There has been a recent news furor over the killing of the leader of Hamas' paramilitary wing. He was assassinated by approximately 11 people in his Dubai hotel room. There is little doubt that the hit was ordered and carried out by Mossad, Israel's version of the CIA and Delta Force rolled into one.
Mossad has been known to carry out assassinations of Palestinian militants before, but this time they used passports from other countries. UK, Irish, French (and maybe more, I don't precisely recall) passports were used by the hit squad. More importantly, these were real passports who belonged to real people (including some Israelis). How's that for identity theft! Imagine waking up one morning and discovering that you're wanted by INTERPOL for an assassination in the UAE.
The international commentary has been mostly negative. But most of the condemnation has been limited to the identity theft, not the actual assassination. So far as I can tell, only France, Iran (of course) and the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings (read: assassination czar) have actually condemned the assassination.
This brings up an interesting question: should Israel's assassination of Palestinian militants be condemned? I think there's little question that the identity theft is bad, but I wonder if this would even make big news if the identity theft had not been discovered, or had not occurred. The United States has banned assassinations by employees of the government. Should assassinations be brought back? I think there's a strong case to be made that they should.
Feb 22, 2010
The Evolution of Evolution
I was reading an article by Louis Menand, one of my professors, in the New Yorker from a few years ago, where he makes the comment
*Edit. An excellent article in the WSJ talks about this kind of thing
In 1859, Charles Darwin announced his conclusion that all life forms are the result of processes that are natural, chance-generated, and blind. There is, he thought, no "meaning" to evolutionary development. Evolution is just a by-product of the fact that organisms have to compete with one another in order to survive. If there were no struggle, if some organisms didn't have to die so that others could live, there would be no development. That is all evolution amounts to. This recognition seems to have made Darwin literally sick. But, ever since "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man" (1871), people have used Darwin's theory to explain why one or another way of managing human affairs is "natural." The notion is that a particular arrangement must have been "selected for"—as though the struggles among individuals and groups and ideas were nature's way of making sure that we end up with the best.I think this is an interesting, important point. People these days discuss evolution as though the modern human is the peak of evolution. Evolutionary theory says NOT that we are the pinnacle of evolution, but rather that we are the result of random events. Maybe at one point it was advantageous for us to have eyelids or chest hair or certain instinctive psychological tendencies, but that may have been merely because of some bizarre situation humanity found itself in that does not apply anymore.We don't know what all of those situations were, so the exercise of theorizing why these things came about is futile and unprovable.
*Edit. An excellent article in the WSJ talks about this kind of thing
Feb 16, 2010
Death and Time
Death is what makes time relevant. The measurement of time is merely counting down the seconds to our ends.
If no one died, ever, then we would be entirely unconcerned with the measurement of time. A second and a year would be, functionally, the same thing. There would be no rush to do anything, because we could always do it later. (I don't know if this would encourage procrastination or render it irrelevant)
On the other hand, if only one person (lets say....ooh, me, pick me) was immortal, then I would care about time but priorities would be radically different. My personal agenda could be postponed, my concern about myself would be unbound by any deadline. But everyone around me would only be here for a (relatively) short time, so my primary concern would be spending time with people before they died.
So I think instead of living each day like it's our last, we should live each day like we will live forever. There's always time for ourselves, it's other people we should be concerned about.
If no one died, ever, then we would be entirely unconcerned with the measurement of time. A second and a year would be, functionally, the same thing. There would be no rush to do anything, because we could always do it later. (I don't know if this would encourage procrastination or render it irrelevant)
On the other hand, if only one person (lets say....ooh, me, pick me) was immortal, then I would care about time but priorities would be radically different. My personal agenda could be postponed, my concern about myself would be unbound by any deadline. But everyone around me would only be here for a (relatively) short time, so my primary concern would be spending time with people before they died.
So I think instead of living each day like it's our last, we should live each day like we will live forever. There's always time for ourselves, it's other people we should be concerned about.
The Winter Olympics
Two weeks of uncompetitive "sports" requiring substantial resources that disenfranchise all countries in snowless climes and without a lot of money (read: the global south). Why do they exist? I'm not sure.
Itching to find out, I embarked on an exhaustive online quest, finally stumbling upon an obscure page on Wikipedia titled: "Winter Olympic Games." It's thoroughly footnoted annals had quite a tale to tell.
The winter olympics (hereafter not capitalized due to laziness and a lack of respect for the games) have their roots in the Nordic Games - unsurprising. These are activities engaged in by Nordic people. Why internationalized? I guess the guy that organized the Nordic Games was chummy with the guy that started the Olympics, so figure skating was tacked on.
Really? Figure skating? I take issue, first, with anything that is subjectively judged by other people, and involves no actual direct competition between participants. That's not a sport. But, unlike judging in other...events..., figure skating judges evaluate things like costume and music. The Olympics should be neither a beauty pageant nor a theater competition.
So first: the sports have questionable value, as competitions and as entertainment. Participants don't compete against one another, judges increase subjectivity. The only game that requires true teamwork and strategy is hockey (which I think is deserving of its reputation). While some of these problems may plague the Summer Games as well, they are limited to a few events; they define the winter games.
Second, the entire concept disenfranchises half of the globe. It's inherently climate-biased. There's a reason the games have only ever been held in Europe, North America, and Japan: you have to have snow to practice/participate. This is a foolish system for a competitive event that claims to bring together the world. What would Finland say if someone introduced dune boarding? Olympic sports, allowing all countries across the globe to compete, should be sports that can be played anywhere regardless of climate (yes, this would exclude sailing).
*Edit: I have recently learned that there is actually a section in the Olympic charter requiring a place to have ice and snow to host the Winter Olympics. This means that those few counties in the South that get snow in the winter would still not be able to host, because their winter is at the opposite time of the winter olympics
Itching to find out, I embarked on an exhaustive online quest, finally stumbling upon an obscure page on Wikipedia titled: "Winter Olympic Games." It's thoroughly footnoted annals had quite a tale to tell.
The winter olympics (hereafter not capitalized due to laziness and a lack of respect for the games) have their roots in the Nordic Games - unsurprising. These are activities engaged in by Nordic people. Why internationalized? I guess the guy that organized the Nordic Games was chummy with the guy that started the Olympics, so figure skating was tacked on.
Really? Figure skating? I take issue, first, with anything that is subjectively judged by other people, and involves no actual direct competition between participants. That's not a sport. But, unlike judging in other...events..., figure skating judges evaluate things like costume and music. The Olympics should be neither a beauty pageant nor a theater competition.
So first: the sports have questionable value, as competitions and as entertainment. Participants don't compete against one another, judges increase subjectivity. The only game that requires true teamwork and strategy is hockey (which I think is deserving of its reputation). While some of these problems may plague the Summer Games as well, they are limited to a few events; they define the winter games.
Second, the entire concept disenfranchises half of the globe. It's inherently climate-biased. There's a reason the games have only ever been held in Europe, North America, and Japan: you have to have snow to practice/participate. This is a foolish system for a competitive event that claims to bring together the world. What would Finland say if someone introduced dune boarding? Olympic sports, allowing all countries across the globe to compete, should be sports that can be played anywhere regardless of climate (yes, this would exclude sailing).
*Edit: I have recently learned that there is actually a section in the Olympic charter requiring a place to have ice and snow to host the Winter Olympics. This means that those few counties in the South that get snow in the winter would still not be able to host, because their winter is at the opposite time of the winter olympics
Origins
OK, there aren't really any. I just decided I have too many thoughts floating around and too little to do, so I'll spend my free time putting them here. Once I have national international fame, I'll start making piles of cash off the ads and use the revenue to feed the starving in Africa.
I was trying to come up with a title that involved a pun on "rambles" and "shambles." You can probably see why.
I also considered the title "3AM philosophy", which is much of what will be on here. My rants, thoughts, pontifications, attempts at something profound.
I have a very large backlog of thoughts to put down, so I suspect my postings will be excessively long and large in quantity at first. The beauty of the internet is that I get to feel like I'm putting my thoughts into cyberspace when in reality no one is reading it. I get the benefits of feeling social without the disadvantages of having people actually learn anything about me.
I was trying to come up with a title that involved a pun on "rambles" and "shambles." You can probably see why.
I also considered the title "3AM philosophy", which is much of what will be on here. My rants, thoughts, pontifications, attempts at something profound.
I have a very large backlog of thoughts to put down, so I suspect my postings will be excessively long and large in quantity at first. The beauty of the internet is that I get to feel like I'm putting my thoughts into cyberspace when in reality no one is reading it. I get the benefits of feeling social without the disadvantages of having people actually learn anything about me.
