Paul Rieckhoff speaks out about our Fratboy-in-Chief

Paul Rieckhoff hits the mark again with this comment on Huffpo:

As a veteran of this war in Iraq, I am sickened by the consistently flip nature of the President in the face of deadly serious issues. His ridiculous banter reflects poorly upon all Americans . . .

[W]ith nukes in North Korea, perverts in Congress and 140,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform bound to serve another four years in Iraq, I’d rather have a statesman than a frat boy.

Rieckhoff is the Founder and Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). He is also the author of a book I’ve struggled to read for the past two months:  Chasing Ghosts (2006). Would you like to know what it would be like to be a soldier during the early months of the Iraq occupation?  Rieckhoff’s book is the place to start.

Rieckhoff is not your typical soldier. After graduating from an Ivy League college, he signed up for the Army reserves in 1998.  While serving in the reserves, he took a high-paying job on Wall Street.  After the attacks of 9/11, he volunteered for active duty and he volunteered for the invasion of Iraq, to the dismay of his father.  “I wanted to fight the good fight.  I wanted to be a hero.”

Rieckhoff had heard Dick Cheney assure everyone that we would be “greeted as liberators.”  Cheney told the country “all we had to do was take out Saddam and his regime …

Continue ReadingPaul Rieckhoff speaks out about our Fratboy-in-Chief

Understanding Evil

It is a much mentioned, but little understood concept. Any individual in the world is likely to have strong conceptions of “evil,” but very few could define it, or ascribe a cause to it.  Dictionary.com defines “evil” as “morally bad or wrong,” and also “causing ruin, injury or pain.” While the word “immoral” is more commonly used to connote the first definition (“morally bad or wrong”), colloquially, the word “evil” is most often used to convey the sense of the second definition (“causing ruin, injury or pain”). Realizing that the phrase “evil” is subjective and has many implications, in this essay I will use the word “evil” to convey the sense of the second definition.

From time immemorial, some humans have been perceived to have the tendency to cause harm to others for no apparent or rational reason. These humans, we assume, like to take pleasure in the pain of others.  Thus, what appears to be an alien sensibility to us, one which is characterized by an inexplicable perniciousness, is termed as evil.   Why “evil” humans are different from the rest of us is not understood by most people.  Evil, they assume, is just an inborn quality. And because it is inherent to the individuals who possess it, people believe that the only way to stop them is to their exterminate them, or at the very least incarcerate them, so that they remain away from a society that they could destroy if given free rein.

But is evil indeed an …

Continue ReadingUnderstanding Evil

Why does cloning scare people?

I just got an unsolicited, automated phone call from an organization fighting against stem cell research. NoHumanCloning.org is dedicated to raising fears and resisting biological research that furthers naturalistic understanding of who we are and how to artificially repair our ailments. The current battle is to prevent this type of…

Continue ReadingWhy does cloning scare people?

Not always winning hearts and minds in Iraq

A site called “The Invisible American” contains links to four disturbing slideshows (about 8 to 10 minutes long each) documenting “the other side of the American Military in Iraq.” As indicated by The Invisible American, these images tell a dark and troubling story.  I sat down to watch one of…

Continue ReadingNot always winning hearts and minds in Iraq

Can one be wronger about science?

To the majority of people, every issue has 2 sides. One is right, and the other is wrong. The impression is that, if something is wrong about an argument, a position, a theory, then the entire thing is wrong. This is Aristotelian or Boolean reasoning. Famous smart people use this binary right/wrong or true/false principle to do great things. But…

Once upon a time, the world was flat. We now know (as of at least 2000 years ago) that this is wrong.
Once upon a time, people thought the world was a sphere. In the 19th century, it was measured that this was wrong.

Are these ideas both equally wrong, or is one more wrong than the other? In science, one recognizes degrees of error, magnitudes of mismeasurement. The flat Earth is off by a dimension, whereas the spherical Earth is off by a few percent. (It is fatter around the equator from spin, stretched further by lunar tide, and oddly flattened near the South Pole (possibly related to the events that caused the moon to splash off, and/or the continents to rise)).

Some ideas can be wronger than others.

When Creationists gleefully point out that (popular evolutionist) was in error about (detail of the theory at the time), they use this to claim that the entire structure of the theory is wrong. Never mind that this detail was usually found to be wrong by discovering its replacement in supporting the original theory.…

Continue ReadingCan one be wronger about science?