Related to Recent News about Attacks on Journalists by Rebel Groups.

Journalists, with scruples, have a very important place in the world. Given this, no nation or rebel groups should imprison or kill them. There is a subjective nature of what journalism is important and the nature of scruples.

Given this, all journalists, as long as they meet a minimal definition should be protected and their actions should be responsibly facilitated. This especially applies to journalists who are covering stories in foreign lands.

Heinous acts against them, like all people, can not be justified. No matter how you spin it. Don't target the weak and non-combatants.

Thoughts on the Rick Perry Case

This post is based on what I can gather from the news. Rick Perry has been indicted for abusing his power and threating a public servant by threating to use his veto power and actually vetoing the bill that he threaten to.

I never liked Rick Perry, as a person or a politician. However, the veto threat is a valid, long-held, important, and reasonable power of any executive body in the United States. It is essential power of the executive. It is an important tool to keep powers separate. If that is his only crime then the charges should be dropped.

Stand Your Ground

This blog post is about the tragic lose of Jordan Davis and his parents' campaign against the Florida “stand-your-ground” law.

Unfortunately, I cannot call support for the Davis' family campaign. I believe that their efforts would probably be best towards getting justice for their son, they should be preparing and be involved in the re-trial of Michael Dunn. They are wasting effort and time attacking a law that gives people a basic human right, the right to defend their right in a proper manner.

I do not all the facts of the case or know what happen that day. From the news it would seem Michael Dunn and Jordan Davis got in an argument, presumably over music, and Dunn opened fire on the car. The news article I have read leave a lot of necessary detail out, for example how Davis was acting in threatening manner, were their witnesses to his behavior, what was the behavior of the other people involved, was Dunn legally carrying a weapon, etc...

The new is actually very unhelpful in several ways. First they continue to compare the Zimmerman trial to this one and making mentions to the “stand your ground” law, however Zimmerman did not use that law as defense in his trial and we know that Dunn used a self-defense claim but we do not know if him or his lawyers cited the “stand your ground” defense. Further more, the “stand your ground” law commonly being cited as unreasonable because it has provision that someone can use deadly force when presented with something they reasonably believe to be a threat. However, that, by itself, is the definition of self-defense. The “stand your ground” law stipulates that in the event someone feels they need to defend themselves, they have no duty to retreat first. [Click Here for My Thoughts on Retreating ]

Mr. Dunn was convicted of three attempted murder charges but not convicted of the murder of Jordan Davis. Presumably because of the “stand your ground” law. I find this confusing because if he was guilty of attempted murder than the jury believed he acted unreasonably and therefore should of convicted him on the murder charge. He either acted reasonably given his situation or he did not.

Sources:

http://news.msn.com/us/parents-of-dead-teen-vow-to-fight-floridas-self-defense-law
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/justice/florida-loud-music-case/index.html
http://fcir.org/2014/02/21/dunn-case-puts-stand-your-ground-on-trial-again-zimmerman-gun-murder-florida/

My Thoughts On Karma

(Notes: This is an attempt at a comprehensive talk on karma, however is not intended to be an end all be all explanation/critique of karma; I realize there will be more to discuss).

Karma is a philosophical concept that stipulates that if an individual acts good than they will receive good in kind. Conversely if someone acts in a bad manner they will receive bad.

Simply put and perhaps the best way to put it: “What goes around, comes around.”

I won't start with trying to define what is “good” or what is “bad.” That will take much longer and is not really within the scope of my up-coming argument. For my purposes, “good” is just what you would generally define as “good” and “bad” is the same.

What I will start with it something that I find is frustrating but important. When every you want to make the argument that something causes something else, you always have to think of other possible causes.

If you believe if, X₁ → Y than you'd have to show that other reasonable values of X are not responsible for Y.

If you believe in Karma, than your good actions (X₁) causes good things to happen to you (Y). However, you have to look at other possibilities, what else could cause Y? Lets looked at this specifically. Your good actions, helping an old lady across the street for example, caused the cashier at the grocery store to be really pleasant to you. However, what if the cashier was just pleasant to you (Y) because he/she was having a good day (X2).

If this is true than X₂ → Y, and X₁ did not cause Y.

You can get around this, of course, by saying that X₁ and X₂ cause Y. But that raises many more questions. Which is more important X1 or X2? Are both necessary? In the first case, you would have to change you definition of karma. In the second case, it decreases the relevance of karma: Random happenings + Your actions are necessary for an outcome.

If your willing to change the definition of karma that good/bad actions increase the possibility (but does not cause) of good/bad rewards than it is hard to argue against it.

To argue against it one would need a more philosophical and anecdotal argument than a pseudo-scientific approach. (You could theoretically try to measure the possible effects of karma in a scientific experiment but the methodology would be difficult to workout, and it would be difficult or impossible to find a natural mechanism for it).

The inherit problem with karma is that, somewhat mentioned above, is that you cannot find a natural mechanism for it. What could possibly cause good/bad rewards because of good/bad actions? What particle or force can be reasonable for it? How does it judge what actions are good or bad? There would have to be universal “goods” and “bads” and they would have to applicable to every possible situation.

Furthermore, there is defiantly plenty of anecdotal evidence for karma but there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence against it. There are plenty of people who “got what they deserved” but there are also plenty of examples of people who didn't get punished at all, or who got less than what they deserved.

Overall, I personally do not believe in karma. Too much uncertainty, too many other possible factors. This does not mean however, I have less respect for those who believe in karma.

Special Thanks to melodykia who discussed the topic with me and helped me better understand the pro-karma standpoint.

Her blog can be found here:

http://melodrama731.blogspot.com/

Why I Agree With the Warning Given to Kim Jong-un

                   U.N. Warns Kim Jong-un he may have be charged with crimes against humanity

Although there is some creditability to the idea that such a warning might have no teeth: It is unlikely
Mr. Jong-un will willingly submit to any summons by the U.N.; then comes the daunting task as to who will go get him and if anyone should/will in the first place. There is also talk that the only end this warning has will to further hurt nuclear program talks.

Despite the above, I agree with the decision to issue such a warning. In my opinion, it all has to do with accountability. In countries like North Korea, their officials have no accountability (at least none to their people, which is arguable the only important kind of accountability, with regards to a public official).

By issuing a warning, be it lacking, be it weak, you show that leaders with no accountability are still accountable. It shows that the world is watching and it at least puts some fear in those leaders hearts that something might be done about them.

Thank you for reading. Discussion is encouraged.

Source:
http://news.msn.com/world/north-koreas-kim-warned-he-may-face-charges-over-atrocities

Just a Picture

       Doesn't the guy on the left (King Abdullah of Jordan) look really uncomfortable?...and short.

One of the Scariest Moments In My Life

So recently I was on a plane for the very first time to visit family. It was a bus ride to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a plane ride to a small unassuming airport and finally a short car ride to my mother's house.

When I got to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport I was nervous. I've never been on a plane before, I've always took a bus or a train. I am partial to long train rides but the tickets for this particular plane were slightly cheaper and the travel time was cut, lets say significantly. I couldn't let that opportunity pass.

That being said I wasn't just nervous about the plane ride, I was always nervous about the TSA regulations. I had not quite made myself as familiar as I should. Luckily I was accompanied by a pleasant individual who was very familiar with the layout and procedures of that particular airport (which is very large by the way and, despite that it did not take long at all to get through security).

My lack of knowledge and experience that wrecked my mind before getting on the plane all left me when I landed in my destination, and was not one of the scariest moments in my life.

The scariest moment in my life came going through security of that small unassuming airport I mentioned earlier. My companion and I were going through security when all the sudden a TSA pulls my bag off the conveyer belt, looks at me and asks “Is this your bag?” I looked terrified, any confidence I gained from my experience at Detroit Metro died. “Yes that's is mine.”

(Note: I always travel light, so I only had a carry on and backpack)

She pulls my bag and me off to the side and informs me that it set off the machine and that she was going to have to manually inspect it. I'm scared but assure myself I've done nothing wrong and what was in that bag went through Detroit Metro, with the exception of a pair of slippers my mother bought me, and everything was okay. So she looks through the bag and fines nothing, but she still has to run it through the machine again. She runs it through, and it goes off again.

She asks me if there is anything metal in a specific region of my suitcase, I say no. Because there is none, as far as I know. She begins to look through the bag again, very carefully and respectfully. At this point I just wanna get on the plane home so I tell her, “you can rip it apart if you want.” (Not literally rip my bag apart but you know, look more aggressively). She does and then she realizes something. She takes most of my clothes out of my bag and unzips a little compartment in the back of my bag. You know what she finds?..... A small, winter-camo folding knife I lost 6 months ago. I'm stunned.

“Ya, you can't bring this on the plane.” She says.

What flies through my mind:

Oh my god, I'm going to jail,

I didn't even know that was in there,

Oh crap, it looks like I tried to hide it.

Calmly she explained the protocol to me and that it was fine it, happens more then you think. She explains that I can't bring it on the plane and I have to do one of three things. Have the bag checked, take the knife and put in my car, or surrender it. I surrendered it, luckily without soiling myself.

The Real Function(s) of Government

There are many, competing views on what government is suppose to do. From the minimum of contract enforcement and private property protection to social welfare and heavy regulation. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, etc... Everyone has some idea as to what they believe a government should do.

In my opinion, most of those views are unnecessarily complicated. Government is not suppose to protect property, it is not suppose to provide social welfare. But it can to both of those things. In my opinion there is inherit job for government. There is no supreme authority that specifically defines the functions of government (that I am aware of anyway). There is no specific function of government.

Government has a very specific function that solely relates to why people came together to form that government in the first place. This of course does not apply to governments formed by a small group or a single individual claiming to have legitimacy where none ever existed (ex. Absolute monarchs claiming to have divine rights). A government like that is not really a government at all, just a farce. (Though technically that government could gain legitimacy if that the lack of legitimacy is not challenged).

The kind of government I want to talk about it one with true legitimacy however, one that is of the people, but the people (at least at in its' inception). A government were individual came together because they knew that they had common interests and they wanted to go about achieving those common interests. This concept lies the true function of government. Problem Solving. Groups of people come together to reach common goals and then trying to reach those goals, whatever they may be.

Thoughts Provoked by a News Article

I recently read an article on MSN News about the legal troubles of a woman who is called “Jihad Jane” (Colleen LaRose). The article describes her failed terrorist attack and how, after, she cooperated with the authorities. A link is posted below if you want more specifics on that. What I want to focus on in the post is the part of the article that describes how her history of abuse may have lead her to the path of jihad. I do not have any other specific articles or studies to corroborate what the author of that article seemed to allude to, but it is fair to find that a traumatic life, with unresolved pain, can leave one more malleable. (In the “Jihad Jane” story it is obvious that past trauma is unresolved because she described herself as lost at the same time she followed the orders of her “brothers” that she “loved”).

The real thing I would like to focus on is this question: How can you believe you cause is just, if you attract or purposely recruit broken individuals? Broken individuals will do anything to be loved. Your cause or argument holds no real sway, has no real relevance if the person would listen to almost anything you say if you worded it the right way. You can not call you cause just if most of the people who believe it are broken.

Okay. To clarify, so this argument does not necessarily negate the possibility that ones cause is just even if followed by the broken, however, if the cause is only followed by the broken then there is no proof that it is just.

Your argument holds no real value if it can't be applied to people who are thinking rationally. An arguments real relevance can only be seen if it is accepted by those who are ration. Winning over one rational thinker does not make one's argument valid or just. Though, winning over many rational thinkers does not make one's argument valid of just either.

The concept, I am struggling to get at here is that an argument should carter to rational human beings. An argument that carters to rational human beings can be just and valid (though not necessarily so). An argument that carters to irrational human beings (arguments that either attract or hunt for irrational human beings) can not be considered valid.

I guess overall, rational arguments are the only ones that can be valid or just.

References:

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/jihad-jane-despite-cooperation-us-seeks-decades-in-prison