My Textbooks This Semester.

Astr - 111. Erickson. Looks to be an intersting class, and the book seems particularly well written. I hope to learn a lot from this class, and plan on studying diligently.

Chem 100. Ramsey. The professor seems like a bright man, and may even be animated, but will not find that out until he starts lectures. This class I hope to do very well in.

Math 127. Reed. NOt looking forward to this class at all. Totally lame teacher, or so it seems to be. Will probably end up shooting the class up, or getting a 100 percent. Either way, I will have no fun.















Phil 159. Griffith. Hopefully to be a lively class, even though I may be the only person who doesn't support ID or creatioism, I hope to get something out of it. Hopefully, the prof. doesn't go senile first.

Iran Nuclear Weapons

Iran, IAEA continue cooperation ‘based on mutual understanding’ July 25, 2008
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=173890

Iran to stop co-operating with UN nuclear expert

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080725.WORLDREPORT25-1/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/


Iranian Cleric Rejects Deadline in Nuclear Talks as US Presses Tehran for Response
http://voanews.com/english/2008-07-25-voa42.cfm


EU Foreign Ministers Call For More Diplomacy With Iran
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-22-voa58.cfm


Attackon Iran would undermine U.S. interests: analyst
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=173898


U.S. not ready to hold high-level talks with Iran: Ahmed Khan
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=173905

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

"President's Impeachment back on the table." A Response

A recent opinion letter to the editor of the Express Times was published, harbors the idea of impeaching George W. Bush, the current president of the United States. The author is Louise Legun, who notes that Bush should be punished for his crimes against the nation of Iraq, and also wishes to bring justice to those who died in this useless war. The text of the letter is here:

"

Thursday, July 24, 2008

At 10 a.m. Friday, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, will rap his gavel to begin what could be one of the most critical hearings in the history of our country. The impeachment of President George W. Bush is back on the table!

I have heard others give reasons for not holding impeachment hearings. "It's too late in the presidency. Impeachment is too much of a distraction and would take up too much valuable time in Congress."

What more important business could Congress carry out than to restore our Constitution, which the president has shredded over the past seven and a half years? What more important business could there be than to re-establish a rule of law rather than the dictatorial leadership that Bush has co-opted as his birthright?

As a proud member of Veterans for Peace as well as of the National Impeachment Network, I call on all Americans who wish to uphold our Constitution to do their duty as citizens. We must not only hold the current administration accountable for the crimes that have been committed, but we must prevent future administrations from abusing power.

Call your representative in Washington and call all of the members of the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to sign on to articles of impeachment against King George the tyrant!

Louise Legun

Allentown"

First of all, let me firmly state that due to the overwhelming evidence, and the case laid out by Vincent Bugliosi in the book "The Prosecution of George. W. Bush for Murder," I believe that Bush should be charged and handed a fair conviction for murder. Now let's get some things straight with the Legun letter.

The second sentence of the second paragraph notes one of my main objections to impeachment, notably, it is too late in his term to levy impeachment. For instance, all impeachment does is remove the official from office, it is not a criminal conviction like I am led to believe Legun thinks in this letter. If Bush was to be impeached today, the process would be notably long, and Bush wuld still be in office until the decision of if he should be kicked out of office or not came back. And the process would probably be particularly long, with many Republicans stallling the process.

Legun notes that there is not more important issue for the Congress to conduct at this time. Well, frankly, we are in a sub-prime mortgage crisis, gas prices are through the roof, and the never ended problems or the poor, drugs and prostitution are still rampant. Are you sure there is nothing more important than kicking push out of office and replacing him with the Vice President? I mean, Dck Cheney does not seem like a good person to replace Bush with, and in fact would probably be just as bad.

When Legun notes " what more important business could there be than to re-establish a rule of law rather than the dictatorial leadership that Bush has co-opted as his birthright?" he is mostly right. The need to bring Bush to justice is extraordinary, and should be done as soon as Bush leaves office. Bugliosi in his aforementioned books notes that any District Attorney who represents a district where a United States soldier who died lived in can prosecute Bush for murder, as could the State Attorney General. This is not a matter of if Bush should be prosecuted, it is a matter of how and when. Bush could only be kicked out of office with impeachment, but he could be convicted and put on Death Row if prosecuted by a federal, state, or district court. Why waste time with impeachment, if his time in office is so short (179 days)?

We should hold all the members involved with the lies and deceit leading to the Iraq Slaughter accountable. As soon as each and everyone leaves office, they should be handcuffed, thrown in prison, and charged with the murder of 4124 soldiers in Iraq.

For further information on Bush's crimes read:

http://nationalimpeachment.org/
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

Critique of the Cosmological Arguement

"Consider some event in the Universe. No matter what event you choose, it will be the result of some cause, or, more likely, a very complex set of causes. Each of those causes is the result of some other set of causes, which are, in turn, the results of yet other causes. Thus, there is an enormous chain of events in the Universe, with the earlier events causing the latter. Either this chain has a beginning, or it does not."

So states what is known as the cosmological argument for the existence of God. An argument that for a better part of history was particularly hard for many philosophers and people of science to overcome because of a lack of knowledge. By what we know today, though, this argument is a best a "God of the Gaps" explanation of the universe, meaning, since we do not know a particular fact now, we might as well inject God into the equation because it is the easiest explanation. With the infinite powers of reason, logic, and what is as best known to us in science, I will attempt to make this argument for the existence of God, at worst, very weak, and at best, a misnomer.

Two very well known, ancient philosophers posited the arguement before the turn of the first millenium. Plato said, in The Laws (Book X), that the motion of the worlds was imparted by some kind of self-originating force (i.e. God). This is almost something straight out of the Bible if you ask anyone. But it is not. It came from Plato years before Jesus was even given a thought. Yet, arguements for historicity have no rational value. Today, modern culture has pretty well come to the conclusion of calling every non-Abrahamic religion of yore, even current American Indigenous religions, mythology.

One of the best known theologians of all time, Thomas Aquinas, while reading the works of Plato and Aristotle, lifted the idea of the First Cause ( can anyone say Zeitgeist?), and came up with the most well-known form of the cosmological argument, the one still used today. "His conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused, which he asserted was God."

One of the main fallacies of the thinking of these three ancient men was that they thought the universe was always here, and forever would be, exactly how it was, and is. Although we can not say this was particularly their fault because they did not have the astronomical abilities we do today, we can see at least part of their argument was false. First of all, astronomers reckon that the universe is 13.7 BILLION years old, give or take a hundred million years (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html). Secondly, a well-founded theory known colloquially as the Big Bang Theory, gives us insight into how exactly the Universe was set into motion. In fact, scientists have been able to calculate exactly what was happening back to a point of 10E-15 seconds after the Big Bang happened. Anything smaller than this unit of time, known as Planck time, is noncognitive.

Other comparative theories of the beginning of the universe include:

Ekpyrotic theory - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/04/13/big.bang.collision/

Ellipsoidal Universe - http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1475-7516/2007/07/001

Since we know that the universe had a beginning, we can know discuss that argument of some other forms of the cosmological argument, including the Uncaused Cause argument. This states that the power that caused the universe does not need a beginning. But wait. Is this not completely paradoxical, doesn't the cosmological argument specifically say "No matter what event you choose, it will be the result of some cause, or, more likely, a very complex set of causes[?]" So I imagine the very arguement in question contradicts itself, which in itself, makes no logical sense. This is known as special pleading, many people using this arguement but ignoring the unfavorable details that it produces with its very existence.

Similarly, Michio Kaku flushed the arguement down the toilet, noting that gas particles require no particular moment of origin to begin movement. They just move. Hereby, the main arguement from cosmology is destroyed and laid to rest.

All questions and critiques welcome.

What Exactly Ron Paul Stands For.

With the mainstream media blaring night and day about what is happening in the world, but hardly ever on issues that ever really matter, an average citizen learns hardly anything at all when watching Fox News, or CNN. It hardly comes to a surprise that what people know about one of the main third party candidates for President of the United States of America, Ron Paul, is slanted, mostly based on what they hear from friends, read in poorly construed books, or from his website, where of course he tries to put himself in the best of light. In this article, armed with a computer and extreme skepticism, I will try to bring to light the Ron Paul everyone should know.

Abortion and Contraception

Browsing through Ron Paul's voting record (he is a member of the House of Representatives) , it seems that he takes the most fundamentalist positions on the issues of abortion and contraception. For instance, on House Bill 4274, he voted YES. The bill's proposal was to prohibit funding to family planner's who knowingly provide contraceptives to minors without their guardians consent (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2134&can_id=296).

On the matter of abortion, Ron Paul, who according to his website (RonPaul.com), "s one of the nation’s foremost defenders of our privacy," voted against a bill which would allow "military personnel and their dependents overseas to use their own funds to obtain abortion services in overseas military hospitals." Yes, you read that right. Our military personnel, the one's overseas fighting illegal wars in foreign countries now have another worry to pile onto an exceedingly stressful life. Thank you Ron Paul, for maybe protecting some of our privacy, put when something that does not concern you, only the two consenting adults who want to use their own money to seek the abortion, you come to the forefront of fundamentalism and vote to stop them. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3531&can_id=296)

Agriculture

Independent farmers are quite possibly the most oppressed poor people in the United States' history. Being pushed off their land, bought out, and otherwise harrassed by the government, out sold by the corporate farmers, and forgotten by the American people, they need all the help they can get. But, when the government brings up the Agricultural Act of 2001, a bill which would help the independent farmer, at least a little, is given a vote of NO from Ron Paul. Ron Paul, the so called "beacon of freedom" by his supporters, apparently doesn't care about providing
" supplemental payment for farmers if a particular commodity price drops below a certain level, " somthing so fundamental and necessary for any perceived farmer (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3087&can_id=296).

Animal Welfare

Anybody who at least has the issues of animals on the back off their mind when going to the polls should know off a particularly odd position Ron Paul took on the matter of Horse Slaughtering. One would think Ron Paul would vote for a bill that would prohobit the slaughter of horses for human consumption. I mean, if you can save a little of the wildlife that is left on earth, why would you not? Well, Ron Paul, must have found some good reason that no one knows off, for he voted NO on a bill that would "prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes." Hmmm. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3899&can_id=296)

Arts and Humanities

A major talking point of Ron Paul is the Constitution of the United States. He wishes to take a more literal interpretation of the text, and bring the ideas of the Founding Fathers back to the forefront of American Idealology. I guess Ron Paul forgot the part that said one of Congress' duties is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Why do I reckon he forgot this? Well, he voted a big NO on the National Endowment for the Arts Amendment which would restore "$98 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts." I guess the beauty of art does not appeal to Ron Paul and he must not care that so many artists struggle and live poorly trying to find grants to continue their work. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1912&can_id=296)

Public Transportation

In the past few months, with the price of crude oil spiking in the global market, the price of driving to and from work, or even to various nonexsential activites like seeing their friends has increased to the point of many people looking for a cheaper way to travel, many times choosing the comfort and safety of the local bus routes. With the vote of NO on the issuing of Public Transportation and Alternative Fuel Grants, Ron Paul thereby kept fares of the buses staying at their current level, instead allowing them to go up, and emptied the pockets of the most vulnerable and avid bus riders, the poor. The bill would have appropriated "$850 million to the Department of Transportation in order to fund grants for the expansion of public transportation, the reduction of public transportation fares or avoidance of increases in fares, the use of alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment or facilities, or the expansion or establishment of commuter matching services with information about alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use." (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1912&can_id=296)

Budgets and Spending

On a bill which "Allows a veteran who has served an aggregate of 36 months or 30 continuous days of active duty after September 11, 2001 to receive a full scholarship for in-state tuition at a public university, a monthly housing stipend, and a lump sum each term for books and supplies,"and "Appropriates $8.48 billion for natural disaster relief and recovery, including $5.76 billion for construction of flood prevention and protection structures in Louisiana," Ron Paul voted NO. For what possible reason would he vote no? DOes he not think that the people in the flooded areas deserved help? What is his problem? WHy did he do this? DOes he find his position on this bill defensable? (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=20029&can_id=296)


Frankly, I could go on (maybe I will later). This person running for President in 2008 under the guise of freedom and compassion obviously doesn't care about the people. His views are pathetic and not defendable. I hope I have enlightened even one person.

Less Weight

Had beard shaved off. Going to get haircut.

The Dark Knight

Usually when I am subjected to a viral ad campaign, I resist the temptation to partake in the disaster capitalism exposed by such derelict thought. Then again, not all the time is a movie ad as bad as those connected to Daddy Day Camp and 300. Yet, do to the fact of today's extensive dissemination of information on such a grand scale, I was able to view the first ten minutes of the now record breaking movie The Dark Knight, either due to a hacker, or other illegal action committed by someone. I fell in love.

I could give a shit less that Heath Ledger is dead. I have seen none of his movies because I am not a huge movie viewer, seeing some here and there. I have heard good things about him, mostly due to roles in movies I could care less to see. As most of you may know though, Death Ledger is the Joker in the newest Batman movie, and, I think, by far, it is the most well performed piece of acting I have ever seen. From the idiosyncrasies of the Joker licking the inside of his lips due to scars, to the all out murderous frenzies of one of the most well-known comic book characters of all, Ledger performs the part above and beyond anything I would ever expect from an apparently emotionally distressed actor.

The story of the movie was particularly tight, with no lack of plot twists and exemplary thought out disaster situations which made the normally moral and uptight citizen laugh at the demise of innocent human beings. A much more dark and grim storyline in contrast to the Batman Begins, but nevertheless, it was more involved hardly similar to the reigning mantra of Hollywood, which yearly puts out movies beyond justification, being less than caustic as I should be.

From what I can gather, Christian Bale's role will be forever over-looked, either because his part was far less interesting than Ledger's, or because of Ledger's demise to pills. To me, Ledger was just far more into his character, seemingly he was the character, and Batman was far too dry, with a moronic sub-plot (my only misgiving) of whether he should give up his identity to keep the Joker from killing more people.

If you wish to partake in one of the most perfect cinematic experiences of all time, take the initiative and watch this masterpiece. Otherwise, keep masturbating.