This ruling is a situation in which the reading of the constitution is taking grossly out of context. The role of the judicial system is to interpret the constitution and all other laws that we use to govern society and judge their applicability to a present situation.

The idea of the “separation of church and state” was created by the founding father in light of the religious wars that have plagued Europe for centuries before the United States of America was even an idea. The phrase, “separation of church and state” is never mentioned in the United State Constitution but comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The only reference to religion comes from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The intention of the separation of church and state was to ensure that the government did not support a state church or establish a national religion which could be used alienate and/or persecute a minority. The separation of church and state is related to freedom of religion, but the two concepts are different. It is incorrect to infer that countries with a state church do not necessarily have freedom of religion and vice-versa.

Coming from a strongly religious family my views on this are slightly biased. Most parents use god, as a form of checks and balances while teaching their kids what is “right” and what is “wrong”. The argument is an atheist student is forced to be in an public environment in which religion is pressed upon them. However, a student does have the right to remain silent, and not repeat the pledge. Making the recital of the pledge of the allegiance mandatory in my opinion is unconstitutional yet prohibiting the recital in a classroom setting is not the intention behind the idea of “freedom of religion”.

I am pressed to ask what is next? Will “God Bless America”, “America the Beautiful”, and even the official text of our national anthem, which has the phrase “this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust’” be eventually banned? Will the treasury be ordered to reprint new bills and coins without “In God We Trust”?

There are two main reasons that can account for the corporate crisis that America currently finds itself in. One is the ideology of pragmatism that influences most future businesspeople. The philosophy of pragmatism stresses “practical consequences as standards by which concepts should be analyzed and their validity determined,” rather then moral consequences. Pragmatism stresses immediate welfare rather then long term prosperity and furthermore encourages fraudulent behavior, because it claims the ends justify the means. Every experience students and future businesspeople have reinforces the idea of pragmatism: If you can get away with cheating on a test, why not? Eventually a pragmatic approach applied to business results in, if you can get away with changing the books, why not?

The second reason is the counter-intuitive slew of business regulation. Logic would suppose that more regulation might increase investor trust, but results have shown the opposite. For example how can the American people trust their money to an “independent board of directors” that has no “financial stake in a company”? Should investors not worry that the officers of the companies are making decisions based on what will conform to the SEC’s rules rather then what’s in the best interest of the company?

To prevent business fraud we need to counter both the reasons listed above. First, the deep rooted ideology of pragmatism needs to be replaced with a philosophy that not only introduces a moral element, but shows why amoral behavior is actually harmful in the long run. For example, students and future businesspeople need understand that cutting corners in academics has no long-term gains just as business studies have shown that an ethical standard of accounting and trust builds good will with customers and has proven more successful for firms even if it means sacrificing short term gains. Second, law makers need to take positive steps towards a healthy business environment by reducing regulation rather then adding to the existing slew of regulations.

If voting is truly our greatest right one must consider the implication. Our other rights—freedom of speech, freedom of property, and even our freedom to exist as rational human beings—are dependent on the whims of the masses and their elected leaders. Our country on this view is not a society based on freedom and our individual rights, but rather on unlimited majority rule.

Examples of the consequences of unlimited majority can be found throughout history: In 1932 when the people of Germany democratically elected Adolph Hitler to bring the country on its knees; Modern day India where the democratically elected officials forgave farmers debts and provided free electricity to them; or Ancient Athens where the masses exercising their “greatest right” elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas.

History has shown what the masses are capable of doing, yet people claim that as American’s our greatest right is our “freedom to vote”? Does dare anyone claim that America is fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that is acceptable to slaughter six million Jews or kill unpopular philosophers, so long as it is done by a popular vote?

Contrary to popular belief, America was not founded as a “democracy”, but rather a republic where government is bound by a written constitution to protect individual rights. “Democracy” dosen’t mean holding public elections for government officials; it means a system in which the minority are held to the decisions of the majority, and in which an individual as no right. James Madison in the Federalist Papers wrote, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

So then what is the right to vote? The right to vote is the belief that a person is a rational independent being, who is responsible for this own life and should therefore freely choose a person to represent him in the government of his country. That independence is violated if a majority of the voters are allowed to do whatever they wish to an individual or group of persons. The right to vote is not a legal sanction for the majority to deprive individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government—to protect that very freedom—the right to vote is means of electing officials who will protect the right of every individual citizen.

What makes America great is not that is has elections—even Iraq had elections—rather that its elections take place to protect individual rights. From our Declaration of Independence which declare the “unalienable rights” of every individual to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to the Constitution which protects freedom of speech, religion, and property—the respect for the individual—is what makes America great.

Unfortunately, with the passing of every election, more and more Americans view elections as a means of getting favors or handouts from government at the cost of other Americans rather then and opportunity to protect the freedom that make America great. Every politician we elect promises to violate the rights of some Americans to benefit some other Americans. They promise subsidizes for farmers—by forcing non-farmers to pay them; they promise liberty for the world—by forcing Americans to pay for it; they promise prescription drugs for the elderly—by forcing the young to pay for them; they promise housing for the homeless—by forcing the non-homeless to pay for them; they promise a better life to the unproductive poor—by forcing the productive rich to pay for them. They promise liberty by violating liberty.

Thus this Election Day we must realize that neither Bush nor Kerry are ideal champions of liberty, yet we must vote for the one which will protect our liberty to the greatest extent. The choice cannot be made for you, yet the answer is self-evident. The more democratic we become—the more we let the majority suck the blood of the minority—we violate the fundamental root of greatness in America: freedom.

In reality, there will always be differences in the incomes of the wealthiest and poorest individuals, just as there will always be differences in the physical strength between people. And just as the strong can become weaker by not being productive, the weak can become strong by increased productivity; the rich can lose their shirts and people in rags can earn riches.

The left forgets that wealth is created through rational thinking and productivity. Instead they regard money as a static amount; a fixed pie. Anti-capitalists impose “progressive” income and capital gains tax on the wealthy to redistribute this imaginary “pie”. In fact these measures actually create the difference between the income levels of the wealthy and poor. Government enforced wealth distribution policies encourage non-productivity and dependence in their recipients. Furthermore, taxation discourages business from investing their money to expand companies and create new ones.

A proper economic policy should not attempt to narrow the inevitable gap in the income levels however encourage the opportunity — the freedom — for each individual to raise his/her own standard of living. What is noteworthy is that capitalism raises the standard of living for individuals of all classes, so that today’s poor are always better off than yesterday’s wealthy.

The draft is used because the salary the military offers isn’t high enough to get the necessary number of people to volunteer. I’m sure if the military offered a compensation package of, say, $50,000 to $100,000 a year, it could get all the soldiers it wanted. Thus the truth is whenever there is a draft, you know that the salary is too low to entice enough people to voluntarily supply their labor to the armed forces.

Waging war requires much more than soldiers. You need tanks, bombs, bullets and aircraft. Have you heard a call to draft $15 million F-15 fighter jets or $4.3 million M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks? I haven’t. The reason is that the government pays the kind of prices which entice producers to voluntarily supply these products. Of course, if the Pentagon were willing to pay McDonnell Douglas only $5 million for an F-15 and General Dynamics only $1 million for a tank, it would have to “draft” jets and tanks.

Supporters of the draft fail to recognize one central truth: a proper government exists solely to protect the individual rights of its people. You can not claim to defend these rights while one violates their most important section: that a person has a right to his life that may not be violated.

This idea that politicians purport of the “common good” and “sacrifice for one’s country” is incorrect. Human beings are inherently and rightfully selfish, and the only rational way to justify a public army is paying them with public funds at a rate which can be considered market value. Thus, the only effective way to have an effective military is to pay military personnel salaries that make military service attractive.

To sum it up eloquently:

“If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom–then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What is there left to protect?” — Ayn Rand

The gist of others people argument is that scripts/programs I’ve create, rely on “open source” free software such as Apache, PHP, MySQL, so why shouldn’t my scripts be released for free. In my opinion, encouraging people to use the GPL and release code for free is just encouraging people to value only physical labor and not intellectual property. Other then the fact that time and effort went into the code here is my reasoning.

My belief is that eventually open source will fail. What people consider success in open source are projects like ones which I mentioned above that remain free to the public and accessible. However, what people fail to realize is that these projects are kept funded by donations from private incomes, NOT other open source projects. Currently open source is kept alive by funding from outside sources such as an individual’s income who values the service the open source product provides for him.

That is not to say that a collective approach to a product means the product will be worse off, however it is so say, that these projects while claiming to run without profits, is realistically relying on funding from private individuals and their individual jobs. It is not self-sufficient like a sold product. Arguably one may claim that an company that charges for its products also is not self-sufficient, however this is not the case. Self-sufficient is being able to pay bills, and generate a profit if so desired. If software does not have value which people are willing to pay for, it surely will fail. Eventually in the very unrealistic possibility that open-source creates kills the market for a paid product in all field, and the software industry goes bankrupt, so will open-source products as most donator and creators of open source are infact tied to the industry.

Theoretically speaking: An completely open source software environment can roughly be equated to socialism, where intellectual property has no value. It’s a recipe which is just asking to be vulnerable to the free rider problem.

More in a bit.

Feel free to email me with your comments! I know a few people interested in Middle East politics and I’d love your response to this.

—

Globalization. We hear this word thrown about daily, by politicians and businesses alike, with both positive and negative connation. Yet despite whether one believes it to be a change for the better or otherwise, the effects are undisputable. People in various states around the world are more interconnected and states are more connected then ever before in history. As each day passes this sense of interdependence grows stronger and more information and money is flowing in between states then ever before. Good and services produced in once inaccessible countries are now easily accessible in all part of the world. International travel is no longer considered a luxury, rather a daily activity for business and individuals alike. States are forced to coexist and are subject to the daily effects of international markets and isolation is not longer possible let alone practical. This spectacle has been titled “globalization”.

The time we live in is increasing being known as the “Era of Globalization”. Contrary to popular belief, globalization does not just impact business. Never before were there such vibrant cultural combinations: Afghan food can be purchased in Idaho, and American music can be found in Fallujah, Iraq. “Globalization is not just a phenomenon. It is not just some passing trend. Today it is overarching international system shaping the domestic politics, foreign relations, and culture of virtually ever country, and we need to understand it as such”. Just as there was the Great Depression, the Cold War Era, the Space Age, and the Roaring 20′s, the political, cultural, and most importantly the economic mixture of various countries methods today is best defined as the Era of Globalization.

Globalization has been compared to a fire. It has its danger and dark side; however it can also bring opportunities and benefits. Just like capitalism and free economics require governmental monitoring, globalization also requires governing by states, yet there are instances where states cannot control globalization. Globalization just like anything has its shadows and thus it is crucial to study it carefully. While the benefits may be simpler to see on a global scale, most of the downsides are only visible by examining a particular state on an individual level. Not only must individual governments be receptive to globalization, but the populations must be willing to accept both sides of the coin. This paper will attempt to analyze the effects of globalization on the Middle East by addressing why it has failed in the general context of the Middle East and then specifically within two countries that have been able to globalize to a much greater extent then their neighbors: Israel and Turkey.

The Middle East in the past few decades has been attempting to resist globalization. Some scholars argue successfully, while others say the efforts have been futile, however it is undisputed that the Middle East can be considered one of the most resistant areas in the world. The majority of government and religious groups are anti-global on different scales. Furthermore, “there is no part of the world where violence is more often used in the anti-globalization struggle, most notably by Osama bin Laden but generally by all radical movement”. It is crucial to look at the culture of the Middle East to understand why collectively it is one of the sole violent opponents of today’s globalization.

As outlined earlier, globalization is not only economic dependence, but also cultural and political mixtures; customs, ideas, religion, attitudes are all portions of it. Currently most of the ideas and belief that come hand in hand with globalization are western, pro-capitalist, pro-democracy, notions. Thus is it easy to view globalization and Westernization as synonymous. Other regions of the world, such as Asia, South America, Africa, and ex-USSR Europe, are much more open to globalization because many of the components that globalization relies on are already present: Strong central government, free economy, educated populations, and diverse cultures. Most Middle East governments to date are very authoritarian and most of the Middle East is content with the current system. Contrary to western notions most are not actively looking for change and thus the influx of Westernization which comes hand in hand with globalization is “seen as [a] challenge to a nation’s ethos”.

Another reason is that Westernization can mean modernization when the state being affected by it is considerably “old-fashioned” in the face of the new ideas being brought forward. Much of the Middle East is rooted deeply in tradition due to both local traditions more importantly Islamic religious views by. These views while considered by the west to be old-fashioned are followed actively the populations of states in the Middle East. For example in Turkey, an estimated 85% of people are religious and of that nearly 99.8% are Sunni Muslim. Thus due to the fact that much of these people are strongly religious, globalization is seen “as a major thread to tradition” as well as a force that calls for the “defense of religion”.

Thirdly another major reason for Middle Eastern rejection of globalization is that while the West weighs the benefits of globalization more then the losses (primarily because it culture of globalization is western), it the opposite in the Middle East. Globalization for the most part has two dimensions: First it attempts to makes overall life better, improves housing, the standard of living. The second dimension is that it has a concept of “cultural synthesis” which means that the host states existing ways can be blended with new western ideas to make a “stronger hybrid”. However most of Islamic tradition, at least radical tradition, does not allow for the blending of two cultures. Ultimately the bottom line is that “globalization is accepted if and when it is perceived not as destroying the local society but helping it to survive and flourish in a partly new form.”

There has been a “lack of cultural penetration of the Islamic Middle east by Western culture, ideas, and institutions”. This is not to say that globalization has been completely rejected by the Middle East but rather that it has not been completely successful. For example, in Iran, there has been much reform over the past decade; from the point of women having to cover up completely too now when they are free to dress more or less in a Western fashion. However, as a generalization, the impact of Western culture is much less prevalent in the Middle East when compared to the rest of the non-western countries.

History has shown that countries that are much more open to foreign religions and language are much more receptive to globalization. For example, in India and much of the Asian sub-continent, English, Christianity, and Democracy have been much more widely tolerated, if not completely accepted. In the Middle East this is not the case. Nearly everywhere in the region, “Christianity has remained a marginal religion, and even where it exists has either little national influence” despite the fact that Judaism and Christianity were at the roots of Islam. Furthermore, Islam “sees itself very much apart from a global consensus and retains its own claims to hegemony”. This is not to say that Christianity is necessary for globalization to be accepted; rather that history has shown that states that are more open, or states with populations of various religious backgrounds, are relatively more open to globalization. Thus the Middle East being composed of countries of strong Islamic tradition with very little variance build themselves a “cultural wall” against globalization. Another aspect is the lack of non-native languages in the Middle East. It is widely accepted that the language of Globalization is English. However in the Middle East all European languages for the most part are absent. The most widely used language in the Middle East is Arabic (with the exception of Iran), and this fact creates another artificial barrier against globalization.

Still yet another problem that was briefly mentioned above is the prevalence of dictatorship and authoritarian rule in the Middle East. In Europe and much rest of the world, modernization, industrialization, and ultimately globalization have wiped out monarchy and autocratic government, however in the Middle East “dictatorships have learned how to survive and mobilize mass support.” To the detriment of the populations of the Middle East, most have been either forced or convinced that their current governments are not only successful but rather are they correct way of doing so. It is in the benefit of those in power to prevent the ideas that are associated with globalization such as democracy from entering into the system. In reality these autocratic governments often use the “trump card” of claiming that resisting to globalization is the only way to defend Islam and their way of life.

As a result of the reasons listed, the Middle East as a whole harshly rejects globalization and considers it a dangerous idea and often resort to violence to prevent it from infiltrating the culture. Globalization is seen as a surrender to a “dominant, non-indigenous standpoint” and is seen by individuals in the Middle East as a system that attempts to undermine their currently equilibrium. While the above is true for the Middle East as whole, this essay will now analyze particular countries that may have had a different reaction for various reasons.

Most working professionals who actively blog do the former (post on random or work related posts) and avoid writing posts that dictate their days to their readers on a step by step basis. However among teens and students this desire to share intimate details about every aspect of their day, in an pursuit of sympathy or other emotion, is causing friendship to have an impersonal feeling and causing the poster to have a false sense that “someone cares”.

When we post about what we do in day (and sometimes include pictures), we allow our readers in a sense, be with us doing whatever we were doing. It is usually a post which can be interesting and/or amusing to read, or can be a narration about a “sad event”, and is usually gratifying to the poster (otherwise they wouldn’t have posted it).

In spite of what people say or believe, the reason for posting in an online blog as opposed to one by hand or even one typed on a computer but not published online, is because there is a desire to have someone else read it. The very nature of the weblog environment, an online, impersonal directory where people can write and judging from others comments, creates the false sense that someone cares.

Weblogs allow us to have uncommitted friendships.

Think about it. The reasoning may be difficult to understand, but bear with me. I think there is motivation for people to actually need to post about their days, experiences, or whatever. We like to share our stories, right? That unfulfilled desire is caused by the debilities in communication and the lack of compassion for one another

Lack of compassion is the cause and effect of the specific types of posts that I refer to. If the people you talked to were really interested in what happened to you on a specific date, they would ask you about it, right? Only in an ideal world, of course. It’s becoming more and more uncommon. Hence, we write a post about something and let everyone know about it. After awhile, we take it for granted. Our commitments to one another become weak and what we know about each other becomes only what is revealed to us.

This might not make a lot of sense, and doesn’t make complete sense either, but I’m going to try to avoid writing posts that contain personal step by step outlines of days and reading Xangas in which people do the same.

To sum it up, the real purpose of a blog is not to substitute a discussion with a friend, but rather to write your own idea on something occurring in your life or around the world. Posting about daily events and seeing peoples comments on it, creates the false impression that “someone cares”. Really no one does, and if they do, it’s never in an online blog.

Oldenburg believes that American society has become materialistic and find moving away from their suburban home fairly easy, as the most cherished items can be moved from home to home. There are no goodbyes to be said when as there are no random places to meet friends and meeting friends is no longer a coincidence but rather planned in advance. We have chosen to over schedule ourselves to try to overcome the feeling of isolation and the lack of community. As both parents start working in attempt to gain some type of community the typical suburban child gets even more isolated due to the fact that no parents are home upon his return from school. Oldenburg says that the failure of suburbs to provide a sense community has not discouraged their growth because “Americans have substituted the vision of the ideal home for that of the ideal city”. (Oldenburg) Homes in expensive neighborhoods have become methods of secluding oneself even more from community due to the size of the lots.

New generations in America are encouraged to isolate themselves from the public and to set personal achievements above the public good. From childhood they are thought that the good lives are “pretty much confined to one’s house and yard.” They witness this in their parent’s happiness from moving to bigger houses and associate good lives with lot size. Additionally the “two-stop” model of daily routine of work and home are “pressed to supply all that is wanting and much that is missing in the constricted life-styles of those without community”. (Oldenburg) Another side effect of the problem of place is that United States now leads the word in the rate of divorce and fatherless children comprise the fastest growing segment of infant population. He also claims that American industry loses $50-$75 billion dollars a year due to stress-related absenteeism because Americans are denied those means of relieving stress that server other cultures so effectively. “While the Germans relax amid the rousing company of the bier garten or the French recuperate in their animated little bistros, Americans turn to massaging, mediating, jogging, hot tubing, or escape fiction.” (Oldenburg) We praise our freedom not to associate and stay aloof, while other cultures take advantage of their freedom to associate. Oldenburg goes on to say that we have replaced the idea of leisure with the idea of shopping and “our drive to consume and to own whatever industry produces” is our way of relaxing. He says that people go about spending money on home decoration and new wardrobes in an attempt to “add zest to their lives”. (Oldenburg) Having been able to associate to the problem of place that Oldenburg discusses, I worked to find how the problem of place became part of the American culture.

Everywhere in America laws have been enacted that prevent building the type of places that Americans pay premium prices to vacation in. Laws prevent building towns with traditional streets, trees, fences, railings, walls, lampposts, and gardens that scale and shape the civic space. There are laws that prevent building anything but another Los Angles. Zoning laws in America dictate how we build our cities and these very zoning laws are one of the primary reasons for the problem of place in America. This idea of building according to zoning exploded after World War II, and the idea “began to overshadow all the historic elements of civic art and civic life (Kunstler)”. For example, because of the mainstream usage of cars by people to shop and thus the need for parking lots, it was written in the zoning codes that “shopping was [...] and obnoxious industrial activity which people shouldn’t be allowed to live [around] (Kunstler)”. This separation of commercial and residential created the idea of a modern day shopping complex which has no sense of community that traditional market places evoked. David Gutterson in his essay “One Week At The Mall Of America” claims that “the mall exploits our acquisitive instincts without honoring our communal requirements, our eternal desire for discourse and intimacy, needs that until the twentieth century were traditionally met in our marketplaces but that are not met at all in gain shopping malls. (Gutterson, 82)”

What zoning produces is the modern idea of the “suburban sprawl”, whose chief traits are the separation of commercial and residential; mandatory driving to get from one activity to another; and the shortage of public places. The basic idea of zoning is that every activity requires a separate zone and this clearly separating the role of commercial and residential. This gave rise to the “bedroom community (Encarta Online)” meaning that the majority of the population worked in the city and traveled home for the purpose of going to sleep. Furthermore zoning codes produced centralized parks which took away yet another place to find community.

Another major contributor to the problem of place in America is the advent and the mainstream usage of the automobile. In early portions of the century and before World War II only one in every six Americans had cars (Automotive History). The majorities of people were constrained to areas close to their houses and were not able to travel which created an artificial wall that helped maintain some of the community that was existent prior to the 1950′s. However as automobiles became mainstream not only was there a need to change city landscape to accommodate them, but it radically enlarged the reach a family had for their private time. They could choose to drive to other portions of the state and to opposite ends of the city. The flexibility and the lack of constraints that the middle class received helped remove any small sense of community that was left within neighbor hoods. Kunstler states, “The practice of maximizing car movement at the expense of all other concerns was applied with particular zeal to suburban housing subdivisions (Kunstler)”. He claimed that due to automobiles, suburban streets were given the characteristics of county highways even though children played in them and was another reason that suburban developments notoriously lack park.

An indication of whether a city has a good sense of community can be found in the ease of tourism there. If a city or suburb often encourages visitors to park their cars and travel in the public transportation it can be generally stated that the city has a fairly strong sense of community in various sections. The absence of cars increases the effect that community has on its residents as seen in a few cities. Cities such as Boston, London, and Paris seem to have a strong sense of community. Not only do these cities have good and usable public transportation but custom coffee shops, and corners that get associated with the city.

A more contested theory proposed by some scholars is that Americans have an intuitive sense of individualism. Nearly in ever aspect of our lives we try to assert our independence and proclaim our desire to be independent. High school student desire to move off to college and “I want to spend some time alone” shows the American longing to be left alone. Goodwin, the author of the book titled, “The American Condition” states that the American condition is one of “unfreedom, alienation, and fragmentation” and that condition comes from “the dissolution of community, shared social consciousness, and moral authority” (Goodwin). The deeper causes of the lack of community, according to Goodwin, lie in history of the “individualism” planted by the Renaissance. During the Renaissance period people promoted personal experience and thoughts above the notions of the common people. After World War II “people wanted to settle down, apparently and calmly blow their way out of years of rationing. They wanted to bake sugary cakes, burn gas, go to church together, get rich, and make babies (Dillard, 48)”. This new desire in people following the war when combined with the previous notions that were planted in the European ancestors during the Renaissance Period created an inward retreat of the American family.

Since the end of World War II academics have warned that suburban sprawl presents major problems for society and the community. They have condemned cars as the cause of breaking communities’ growth and have praised mass transit. They have condemned our way of building and accepting our cities to be plain and color less. The problem of place that has shifted American culture from a highly social to a more introverted society can be attributed to the building of the modern day city, the mainstream usages of the automobile, and our preconceived notions of individualism.

The only reason for voting would be if we added in a moral perspective. Each of us has a good reason to vote, because, that the voting process is our society’s way to making some important decisions; and we do our part in this scheme by voting and voting responsibly. That is a good reason to vote, but that reason has nothing to do with our votes “counting”.

Using the same reasoning it gets even more complex. By failing to participate in elections, you do harm to our community’s way of making decisions—they do harm to the community—even though, taken by itself, your failure to participate has no measurable consequence.

We have a moral reason to vote, but still no business saying that one should vote because “every vote counts”.

It seems like science fiction, but this scenario, along with even more amazing visions of medical practices, promises to soon become science fact. The technology that will bring about revolutions in medicine, along with many other fields, is nanotechnology. Nanotechnology involves building devices at the atomic or molecular scale by controlling individual or small groups of atoms from 1 to 100 nanometers* across. In comparison, a single human hair is approximately 100,000 nanometers thick (“Small is Beautiful”). A single red blood cell is approximately 7,000 nanometers in diameter (Hoch, xiv). Three or four atoms are about 1 nanometer wide (“What is?”).

The control of atoms will give scientists and engineers the ability to control the environment around them at the atomic level. Because human bodies are collections of atoms, and because problems in our bodies arise because certain atoms are “out of place,” nanotechnology will bring about revolutionary changes to modern medical practices. Contrary to the ideas of many people, nanotechnology is not only possible, it is a beneficial path science will inevitably take. With it, science will be able to control health and disease at its most fundamental level. There are, of course, limits to what this technology can do.

The standard vision of the “breakthrough” needed in nanotechnology is the invention of a “general,” or “universal” assembler. Eric Drexler, considered by many to be the father of nanotechnology, defines the universal assembler as a device that will let us control the position of individual atoms. This capability gives rise to the ability to “let us build almost anything that the laws of nature allow to exist” (“Engines,” 14). Because these machines will be able to create other tiny devices, they will be able to “self-replicate.” This means that they would be able to create copies of themselves. Like viruses, bacterium, and cells, these machines would be able to reproduce.

When confronted with an idea that is likely to bring such dramatic change to all aspects of life, many people quickly dismiss it with pseudo-arguments. It is important to spend time refuting these kinds of arguments, not because they bear any scientific or rational argument against nanotechnology, but because they are such persistent arguments. John Quel, chairman of the Nanocon Proceedings on nanotechnology relates the largest reaction he encountered as being pseudo-arguments (2). For example, many people exclaim, “but this just seems too incredible!” at the idea of eradicating disease by using machinery. However, we have already seen dramatic changes in many fields of technology within the past 100 years. Lewis Thomas, a distinguished medical doctor and writer discusses dramatic changes we have recently undergone within the past century such as gaining the ability to control bacterial infection, to perform open heart-surgery and organ transplants, to cure some kinds of cancer, and to understand many diseases’ cause through an understanding of genetics. What makes it even harder for people to digest is that there hasn’t been any kind of huge publicity surrounding the technology. Drexler presented the possibilities of nanotechnology to Congress, but “there were no cover stories in Time or Newsweek. …none of Drexler’s testimony was printed in the New York Times. He didn’t even make it to ‘All Things Considered.’” However, this is easily explained. According to a Time magazine editor, magazines, “only cover things that actually happen, not things that are just supposed to happen” (Regis, “Nano” 9). Thus, the primary reason something as incredible as nanotechnology isn’t forced upon the public is because the visions of the future it paints do sound like science fiction, and it is hard for non-scientific publications to present the vision to the public without inundating them with an information overload.

Another common pseudo-argument posed is that the implications of nanotechnology are too good to be true. Drexler dismisses this argument in his book Engines of Creation by pointing out that, “nature cares nothing for our sense of good and bad and nothing for our sense of balance” (143). In effect, as long as it is physically possible, it doesn’t matter whether it seems “too good to be true.” However, nanotechnology, like many other technologies, does pose serious threats that must be dealt with. Just as nuclear power produces, along with its benefits, nuclear waste that is difficult to dispose of and nuclear meltdowns that endanger people’s lives, nanotechnology is especially dangerous as scientists begin to experiment with it. For example, one issue involves keeping robots programmed to self-replicate from reproducing indefinitely. However, there are many ways to deal with this problem including slightly altered methods currently employed by mother nature that keep animals from constantly growing larger forever (Regis, “Great” 139; Debicki).

Other people ask, “How can you predict the future?” but again, this pseudo-argument is riddled with holes. This argument was discussed in the Nanocon Proceedings, which explained that the reason this argument comes up is because of a lack of recognizing the difference between scientists and engineers. It is impossible for a scientist to claim to know what he will discover, but it is realistic for an engineer to explain what it is possible to do, understanding the limitations of science. Because engineers “understand fundamental scientific principles well enough”, we can now claim that the nanotechnology revolution is possible (7).

There are also scientifically valid arguments being posed against nanotechnology. One concern Drexler discussed in Engines of Creation is that heat dissipation could pose a problem (59). Six years later, in Nanosystems, Drexler devoted an entire chapter to techniques that can be employed in dissipating heat (ch. 7). However, using cooling technology processes we have today, cooling problems only limit the capabilities of nanotechnology and are not show-stoppers (Freitas, 10.5.4).

Another argument, explained by Brad Cox in Wired’s “Brain Tennis” is that even if we develop the capability of manipulating atoms, we won’t know exactly which atoms to manipulate. Cox says that no matter how much information we glean about large-scale processes, they will never tell us exact information about specific atoms. Without this knowledge, control over atoms would be useless (3). Ed Regis responds, in the article, to this problem by describing a process already used by physicist Hans Dehmelt to work with precisely the atoms desired. He also says, “molecular mills, sorters, and other mechanisms can physically eliminate unwanted atoms and create ordered streams of feedstock molecules that can be presented to the manipulator arm one by one.” (8). Another possible solution to this problem is Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. AI and nanotechnology will work together; nanotechnology will provide the computing power benefits needed for AI, and AI will allow billions of decisions to be made at the atomic level without requiring humans to make them (Toth-Fejel).

Another common argument from an economic perspective is that even if the technology is developed, it will be too expensive to either employ on a large scale or to benefit poorer countries. However, it is the distinguishing quality of general assemblers being able to reproduce that will make the technology “dirt cheap” once it is initially developed (Drexler, “Engines” 94). This is because creating more assemblers won’t cost any money or resources other than the dirt (raw materials) necessary to construct them because it will be the assemblers themselves who create more assemblers.

Robert Freitas Jr.’s book Nanomedicine, Freitas’ first volume in an anthology dedicated to the medical aspects of Nanotechnology, is the result of over 20,000 man-hours of work. It is currently the first and only book of its kind, and stands as the definitive answer on all things relating to nanomedicine. In it, Freitas states, “the bottom line is that molecular nanotechnology violates no physical laws and there exist many possible technical paths leading to useful results. … In 1998, it was generally accepted that molecular nanotechnology would be developed…” (1.3.1). In fact, without denying the existence of most of biology’s founding concepts as well as successful experimentation, it is hard to deny nanotechnology as being a plausible science. There are many examples of nanotechnology being used in our bodies even today. DNA and other proteins are complicated machines that operate on our bodies, providing us with form and function (Regis, “Great” 122). Viruses infect our bodies and through their “programming” replicate at the expense of our cells. Cells are complicated factories, operating on well-understood chemical processes. All are evolved machines, made out of organic material.

Further research in nanotechnology is only an improvement on techniques evolved in nature. We have reason to believe we can improve on nature because scientists who approach the problem of developing nanobots are approaching it with a conscious mind whereas evolution is an unconscious development process. There have been many examples of this being done in the past. For example, existing solar panels are already more effective at capturing sunlight than plants (Drexler, “Engines” 94) and there have been many breakthroughs in developing plants, through genetic engineering, that suit our needs better.

Devices are already routinely being built today with parts on the order of 0.5 micrometers, (Hoch, xiii) or about 125 atoms wide. In 1999, Intel manufactured processors with transistors that were about 63 atoms across (“Small is Beautiful”). A motor was recently developed with a diameter of less than 12 nanometers or fewer than 36 atoms across (Montemagno, 225). In 1985, Tom Newman “wrote out the first page of A Tale of Two Cities at…1/25,000 scale reduction.” This amounts to the lines of the characters being about one five-millionth of an inch thick (Regis, “Great” 126). In 1989, IBM spelled their logo out at the atomic level using 35 atoms (Regis, “Nano”, 11). Micrometer scale technology has also been used to guide and analyze neuron growth (Hoch, 258-262). Even in the 1980’s biologists were able to “…use antibodies to tag proteins, enzymes to cut and splice DNA, and viral syringes…to inject edited DNA into bacteria” (Drexler, “Engines” 104). Manipulation of material at the necessary level is therefore not only possible, but has been demonstrated countless times in many different fields of endeavor. The feats achieved here are actually on orders much smaller than the size of many cells in the human body including blood cells and neurons (Hoch, xiv, 259).

Research in nanotechnology is intimately involved with life processes because of the plethora of real-life examples we already have in the field. Much research is being done on proteins. Because of this, many of the first benefits of nanotechnology will involve medical health. One of the simplest uses, fighting infectious disease, has staggering implications. Drexler says that selective destruction, “the simplest medical [application] of nanomachines,” will be able to “recognize and destroy other dangerous replicators” (“Engines” 109). Basically, the machines will be improved versions of the body’s own white blood cells, a sort of artificial immune system, actively seeking out and destroying foreign and harmful material. This would mean an end to infectious diseases such as colds, flues, and venereal diseases, as well as more complicated problems such as cancers and parasitic organisms, and any future viral or bacterial mutation (“NanoTechnology Health”). Drexler gives the example of a disease such as herpes, “which…splices its genes onto the DNA of a host cell. A repair device will enter the cell, read its DNA, and remove the addition that spells ‘herpes’” (“Engines” 109). Cancerous cells are treated in a similar manner; any cells with abnormalities when compared to the rest of your body will be selectively destroyed or corrected.

Nanotechnology will also enable medical technology to employ cellular repair. According to the Nanocon proceedings, computers powerful enough to address the wear and tear of an individual cell will be able to be inserted into each and every single cell in a human body, occupying less than one percent of the total volume of each cell. The computers, along with repair machines 100,000 repair devices under the control of each computer, would be able to “begin to repair tissue at a level that medicine cannot begin to deal with today.” This technique is in stark contrast to the method of medicine today. Traditional medicine involves helping the body repair itself. Nanomedicine involves actively repairing the body (13).

Another important fact that makes nanotechnology an easy solution against health issues is tissue can be ill in many more ways than it can be healthy. This allows for unintelligent sensors to detect unhealthy aspects of the body and correct them. Drexler gives an example of how this fact can be employed: “once researchers describe the range of structures that a healthy liver may have, repair machines exploring a malfunctioning liver need only look for differences and correct them” (“Engines” 113). Nanotechnology will be able to aid the researchers in describing the form of a healthy liver and then use this information to keep tissue healthy. In this light, machine operated medicine seems much more plausible.

Not only would cellular repair machines be able to repair tissue damage, but their benefits also offer the potential for long-term life extension. Because aging “is no magical effect of calendar dates on a mysterious life-force,” (Drexler, “Engines” 115) fixing the biological problems associated with aging become possible with nanotechnology. The lifespan of mice have been extended 25 to 45 percent using technology available in 1973 (Harman). Using nanotechnology, nanomachines would correct and prevent the natural degeneration of DNA and cells throughout the body, and thereby extend life indefinitely, barring any unforeseen accidents.

One of the limiting factors of nanotechnology includes the heat issues previously discussed. It is impossible to construct machines that would be able to hold together at extremely high or extremely low temperatures because molecular bonds break up more easily at higher temperatures and materials are extremely viscous at lower temperatures (Freitas, 10.5). Therefore, it would be impossible to construct any kind of protection against extreme temperatures in order to protect the body from them. Another limitation is that molecular machines will never be able to operate on the sub-atomic level. Also, there are a finite number of possible arrangements of atoms and therefore there are definite limits on the possibilities of things we will be able to construct. Drexler points out that because of this, there will be limits, that is, a maximum, for any given quality one chooses to concentrate on (“Engines” 156). For example, there is one material that is the strongest material, and another material best suited for insulating against heat.

In spite of these limits, nanotechnology will become a very powerful force in our near future. Because there are no scientific reasons why manipulation of structures on the scale needed for the development of general assemblers is impossible, with enough research, nanotechnology will be developed. The nature of the technology implies that the immediate benefits will pertain to health issues; the quality of life will be improved dramatically, and the length of life will be extended indefinitely.

Copyright © 2001 Charles M. Ellison III

Works Cited

Cox, Brad and Ed Regis. “Nanotechnology: Flawed by Design?” Wired. 4-13 Nov. 1996 . 14 Apr. 2001.

Debicki, Weronika. “Aging the Bitter Truth.” COSHE’s Reports on the NET. . 18 Apr. 2001.

Drexler, Eric. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986.

—. Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1992.

Freitas, Robert A. Jr. Nanomedicine Volume I: Basic Capabilities. Georgetown: Landes Bioscience 1999: n. pag. Online. . 18 Apr. 2001.

Harman, D. “Free Radical Theory of Aging.” Triangle. 12.4 (1973): 153-58.

Hoch, Harvey C., Lynn Jelinski, and Harold Craighead eds. Nanofabrication and Biosystems. New York: Cambridge Press, 1996.

Lewis, Dr. James B. and John L. Quel eds. Nanocon Proceedings. Seattle Washington, Feb 17-19, 1989. Washington: Nanocon, 1989.

Montemagno, Carl and George Bachand. “Constructing Nanomechanical Devices Powered by Biomolecular Motors.” Nanotechnology. 10 (1999): 225-231.

“NanoTechnology Health” NanoTechnology Magazine. .

Regis, Ed. Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

—. Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology: Remaking the world—Molecule by Molecule. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995.

“Small is Beautiful.” CSL – Leaders in IT & Communications Research. . 16 Apr. 2001.

Thomas, Lewis. “Basic Medical Research: A Long-Term Investment.” Technology Review. May/June 1981. 46-47.

Toth-Fejel, Tihamer T. “Agents, Assemblers, and ANTS: Scheduling Assembly with Market and Biological Software Mechanisms.” Nanotechnology 11 (2000): 133-134.

“What is NanoTechnology?” NanoTechnology Magazine. . 18 Apr. 2001.

——————————————————————————–

* 1 nanometer is 1/1,000,000,000 of a meter.

More recent polls suggest that this Americans’ embrace of the New Age as continued. According to the LA Times, alternative medicine fan Robert Citron (who helped bring about the Orange County’s infamous bankruptcy) regularly consulted a psychic while he controlled the ill-fated investment pool.

Hilary Clinton, as First Lady, consulted a New Age guru, who assisted her in communicated with the long-dead Eleanor Roosevelt. Bill Clinton invited the New Age motivational speaker Anthony Robbins to the while house. The US military has a history of interest in the paranormal and in the past, pursued research owing to a worry that the Soviets were way ahead of us in the military use of paranormal abilities.

Many tens of thousands of Americans, along with members of the British Royal Family, have embraces and alternative medicine knows as homeopathy. According to homeopathic theory, medical substance that are diluted to the point that no molecules remain are, nevertheless, highly potent because their vibrations remains (or they retain a “memory” of the once-present molecules)

Many millions of Americans regularly visit chiropractors. According to traditional chiropractic theory, misalignments along the vertebrae impede the flow of “vital” or “nerve” energy throughout the body. These spinal problems, say many chiropractors, cause virtually every possible health problem, including heart disease, cancer, hyperactivity, and colds. There is no scientific evidence for this claim.

Also: it is clear that many Americans believe in (i) conspiracy theories (that the Holocaust was a hoax, that the CIA/Mossad killed JFK, that the CIA was behind the WTC attacks) for which no real evidence exists; (ii) the activities of child abusing satanic cults, despite the absence of evidence; (iii) creationism and the 6,000-year age of the earth, contrary to a mountain of physical evidence; (iv) fad diet and nutritional theories that ignore research finding; (v) therapies of methods, such as “facilitated communication” or the uncovering of “suppressed memories” that are dubious or discredited.

Aliens don’t exist. No, but believing in aliens are far more interesting and they make explaining complex technological breakthroughs so much easier. Sure there is a possibility for the existence of aliens but do you really believe that they would want to be involved with the real conspiracy that is the way the US government conducts itself outside of the public eye. The “alien and government conspiracy” for me is one of deception and smokescreens. The truth is out there but bug eyed monsters are a hell of a lot more interesting aren’t they?

Roughly speaking rationality amounts to basing one’s beliefs on good reasons. In the case of empirical beliefs -beliefs about the observable world- the reasons are called “evidence”. To be rational empirical beliefs must be grounded in evidence. The fundamental problem with most and perhaps all New Age (and related) beliefs is that there is no solid evidence for them. Some of them might be true, but, as things stand, we have no reason to suppose that they are true. It is unreasonable to base your ideas on anything but reason.

So many times people put blame on our education (by parents, and etc.), not saying that they’re wrong, but what if it wasn’t, what if it was in our blood. To make this point I would like to use the shrimps. As we all know the continents were all one piece at one time in our earth’s geological timeline, named Pangaea. Somewhere along the line the tectonic plates started to shift, what once was separate became one and what once was together came apart. I’m going to focus on the part where continents were once apart became connect. In this specific example we’re talking about the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. These two big bodies of waters were connected but now separated by the lower part of Mexico.

Where there were once one species of shrimp that lived there couple millions year back, but soon that species of shrimp became separated. After millions of year they have seemed to develop in different directions, what was one species now became two. Completely identical in genetic make up; these species of shrimp no longer recognizes each other as the same ‘kind’. Was this taught? I don’t believe so. Though these species of shrimp are perfectly compatible mates; in each others eyes they are nothing but enemies, when put together they would kill to the death.

I believe that in the human line of evolution, homo-sapiens although still under the same classification of ‘animals.’ The races in which all had once originated in Africa went there different ways became different ‘species’ or races.
Through this it is plausible that we may infer that racism and hatred towards other races isn’t ‘taught’ rather inborn in every persons blood. Can you really say you don’t look down or dislike a specific race? Not even one bit?

Each point applied to Microsoft:
1. No close substitutes?
a. For every single product that Microsoft makes there are many close substitutes
i. Internet Explorer – Netscape, Mozilla
ii. Windows – Linux, Mac OS X, Linux with Windows compatibility, Sun OS
iii. MS Office – Word Perfect, Oracle Office, OpenOffice.org
iv. Xbox – PS2, Nintendo, Dreamcast
v. IIS – Apache
vi. SQL – MySQL, Oracle
vii. ASP – Java, PHP, Jsp, Perl
2. Legal restrictions
a. There are none
b. Joe Shmo can make his own software and sell it.
3. Control over essential resources
a. The only resources that is necessary for writing software is brain power
b. There is no control over brainpower by Microsoft.
c. Many computer companies exist, with many brilliant employees

To say that Microsoft is a monopoly is by no means a valid statement. Yes Microsoft controls 90% of the home software over the counter industry but the consumers choose to make Windows the leading product of home computing because it is good software. They at any time could have chose to get a Mac or go with Linux based computer, but they choose windows. They were not forced to purchase Windows.

Perhaps the only justification of the lawsuits that occurred over the last few years is against Microsoft’s unfair business practices, but calling it a monopoly is unjustified. To me it seems that all these little pathetic companies bought politicians when they couldn’t compete in the marketplace. They are nothing more than looters. The reasons these lawsuits came up were because Microsoft didn’t donate to politicians as other software companies did in the late 90′s. You can imagine what Microsoft is going to be doing from now on, and they most definitely can afford it.

Monopolies only occur in the marketplace, where government puts in regulation to protect the industry. Most monopolies so far in American history have been direct products of government interference with capitalism.

Without greed, America may not be as strong as we are today. America thrives on greed. Look at Wallstreet. The very foundation of Wallstreet contains greed. Everyone needs money for himself or herself, but it’s their excessiveness of desire that makes their checkbook grow. As a Nation this can be a very good thing. A Nation drives in more money, buys bigger better weapons, and expands the growth of their economy. All for the good if the country it’s self. To other countries, this is a frightening thing. So they to will inherit the tool of greed and they will either learn how to use it correctly or helplessly lose control and will fail to get out of a viscous cycle. Once they lose control, they’ll make mistakes.

A good example would be the Gulf War in 1991. With greed as their engine, Iraq drove into Kuwait, with attempts to take over the Persian Gulf, and take control of all the oil. However, Iraq’s greed wasn’t strong enough to counter the altruism of the United States and ended up with a little less then they started out with. In retaliation Saddam Hussein took on a selfish act of lighting up 300 oil wells because he couldn’t have the oil. The abuse of greed can clearly be seen here. This is a good way not to use the ‘tool’ of greed.

Everywhere you look there is greed. Lets take corporate America for example. People and organizations such as Martha Stewart, Authur Anderson, Adelphia, Enron, and WorldCom, all have the exact same problem. Greed. They were caught in the whirlpool of evil and selfishness. Their excessiveness of desire became more excessive then they could handle. Their selfishness led corruption and ultimately caused going out of business, with nothing to save them. Greed was abused here and the consequences where heavy. No matter how perfect people such as Martha Stewart seem to appear, their greediness will show right through their transparent image and open up the true appearance. These are the consequences greed can have not just on a single person but organizations as well.

But greed isn’t just all evil. Princess Diana had a special kind of greed, a greed for others. She helped clear land mines out of urban neighborhoods, and made the Red Cross a stronger organization. For this type of greed, she was looked upon as a truly good person. There wasn’t anything bad, people could really say about her because her greed, her excessive desire for gain or welfare for other people appeared through her and people could see who she truly was. Nations also have this character. America, again, is a good example. We have used the gain and wealth that we have acquired by our greedy citizens to help the starving and the poor, in desperate times. We brought grain over to the refugees in Afghanistan. We challenged Adid, in the battle of Mogadishu because he was seizing all the food coming into Somalia. These are all examples how greed can lead to an unselfishness act.

Greed is everywhere we go. We can see it in anyone and anything. It can lead to good or bad. Greed can cause wars, but also help nations in trouble. The evil abuse it. They use it to kill and ravage. The good cherish it. They use it to grow and prosper. Greed can affect the lives of anyone, anywhere. We have to thank greed for the good it has brought, and look down upon the evil it has stirred. There is a never-ending battle and social scientists are still puzzled by the effects in both directions. Greed makes the world turn. Without it nothing would grow. Greed is a necessity and in a Darwinian Society, everyone must posses some sort of greed. It’s up to you on how you use it.

Imagine being told to go find the “missing chick” at the beach.

“What does she look like?” you ask.
“Never mind that. Just find her” you are told.

You cannot possible follow these instructions. It is foolish to enter into a discussion of a thing or person’s location or existence unless one has some conception of their features or properties. You must have some general idea of what God is before you search. Since most of my readers believe in the Judeo-Christian conception of God, and that it’s the easiest to write about since only one version exists, I’m going to write about it. This obviously doesn’t imply the superiority of this conception over others. This definition is very similar to most other religions.

The common accepted properties of god are the following:

• Omnipotent (God can do anything, or bring about anything)
• Omniscient (God knows everything)
• Eternal (God has always existed, and always does)
• Perfect Good (God is morally Perfect)
• Creator (God Created all that exists)

Omniscient
If God knows everything, does he therefore know about the future?

Mere human beings like ourselves know some things about the future. For instance, in December of last year we knew that it would rain sometime before the December of this year. We had very good inductive reasons for that belief, and further, it did rain this year. Since it did rain this year, why deny that we knew it would rain this year, last year.

If we mere humans can have knowledge about the future, then surely God can have such knowledge since he is perfect, and all knowing. Matter of fact God would have even a better knowledge of the future then we do since he is ‘God’.

Then the question is, does God’s “knowing the future” rule out our free will. (Ability to choose our actions) In other words, do I act freely as I type this next word out, when yesterday God already knew that I would type this word at this very moment?

Eternality
Some people believe that eternality is timelessness. That is that god is outside of time. Time doesn’t affect him.

Only problem with that is:

How can something exist outside of time and perform anything? How can a being who is “outside of time” do anything, since “doing” requires the passage of time?

If you want to call god eternal, then the definition of eternal should be everlasting, not outside of time.

Omnipotent
To say god is omnipotent is to say that God can “do anything” or “bring about anything.” What exactly does that mean?

One might say that it means that God can do or bring about literally anything that one might imagine or describe. I think there is a valid reason to reject this. For instance, some things may not make logical sense or are coherent. One such thing would that it makes no sense to say that God can draw a round square or find a married bachelor. To say god can do anything and then say he has logical limitations is a contradiction.

    ”God is omnipotent. He can do anything that you can describe.”

    ”Yeah? Can he lift any stone?”
    ”Of course. He can lift anything, because he can do anything.”
    ”Among the stones I can describe is a stone that is so heavy that God can’t lift it.”
    ”Uhh, yeah so whats your point.”
    ”Well, if, as you say, God can do anything that I or you can describe, then he can lift any stone. And since one stone (that I can describe being lifted) is the stone that is too heavy for God to lift, it follows that God can lift the stone that is too heavy for him to lift. Can God do that?”
    ”Well, yes.”
    ”I don’t get it. That makes no sense?”
    ”Why does it have to make sense? Maybe it does make sense, to God!”
    ”Well, you’re saying that there’s this stone that God can lift that God can’t lift. You’re saying that both ‘God can lift the stone’ and ‘God can’t lift the stone.’ You’re embracing a contradiction.”
    ”Well, I guess you’re right. But you’re also wrong, I guess.”
    ”Once, again.”

The law of non-contradiction says that no statement can be both true and false

That is my problem with human nature. Simplifying things. Mapping out our very confused existence, so there’s an explanation, a rhyme or reason behind every doing. And that’s what psychology is. If you do so and so, and enjoy doing this and this, then you are a type A person… you are a type B person, but hardly any exception. That’s what you all are, categories, listings of people with their own little tag and label. There is no such thing as difference because once there is one other people that acts like you, then you are just listed as another “type” of person. And isn’t that what we want? The simple life? Belonging to a category? I’m a “skater”? I’m a “nerd”? I’m a “conformist”? I’m a “non-conformist”? That in itself is a contradiction! The very word that some people choose to label themselves! Once you fight conformity then you are just all the same as every other NON-conformist!

These labels people use are just terms people use to keep their mind at ease. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to know what type of person you are, how you would react to every situations like some math problem? It’s like an equation. If he calls me fat, I will cry, every time, no exception. If he jests me in front of my friends, I should get mad, every time. Or, “I’m the kind of person that doesn’t cry”, Ok, you’re family just died, you found out the world is going to end the next day, and a severe beating to the genitals and see me in the morning. There, an example of labeling yourself. “My way of living can be described by the quote, ‘Living day by day’”, Ok, that sucks man because it looks like you have no future goals to work for. My point is, exceptions. There will always be some. People soon find themselves working to fulfill the label that they imposed on themselves, rather than letting the label act as a trivial adjective to describe you for a brief amount of time. It’s like a mold that you have made for yourself so that you fit perfectly without any incongruities, or anything sticking out. That’s why I hate it when people label me. When people call me funny, I always feel a need, almost a responsibility to act humorous around them, just to fulfill the label that they imposed on me.

It’ll would be easy to map out your life with quotes, and sayings that you work to live by everyday. But sooner or later there will always be a new situation that demands an exception to the “quote” and then you won’t know what to do. It’s like a chess game. You have whole game planned out in your head, and if everything goes well according to the plan, then its a guaranteed win. If everything goes well but it never will! There will always be some different situation that you never see, some obstacles that are always blocking your sight! And keep in mind there is the opponent that is constantly tinkering away, trying to foil your every move. It just doesn’t work. That’s not the way to win a chess game, and that is definitely not the way to live life. There will always be a time when everything messes up, and you find yourself on your ass back completely lost just because “things didn’t go the way you expected it too”. And what if you did follow that simple equation that you mapped out in your head from the beginning? You’d lose, it would be like a horse with blinders on. You kept the straight path, but right into a pointed dagger, right into the hands of your opponent, who has no plan, except for the necessary ends to your demise.

My point to all this. Do NOT simplify life with quotes to live by, or self- labels to describe your character. Character itself, is forever changing. It cannot be described, it alters with every situation you are exposed to, with every single person you meet. Things don’t happen for a reason, some things happen just because. My answer? Live life as it comes to you, for each new situation, calls for a different answer. Life is an adventure, a unique experience at every turn of the clock. Life is changing, never will it be constant, an equation. Life is an exception to every rule, a different answer at every turn unpredictable and forever different.

Life is as it is.

Most of us have seen or heard about fire walking. It looks impressive. How, we ask, can ordinary people with ordinary feet walk across a bed of hot charcoals without being burned? They must have some special control over their bodies!

Anthony Robbins has long had his disciples walk across a bed of hot charcoals as profit their new, Robbins-derived powers. According to Robbins, those who lean his techniques have special psychic or mental energy that can, among other things make them successful in business, in bed, and in walking on hot stuff. As they walk across the burning charcoals and chant “cool moss”, Robbins’ disciples firmly believe that anyone else would be burned or even killed.

In fact, however the disciples are wrong- there is nothing special about fire walking: anyone can do it without any preparation. The reason fire walking is possible is that charcoal, especially when coated with ash, does not transfer heat readily to other things. The same can be said about air: when you stick your hand in an oven, the air is as hot as the metal; but you aren’t burned, for the heat in the air does not transfer quickly to your arm, unlike metal. Fire walking, then is not strange and does not require and special powers.

It is a scam, just like other psychic and future predicting plots that are profitable these days.