Archive for August, 2006

A reply to my Anti-Intellectualism post

Wednesday, August 9th, 2006

Kent Newsome has commented (thanks, Blogger Web Comments) on my post about anti-intellectualism, a few days ago. And I feel I must comment on one of his comments. :)

[...] I feel compelled to point out that I don’t buy the fact that intelligence and learning are inconsistent with religion and faith.

The essence of faith is to believe what you cannot prove. If you question it, if you can make the argument that it is logically impossible, yet you still believe it- that is faith. The more capable you are to question it, the stronger your faith is when you conclude that you believe it anyway.

True, that is faith. But how is that different from beliving in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

If faith is knowing that something cannot logically, rationally, be true, and, yet, still believing in it… then why stop at one rationally impossible thing? Why not believe in anything that suits your fancy? Why not believe that all pink objects are alive and sentient, for instance?

If your mind and your reasoning tells you there probably isn’t a god, your eyes see no traces of a god, science explains more and more, up to a point that what is left for God, even if nothing further was explained by science, isn’t really that much… and you still believe there is a God… why? Why is that? What is the source of your belief?

Wishful thinking? A “feeling you can’t describe”? The need for “something greater than yourself”? Indoctrination?

And why “God”? Why not someone or something else, equally supernatural, unknowable and untestable? Why not several things at once? The existence of the supernatural already contradicts science and observation of reality, so why not believe – with all your heart, of course – in two different supernatural beings whose existence contradicts one another, as they are both supposed to have created the universe, at different times, and in different ways? After all, “faith is knowing that it is logically impossible, yet believing in it”… right?

Lieberman’s loss, and lack of integrity

Wednesday, August 9th, 2006

I’ve seen some news sources saying that Lieberman’s loss is actually bad for the Democrats, because Lamont will be pictured as “too liberal” and may actually lose the state to the Republicans – not to mention that, around the country, the Reps will be saying things like “See, Joe Lieberman was not liberal enough for the Democrats! They’re extreme left wing!” Even some Democrats are scared, because Lieberman could attract many more “centrist / right-wing” voters than Lamont, and now the entire party may be seen as “too liberal” or “not tough enough on terrorism” (WHAT terrorism? What does the Iraq war have to do with “terrorism”?)

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

Is the only goal in politics to win elections? Must politicians base their campaigns on opinion polls, instead of actually having principles of their own? Do they just say anything they have to say to get elected? Anyone with half a brain knows that the war in Iraq is wrong, but because so many people don’t have half a brain, our candidate must support the war? Is that it?

Or am I too naïve by being surprised?

I’m glad Lamont won. It’s time politicians – and everyone – stop being afraid of standing up to the Bush administration, because they don’t want to be seen as “liberal extremists”.

Let’s hope this is but the beginning of a wave of people finding out where their balls are.

Lieberman lost. Good.

Wednesday, August 9th, 2006

I’m not American, so why do I care?

Because America influences the rest of the world, like it or not. And Lieberman’s loss may finally mean that things are changing for the better over there.

Funnily enough, I’ve long disagreed with Lieberman, before the Iraq war, before even the Bush administration. Because I remember: Joe Lieberman is an advocate of censorship.

He’s the kind of sleazy politician who promotes censorship and other controls of media like video games, without really knowing anything about them, just to show soccer moms and conservatives how much “a guardian of moral values” he is. In other words, he despises the first amendment, individual choice, and freedom.

People, censorship is wrong. Always. And in this particular case it’s even worse, because it’s not censorship based on something that is actually there, but on a lie repeated so often that people accept it as true without even checking. The lie that “there are video games where you are rewarded for raping and beating up women”. I’m a gamer, and I tell you, there is no such thing in mainstream video games, no matter what Lieberman, or Hillary Clinton, or one of the most disgusting creeps in the world, say.

Video games are just like comic books in the 50s, or rock music in the 60s: they’re unknown to older, scared people, and dishonest politicians take advantage of that, promoting such entertainment as “deviant” and “dangerous”, and attempting to appear as guardians of morality. And people keep falling for it.

But Joe Lieberman is even worse. Let’s take one of his more recent comments, about the war in Iraq:

“In matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

(source)

Excuse me?!? Isn’t that the same as saying “if we’re at war, the president is our supreme leader and cannot be questioned”? What kind of absurdity is that? Isn’t he, in effect, saying that any president can start a war, and is then allowed to do whatever he wants, that he actually becomes above the law? Clever, then: start a generic “war on terror”, without a defined end.

And that man had the nerve to call himself a “democrat”. Last time I looked, “democracy” didn’t exactly go for supreme leaders…

Good thing he lost. I hope he loses again, when he runs as an independent.

Socialists and "liberals"

Tuesday, August 8th, 2006

A weird thing about Americans (I’m European) is that they call socialists “liberals”. And they use the latter term as if it was a dirty word.

You see, I’m far from a socialist – I’d say I’m something akin to a libertarian, although there’s no libertarian-like party around here. However, I do consider myself a liberal – because, around here, “liberal” means someone who cherishes individual freedom (real freedom, not just “freedom to agree with me”), and who opposes any kind of authoritarism. It has nothing to do with socialism or collectivism or “big government” or social security or the “welfare state” or all those meanings they ascribe to the term; instead, its meaning comes from the origin of the word “liberal”: liberty.

But Americans, as I said, use it like a dirty word.

Strange country. :)