It's not always good to see things from the good old days. 30 odd years ago i bridled at my teachers introducing politics into their lesson plans. I argued too, and my marks suffered. Now my kids tell me about their teachers doing the same thing. Mostly it is disguised as current events but sometimes it is more blatant. Teachers prattle on about 'stupid george' (bush) because he fought a war for oil. ( I guess that's true in a way, since the americans get less oil from Iraq than they did before the war.) Or stupid 'Harper' because he didn't ratify kyoto. This coming from a high school biology teacher in a backwaterish northern BC town. My son would love to argue but he is smarter than i was. Also, he cares more about marks.
It is annoying as hell. I am not all that worried since i have always taken a keen interest in brainwashing my kids. Thus they already know how to tell sh-t from shinola before they are exposed to educators who overstep their bounds. The same approach should be taken to protect our kids from the ridiculous lesson plans in gender, reproduction and virtually every other subject. While it is good to be exposed to new ideas and different points of view, it is essential to have had some exposure to critical thinking first.
Parents: take responsibility and teach your kids how to think. A lesson or two on right and wrong, responsibility and self respect wouldnt hurt either.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
On Faith
I recently read a blurb on Pascals Wager. If you are not familiar with it i can summarize: Pascal decided that belief in God was the safer (better) bet than unbelief. He decided this as follows: If you believe in a god and there is none, when you die you lose nothing. If there is a god then you win. If you choose not to believe then you lose if there is a god (you will be sorry) and you break even if there is no god. Wikipedia summarizes it better
Pascal's Wager, also known as Pascal's Gambit, is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
On the face of it this seems like the ultimate cynical attitude toward faith. At least I thought so. Now I am not so sure. But more of that later. I found what I believe to be an even more cynical religious approach.
Some of the blogs I visit take a more muscular view of christianity. The approach taken is to blend science and religion to arrive at a logical proof of the existence of the christian god. I got into some of the nuts and bolts of the thing after reading a guide on how to ensure your potential wife is a 'real christian'. Suffice it to say that I did not pass the test, being ignorant of almost all of the arguments involved. I am not concerned, however since I am not insecure about my being a christian ( I certainly am one) . Also i am not looking to be some guy's wife. I do feel , however that the whole idea of proving there is a god through science (or conversely disproving scientific theories which cast doubt on god's existence) is wrong headed. The flaw relates to security of position. Scientific fact is fleeting, religious belief , if it is to be worth it's salt, is unchanging. Science is a two handed sword that way. Just as buddhists could claim that the old theory of an expanding and contracting universe supports their cyclical existence beliefs, the recent evidence that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate could be used to prove that they are wrong (as one blogger has suggested). If one or two major scientific break throughs can disprove your god and abolish your faith then you are on shaky ground religion wise.
Science is, of course a kind of gnosticism. It's acolytes believe that everything can be explained and thus that we will someday know it all. It is a good working premise and it has the ring of intellectualism but it sucks as a religion. While people who 'believe' in science get intellectual entertainment and a feeling of superiority, they derive no comfort. There is a void there. Science can perhaps explain how everything works. It can not explain why anything is. I think human beings need to know that there is a why out there, even if they will never know what that why is. Who better to know why everything is than god, it's creator? Thus our belief in god gives us comfort. The fact that this is so is probably the strongest evidence of god that there is.
Which brings us back to belief and Pascal's wager. The reason that the wager is more than an exercise in cynical self preservation lies in the nature of belief itself. Belief is a choice. How we make that choice is immaterial. What matters is whether we believe or not. To suggest that one needs proof in order to believe is a non sequiteur. If you have proof then you don't need to believe, you know. One believes because one is willing to accept, on faith the existence of something or someone far greater than oneself. Your god is that someone. In the case of the christian god that belief includes the trust in god's wisdom, and benevolence. Religious belief by definition needs no supporting rational. One can chose to believe 'just because'. However, it is not possible to fake it. One cannot actually choose to believe without following through. I believe therefor that Pascal's wager has little to offer people who do not already believe. Of course it is a pretty good way to antagonize atheists and shut agnostics up.
Pascal's Wager, also known as Pascal's Gambit, is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
On the face of it this seems like the ultimate cynical attitude toward faith. At least I thought so. Now I am not so sure. But more of that later. I found what I believe to be an even more cynical religious approach.
Some of the blogs I visit take a more muscular view of christianity. The approach taken is to blend science and religion to arrive at a logical proof of the existence of the christian god. I got into some of the nuts and bolts of the thing after reading a guide on how to ensure your potential wife is a 'real christian'. Suffice it to say that I did not pass the test, being ignorant of almost all of the arguments involved. I am not concerned, however since I am not insecure about my being a christian ( I certainly am one) . Also i am not looking to be some guy's wife. I do feel , however that the whole idea of proving there is a god through science (or conversely disproving scientific theories which cast doubt on god's existence) is wrong headed. The flaw relates to security of position. Scientific fact is fleeting, religious belief , if it is to be worth it's salt, is unchanging. Science is a two handed sword that way. Just as buddhists could claim that the old theory of an expanding and contracting universe supports their cyclical existence beliefs, the recent evidence that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate could be used to prove that they are wrong (as one blogger has suggested). If one or two major scientific break throughs can disprove your god and abolish your faith then you are on shaky ground religion wise.
Science is, of course a kind of gnosticism. It's acolytes believe that everything can be explained and thus that we will someday know it all. It is a good working premise and it has the ring of intellectualism but it sucks as a religion. While people who 'believe' in science get intellectual entertainment and a feeling of superiority, they derive no comfort. There is a void there. Science can perhaps explain how everything works. It can not explain why anything is. I think human beings need to know that there is a why out there, even if they will never know what that why is. Who better to know why everything is than god, it's creator? Thus our belief in god gives us comfort. The fact that this is so is probably the strongest evidence of god that there is.
Which brings us back to belief and Pascal's wager. The reason that the wager is more than an exercise in cynical self preservation lies in the nature of belief itself. Belief is a choice. How we make that choice is immaterial. What matters is whether we believe or not. To suggest that one needs proof in order to believe is a non sequiteur. If you have proof then you don't need to believe, you know. One believes because one is willing to accept, on faith the existence of something or someone far greater than oneself. Your god is that someone. In the case of the christian god that belief includes the trust in god's wisdom, and benevolence. Religious belief by definition needs no supporting rational. One can chose to believe 'just because'. However, it is not possible to fake it. One cannot actually choose to believe without following through. I believe therefor that Pascal's wager has little to offer people who do not already believe. Of course it is a pretty good way to antagonize atheists and shut agnostics up.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
The power to protect (yourself)
So I was reading this story in the Telegraph. It was about some contributor who was mugged by black dudes during the London riots ( they took his bike the big bullies!) On his way home in a cab he reflected on ho w helpless he was in the face of the rioters. In the end he muses that the citizens of england, cowering in their homes, are at the mercy of violent men, who can come at any time , and do what they like. In the comments there are a few smart asses suggesting that the English ought to adopt american gun laws. Predictably (esp. in the Telegraph) this is met with smug ridicule and ersatz gun crime stats.
The fact is, this column written by a beaten man in england is the best argument for gun ownership I have ever seen, even though the writer never mentions guns. Ownership of a gun means you are no longer defenseless. You are not at the mercy of a mob, nor are you cowering in your homes, hoping the bad men will pass you by (and victimize the little old white lady next door). You can stand up against bigger, meaner, more abundant people than yourself. You can protect your possessions and your loved ones, rather than having to make a panicked phone call to big brother for help.
This alone is worth the price (if any) we pay for gun ownership in this country. Wanna set my house on fire? Wanna attack my family? Come and get some.
The fact is, this column written by a beaten man in england is the best argument for gun ownership I have ever seen, even though the writer never mentions guns. Ownership of a gun means you are no longer defenseless. You are not at the mercy of a mob, nor are you cowering in your homes, hoping the bad men will pass you by (and victimize the little old white lady next door). You can stand up against bigger, meaner, more abundant people than yourself. You can protect your possessions and your loved ones, rather than having to make a panicked phone call to big brother for help.
This alone is worth the price (if any) we pay for gun ownership in this country. Wanna set my house on fire? Wanna attack my family? Come and get some.
Friday, 22 July 2011
Too Stupid to Remain Uncommented Upon
So yesterday i read that the UN wants to start committing 'green helmets' as on the ground forces to help people being threatened by global warming climate change anthropogenic-global-local-climate- weather weirding phenomenon. Today I read where Somalia, in the grips of a massive impending famine has not been receiving aid from the UN for some time (Unicef got in yesterday i think). The reason why the UN could not do anything earlier is that big scary Al Shaabob (numb nutted muslim rebels) was harassing them. My question is this: If the UN cannot even deal with third rate terrorist organizations in order to help people starving to death, what the hell are they playing at planning new forces to help as yet unrealized climate related issues?
To the UN: You people have your heads way up your collective ass. If you were not playing with my money I would find you funny. As it is, I think you folks are an obscenity. I say this with no fear of reprisal since you have proven many times (Rwanda for example) that you are the most feckless twerps the world has ever seen.
To the UN: You people have your heads way up your collective ass. If you were not playing with my money I would find you funny. As it is, I think you folks are an obscenity. I say this with no fear of reprisal since you have proven many times (Rwanda for example) that you are the most feckless twerps the world has ever seen.
Friday, 17 June 2011
A Riddle Solved
Ever wonder why so many pathetic little third world countries have so little respect for Western nations? I mean , we could wipe them all off the face of the planet in a very short time. Well, here is an example of where that comes from. The UN was created by us, is financed by us and is run by the same type of people it was created to fight.
(CNS News) — The U.N. General Assembly is set to pass a resolution on Friday afternoon that will retain Israel as the only country out of 192 member-states to be the target of a dedicated permanent item on the agenda of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
The move comes two days after an Obama administration official gave a speech saying that its deeper engagement with the United Nations has helped to counter the body’s anti-Israel bias.
The General Assembly vote will ensure that, as the Geneva-based Human Rights Council (HRC) approaches its sixth year, its disproportionate focus on Israel will remain. The resolution adopts the outcome of a five-year review which the U.S. and other mostly Western democracies had hoped would improve the council by removing some of the identified faults.
However, two of the most glaring flaws — the skewed attention paid to Israel and the absence of enforceable criteria for HRC membership — will remain unchanged.
The HRC has ten permanent items on its agenda, ranging from “organizational and procedural matters” (item one) to “technical assistance and capacity-building” (item ten).
Only two of the 10 items deal with specific human rights situations. One, item four, is entitled “Human rights situations that require the council’s attention,” potentially covering situation across the entire globe.
The other, item seven, deals with the “human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.”
The resolution to be voted on in New York on Friday maintains that anomaly.
During the debate, Israel repeatedly was condemned by Arab and Islamic states and their allies — which continue to dominate the council — including some countries which themselves face charges of responding violently to dissent.
Syrian ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui accused Israel of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” and “state terrorism. Iran drew attention to the “Zionist regime’s” policies regarding detention and imprisonment of “political prisoners.” Bahrain alleged “deliberate killings” of unarmed Palestinians.
(unabashedly copied from weasel zippers)
If you find the bottom paragraph funny, neither do I. If you dont know why it is farcical, then go back to sleep. Of course, it isnt really your fault. If you are generally informed by Yahoo! or the main stream media you wouldnt have heard of any of this anyway.
(CNS News) — The U.N. General Assembly is set to pass a resolution on Friday afternoon that will retain Israel as the only country out of 192 member-states to be the target of a dedicated permanent item on the agenda of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
The move comes two days after an Obama administration official gave a speech saying that its deeper engagement with the United Nations has helped to counter the body’s anti-Israel bias.
The General Assembly vote will ensure that, as the Geneva-based Human Rights Council (HRC) approaches its sixth year, its disproportionate focus on Israel will remain. The resolution adopts the outcome of a five-year review which the U.S. and other mostly Western democracies had hoped would improve the council by removing some of the identified faults.
However, two of the most glaring flaws — the skewed attention paid to Israel and the absence of enforceable criteria for HRC membership — will remain unchanged.
The HRC has ten permanent items on its agenda, ranging from “organizational and procedural matters” (item one) to “technical assistance and capacity-building” (item ten).
Only two of the 10 items deal with specific human rights situations. One, item four, is entitled “Human rights situations that require the council’s attention,” potentially covering situation across the entire globe.
The other, item seven, deals with the “human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.”
The resolution to be voted on in New York on Friday maintains that anomaly.
During the debate, Israel repeatedly was condemned by Arab and Islamic states and their allies — which continue to dominate the council — including some countries which themselves face charges of responding violently to dissent.
Syrian ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui accused Israel of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” and “state terrorism. Iran drew attention to the “Zionist regime’s” policies regarding detention and imprisonment of “political prisoners.” Bahrain alleged “deliberate killings” of unarmed Palestinians.
(unabashedly copied from weasel zippers)
If you find the bottom paragraph funny, neither do I. If you dont know why it is farcical, then go back to sleep. Of course, it isnt really your fault. If you are generally informed by Yahoo! or the main stream media you wouldnt have heard of any of this anyway.
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Yes!
From Field and Stream:
February 04, 2009
Petzal: The Rules of Gunfighting
Normally, this blog is dedicated to peaceful pursuits. However, SFC Frick speaks much wisdom. I am giving him a meritorious promotion to Command Sergeant Major (E-9).
(For more on this subject, visit our list of the five best gunfights of all time).
Drill Sergeant Joe B. Fricks Rules For A Gunfight
1. Forget about knives, bats and fists. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring four times the ammunition you think you could ever need.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammunition is cheap - life is expensive. If you shoot inside, buckshot is your friend. A new wall is cheap - funerals are expensive
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker and go to cover. Distance is your friend. (Bulletproof cover and diagonal or lateral movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a semi or full-automatic long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. Yell "Fire!" Why "Fire"? Cops will come with the Fire Department, sirens often scare off the bad guys, or at least cause then to lose concentration and will.... and who is going to summon help if you yell "Intruder," "Glock" or "Winchester?"
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Stretch the rules. Always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work. "No battle plan ever survives 10 seconds past first contact with an enemy."
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible, but remember, sheetrock walls and the like stop nothing but your pulse when bullets tear through them.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. Practice reloading one-handed and off-hand shooting. That's how you live if hit in your "good" side.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. Smiles, frowns and other facial expressions don't (In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide NOW to always be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.
22. Be courteous to everyone, overly friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".
25. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket." At a practice session, throw you gun into the mud, then make sure it still works. You can clean it later.
26. Practice shooting in the dark, with someone shouting at you, when out of breath, etc.
27. Regardless of whether justified of not, you will feel sad about killing another human being. It is better to be sad than to be room temperature.
28. The only thing you EVER say afterwards is, "He said he was going to kill me. I believed him. I'm sorry, Officer, but I'm very upset now. I can't say anything more. Please speak with my attorney."
Finally, Drill Sergeant Frick's Rules For Un-armed Combat.
1. Never be unarmed.
(For more on this subject, visit our list of the five best gunfights of all time).
Drill Sergeant Joe B. Fricks Rules For A Gunfight
1. Forget about knives, bats and fists. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring four times the ammunition you think you could ever need.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammunition is cheap - life is expensive. If you shoot inside, buckshot is your friend. A new wall is cheap - funerals are expensive
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker and go to cover. Distance is your friend. (Bulletproof cover and diagonal or lateral movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a semi or full-automatic long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. Yell "Fire!" Why "Fire"? Cops will come with the Fire Department, sirens often scare off the bad guys, or at least cause then to lose concentration and will.... and who is going to summon help if you yell "Intruder," "Glock" or "Winchester?"
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Stretch the rules. Always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work. "No battle plan ever survives 10 seconds past first contact with an enemy."
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible, but remember, sheetrock walls and the like stop nothing but your pulse when bullets tear through them.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. Practice reloading one-handed and off-hand shooting. That's how you live if hit in your "good" side.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. Smiles, frowns and other facial expressions don't (In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide NOW to always be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.
22. Be courteous to everyone, overly friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".
25. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket." At a practice session, throw you gun into the mud, then make sure it still works. You can clean it later.
26. Practice shooting in the dark, with someone shouting at you, when out of breath, etc.
27. Regardless of whether justified of not, you will feel sad about killing another human being. It is better to be sad than to be room temperature.
28. The only thing you EVER say afterwards is, "He said he was going to kill me. I believed him. I'm sorry, Officer, but I'm very upset now. I can't say anything more. Please speak with my attorney."
Finally, Drill Sergeant Frick's Rules For Un-armed Combat.
1. Never be unarmed.
Friday, 3 June 2011
So much to do, so much to say....
There has been so much in the news of late, good and bad. Of course the best being a guy named Wiener getting into a pickle involving a wiener. Amidst the hundreds of puns, it is still easy to see the humour. Also on the good side, it looks like the gun registry is on the way out. I am happy about that, and as soon as it is gone i will be me a gun or two, off the registry, just because. I am also happy to hear the govt exploring senate reform. It is a little annoying to read conservative bloggers complain that Harper isn't doing enough. I think an elected senate and the elimination of the long gun registry is definitely a lot of progress. Add to this the fact that Canada wagged the dog regarding Israel (the rest of the G8 being the dog in question) and that 2 more countries have joined us in rejecting Kyoto (yay) AND the fact that the US has followed our lead (again) in boycotting the UN clown show: Durban III and i think we can conclude we are doing well. IF (and it is a big if) we actually do get a balance budget within the conservatives mandate we can all count ourselves damn fortunate.
Like others, i have a list of stuff i would like to see done, but unlike them i am willing to settle for a change in general direction. If we can change course and then maintain it, eventually i will get what i want, or at least what i need.
Like others, i have a list of stuff i would like to see done, but unlike them i am willing to settle for a change in general direction. If we can change course and then maintain it, eventually i will get what i want, or at least what i need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)