"Special Delivery!"

I used to think that suicide bombers were gutsy. It would take a lot of guts to strap a bomb to your chest and blow yourself up. I can't even bring myself to put broccoli in my mouth because I think it tastes bad. Recently however, I've changed my mind.

It seems to me that being a suicide bomber is actually very cowardly. See, when a person kills another, they have to live with the guilt that comes from taking another life. They have to live with all the moral, religious, and criminal consequences of that action. They have to live knowing that they can make no restitution for their crime. They may see grieving families and friends. On the other hand, a suicide bomber conveniently gets out from under all of that. By killing themselves at the same time as their victims, they dodge the need to face the consequences of their own actions. I'm no hero - to quote Maverick, "He who fights and runs away, lives to run away another day", but even to me, killing yourself is the coward's way out. The same thing applies to murder-suicides and people who count on the police killing them (like the Trolley Square shooter). Wusses and cowards all.

"You gotta nuke somethin'."

I used to think that folks like N. Korea, Iran, et al. were only developing nuclear weapons to join the big boys on the world stage (or at least extort them). Because they weren’t really interested in blowing us up, we didn’t have as much to worry about. I still think we shouldn’t let them go nuclear, but that doesn’t mean we have to invade. Before 2002, an airstrike against their nuclear facilities would have seemed appropriate and probably been enough because of the threat of invasion as a last resort.

Now, I think that the Iraq war has changed everything. Since we can’t seem to win in Iraq, we either face:

a) a country that builds a nuclear weapon and thinks that we won’t do anything about it because we don’t have the guts or the strength to get involved in another Iraq

b) a country that uses a nuclear weapon because they think that America won’t have the guts or the strength to get involved in another Iraq

In the second situation, we could probably rally enough world involvement to win the war. (Provided we don’t invade Cuba because N. Korea nuked us.) But the question is, have we created a world where other countries might bet on our unwillingness to invade?

"And I will remain The Falconer!"

An acquaintance of mine has long made the argument that many government programs are unconstitutional (or at least unjust) because they take money from one person and give it to another. His argument is that we can only give the government rights that we ourselves possess. He argues that since I cannot rightfully take someone else’s property and give it to a third party, I cannot give the government the right to do that either. This argument misses the point.

What my acquaintance does not understand is the contractual nature of the Constitution. I can justly enter into a contract where a breach on my part gives the other party a right to my property. I can also enter into a contract where I agree to give my property to another person for their own personal use which allows collection by a third party. I think my acquaintance makes his mistake by assuming that the contract is between the government and the people. This is not true – the government is not an entity with the right to enter into a contract. Rather, the contract is between the individual members of the society. It is “We the People of the United States”, not “The government and the people contract as follows...”. The government was created as a part of that contract and was given powers that are derived from the collective rights of the people.

In exchange for my allegiance and tax dollars, the government agrees to “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare” among other things. I also agree that my interests will be represented by agents chosen by a plurality (sometimes a majority) of people within the district where I live. Most fundamentally, I agree that I will live in a democratic society and be subject to the will of the majority of the people around me. I also agree that my failure to comply with these terms will result in deprivation of property, liberty or even life. If I am unhappy with any of those terms, I can do my best to change them by electing new officials or changing the contract by passing an amendment to the Constitution or by moving to another area with a different contract. (To get out of the US Constitution, it would have to be a different country. Also, for those who don’t want to live under any contract, there are plenty of lawless places in the world.) By remaining in society and taking advantage of the benefits government provides, I am tacitly agreeing to the terms of the contract.

As part of that contract, we agreed that the government could take from some of us and give to others – a tax system. When the government takes my tax dollars and gives them to other people through public education, welfare, road building, and defense, it is not arbitrarily stealing my money, but it is acting pursuant to the terms of the contract. The government is taking money from parties to the contract and giving it out pursuant to the terms of the contract (this allows things like paying UN dues and foreign aid). It is not forcibly taking money from a third party who is not a party to the contract. Under this theory, any action taken by the government pursuant to the terms of the contract is permissible. Only those actions which are unconstitutional are impermissible.

So to my acquaintance and all of his kind, I say stop whining about how unconstitutional the system is because you are wrong. If the Constitution says we can do something, we can do it – end of story.

3-19 Update: I stated above that the government derives its power from the collective rights of the people. I didn't provide any support for the position - an oversight on my part. It does not however, change my point. The contract power of the individual can still give the government the same rights and powers that I described above for the exact same reasons.

"I've created life!" "Lisa, breakfast! We're having waffles!" "Ooh, waffles!"

I have heard a lot of people argue that public schools should be required to teach intelligent design. I believe that they are wrong.

For those of you who have been living as moss under a rock, here’s a definition: “The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/. I think it’s fair to say that most people understand the phrase “intelligent cause” to mean God. It’s probably also fair to say that by, “God” they mean the Christian God. I do not mean to say that all Christians believe in intelligent design. Many Christians believe in creationism which is not the same as intelligent design: intelligent design accepts things like evolution and the 4 billion year age of the Earth – strict creationism rejects both positions.

In my mind, the many arguments that can be made in favor of teaching intelligent design can be rebutted with a single question:

Why do they want intelligent design to be taught in schools?

I think that most people would answer that they don’t want the public school system to teach their children that God does not exist or that the creation story is wrong. They want children in school to be given a religious alternative to evolution theory. This motive is in plain contradiction with the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. States cannot insert a requirement into the school curriculum for primarily religious reasons.

I understand that there are many people who argue that intelligent design is actually a scientific theory. Independent of that position, the school board cannot add it to the curriculum for religious reasons. Because intelligent design has been rejected by more than 90% of the scientific community, it seems unlikely that any school board would want to include the theory because of its scientific merit.

I could just continue to restate here the many arguments that have been made in opposition to teaching intelligent design in schools, but that would go against my tendency to make fringe arguments for mainstream positions. So, I have one additional point I would like proponents to consider:

Asking public schools to teach intelligent design is another example of parents abdicating their responsibility to educate their children. I cannot think of any authority that has argued that the government should be solely responsible for the education of our children. Rather, the primary responsibility for educating children should lie with their parents. As such, parents are completely at will (and obligated) to explain to their children the inherent problems in anything taught at school, including the theory of evolution.

For an interesting take on the issue, check out Scott Adams’ blog.

"The world was going down the tubes. They needed a scapegoat. They found Wayne."

Does anyone else doubt whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed actually did all of the things that he’s confessed to? Before I go any further, I want to express that based on the evidence that I have seen (through the mainstream media), it appears that Khalid is a very, very bad man. He is probably responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as many others. He probably deserves whatever punishment a court hands down for him.

Nevertheless, I don’t have much faith in his “confession” (and I'm not the only one). My doubt comes from the fact that this administration has made it very clear that they have no problem using torture to extract information from captured terrorists. So far, we have only seen evidence of this in cases where the terrorist was being held outside the US. However, given its support of torture, I do not doubt that this administration uses these methods within our own borders (including Guantanamo Bay). I believe that confessions extracted by torture are not reliable because the person being tortured will admit to anything to stop the pain. I am not saying that no information taken from torture is useful – some information may actually be true. But without independent verification, I will not believe it.

I also doubt the veracity of his confession because it seems too convenient. I originally believed his confession to masterminding the 9/11 attacks because we had information that led us to him. However, once he “confessed” to beheading Daniel Pearl, I stopped believing him. Then he confessed to being behind the “shoe bomber” attempt and the 1993 WTC attack. It seems too convenient that the same person was responsible for all of these highly publicized heinous acts (and 9 others). It seems to me that the government was looking for someone to blame and this guy is the worst guy we have. He makes it easy for us to want to torture captured terrorists. Because he is so bad, it’s easy for us to believe that he did these bad things which makes him good target for blame – a good scapegoat. Since the administration now has its scapegoat on whom it can blame these many attacks, it is in a much better position to declare victory in the war on terror before Bush leaves office (he is very concerned about his legacy).

“You may be right. I may be crazy. But it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for.”