while heading down the wrong way on a one-way street. I think we can all agree that it would be wise of the bus driver to stop and turn around upon discovery of his error. But first, he has to ask those who would know and be open to evidence that may prove him wrong. Bush is apparently incapable of doing this. Suskind describes “[a] cluster of particularly vivid qualities…shaping George W. Bush's White House” including “a disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners.”

But, lacking real-world examples of Bush administration policy failure, all of this discussion is merely academic. Unfortunately, such examples abound. Most notable is the disaster in Iraq, a death trap into which our President placed our nation’s young men and women based largely on his personal faith in the veracity of one Iraqi ex-patriot’s (a man who is now on trial for embezzlement of Iraqi funds) rosy, utopian prediction that his soon-to-be invaded countrymen would welcome the United States’ violent invasion with open arms and a parade of flower petals. The war in Iraq is certainly the most prominent example of Bush’s failure to deliberate and analyze a complex foreign policy issue, but probably the most critical failure of the Bush administration’s “act now, think later” attitude to date has been the invasion of Afghanistan. Despite providing graphic displays of “shock and awe” as a violent nepenthe for the wounded and frightened soul of America, very little was accomplished in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and his top advisors escaped, and the seeds of the Al Qaeda terrorist network were spread on the winds to all four corners of the Earth. As Suskind notes, “[l]ooking back at the months directly following 9/11, virtually every leading military analyst seems to believe that rather than using Afghan proxies, we should have used more American troops, deployed more quickly, to pursue Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora.” Bush’s poor decisions in Afghanistan not only lead to failure of the mission, but have made Al Qaeda more dangerous and more difficult to apprehend.

Despite his failures, Bush is unwilling to waiver. Confidence in the President must be preserved at all costs. Those who criticize or even question the wisdom of the President’s rash judgments are ignored or denied access to the President. Those who support him are forced to swear loyalty oaths. Those who worship him as an American pharaoh, as God-as-King, are simply thanked and, notably, not rebutted by the President. Suskind details an intriguing (and frightening) dialogue between Bush and Gary Walby, a Bush supporter from Florida. When Walby informed the President that his administration was “the very first time that [he has] felt that God was in the White House,” Bush responded with a simple “thank you.” According to one Bush supporter quoted by Suskind, “[m]any conservative evangelicals ‘feel they have a direct line from God… and feel Bush is divinely chosen.’” It is almost as if Bush, who has often referred to the power of prayer and stated that his actions are guided by God’s will, welcomes such praise because he truly believes it. Bush, like the pharaohs of Egypt, either believes that he is the Earthly channel for God’s will or, just as dangerously, that fostering such a belief among the citizenry is healthy for the nation. To use an apropos allusion that is simply too serendipitous to pass up: the President’s supporters view him more as a burning bush, the Old Testament conduit of God’s voice to His chosen people, than George W. Bush, the all-too-human failed student, businessman and public speaker.

What is the conclusion of this analysis? I believe it is apparent that George W. Bush’s world-view is little more sophisticated than that of a 2 year-old child. Decisions are based on instinct, and the admission of failure is absolutely out of the question. Reality is ignored or, more dangerously, viewed as a toy of the American Empire, something that does not affect the environment of American policy, but is wholly shaped by it. Suskind’s account of his discussion with one of Bush’s top aides sheds light on the current administration’s view of the relationship between American action and ontology:

“The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'”

That says it all. President Bush is unconcerned with reality as it exists because, as God’s messenger (or, even God-on-Earth) in command of the world’s next great Empire, he is capable of dictating the course of the universe as he sees fit. He has no use for empirical data or careful study of world dynamics because, in his view, those dynamics are his for the molding. He alone may control the geo-political environment of a world of six billion people through unjustified shows of force. He alone may solve the nation’s moral problems by appointing reactionary, fundamentalist judges and supporting legislation inconsistent with constitutional principles. He alone can solve the world’s energy crisis by accelerating the depletion of the finite oil supply. But, if he can do this alone, without any deliberation, it begs the questions: Why do we need a Congress? Why do we need voters? Why do we need scientists, scholars or policy experts? Why do we need any deliberation between experts and intellectuals when we have a C student and failed businessman armed with confidence in his own uninformed gut feelings and the mandate of God?

OU Sucks

2004-10-04T06:27:00.000-07:00

Well, it's that time of year again. The Texas-OU football game will be played this upcoming Saturday afternoon. For those who don't follow college football, I will give a brief synopsis of what this game means.

The University of Texas has played the University of Oklahoma (or "OU," as the apparently dyslexic Oklahoma football boosters refer to their school) Sooners in football for some 90+ years. Despite some recent embarrassing setbacks against the Evil Ones, Texas holds a roughly 20 game advantage in the overall series. The game is played every year in Dallas, Texas, which is roughly halfway between Austin (the gloriously scenic home of the University of Texas) and Norman, Oklahoma (one of the most regrettably filthy cesspools on Earth). The setting and dynamic of the game are surreal. The two teams clash in the historic art deco era Cotton Bowl, which is located in the heart of the Texas State fairgrounds, during the peak weekend of the State Fair. Outside of the stadium, fairgoers and football fans alike enjoy Fletcher's Corny Dogs, beer and vomit-inducing thrill rides. Inside the stadium, the fans are divided on the 50-yard line into two equally-numbered groups: orange-clad Texas fans on one side and drooling, Crimson-clad morons from the Indian Territory on the other. It has been said that when the Sooner football team (renowned student-athletes all) crosses the 50-yard line into their school's territory, it raises the average IQ of both sides of the stadium by 40 points. In any case, here is a reproduction of the highlights of an old Texas-OU thread from Hornfans.com that was posted a few years back.

Many thanks go to jcdenton for keeping a database of the great Hornfans.com posts of the past and providing me with the text.

==================

Absolute Truth

Statalyzer:

If nothing can be 100% proven... then how do we really know for a fact that o u sucks?

BrickHorn:

There's always an exception to the rule. OU's suckage is clearly transcendent of individual logical systems - it applies equally to all conceivable realities. There is no feasible universe in which OU would not suck (assuming it existed). Every philosopher since the golden age of ancient Greece has agreed that, if ever a university of Oklahoma were founded, it would suck. Since the founding of Trailer Park U., it has been evident that the early hypothetical theories of Plato, Socrates and Thomas Aquinas were indeed correct. OU was founded, it sucked, it currently sucks and it will always suck. Modern theorists have noted the amazing accuracy of the early theories, and have seen no need for further revision. Rather, luminaries such as Ayn Rand, Nietzsche and Descartes have been satisfied to merely comment on OU's suckage in complete agreement with the ancient wisdom, and give reassurance that there is no feasibility of OU making a state change from suckage to non-suckage. It is a superuniversal truth. OU sucks. OU has sucked, OU still sucks and OU will continue to suck ad infinitum.

Doperbo:

It is telling that only through the emotional journey of art and poetry can we experience or categorize the omnisuckeficense that is Oklahoma.

=======================

Hook 'Em Horns, and beat the Hell out of OU!!!!!

Bush's UN Address

2004-09-28T10:55:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd post a link to an article I recently read along with a quick analysis, just to keep this blog alive while I continue working on my intro section (as well as an analysis of proposed tax system "solutions").

The article is a fact-checking analysis of Bush's UN speech and can be found at: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3665

Basically, the author does a good job of identifying three major flaws in the President's rhetoric. First, Bush makes several misleading statements that distort the facts regarding the past and present situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most notably, the President's account of the state of Afghan politics and the composition of the various forces fighting in Iraq is inaccurate and/or misleading. Also, the President implies that Saddam Hussein failed to satisfy the requirements of UN resolutions prior to the invasion, which is simply untrue.

Second, Bush mischaracterizes the US's actions as they relate to UN policy and directives. The UN did not, as the President implies, authorize or state a desire for military enforcement of the security council resolutions. And, even if it did, the US is not authorized to enforce UN policies against the UN's wishes. In this sense, the American invasion of Iraq is analogous to violent, unauthorized vigilante justice.

Third, Bush presents a one-sided view of America as a world-wide protector of liberty (as democracy) and enemy of oppression that is, quite simply, inconsistent with both the historical and present state of American foreign policy. The United States has a checkered history of supporting tyrannical leaders who favor US economic and military policies. US-imposed democracies are arguably far less successful and free than those nations that adopt democracy of their own accord.

Anyway, the UN's unenthusiastic response highlights an important failure of the American public: as a people, we generally have a very narrow view of world events. Americans tend to accept the critical and mistaken assumption of American Benevolence as gospel truth from the outset. Democracy is accepted as the solution to all problems, regardless of the underlying economic and cultural concerns. Liberty, to the American public, is merely an abstraction that may be imposed on other nations by force. But, an international audience such as the UN is capable of seeing through this tribalist propaganda and recognizing Bush's rhetoric for the hollow, inconsistent and thoroughly deceptive bullshit that it is.

Comments

2004-09-23T07:51:00.000-07:00

By the way, please feel free to add comments. One thing I really miss about the message board world is the lack of feedback and challenging questions from other posters. So... please, add your thoughts. I'd love to hear them.

NOTE: to comment, just click on the word "comments" below the post and follow the directions. If you want to register, feel free to do so. If not, just post anonymously. Of course, it would be nice to put a screen name to the ideas so that the blog can maintain some semblance of doctrinal continuity.

Bit off more than I can chew

2004-09-23T07:14:00.000-07:00

Well, after devoting a few chunks of time to writing the Introduction section to my little treatise, I realized a few things:

#1 - I may have been too ambitious in hoping to explain my entire philosophy on everything.

#2 - It's not good practice to write an Introduction section before you write the material. Writing is quite different from reading, and it has become apparent that it's difficult to summarize the body of a work when said body has yet to be written. I always, always write the introduction to papers after I've written the rest of the paper. But, the serial nature of the blog diary publication has flip-flopped it on me. Either I will need to wait to publish the thing until I've completed the work, or I must resign myself to the notion that the introduction will have to be heavily edited, amended, and altered during the course of fleshing out the rest of the treatise.

Anyway, I'm still working. But, to make this blog at least partially interesting while I fiddle with an explanation of how I think, I thought I'd add a list of my comments on current political issues:

(1) The Dan Rather thing

Who cares? Journalists are going to make mistakes. There's only so much one can do to verify the accuracy of a document. Rather made a mistake. Those with incentives to correct that mistake (namely, Bush supporters) did their job. The lesson people should learn from this is that one should not believe everything he hears on the television (or reads in the newspaper). Honestly, people should have known that before this occurred.

The biggest problem with this scandal is that it has distracted the public from the real issues facing us in this election. It is not important (now) to determine whether George W. Bush was a good National Guardsman. Rather, it is important to determine whether George W. Bush is a good president. And, I believe, the answer to that question is a resounding "Hell NO!" See (2) for why...

(2) Why Dubya is a bad leader

A good leader ought to make decisions in a methodical, rational manner. When a leader is faced with a decision, his first step ought to be to collect ALL relevant information. The second step should be to perform an honest, objective analysis of the information. Next, the effects of the various alternative courses of action - given the background information and the nature of the dynamic system at issue - should be predicted. Finally, the course of action that yields the optimum results - as determined by objective criteria - should be taken.

Our current president fails to apply such a methodical process to decision making. One example is his record on the environment. It has been well-documented, in respected scientific publications such as Scientific American and Nature, that W has made a practice of "filtering" his scientific advisers to exclude any scientist who dares to present objective research data that contradicts the president's preconceived notions. Basically, the president's decision-making process fails from the very outset. By stacking his scientific advisory board with conservative policy whores, the president (1) reduces his access to critical information and (2) impairs his ability to obtain an objective analysis of the relevant data. Any decision he makes will thus be based on partial, possibly incorrect or misconstrued data, and therefore has little chance of achieving an objectively optimal result. Of course, all of this ignores the fact that any president (and especially this one) may taint the fourth stage of the methodical decision-making process by acting with ulterior motives.

In any case, it is easy to see how the same problem that plagues W's environmental policy making applies to his decision to invade Iraq. From the outset, Bush focused on the thin shreds of biased and highly ambiguous data that implicated an Iraqi threat. Bush disregarded any data to the contrary. He failed to objectively analyze the evidence. Had he done so, he would have noticed that the evidence was tainted by the bias of those who reported it, lacking in breadth and based on wildly improbable inferences (is a trailer more likely to be a "mobile bioweapons lab" or a regular old trailer?). My contention is that Bush was able to talk himself into war because he failed to analyze the information. If this is true, he is not a capable leader. If it is false, then the answer is that Bush made the decision that he wanted to make because his objective goals were different than those he claims. In other words, this war was NOT designed to eliminate a threat, but rather to achieve some other objective (oil reserves is the typical answer given to this dilemma). But, the question then is whether a war, against the will of the world, was the optimal solution to achieve this hidden, ulterior motive. I find it hard to believe that pissing off the entire world is an optimal solution to any problem.

I should mention one thing really quickly. The above analysis is NOT "hindsight." Hindsight evaluation of a decision involves using the data obtained AFTER the decision and asking the question "given what we know now (i.e. after the fall-out), would it have been reasonable to make the same decision?" I have not asked that question. Rather, my line of inquiry represents a more realistic manner in which to evaluate a decision. I only ask: "given what we knew then (i.e. before the decision), was the decision objectively reasonable?" If the answer is "no," then the inevitable result is that the decision maker was irrational. That is the sad fact we have to admit about George W.: our current president is irrational. He's a loose cannon. Vote him out.

My new home

2004-09-01T13:31:00.000-07:00

Howdy!

After nearly five years of posting my random thoughts on philosophy, religion, science, politics and, of course, college football on Hornfans.com, I have decided to move on. The decision was admittedly in response to a request from the Powers that Be to stop posting (one of several I received over the course of my five years there). Apparently, $60 a year doesn't buy one immunity from rejection on an internet message board. Oh well... it had been apparent for some time that it was time to move on. I guess I just needed a push in the right direction.

In any case, I'm excited at the new opportunity to organize my thoughts into a single, archived collection. What I plan to do is write up a single manifesto on my worldview and post the chapters and sections here as I complete them. I'm sure there won't be much of an audience for my writings - I mean, really, the type of person who wants to spend his or her free time reading some random internet guy's philosophical ramblings is a rare breed. However, I hope to provide some insight into a rationalist perspective on life, morality, religion, the role of government and even the meaning of life. Who knows - maybe someone will find it interesting.

The following is a brief outline of my planned manifesto. It's just a first stab at organizing the topics that interest me, so I expect it to change:

1. Introduction

2. Basis in Natural Philosophy

2.1. Logic

2.2. Determinism

2.3. Evolution

3. Ethics and Morality

3.1. Lack of Free Will

3.2. The Evolution of Morality

3.3. Moral Relativism

4. Religion

4.1. Religious Beliefs and Evolution

4.2. Christianity

4.2.1. Basic Doctrinal Problems

4.2.1.1. Omniscience & Free Will

4.2.1.2. Benevolent, Jealous and Violent God

4.2.2. Origins in Paganism

4.2.2.1. Historical Jesus?

4.2.2.2. Similarities to Pagan Cults

4.2.3. Modern Christianity

5. Government

5.1. Role as National Policy Optimizer

5.1.1. Cost vs. Benefit

5.1.2. Law and Policy as Optimal to the Whole

5.2. Domestic Policy

5.2.1. Rawlsian Liberty

5.2.1.1. Patriotism and Dissent

5.2.1.2. Self-Determination

5.2.2. Free Markets and Regulation

5.2.2.1. When do Free Markets Make Sense?

5.2.2.2. When is Regulation Necessary?

5.3. Foreign Policy

5.3.1. Resource Acquisition: Conquest or Trade?

5.3.2. Humanitarian Concerns

6. Metaphysical Ramblings

6.1. The Meaning of Life (there is none)

6.2. Reincarnation, Sort-of

7. Conclusion

In between posting my sometimes profound (but more often trite and cliche) writings, I will add comments on current events or the occasional topic that interests me. Although I no longer post at Hornfans (I can, but won't), I still occasionally lurk. Every so often, a thread will spark my imagination, and I'll comment on it here.

Oh... I suppose I should post a little biographical info for anyone who might have been linked here but has no clue who I am. I'm a married former engineer currently masquerading as a 2L student at the Harvard Law School. I have two degrees in electrical engineering, and worked for several years in the defense industry designing fancy-schmancy antennas. I'll eventually become a patent attorney, but hope to spend the next two years living the life of a wannabe pseudo philosopher. Hell, I may even don a beret and grow a coffee-house goatee.

Well, I hope that gives you a good idea of what to expect. I hope I don't fizzle out on this blog once the school year begins (in just over a week).

Regards,

BrickHorn