Nick Oliva

It used to be that you could refer to the "fog of war" (funny that in wikipedia it seems to be mostly about video games. I guess that’s what you get when techies control the content….)

…sorry. As I was saying… and you were talking about decisions made during a war or even during the planning or preparation stages.

In Bushspeak we get a new meaning for fog of war: The fog you create in order to start a war.

We’re in it now.

Juan Cole, for example, is pounding the pavement on the reasons not to go to war… no proof… warnings from others….

But, does Iran have a nuclear weapons plan or not? Is Iraq a credible threat to American interests or not? Are we already planning a military action or not?

The fog machine is running. No case has been made. No case is required.

America goes to war because it has faith in George W. Bush.

The fog is getting thicker.

whereIstand Tags

• Has the case been made for the U.S. to use military force against Iran?

Tags: Technology by nick
2 Comments »

Brian is right that the President is on course to attack Iran.

There’s an effort in Congress to remind him that declaring war is a right explicitly delegated to the Congress by the Constitution.

Republicans in Congress desire to distance themeselves from the Burning Bush and to recover some of their National Security credentials. It is not entirely impossible for a measure such as this one to pass.

One of the many globs of shit that Bush threw at the wall in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was that Congress had authorized it. Of course, what Congress authorized was limited to "defensive" actions. So… just redefine "defensive" to include "offensive" and there’s no problem….

And what if Congress explicitly tells the President this time that he does not have authorization to launch any kind of military action against Iran without explicit Congressional approval? There must be some wording that even Bush’s lawyers can’t reinterpret to mean whatever he wants, right? Well, OK, they will reinterpret it however they want…but at some point, they will no longer be able to get away with it. The people of "the right" that "at long last" still have left a semblance of dignity will be heard.

What does that do to the President’s myriad rationalizations of past actions?

Congress may impeach Bush for it…but Bush will see to it that America invades Iraq on his watch.

whereIstand Tags

• BrianR
• Will the U.S. use military force in Iran?

Tags: Politics by nick
1 Comment »

Michelle Malkin rails against civil disobedience in the destruction of an anti-abortion display at Northern Kentucky University.

The article she quotes from the Cincinnati Enquirer says the following (emphasis mine):

The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.

Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I disagree entirely with the professor’s justification that destroying the crosses was an exercise of free speech. It wasn’t. It was an exercise of civil disobedience. That’s probably a big difference as it pertains to her desire to remain employed.

What interests me - or rather intrigues me - is the language I highlighted. If the university cannot ban such displays, of what purpose or significance is permission?

I would think any university clearly has the right to keep stakes from being pounded into their lawns. Central Park refuses large protests on the grounds of the damage caused. If the university has such a policy, the professor and her vandal horde could probably have had them removed without being subjected to charges.

I hate it when the dummies are on our side….

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

I recently finished The Blind Watchmaker and I’m about a third of the way through On the Origin of Species. Books usually take over my life and everything I see gets strained through the prism of what I’m reading.

I don’t pretend to be bringing up something original here - just something that I’ve recently discovered.

Infocats today writes about the latest drivel from the man that pretends to represent the supernatural on Earth. Of course, I think the moralizing part is ridiculous and that the Church is far more guilty of sin than 99% of living human beings.

Where it suits his self-interest, infocats invariably departs from church dogma. He’s a "fair-weather faithful"… but then, they all are….

The part that interests me is the rant against efforts to "modify the very grammar of life". For purposes of understanding my point (which is one entirely devoid of religion) consider that instead of the supernatural, the statement made was about "attempting to take nature’s place without being nature."

[Go off on me if you like on your own blog on some religion topic...you really only belong here if you're willing to accept for discussion purposes that "natural selection" approximates reality. Unfortunately, if you think there exists a justified reason to believe in the supernatural, you're probably too stupid or naive to understand i don't want your opinion here.]

Now, if you’ve read as far as I have into Darwin’s book, you know that part of his case for things evolving is the proofs of humans effecting change by selection, and the parallels of that selection in nature based on geographies, epochs, etc.

All species "select"; they select among themselves and, those that keep them, select among their agriculture, livestock, pets, etc.

As it pertains to genetic engineering, what if we’re actually selecting the weak instead of the fit? We could be doing this by:

• being disinterested in obvious genetic defects
• helping to keep alive (to permit reproduction) individuals that would not have survived without more intervention than is provided by nature, the family, etc.
• in the extreme, genetic identification or manipulation of the cells that are allowed to develop

Those that are looking to attack me for asking questions will say I’m now trying to eliminate the weak, infirm, etc. Well, that’s obviously not true, but I’m not going to pretend not to be interested in this subject in order to mollify the attack dogs.

If you can suggest to me a good source of moderate length for the recent thinking on this, I’d be much obliged. Post in comments or email to nick at this site dot com.

whereIstand Tags

• infocats1
• [open thread]
• [Open Thread]

Tags: Science by nick
3 Comments »

The standard of proof on Iran is already, "if they get nuclear technology, they’re dangerous".

But the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to which they, and America…and 185 other countries, are signatories, permits Iran to have nuclear technology.

Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Before flying off the handle about what a danger a nuclear Iran would be, consider that there are treaties in force. According to the NY Times today,

…so far the quantities that the country has produced appear to be minuscule, and the enrichment level announced today — 3.5 percent — would work for producing power, not warheads.

Americans that have now decided that Bush actually didn’t have a good justification for invading Iraq, ought not to use a false standard of proof to escalate the conflict with Iran. As long as we do not have proofs that what they are creating is for weapons purposes, we at least do not seem to have a case for offensive action - at least not under the authority of the NPT.

On Monday, Mr. Bush repeated that his "stated goal" was that "we do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon."

But this is not clear as to what proof - or more importantly when we’re talking about Bush - "whose" proof of "nuclear weapons" intent is accepted.

We’re perfectly truthful if we say, "America just decides what’s in its best interest and can enforce that on any sovereign nation when it feels justified for national security reasons". I may be missing it, but I don’t think we’re truthful in saying, "Iran with nuclear technology is a sufficient condition for offensive action".

If there were no useful purpose to having non-weapons-grade enrichment capabilities, then one could argue that they are on a clear path. But the ability to enrich uranium does have non-weapons purposes. Americans should require Bush to clearly articulate exactly what actions on the part of Iran would trigger consideration of an offensive action. Otherwise, we risk yet another ex-post-facto justification of invasion on supposed "proof" that turns out to be manipulated or contrived.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

Tags: Technology by nick
3 Comments »

I’m, of course, not talking of the "Republicans" in Rome in the times written about in the gospels, but he Republicans in America in the times written about in the blogs.

Republicans mock Democrats for having lost the support of the religious community, or for desperately striving to get it back. They should concern themselves more with letting go of the support of the religious community themselves.

This opinion piece by Gary Wills in the New York Times highlights the growing division between those that are truly conservative and those that are Republican. There’s just no room to reconcile "what Jesus taught" with voting for George Bush and his ilk.

Andrew Sullivan says Will’s article "brilliantly defends" Christianity and Jesus and rejects calls to apologize for coining the term, "Christianists":

People who believe in the Gospels of Jesus Christ are Christians. People who use the Gospels of Jesus Christ for political gain, and for a political program of right or left, are Christianists.

I don’t like the term; perhaps I’ll reconcile myself to it. Good points though.

But when you really want to destroy the Republican pride over Jesus, you have to step back and sweep under the rug the often-quoted lines of Ben Franklin about religion in government (…if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without His Aid?) and look to the words of Madison that actually moved the minds of Americans at the founding of our nation and paved the way for our separation of Church and State.

What those that quote Franklin don’t frequently mention is that Franklin, for all of his proto-blogging and monopoly on the postal service, lost this particular argument.

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth [Virginia], having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

[continued...]

It’s not a very long text and it really needs to be read by all. This is the most powerful argument for Christians to begin their political redemption that I have come across yet. The specific purpose for which it was written is the same ulterior motive of the religious push for vouchers, and it comes down to the same thing: using government to further religious purposes.

Who would you rather have in your corner? Franklin, or Madison and Jefferson?

…our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry…

whereIstand Tags

• Should morality and religion play a role in the making of public policy?

Tags: Law by nick
3 Comments »

My brother, Nelson, sent me the following message and link to a video clip (the transcript is here):

Please click on the link…thoughts anyone???? I think this lady has it right to some degree…

Title: Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan: There is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1050

Nelson and I are pretty close to exact opposites when it comes to politics and religion. Years of arguing for hours about these things contributed significantly to my interest in creating wIs.

Are these words only able to be spoken by a "secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural"? Do you think for one minute that my brother has a problem saying that people that think they are going to an afterlife with virgins are full of shit?

Christians aren’t going around blowing themselves up for ostensible religious reasons; I don’t suggest they are.  What Christians do go around doing is saying that whatever a person does for "faith-based" reasons is fine. Of course, they define fine in this sense to mean "only as long as it conforms to what Christians believe is good." After all, if you respect all religions equally, and if you accept that Christian extremists are believers in different versions, or sects, of Christianity, then there’s no reason not to accept Islamic extremists as believers in a different version, or sect, of Islam. That is to say… you have no problem, but only so long as you are a hypocrite or, in other words, if you are among about 95% of Christians.

I don’t have this problem because I disrespect all beliefs in the supernatural as I maintain the claim that all beliefs expressed are subject to criticism as the critic sees fit. I say, 

"platform shoes are really stupid and fucking dumb, but you have the right to wear them. I’m going to make fun of you and criticize you for doing so, but I’ll stand up for your right to wear them until I die."

And that’s how I feel about religious ignorance…I mean… beliefs.

Is she right about Islam? She’s clearly not just addressing the terrorist aspects. I think she’s absolutely right. I just think that much of what she says is applicable to many other religions, including Christianity.

What she says about Jews being non-violent breaks down when you go to Brooklyn…but that’s just an anecdote. What I respect about Judaism is that you can’t just "say" you’re a Jew and expect Jews to agree with you.

Also, do you think this means my brother agrees with the logical conclusion that I draw from these words that all evangelizing is wrong?

whereIstand Tags

• Clark
• [open thread]
• [open thread]

Tags: Religion by nick
3 Comments »

I brought up a few days ago (can’t remember where) a question about whether declassification was something an executive does "as the words leave his mouth"…or something to that effect.

Andrew Sullivan responds to a much more elaborate point made by a reader of the Dish:

…if the President declassifies something, isn’t it then available to the public? Were the leaked/disclosed portions of the NIE then provided to everyone who wanted them and had asked for them?

McClellan already clarified the Administration’s policy on declassification. As TPM puts it:

Bush’s leaks of classified information in national interest, non-Bush leaks hurt America.

Declassification is a process with, I imagine, forms that have to be filled out in triplicate. Was this done for the leaked information?

What stops our omnipotent executive from invoking this particular privilege with respect to other matters? Suppose Bush were to hand over American secrets to Russian spies — oh, just indulge me for the sake of argument!

That’s right! It wouldn’t be treasonous! By deciding to hand over American secrets, Bush auto-declassified them. There is no need for any security assessment whatsoever to determine if…say…Americans will die as a result of Bush’s loose lips.

Republicans, if you have read this far… you went to the well for "travelgate"; you’re going to sit by and watch the President of the United States claim absolute authority to hand out American secrets at will?

I think we all know it’s time for you, like Andrew Sullivan, to come to grips with the problems in the White House.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

Tags: Politics by nick
4 Comments »

Terp asks a great question about the merits of an article on God and "the Left".

(In comments, I notice Whicker didn’t mind the Rabbi comparing the left to Stalin right off the bat…. I actually don’t have any problem with this. Did you know that Stalin’s mother wanted him to go to a seminary? Man…these religious upbringings really screw you up. Of course, Hitler was rabidly religious, you know…Hey! Don’t blame me! Rabbi Michael brought it up!

Sorry, but if you aren’t following… Whicker hates it when the left compares the right to bad things… he doesn’t seem too concerned when it’s the other way around.)

Back to the Rabbi…

So I am led to the conclusion…

Led by what? He started with the conclusion — that the left is hostile to religion. I’m hostile to religion, but Bill Clinton is on the left too. Is it a foregone conclusion then that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Carter… are hostile to religion? Jesse Jackson?

…one of the eight planks is about defending science from interference by the state, religion or the capitalist marketplace

Yes. Something that is much needed. Trying to corrupt what science is and means is a bad thing. I wish he then wouldn’t have gone on to do it himself….

scientism–the belief that the only things that are real or can be known are those that can be empirically observed and measured

This is a backward and clearly invalid. Observe: I believe, as many non-religious do, with great conviction that there are many things that are either real or can be known, or both, which we will not ever be able to empirically observe nor measure.

There, his argument is clearly contradicted and invalid. Happy?

It is not Nick that requires archeology to document every variation in species that ever occurred. I’m fully aware that it is very likely not going to be able to do that. It’s the religious that are "missing links" because they presume all can be known. I’m happy with gaps in between the things we absolutely know to be true… like the new fossil esperanto found today….

We’re extremely lucky to have found it. What reason actually tells you is that man can’t know everything. This is why philosophy is always searching for truth and knowing it’s never going to actually get there, while religion just assumes truth and fills in the gaps where it chooses.

I don’t see any fundamental basis for the premise that all that is real must be able to be observed or measured. I just find even less basis for the opposite view — the real fallacy, which is as follows:

Religion — The belief that something which can neither be empirically observed nor measured is real or known.

Take the belief that the universe is actually run from a Winnebago on the other side of Andromeda by hairless kittens. Please don’t call this ridiculous… it’s hardly less controvertible than the Trinity or God. Both are founded on exactly the same thing… nothing but what man has spoken or written down.

There really isn’t anything more of value in Terp’s article once you recognize that he started you off with bullshit and is then only spreading stuff on it to cover the smell.

whereIstand Tags

• Terp
• esperanto
• open thread
• Are there legitimate, scientific, and peer-reviewed “alternatives” to evolution?

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
3 Comments »

Courtesy of the Gadflyer.

Ken Blackwell (R), the Ohio Attorney General, gubernatorial candidate and Old Testament thunderblaster, has had to announce that he held investments in Diebold, the constantly suspect Ohio election machines company.

I wonder if Katherine Harris held Diebold stock too?

Is there any hope whatsoever that Ohio and the other Republican Machine "controlled" states will just let elections be free and fair?

Can you imagine buying Diebold stock by accident? I understand buying Microsoft or GM or something…Diebold?

Diebold also drew the ire of critics after then-CEO Wally O’Dell sent a fund-raising letter in which he committed to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to President Bush in 2004.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

Tags: Politics by nick
2 Comments »