Author: VD

WND column

A Disastrous Victory

Imagine that you are in the back seat of a car being driven 70 miles per hour towards a cliff edge. Driving the car off the cliff will be fatal, but instead of stopping the car, turning it around, or even stepping on the brakes, the two people in the front of the car are arguing about who is responsible for how close to the cliff it is. Then imagine that after one of the passengers in the back seat begins shouting at the driver to stop the car, the two in the front argue some more, then finally agree to slow down to 68 miles per hour.

Do you feel any safer? Do you feel any more confident about the ability of the driver and his navigator to keep the car from crashing?

Overly fantastic military history

Being a fan of Jim Butcher’s The Dresden Files and Roman history, I didn’t hesitate to read through his Codex Alera series as each book came out. They are good, entertaining books, if not necessarily as absorbing as his demi-noire urban fantasy series. But it is not my purpose to discuss the Alera books as to note a common error that is made in them as well as in many other fantasy novels. By my admittedly inattentive count, the indomitable Aleran military lost no less than six complete legions in the span of 25 years. And by complete, I mean absolutely complete, in one battle, the number of survivors can be counted on a single hand. Contrast this with Roman history, in which only four Imperial legions were recorded to have lost their aquila, three of them in the same battle in the Teutoberg Forest under the command of Publius Quinctilius Varus. Since Butcher’s Vord exterminate literally everything they encounter, there is perhaps sufficient room for literary license to permit this exaggeration for effect. There is, however, little room to excuse similar exaggerations of martial lethality committed by other fantasy authors.

Read the rest of the article at the Black Gate.

First the euro, then the EU

Simon Heffer sees the end of both in sight:

The failure of the euro will signify the failure of the European ideal, and that is why eurocrats fight so hard for it. What should have been a club of free-trading nations over-reached itself, and sought to unite people with little or no common culture, politics, language or economic history into one coherent federation. It could never work. The generation that thought it could is either dead, senile or (in Chris Patten’s case) governing the BBC. The dream is over: it only remains to be seen how much more German money will be squandered before everyone finally admits it.

Countries who have bail-outs must survive for years afterwards on austerity measures. They will never have the industrial power of a Britain or France, let alone a Germany, so to stay in such a strong currency means permanent privation. Portugal will soon have an election, but so what? Ireland just had one, and it was irrelevant who won. The most important thing a country has – the right to set its own economic policy – was forfeited by the Irish, and the Portuguese, when they joined the euro. All aggrieved people in those countries can do if they want a different policy is write to Frankfurt and ask politely – or riot. And I fear there will much more of the latter before this charade comes to its inevitable end.

Some of us in Britain have resisted the EU in all its manifestations because what is politely called “loss of sovereignty” actually means “loss of democratic rights”. Our votes as electors become pointless. As the eurocrats become more desperate to hold things together, more and more unreasonable demands will be made upon us – whether we are in the euro or not. That is the nature of dictatorships such as the EU. We do not vote for the commissioners who initiate, on the advice of their unelected advisers, the policies they inflict upon us. Napoleon and Hitler tried to unite Europe, but neither did so with the pretence of democracy. As Europe’s currency fails, and a last desperate attempt is made to save it, the price will be our freedom.

The comparison of the EU to Napoleon and Hitler is astute, because the only significant difference is that the EU has used banks to subvert national sovereignty rather than ranks and tanks. And like Napoleon and Hitler, their efforts will ultimately go for naught after a brief period wherein it looked as if they had been successful.

The fat guy refuses the last bite

He nobly turns it down, then wonders why he still hasn’t lost any weight. Congress and the White House salute themselves for striking a “historic” spending cut:

Working late into the evening Friday, congressional and White House negotiators struck an agreement to pay for government operations through the end of September while trimming $38.5 billion in spending. Lawmakers then approved a days-long stopgap measure to keep the government running while the details of the new spending plan were written into legislation.

Of course, since the federal government ran a $189 billion deficit in March alone, this means that in order to stop digging the debt hole deeper, they only have to cut $150 billion more… every month this year.

The OC summarized it thusly: “Obama hailed the deal as “a ridiculously insignificant drop in the bucket.” House Speaker John Boehner said that over the next decade he would repeatedly ask the Tea Party faction to “kiss my hairy orange ass.”

“This is historic, what we’ve done,” agreed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the third man involved in negotiations that ratified a new era of divided government. “The Republicans folded like cheap aluminum lawn chairs.”

Losing to Libya

Perhaps the sordid conclusion of this military adventure will finally begin to convince conservative supporters of the neocon’s democracy crusade that half-hearted attacks, invasions, and occupations are a way to weaken the military and increase the risk to American national security, not strengthen either:

Libyan rebels said on Friday they had repulsed a government assault on the besieged western city of Misrata but prospects faded that Muammar Gaddafi would be ousted by the armed revolt.

NATO leaders acknowledged the limits of their air power, which has caused rather than broken a military stalemate, and analysts predicted a long-drawn out conflict that could end in the partition of the North African oil producer.

Alliance officials expressed frustration that Gaddafi’s tactics of sheltering his armor in civilian areas had reduced the impact of air supremacy and apologized for a “friendly fire” incident on Thursday that rebels said killed five fighters.

Ah yes, if only the enemy would fight the way we would like them to fight, then we would win easily, just like the clowns in uniform drew it up. The USA lost in Somalia. It’s losing in Libya… and Libya lost to Chad! It’s probably time to hang up the “only world superpower” and “global policeman” titles and consider seeing if the military is still even capable of stopping the ongoing invasion of the southern border.

Mailvox: this should be amusing

Like Sam Harris, DK claims to have solved the ought vs is problem:

I suspect you’re not interested in the fact that I’ve solved the ought-from-is problem,* but I figure I shouldn’t make the decision on your behalf. You call the project ‘futile’ which is to say you have some very good reasons to be uninterested in any particular instance of it. I would
like to know what those reasons are. Especially, is there some reason you shouldn’t be interested, even if I’m right?

As it is true I’ve solved the problem, I should be able to contradict these reasons, except possibly that last reason.

*(More precisely, there’s an irrefutable definition which, when called ‘ought,’ leads to system that looks like morality, based entirely on unmistakable facts like that people have preferences.)

Given the fact that DK wrongly derived “very good reasons to be uninterested” from “belief in futility, this doesn’t bode well for the likelihood that his solution is correct. But, as per my policy of giving everyone, however crazy, a shot, I emailed him back as follows.

I’m not interested because it hasn’t been solved. The solution isn’t a fact, it is simply your opinion at this point, and I doubt your opinion is any more founded in fact than Sam Harris’s opinion that he solved the problem. But if you wish me to dismantle whatever crackpot solution you’ve proposed and illustrate why it is incorrect, I will be happy to do so. Based on the weasel words in your description, I suspect you are simply playing the same sort of logically illegitimate semantic games that Harris does.

“If I irrefutably define “3” as “2”, then I have proven that 2+3=4!”

Brilliant stuff. Anyhow, go ahead and send me the link. I’ll take a look at it.

I’m sure you will all join me in eagerly awaiting our introduction to the first major philosophical breakthrough of the 21st century.

WL Craig indulges in immorality

For did he not purposefully injure Sam Harris’s sense of well-being last night at Notre Dame? Based on the various summaries I’ve read, William Lane Craig had about as much trouble in his debate with Sam Harris as I thought he would, which is to say none at all. Unfortunately, as is all too often the case with Christian apologists, Craig didn’t go for the kill when Harris gave him the opening. I think it’s a mistake to refrain from destroying the credibility of the opponent in these circumstances, because whenever the atheist debater is not completely humiliated in an outright and undeniable manner, all of his little fans who are incapable of following the debate will inevitably declare their hero has triumphed.

But for those who are cognitively capable of following and comprehending the discourse, it was apparent that the outcome of the debate was settled as soon as both men made their initial points. As I expected on the basis of his most recent book, Harris lost the debate almost as soon as he opened his mouth.

Craig: If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties, if God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.

Harris: Good means maximizing human well-being for the largest number of people. Religion is not necessary for a “universal” morality. Religion is a bad foundation for “universal” morality

As I pointed out in my column last November in which I reviewed The Moral Landscape, “Harris simply ignores the way in which his case falls completely apart when it is answered in the negative. No, we cannot simply accept that “moral” can reasonably be considered “well-being” because it is not true to say that which is “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong” is more than remotely synonymous with “that which fosters well-being in one or more human beings.” One might as reasonably substitute “wealth” or “physical attractiveness” for “well-being”.

Desperate appeals to science won’t suffice to paper over the well-known holes in utilitarian philosophy. Harris is so eminently predictable that he not only threw away the debate by basing his case upon his illegitimate redefinition of “good”, as expected, but he also twice engaged in his customary complaints about being misunderstood despite being directly quoted. Possible Worlds took notes and provided a summary of the debate:

Harris’ rebuttal was a strange, 12-minute diatribe where he offered literally zero arguments for his position. I do not mean he offered zero arguments which I found compelling or good. Just zero arguments altogether. He spent the time presenting the problem of evil and criticizing Christian particularism, both of which were irrelevant to the debate. Harris started to look angry during this portion of the debate. He also seemed to have given up the actual debate topic from here on out.

Craig pointed out that not only were no arguments offered for the naturalistic hypothesis, but that no criticisms of any of his arguments were offered as well! Craig did refer the audience to look into the critiques of Harris through Paul Copan’s book, Is God a Moral Monster?. Craig contended the point of Christianity was not eternal well-being, as Harris alleged earlier. Rather, the point is to worship God on account of who he is! Harris had mentioned in his diatribe that Christians are lunatics, and Craig dismissed this as “stupid and insulting.” I don’t know that I would have said it was “stupid,” but Craig did not come off very mean-spirited (but rather annoyed).

In Harris’ second rebuttal, he accused Craig of misrepresenting him, but did not offer any explanation. Harris defaulted to claiming that if you grant him certain axioms, then his account of morality is true, in much the same way as logic or math. The problem is that people generally don’t view morality to be transcendently true based on “nothing;” further note what this is asking the audience to do: just take his word for it. Take it on faith. He relies on objective morality’s being true, but then his argument just begs the question!

However, I suspect the most succinct summary was provided by a commenter at Wintery Knight’s detailed account of the debate: Sam Harris has spent an hour and a half talking about everything except the topic at hand. I’m not sure I’ve heard such a mix of red herrings and ad hominems before.

Rush makes excuses

Limbaugh appears to be surprised that many Republicans blame him and other Republican leaders for failing to investigate Obama’s birth certificate scandal. But why shouldn’t they be blamed? Not a single one of them had the balls to do what Joseph Farah and now Donald Trump have done in pointing out that the president has no birth certificate.

Caller: “The fact of the matter is that his citizenship has been a suspicious issue from the very beginning, and not one high Republican or you has ever really tried to nail him on this issue, and if it does turn out that he is not a true citizen, then I think all of you should hang your heads in shame because of all the destruction our country has had to suffer ever since he was elected, in spite of being the fraud that we know he probably really is.”

Limbaugh: “So you’re mad at me?”

Caller: “I am furious. I wanted you and anybody else to go after him on this issue before he was elected. It would have been the easiest way to have stopped him. It would have been a no-brainer. But nobody would. And so he was elected and everything was just hidden under the rug. And now look what we have had ever since. … If it does turn out that he’s not a citizen, I think you should hang your head in shame, because our country has suffered so much….”

Rush: “OK, if you want to focus, Angela, on what should have happened before the election, we can do that, and I can focus on the stupidity of half the country that voted for the guy, and I can talk about all the stupid things the media said and all the tricks that were played to convince people that he’s not who he was. But today it’s 2011 and those days are over and we are living in the midst of this guy destroying the economy and going back and talking about a birth certificate right now is not the most effective way of stopping this guy. I would love nothing more than for this guy to be proven a fraud. I would love nothing more than for all of this to have been a giant trick. I would love nothing more than for him to get nabbed at this, but there isn’t any evidence of it yet. I would love nothing more to see what happens when it’s proven, if it could be, that he’s not a citizen. What happens with legislation when everything he’s done is unqualified, everything he’s done is illegal. Everything he’s done has gotta be wiped clean. Can you imagine that battle? I would love to see that.

You’ve got me pegged wrong here. But I deal with what is. I don’t deal with what-ifs. “If” is for children. And we’ve got certain things that are the reality of the day that have to be dealt with, pure and simple, and that’s where I am on this. No more and no less. There’s no magic wand that can get Obama unelected. You can hope and you can dream but you are locked in a fantasy if that’s what you’re waiting for. That isn’t gonna happen. The focus needs to be on making sure he’s not reelected. But there is no way to unelect the guy. It isn’t going to happen.”

Limbaugh has somehow managed to miss the point in his attempt to defend his past and present failures to show up on the issue here. No one is talking about getting Obama “unelected” by belatedly unearthing the facts about his probable ineligibility for the elected office he presently holds. First and foremost, they just want the truth. Everyone with even half a brain smells a rat, but smelling one is not tantamount to conclusively identifying one. Perhaps it’s just a mouse, perhaps it’s nothing. No one truly knows except Obama and possibly some of his innermost circle. Second, it should be obvious that if Limbaugh is really serious about how the focus needs to be on making sure Obama is not reelected, then the most realistic and effective way to do that is for him to actively support the proposed presidential eligibility laws in the 13 states that are presently considering them. The unexpected poll strength shown by Donald Trump proves that focusing on the birth certificate is not only an effective approach in legally cutting out the legs from under Obama, it may be a vote-winner as well because most Americans aren’t drinking the Hope and Change-flavored Kool-Aid anymore.

Rush and the conservative media were afraid to look out of the mainstream in 2008. What they haven’t realized yet is that doubts about Obama’s legitimacy are now the mainstream position, which is why Jerome Corsi’s new book on the subject is all but guaranteed to become a #1 New York Times bestseller when it is released this month.

So, Limbaugh’s caller was correct to be furious with him. Like McCain and Palin, Rush simply refused to do what many of his fans perceived to be his duty in 2008 and he’s not doing it now. Instead, he’s left it to the likes of Trump to call Obama to account, who despite being more of a reality TV candidate than a real one, would almost certainly make for a less disastrous Republican president than anyone but Ron Paul.

In which the squirrel meets the train

Sam Harris is debating William Lane Craig tonight at 7 PM EST. Since Harris’s arguments are so inept and factually incorrect that I could beat him in a debate while simultaneously playing ASL and Ms Pac-man, I tend to doubt Craig will have much trouble with him. It should be interesting to see if Craig elects to make his own positive arguments and challenge Harris to refute them or if he takes a cue from TIA and shreds the arguments that Harris puts forth.

Since the title of the debate makes it sound as if Harris is attempting to talk his book, The Moral Landscape, I suspect even many atheists will be underwhelmed by his futile attempt to use science as a basis for deriving ought from is. Anyhow, I’m not staying up to watch it, so if anyone feels so inclined, please go ahead and provide color commentary or summarize it here.

Sooner or later

It doesn’t matter when the “transition” takes place. As happened with the Soviet withdrawal, once American combat forces are withdrawn, whenever they are withdrawn, the puppet regime forcibly installed by it will fall:

On Wednesday, Pres. Barack Obama held a video conference with Afghan president Hamid Karzai and welcomed the Afghan leader’s announcement of the first seven areas to transition to Afghan forces this July. The White House hopes that a smooth transition will help them to begin drawing down American forces this summer and end the foreign combat mission in the country by 2014.

Alas, this is wishful thinking. The troop withdrawal begins at a time when security in Afghanistan is worse than it has been in nine years. The Taliban are resurgent and have stepped up attacks as part of their spring offensive. On March 29, insurgents captured a district in eastern Nuristan Province, an area U.S. troops are turning over to the Afghan authorities. “The white flag of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is flying over the Want district center, while some policemen of the puppet administration flee toward the provincial capital after slight resistance,” boasted Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid.

Even more worrying, al-Qaeda is making a comeback in areas recently vacated by the coalition forces.

It’s not only those who don’t know history, but those who refuse to acknowledge its lessons, who are doomed to repeat it.