Thursday, June 30, 2005

Still another 9/11 and Saddam Connection!

Wow! So much to little time!

Lawsuit: Iraq Involved in Conspiracy

This time it's CBS reporting. Is this news outlet good enough for you out there? Imagine, another connection of terrorist activity coming out of Iraq and Saddam Hussein! Hmmm, the particulars are starting to mount up. The credibility of the generalization that the Iraq War is a good strategic move is becoming stronger and stronger.

I wonder what will hold tomorrow? Man, I've been blogging a lot today!

How soon we forget...

Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror

"...for knowing is the acquiring and retaining knowledge and not forgetting. Is not forgetting, Simmias, just the losing of knowledge?"
-Socrates, from the Phaedo

I can't stress enough the information that has been available to us all, and yet has been either under-reported, or just plain forgotten. The key to our having knowledge is in not forgetting. This no doubt requires vigilance on our part, for there seems to be this collective stupidification of the populace regarding things learned in the past about Iraq and its connection to terrorism that were both very well known and documented, yet are not talked about now. Well here at the Underground Logician, I want you all to be knowledgeable, so be my guest and read the above link. Perhaps you'll remember and then know why Iraq is tactically important in the War on Terror.

The Great Unchanged Exit Strategy

Iraq Exit Strategy Unchanged

Ah! Finally, the bliss of simplicity without all the sophisticated "filler!" What is the strategy?

"Win -- That's our exit strategy," said a senior military commander in an interview with UPI Friday. "Win and hand it over to the Iraqis."


No Abuse at Gulag Gitmo? Total Shocker!

Democrats Report No Abuse At Gitmo

Interesting read. Two Democrat senators and two Republican senators, AFTER ACTUALLY HAVING GONE THERE, agree about Gitmo. Hmmm, I wonder if the real facts are starting to come in. If this keeps up, we may have to alter the generalization made by Amnesty, Durbin, Pelosi, Kennedy, et al, won't we? I mean, being true to the method of induction, one would have to alter the conclusion. It is the truth we seek, right?

But, if we hate Bush really really bad, it won't matter, will it?

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Gitmo Cuisine: A Recipe for Torture?

For any of you who were seriously affected by Senator Durbin's remarks about the actions of our soldiers at Guantanimo as like the Nazis, Pol-Pot, etc., need to read this Washington Times article. It shows just what kind of Nazi death camp cuisine we offer to our enemies.

Gitmo's Gourmet Fare

Orange-glazed Chicken anyone? Or would you prefer Mustard and Dill Baked Fish? Yes, here at the modern "gulag" of our times, we really treat these "detainees" like dogs. Come to think of it, my dog doesn't eat this way. As a matter of fact, I don't eat this way. If I ate the way these modern killers eat, I'd blimp out to 350 lbs.

So, how about we actually look at Gitmo as see just what Amnesty International saw that gave them the awful impression of that place. Apparently, they failed to tour the "hellish" environment of the kitchen. Seems like the particulars for Amnesty's conclusion don't match. Could there have been some fallacies involved like slanting of the facts, or hasty conclusion? Or how about ZERO EVIDENCE?

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

We stand on the shoulders of giants. We might not realize it, we may even deny it. However, the fact that we don't live in the Third Reich, North American Division, or in the Kingdom of Japan ruled Emperor Hirohito VII, says a lot of what had to take place in order for these scenarios to not exist. And it cost many the ultimate price. There were naysayers during WWII as well, although not to the extent we see today in the War on Terror. It took great men to lead, to forge a plan and stay the course until ultimate victory. There was no talk of "honorable withdrawal" (Chappequiddik Ted). One of my favorite historical figures had this to say during the dark years of England's struggle for survival during the Battle of Britain:

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Another great man lead the United States to ultimate victory in the Cold War:

"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough."
Ronald Reagan

Before the second Iraq War was waged, many "great men and women" on the left gave us the clarion call to forge ahead against Iraq and bomb Baghdad with cruise missles during operation Desert Fox, and even after that great and notable engagement. The following links have lists of quotes from these "great men and women"...before the bullets flew:

Dr. Horsefeathers: Quotes in Favor of War in Iraq

More "Courageous" Iraq and WMD Quotes

Since March 2003, after removing Saddam, after setting up a provisional government after free elections, after rebuilding the infra-structure, and while engaging a foreign terrorist campaign in Iraq, we are facing challenges that require clear decisions and undaunted perseverance. Now that the going is rough, listen to these brave and notable "greats;" calling Bush a liar, calling him a loser, calling him a conspiratorialist, charging him with "fixing" the intelligence, keeping a tally of the dead and asking if it is worth the loss of life. I'm telling you, you are seeing the midst of this gross cowardice and political "covering of the ass," the making of a great man in George W. Bush in the face of adversity. People now don't see it, appreciate it, or are willing to admit it; to do so might mean a dynasty of Republican power for the next generation. And that, to the Left, is unconscionable!

Unfortunately for Churchill, almost immediately after WWII ended, the British people threw him out of office. Greatness isn't recognized or appreciated by a fickle public, at least not right away. It's usually the next generation that sees it most clearly. I think this will be the case when George W. Bush ends his term on the presidential "rack." History will see the characteristics of a giant in this man, and all the whiney little people with their "great quotes of courage" before the war, will be seen as irrelevant. Maybe before it's too late, they can become relevant to human history. All they need to do is look down at their feet and see once again, the mighty shoulders they stand on.

Friday, June 24, 2005

The Reason Why We Must Win

I'm going to let the news speak for itself. Two very good articles telling of the twisted and dangerous situation we are in with the War on Terror. The first is from and the other, U.S.News and World Report.

Foreign Terrorists Seek Civil War in Iraq

European Left Funding Iraq Insurgency

We must win, both the battle abroad, and the ideological battle within our country. There is no pulling out with honor. Mr. Ted Kennedy might like us to think so, but then that would then be a replay of Vietnam. More on this later.

When a Journalist Gets It Right, Look Out!

Forceful Reason

When Oriana Fallaci, an Italian journalist, speaks her mind, people listen, and many hate her for it. She doesn't care. This courageous women speaks clearly what is taking place in Europe, and in America.

Read the above article and tell me if you see what is happening in Europe, also happening in America as well.

On a related note: It would seem Liberals who typically lambast prominent Christian leaders as "dominionists" are strangely silent to Muslim clerics who seek the destruction of the West and want to install Islam as the only religion, and Shariah as the legal framework of society. Dominionists indeed!

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

A Non-Apology With Tears is still a Non-Apology

Text of Durbin Apology

I want you to know that the very first things out of Senator Richard Durbin's mouth is very telling:

“More than most people, a Senator lives by his words, words are the coin of the realm in our profession. Occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words.”

Durbin's admission is that the use of words is the stuff of a senator. How you coin them, even the nuances included in them, are extremely important, to a senator. Let me tell you Senator Durbin, words and how you use them are extremely important to logicians as well. You failed to mention a third failing: sometimes words fail to hide your true intentions.

I've included more of the text here for some analysis, however I also want to read all of your analyses as well. Here's the crux of his apology:

“Let me read to you what I said. ‘I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said causes anybody to misunderstand my true feelings. Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.’”

“Mr. President, it is very clear that even though I thought I had said something that clarified the situation, to many people it was still unclear. I'm sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.”

“I'm also sorry if anything I said in any way cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. I went to Iraq just a few months ago with Senator Harry Reid and a bipartisan Senate delegation. When you look in the eyes of the soldiers you see your son and daughter. They are the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them.”

“Some may believe that my remarks crossed a line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.”

The key word is "if." The word "if" denotes something that is conditional. It is not indicative of something actual. So, Senator Durbin's wordsmithing is really an acknowledgement that he feels badly for those that misunderstood him that he used words that caused them to misunderstand him. Huh? He was trying to be clear? Is this not the wimpiest apology? Would it also mean, Senator, that to those who didn't misunderstand what you said, you are not sorry?

It's one thing to acknowledge that what you said was one of the following: "totally untrue," "a deliberate and dastardly attempt to undermine the operations of the military cloaked in free speech," "seditious, treasonous, morale destroying rhetoric," or the hardest one of all, "I was totally wrong and I recant my previous statements and condemn them completely." Now, these would be statements that would be stuff of an apology worthy of respect.

But, no, we have here the standard "if" apology, which is no apology other than, "I'm so damn sick and tired of you idiots calling my statements into question. I am sorry that you didn't have the brains to accept what I said for I was very clear in what I was saying. If you took offense, I'm sorry (for your stupidity).

Now, for those of you who by my lack of sympathy and my total disregard for Senator Durbin's well scripted "non-apology" have been offended, if anything I said about the senator and his clever wordsmithing is offensive to you, I am sincerely sorry for your reactions.

Monday, June 20, 2005

Downing Street: A "Rather-esque" Hoax?

For an eye-opening article on the Downing Street Memo leak, read the AP link below. I've also included an exerpt.


Here we go again. Still, another superb example of shoddy induction. Remember, the particulars that you use to build your generalization must be clear, concise, truthful and authentic. No slanting of the figures is allowed. Even then, the inductive method produces a highly probable generalization at best. AP writer Thomas Wagner reports about how the memos were leaked. See below what happened and YOU answer the question about credibility and authenticity:

"The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material."

Sorry, Bush haters, you may have your rhetoric down and your emotions at a fever pitch, but to a logician who looks at the particulars, you've got a really shakey foundation. Problem is, you're going at it all wrong. First, you hate President Bush; second, you look for anything that will bring him down; third, when it doesn't stick, you get angrier; fourth, you hate Bush more; fifth, you look for something that will bring him down; sixth, when it doesn't stick, you get angrier yet; seventh, you hate Bush even more; eighth, you then look for something that will bring him down; ninth, when it doesn't stick, you get even angrier yet; tenth, you hate Bush even more than before; eleventh,...

For more information, also click on the "Captain's Quarters" in my link list to the right. This is the same weblog that broke the Dan Rather "Memo-gate" fiasco.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Forget the Little People

One of the good things John Stuart Mill said:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." —John Stuart Mill, a British Philosopher

Debbie Daniel: Surrender at Ground Zero?

When you hear the anti-war rhetoric get shrill, when you hear Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangels, and all the other miserable little people get more and more idiotic in their power grabbing rhetoric, remember, history will remember them little, perhaps as those who created the adversity that allowed virtuous men and women to shine. Keep it up Dick and Charlie, you're making your enemies look good.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Rhetoric Without Logic

A great example of sophistry, my friends, is what comes out of New York Senator Charles Rangel's mouth regarding the war in Iraq:

"It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored. Rangle's Interview

Moving, isn't it? Of course, that is what rhetoric artfully done is supposed to do: move the passions. Senator Rangel is a world class sophist and he has successfully planted an idea into our minds: Hitler's cover-up of the Haulocaust and the German people's passivity. To those who are not familiar with fallacies and valid arguments, Rangel's rhetoric is very persuasive, and deadly. To those who understand what Rangel is doing, laugh and "keep their powder dry."

However, is the Iraq vs. Haulocaust a logical comparison? Those who have a tight grip on their rhetoric think so. In the Machiavellian world of maintaining power, you never reverse your previous statements or you'll lose the ability to move people. If you are consistent, people will view that as a plus toward your credibility. Senator Charlie has been consistent throughout the Iraq campaign in poisoning the well. Does this false comparison give him credibility? Nope...unless you do the same.

These kind of discussions are NOT about the truth though the sophists of our age, with "tears in their eyes" will tell you different. Perhaps a better comparison can be made between Saddam Hussein's Haulocaust and the Haulocaust of Stalin:

Saddam's Haulocaust

Catch some of the highlights? This article gives us facts, giving us more to consider than Sen. Rangel's enthymeme of "listener fill in the blanks." Real numbers from various congressional and human rights organizations figures: "One million Iraqiis died, 17,000 went "missing", 40 of Saddam's relatives were murdered..."

The Rangel sophistry reminds us that the viciousness of man has not changed; the rhetoric of the sophists and their aversion to the truth in Socrates day is alive and well today. The greatest enemy to these sophisticates is the truth, conveyed by those who are philsophical Realists who think with simple logic. This is just a reminder that all of are in a deadly battle against deception; it is vital that we know how to conduct ourselves against this continuous onslaught against our minds.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

No More Apologies

You need to read Jack Wheeler's freebie; it's a must read.

No Apologies

When I was a young boy, still just as big, just young, I had a dog named "Nicky" that was a great dog. Pure mutt, and fearless (able to kill skunks and hardly get sprayed, which is waaay cool!). The only thing that bothered me was that when Nicky would go next door to play with his German Shepherd buddy "Rufus" (I hated Rufus, and he knew it), when the two got to wrestling, Nicky would always roll over and let Rufus win. I kept thinking, "Nicky you big dope, take him. Rufus is practically in a wheelchair." But no, Nicky time and time again would do the 'roll over and don't hurt me' routine. Definitely a sign of weakness.

Which brings me to my point. The overuse of the apology. I'm not going to use the quote, "Never apologize, son. It's a sign of weakness," as a mantra for my life. Sometimes it is required. If you did something wrong, damn it, own up to it. But don't say your sorry when you're in a bad situation that was caused by someone else. It is completely illogical to apologize for that which you are not responsible. It is a favored method of appeasement, which always backfires against the apologizer. And yet, this is the left's modus operandi (for more information on this, go to my post "Watch out for the Evil Eye") to try and end the war on terror.

And now we have the august body of the U.S. Senate, who felt it there sacred duty to apologize to those families who lost loved ones in times past due to lynchings. Somehow, the world is a better place, for the ever sensitive Senate feels it was somehow responsible for its predecessors lack of caring for not outlawing lynchings. Er hum, isn't lynching like a form of murder? Do we have to have laws on the books now for every form of murder? So if Mrs. Jane Doe blungeons her no-good jerk of husband with a frozen salami, we need to have a salami law? How about a "lead pipe in the conservatory with Colonel Mustard" law?

Are you as sick of the illogicality of it all as I am?

For a great post, go to Saurkraut's blog and read her post on:

Senate Apologizes Pointlessly

Another useless article is a recent post by Helen Thomas, the White House "Boil on the Backside" reporter for Hearst, has great insights as to why the Arab world is mad at us: the invasion of Iraq. Why were they mad at us before Iraq, Helen? Why did we get two planes to down our twin towers? What did we do Helen?

Who's to Blame for Anger at U.S.?

Why don't we all do a "Nicky" and say "Don't hurt us Mr. Terrorists, we're sorry. And if President Bush doesn't say it, WE'LL SAY IT! He's a baaaaaad president Mr. Terrorist, and you'll see that we are truly sorry. We're going to be mad at Mr. Bush, and call him a Hitler, anything to keep you from hurting us!!!! Don't hurt us, Mr. Terrorist."

Phooey on it all!

Autopsy Results In: Terri Schiavo Died of Dehydration

Yup, that's right! We are shocked here at the Underground Logician. Terri Schiavo died of dehydration. The very thing they used to cause her death, dehydration, was the actual cause of death. Talk about cause and effect. I wouldn't have known this without the vast wisdom of our post-modern priest of profundity, the Pinellas County Medical Examiner. Interestingly, there was no sign of heart attack; there was no sign of an eating disorder; and her vision center was dead, so she was blind. Her brain has half the size of a normal human being's brain at the time of death (Ooooo, that's bad when you only have half a brain. Maybe it's a good thing they killed her, eh?)

Now since this autopsy was closed to independant reviews, I am skeptical. You watch and see how the pro-deathers will use this autopsy to justify Michael Schiavo's actions. Something will be said that since she had half a brain, she was half a person. She should have been allowed to die. Maybe some of you hold that belief. If you do, your sense of justice has atrophied.

Here's a little blurb from todays Inside Page:

Commenting on the autopsy report, Fr. Frank Pavone, who was with Terri Schiavo in the final hours and moments of her life and has called her death a murder, said: "No details of this autopsy change the moral evaluation of what happened to Terri. Her physical injuries and disabilities never made her less of a person. No amount of brain injury ever justifies denying a person proper humane care. That includes food and water.
"A person with a 'profoundly atrophied' brain needs profound care and love. Terri did not die from an atrophied brain. She died from an atrophy of compassion on the part of her estranged husband and those who helped him to have her deliberately killed."

Amen, Fr. Pavone.

One of the questions not answered in this "deific study" is how she got into this physical condition in the first place. What? Scientists, the demigods of our age who give us infallible "studies," do not know how this happened? I'm disappointed!

Hmm. I bet there's someone who DOES know how she got this way...Oh, Michael!

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Emotions: You Can't Trust Them

As people of the western culture, we're becoming more and more a people that is over-exercised to avoid upsetting others, either in asserting that we are right, or in telling people that they are wrong. Whether it's the PC movement, a whimpy Senate apologizing for not putting lynching laws on the books, or a pervasive moral relativism; we fear upsetting the "god of Emotions."

If you have been on this blog, you know we deal with arguments, good and bad. As a philosophical realist, I identify fallacies, ambiguities in speech or in terms, false propostions, or just pure sloppy thinking based on logical form, whether they be in others comments or those thoughts that float through my brain. The worship of the "god of emotions" is a religion that will clash with the priorities of this blog. Reason: it is through the worship of emotions that fallacies find a foothold in us. This is why so many sophisticates resort to fallacious rhetoric; they don't care about the truth so much as they care to make you agree with them. As long as you are emotion-dependent, you are at their mercy!

Always remember, just because you discover that you may have fallacious thinking, or a badly worded argument, or haven't thought through some of the challenges put forth does NOT mean you are an inferior person. It is a non-sequitor; your value as a human being is not diminished if you're wrong, OR, increased if you are right. It goes both ways. The important thing is to identify the falsehoods that keep us from seeing clearly.

Our emotions are good if they operate as intended; good when they infuse our decisions and actions with passion and energy, sensitize us to beauty, or inspire laughter. They are terrible when used as a guide to help us discern truth from error, or right from wrong. Too often, they wrap so tightly around our egos that we are tempted to misinterpret counter-arguments as personal attack. If you struggle with this, remember, here in my little kingdom, I will never insult you, but I will ravage the falsehood that is ravaging your mind!

And yet, I am a red-hot blooded male who feels the pains of being wr..wr...wr...wrooooonnnnngggg! I know the heat of anger, the norse god of thunder that protects my ever fragile male ego when my superiors show me that I've committed an error. However, in the long run, if I learn and replace my false perceptions with the truth, truth is served, and I am benefited by the experience. I too, am a learner. And, no doubt I will learn from you.

So, if you want to grow beyond your faulty thinking, your weaknesses, and dependance on emotional thinking, you'll have to say to your emotions, "Okay emotions, let reason drive, and you get in the back seat and enjoy the ride." Don't let emotions drive you to mediocrity. You're worth more than a mediocre existence!

If you are jumping on board for the first time and are wondering "Yuck, what kind of blog is this?" Patience, my friend. It may take you some time learn your way around here. This isn't your typical blog where you can say whatever you want and damnit! no one can tell me different." Nope. Not here. We follow the Common Master, Logic. However, I'll be kind, but I will challenge you to higher levels of thinking, and I hope you do the same for me. But, at all costs, truth will be served, even at the cost of ruffling and denying the final say of those stupid emotions.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

I'm not making this up...much!

There's a story floating of which I can't really vouch for its authenticity. But, it was soon after Benedict the XVI's coronation that he met with his chief advisor with a great sense of urgency. He said to his key advisor, "I'm sick of the wrangling to see which religion, Catholicism or Judaism, is superior. Let's settle it once and for all...on the golf course. Let's get a hold of the head rabbi in Jerusalem and challenge him to a single elimination golf contest, and whoever wins, that religion is the best religion. Now, the problem is, I don't want to lose, but I don't golf! Go to the United States and get Jack Nichlaus. Make him a cardinal or something, and offer anything to him to get him to play. I cannot emphasize enough the need for the Catholic Church to come out on top."

So the advisor did as the pope had told him. Nichlaus had agreed to become a cardinal, and he met the Jewish rabbi at Whistling Straits.

The next day, the pope called in his chief advisor and asked about the results. The advisor sheepishly said, "Sadly, holy father, Cardinal Nichlaus came in second."

Shocked, the pope said, "What? Do you know what this means? I thought we had it in the bag! How could he lose?"

The advisor said, "Cardinal Nichlaus just didn't have the skills to beat Rabbi Woods!"

Manure in neat little piles is still manure!

One major difficulty in applying logic principles to either the political or religious worlds, is weeding through the piles of sloppy logic. This particularly occurs with the process of inductive logic, where you argue from particulars to a certain generalization. The particulars could be actual evidence, transcripts and documentation, video, historical records, oral name it. The generalization you form from the particulars is as true, credible and relevant as the truth, credibility and relevancy of the particulars. So, the greater amount of good evidence you have, the higher the probability that your conclusion is true. But as in all induction, you are dealing with probabilities, not with complete certainty.

In deduction, you argue from the general to the specific, where the burden of the truth rests on your general propositions, or universals. It really is a shift of what is sufficiently true, either the particulars in induction, or the universals in deduction. But in the deductive method, the universals are still quite dependant on induction which is vital to identifying universals. So a universal "cows" shows that there are characteristics specific to cows that are univerally true of all "cows". The fact that "eat grass" is characteristic or predicates "cows" comes from induction, we have seen cow after cow eat grass.

So,turning to politics or religion, when you hear the endless diatribe of which ever side is making a case, I immediately look at the particulars and ask the following questions:

1. Is the evidence (particulars) a sufficient foundation for the conclusion?
2. Are the particulars true, accurate, credible, or are they slanted, fixed, etc?
3. Are the particulars relevant or irrelevant to the conclusion?
4. Is there a bias, and if so, how does it affect the conclusion?

The fallacies surround induction are as numerous as the imagination of the Sophists. However, there are a few that are commited more often than others. Here's a brief list.

a. Hasty Generalization: The act of making what is true for one, true for all.
b. Hasty Conclusion: Having insufficient evidence to form a conclusion.
c. False Cause: where the particulars do not illustrate true causality.
d. False criteria: where the particulars are irrelevant
e. Anecdotal Evidence: a form of "hasty conclusion" where one story forms the basis of the conclusion.
f. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: a form of false cause where one event which occurs to prior to another forms the cause of the latter event.

When dealing with debates, especially heated ones, the tendency to want to win or pursuade your opponent is so strong that the temptation is to resort to these fallacies. Conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, who state democrats don't work, using as a basis for their conclusion the example of a few democrats, commits "hasty generalization." Liberals who label George Bush as a fascist who fail to show his policies as that of fascism, the complete government control of private property, commit either "hasty conclusion" with a lack of evidence, or "false criteria" where the evidence sited is irrelevant.

As in all rhetoric, the truth of the matter is not the goal so much as the pursuasion of opponents. It is here that sophists place their greatest effort; change public opinion. Logicians, better yet, truth seekers, see the potential for great societal damage of rhetoric without substance and pursue the truth of the matter at all costs, even the loss of pseudo-friendships. This is extremely frustrating to sophists, for it undermines their objectives to manipulate. However, this doesn't deter the logician, it even provides an indicator that he is on the right track!

So fellow truth-seekers, happy shoveling!

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

I'm Out of the Cave!

Plato's Cave

Plato's Cave Illustration

Done some remodeling while you were gone. Thought I'd come out into the open and let the sunlight of truth shine for all to see!!!

I'm still working on it since I lost my links while changing over. Logicians can be dumb sometimes. So check out the links and become enlightened by one of the great giants of all time, one who's shoulders we stand on today. Go ahead. You'll be better for it! besides, it gives you rest from the rantings of lunatics in the media.

When you return, let me know what you think about the following:

1. What does the cave represent?
2. What is the meaning of the liberated man's ascent, being dragged reluctantly upwards?
3. What is the meaning of the sun?
4. Why is it reasonable for the liberated man to pity the imprisoned?
5. Why would it be reasonable for the imprisoned to detest the liberated man who returned?

No prizes will be awarded except the priceless benefit of enlightenment!

Monday, June 06, 2005

If Terri Schiavo had been a cow...

Today I am on a culture watch, and believe me, there's a LOT of stupidity out there. Who can forget the terrible ordealTerri Schiavo situation? During the drama of that murderous event (yes, I said MURDEROUS!), the PETA people, had a mini-drama of their own, in their own tiny miserable pseudo-reality world of theirs. Feel free to read:

Starving Cows

"A Cabot farmer accused of starving his herd of cattle has pleaded innocent to five counts of animal cruelty.
Christian deNeergaard, 47, was released on conditions, including that he not own any animals, except for the two cats his wife has.
Vermont District Court Judge Patricia Zimmerman on Thursday gave attorneys until July 15 to depose four witnesses, two veterinarians and two Agency of Agriculture officials in the case.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has asked that deNeergaard face jail time and undergo psychological counseling at his expense.

"Outside, I observed a cow that had cast herself into the feed bunker and died a few feet away from the available feed," he wrote in the inspection. "Two other dead cows were located in a pen on the east side of the barn near the road."

I have something I have to say to Michael Schiavo's attorney and right to die guru:



Not for humans, though (break in elevator music)! When humans starve, everything shuts down, and humans feel no pain. It's just wonderful, it's almost like getting high.

How come these people are persecuting this farmer? He was just doing what George Felos and Michael Schiavo were doing to Terri. And, hey, they were just stupid cows. What do they know? What kind of life do they have to look forward to? Eat grass, drink water, stare at motorists doing cow imitations, and getting milked three times a day. That's no life. The farmer was doing them a favor and using the most humane way of doing it, according to Felos. Ignorant asses in the court! You need to learn from the trinity of compassion: Judge Greer, George Felos, and the ever devoted husband of two: Michael Schiavo.

Wait till my next post!

Even Logicians Pop A Cork!

Here's a little item from last week that illustrates our incomprehensibly idiotic culture. An inmate in the Washington State Corrections who was starving himself, was forced to stop by prison officials. He filed suit.

"The Washington State Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that the Department of Corrections (DOC) was justified in force-feeding McNabb, setting a precedent for other state inmates who attempt hunger strikes.

The five-page ruling dismissed McNabb's claim that the feeding tube violated his state Constitutional right to privacy, including the right to decline medical treatment. "The right to decline force-feeding is not absolute because the state has an interest in protecting the sanctity of the lives of its citizens," wrote appellate judge Ken Kato for a unanimous three-judge appellate panel in Spokane.

Dr. Marc Stern, chief physician for the prison system, applauded the decision.

"One of the things we struggle with is: Where does the patient autonomy end and where does the state autonomy begin?" he said. "We do have cancer patients who can't eat and choose to not eat. In that case, the patient has autonomy. You have the right to die in a dignified way. But being perfectly healthy and saying, 'I'm not going eat,' that's where your autonomy ends and our autonomy begins."

Terri Sloyer, McNabb's attorney, said 'You don't lose your right to consent or not consent to medical treatment as a prisoner," Sloyer said. "And force-feeding is one of the most invasive medical procedures there is.'"

A couple of observations first, and then my rantings and railings!

1. The state must prevent the violation of the sanctity of life.
2. The self-starvation of citizens is a violation of the sanctity of life.
3. The State must prevent the self-starvation of citizens.

Seems cut and dried argumentively. How about the conflicting statements of Dr. Stern? " You have the right to die in a dignified way." What universal principle is Dr. Stern appealing? He talks about a right. Based on what? What about dying like the young man did the other day, by becoming fish food for a great white shark? Was that dignified? Dying in our that is about as lazy a way to die as I can think of.

The prisoner wanted to starve himself, but that is not dignified. If a terminally ill patient wants to starve herself, that IS dignified. If someone who is brain damaged and can't speak for themselves, but a two timing husband having two kids from another woman, a man who finally remembers after 15 years, "Oh, yeah, Terri wanted to die if this happened to her." That death IS dignified. Being dehydrated and starved until you look like a prisoner from Auschwitz, NOW THAT DEATH IS DIGNIFIED!

And then there's the ever wise Counselor Sloyer, who states that force feeding is an invasive medical procedure. Must be bad...invasive (to invade like the mean US did to Iraq), medical (certainly requiring professionals; "ladies and gentlemen, these force feedings are done by specially trained professionals and should never be attempted by anyone, not even teenagers), and the ever sophisticated procedure (something totally unnatural and against the GAIA hyothesis, I'm sure).

Now my rantings. (Deep breath)


What a stupid idiotic culture we live in!! This is what happens when a culture, at large, rejects the objective reality of truth and the moral absolutes that are meant to guide our decision making. It turns into one giant muddle! Talk about barbarism!

Idiocy! Toss 5000 years of tradition for fear of alienating or polarizing people groups with what is 'right' and 'wrong.' The moronic mental alchemy of moral relativism hands out platitudes and entirely stupid statements for people to think with, like what Dr. Stern said, from a man who ought to have some shred of intelligence. What udder...I can't think of anything other than profanities...ARGH!


Can you see the confusion here? If the State of Washington has the interest in protecting the sanctity of human life, why not Florida? Or is it different in Florida because there's more older people spunging off the populace? If it is the same, then where the HELL was Jeb Bush when Terri needed him? SHE NEEDED MORE THAN THE STATE'S INTEREST, HOW ABOUT THE STATE'S ACTION?


If that's the case, you better move to the state that will follow your interests for living. Otherwise you may have George Felos patting you on the hand and say how peaceful you look while cutting off your food and water.

My ranting is over. I am better now. (Phew)

See the impact of unclear, ambiguous and sloppy terminology?

Saturday, June 04, 2005

On The Lighter Side!

Here's a short story my wife's sister sent to us. Let's have a laugh together!

A wife was making a breakfast of fried eggs for her husband.

Suddenly her husband burst into the kitchen. "Careful ... CAREFUL! Put in some more butter! Oh my GOD! You're cooking too many at once. TOO MANY! Turn them! TURN THEM NOW! We need more butter. Oh my GOD! WHERE are we going to get MORE BUTTER? They're going to STICK! Careful ... CAREFUL! I said be CAREFUL! You NEVER listen to me when you're cooking! Never! Turn them! Hurry up! Are you CRAZY? Have you LOST your mind? Don't forget to salt them. You know you always forget to salt them. Use the salt. USE THE SALT! THE SALT!"

The wife stared at him. "What is wrong with you? You think I don't know how to fry a couple of eggs?"

The husband calmly replied: "I just wanted to show you what it feels like when I'm driving."

Have a great weekend everybody. Oh, and feel free to comment on the differences between men and women. Viva la difference!!

Friday, June 03, 2005

Enemies: Our Best Critics

Bet you thought I'd never come up with this title. However, it is true. Our enemies can be our best critics. They may want to destroy you, make you feel totally humiliated for their shear pleasure, but if you look at what they say, they, unlike your friends, hold nothing back. Case in point is the article in New Republic Online where Michelle Cottle makes a valid point about President Bush's policies regarding embryonic stem cell research and invitro-fertilization:

"Oddly enough, however, you don't hear President Bush or House Majority Leader Tom DeLay or Senator Rick Santorum or any of Washington's other spokesmen for American morality railing against the rampant rise of in vitro in the United States. With characteristic flair, DeLay recently denounced supporters of stem-cell research as advocating "the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings for the purposes of medical experimentation." But where is the Hammer's outrage at supporters of in vitro, which, following his logic, entails the destruction of thousands of "living, distinct human beings" in the service of infertile couples' selfish desire to bear biologically related offspring? Surely if it's wrong to appropriate an existing, soon-to-be-discarded embryo for use in medical research that could one day save millions of people suffering from horrible illnesses, then it is an exponentially greater abomination for a couple to actively create and then discard a dozen or so new embryos just to carry on the family blood line."

Touche! If Republicans are to be consistent logically, they have to admit that Ms. Cottle has a valid argument (she precedes her statements that she disagrees with most if not all of Bush's policies). The same thing goes with anti-abortion or pro-life advocates. If life begins at conception, and the very act of bringing conception is sacred, then it follows that contraception is just as evil. Yet you don't hear the outcry against contraception, or invitro from pro-lifers unless... they are Catholic. The Catholic Church has been consistently against all contraception and invitro-fertilization and will continue to do so. She sees the root causes of these evils born from a mentality, no culture of death.

How do you legislate against invitro? It could be done, but does our country have the political will to accomplish it? Any bill in congress probably wouldn't fly farther than a half-ton rock. Legislation alone will not do it. The wisdom of the Catholic faith cannot be legislated per se; it takes changes of hearts and minds to see that there's an ancient and primal wickedness lurking within the confines of laboratories among people with white lab-coats.

Don't write off your enemies! See what you can learn from them. They may be right...if they follow the common master!!

I am Pro-Choice!

Yes, friends, though I'm a devout Catholic, I am pro-choice. However, I do not misunderstand...I do not equivocate on the word "choice."

I am convinced that all of you women have the right to choose to dump the immoral sub-human piece of human debris who is saying to you that he loves you, you and he were meant for each other, for you to let go (and drop your skirt) and go where the spirit leads (evil, that is). He doesn't love you. YOU CAN CHOOSE!

YOU CAN CHOOSE! You can choose to scream NO! and slap the schmuck across the face. He doesn't want YOU, he wants what you have, a warm place to wiggle his putz.

YOU CAN CHOOSE! You don't have to take humiliation and disrespect. You can choose to save yourself for a true man who adores you for who you are. Save yourself for him. Deliver yourself from your smooth talkin' orgasm-driven jerk.

YOU CAN CHOOSE to say no to a shallow, diseased, lying sub-human, or choose to explain to your true love down the road why you have genital herpes. Choose now what will you say then, and how you will broach the subject.

If you are pregnant, YOU CAN CHOOSE! You can come through for your newborn child and place him in the care of one of thousands of couples who cannot have children.

If you are pregnant, YOU CAN CHOOSE! Choose to keep the life of one who is not a part of your body but in it; a separate human being. You can say no to the sweet-talking Planned Parenthood worker who offers you to turn your child into "baby puree" and suck it into the sink, though calling it a medical procedure.

If you have had an abortion, YOU CAN CHOOSE! Find help among the Christians dedicated to bringing healing to those who suffer post-abortion trauma; they'll point you to the One who will forgive you, Jesus Christ!

YOU CAN CHOOSE. However, don't think you can choose whatever you want and choose the consequences of your free choice. For that matter... I am anti-choice.

"Look, honey, I just gained 50 lbs!"

Obesity Outbreak

Gina Kolata of the New York Slimes describes the situation clearly: "For the first time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has sent a team of specialists into a state, West Virginia, to study an outbreak of obesity in the same way it studies an outbreak of an infectious disease."

Yup, obesity is a disease, my friends and the CDC is going to get to the bottom of it; don't you worry.

You see that roll under your chin, the saddlebags on your thighs, your pear shaped body...that my friends, is not your fault! You caught it from someone who is a carrier of the obesity virus. That fat slob you shook hands with who never washes his hands...he's the one. Those restaurants and fast food places, filled with the germs, that force you to eat the entirety of the portions they give you, they're the ones. Jerks.

Not to worry, I'm sure there will be some federal funding to help with your expenses. Insurance companies will soon be required to add treatment for obesity to insureds covered expenses. Someone else is going to pay, and that my friend is not going to be you!

Rest well, and pass me another doughnut, please.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

The Idiocy of "Your Truth and My Truth"

If I have heard it once, I have heard it a million times, "You have your truth, and I have mine." Little do people know how incredibly stupid that statement is. I heard it spoken in a Graduate School class in Ethics, with no retort from the Prof. Amazing but true.

Who can tell me why this statement is so nonsensical. If not, why is it so "meaningful?" Remember, we follow the common master.

The Magnificent Seven...Appeasers

Check out Seven Extaordinary Idiots

Here's what appeasement does for ya! You come up with a compromise with unprincipled bullies and then you get taken advantage of. The seven "wise" and conciliatory Senators Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee know how to cut a great deal when the see one. Anne Coulter says it best:

"The seven Republicans we're not leaving in charge of the national treasury believed they could trust the Democrats to interpret "extraordinary circumstances" fairly. And why not? It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait — no, I have that wrong. The Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Hmmm.

Well, at least the Democrats didn't wait until Trent Lott foolishly granted them an equal number of committee chairmanships following the 2000 election to seize illegitimate control of the Senate by getting future Trivial Pursuit answer Jim Jeffords to change parties after being elected as a Republican. Oops, no — they did that, too.

The seven Republican "mavericks," as The New York Times is wont to call them, had just signed off on this brilliant compromise when the Democrats turned around and filibustered John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations."

Call it stupid. You never deal with bullies, YOU DEFEAT THEM! Hey! Wait! We did defeat them!

It's For the Children, Again.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has a wonderful idea: offer smut sites the option to put an "xxx" at the end of their URL. Here's what the AP stories has to say about how this will lend towards the safety of our families:

"ICM contends the "xxx" Web addresses, which it plans to sell for $60 a year, will protect children from online smut if adult sites voluntarily adopt the suffix so filtering software used by families can more effectively block access to those sites. The $60 price is roughly ten times higher than prices other companies charge for dot-com names. "

"It will further help to protect kids," said John Morris, staff counsel at the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology. Morris predicted some adult sites will choose to buy "xxx" Web addresses but others will continue to use dot-com."

So help me here, ICAAN, families would be made safer because those smut sites who CHOOSE to use the "XXX" will be detected by the filters on family computers? These sordid vicious sites are going to voluntarily pay ten times the fee for "XXX" than for a because they want to be screened out by families' smut filters?

It think it's the money, since smut is a $12 billion dollar industry. What do you think?

The King of Contradiction, the Darling of Doublespeak


Clinton is at it again. In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, read what he said, with the first breath:

"The charges that the House sent to the Senate were false," Clinton claimed for the first time since signing off on his 2001 plea bargain with Ray. "So I did a bad thing. I made a bad personal mistake. I paid a big price for it. But I was acquitted because the charges were false."

And then with another breath:

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely," Clinton said in a statement read by his then-press secretary, Jake Siewert. "But I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false."

As to the charges of purgery (lying under oath):

"And that the charges that the House sent to the Senate were false. So I did a bad thing. I made a bad personal mistake. I paid a big price for it. But I was acquitted because the charges were false."

The law of non-contradiction applies here; two complete opposite statements cannot both be true. He was indicted on charges of purgery and obstruction of justice. He said his responses to the questions were false, but the purgery charges were false.

And I bet the media will let it go. Scoundrels! Phooey on them!

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Is This Our Future?

Walter Cronkite

You ever wonder why there seems to be a concerted effort by the liberal left and the media are trying to derail our efforts as a nation. Perhaps you would do well to go to the above link and check out Walter Cronkite's view of World Government back in December of 2004. Here are a few exerpts:

"There was not a blip on the main-stream news media radar when Hillary Clinton introduced Walter Cronkite to the World Federalist Association (WFA) on October 19. Not until the Washington Times reprinted the Cronkite speech Friday, December 3, did Americans discover that both Hillary and Walter are avid advocates of world government. "

"While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort to establish a lasting peace. Meanwhile, . . . those advocates who work for world peace by urging a system of world government are called impractical dreamers. Those impractical dreamers are entitled to ask their critics what is so practical about war.”

“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict, we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace.”

“To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.”

Does this not wierd you out a little?

Watch Out For the Evil Eye!

To The Point News

"What gives envy its enormous destructive capacity is the fear of it, fear of the Evil Eye. It is envy which makes a Nazi, Communist, or Moslem Terrorist. It is the fear of being envied which makes a Liberal."

"Liberalism is thus not a political ideology or set of beliefs. It is an envy-deflection device, a psychological strategy to avoid being envied. It is the politicalization of envy-appeasement."

"Yet the liberal elite that controls the Democrat Party and mainstream media hate George Bush more than they hate the terrorists – just as they were more outraged at the humiliation of Baathist thugs in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison than they were over the murder, mutilation, burning, and hanging of four Americans in Fallujah."

Interesting generalization. Whataya think?