Mr. Grouchypants

Here is a cool parable from Peg Kaplan at “what if?“.

I’m not sure that this is what Mr. Rogers had in mind when he urged children to visit the Land of Make-Believe. Maybe the charges against Karl Rove are true. Maybe he really is so evil that he can use some sort of Jedi mind tricks to get Democratic congressmen (and women) to hold mock impeachment inquiries. If they have constructive criticism or advice for how to deal with things in Iraq and Afghanistan, then they should make their case to the public. If they can’t do that, then they should hold their pretend trials at the kids’ table so they won’t disturb anyone.

(Via Drudge)

Pavel Litvinov has a great article in the Washington Post concerning the recent “gulag of our time” remarks from Amnesty International. He makes a good case for why the gulag charges are harmful to the organization’s credibility.

Read the whole thing here.

(Via Instapundit)

The Maverick Philosopher has a post discussing John Searle’s Chinese Room argument. He answers some objections from Ray Kurzweil for good measure.

Read the post here.

According to a Washington Times op-ed by Diana West, Koran abuse is hardly widespread at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, the Army seems to be following a rather elaborate code of conduct regarding treatment of the holy book. While one can understand the Army wanting to prevent abuse of the Koran, the requirement that guards wear gloves when handling it is absurd. If the detainees think we are unclean, that is their problem not ours. They are probably offended by the dress of our female troops as well. Are we going to require them to wear burkas?

Read the article here.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

“It is perfectly monstrous the way people go about, nowadays, saying things against one behind one’s back that are absolutely and entirely true.”
A Woman of No Importance

Arguing over embryonic stem cell research seems to be all the rage these days. In a piece in the Washington Times, Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation argues against government funding for the research. Regardless of one’s position on the ethics of issue, Mr. Feulner does raise an interesting point. If the stem cells show so much promise, why would they need to rely on government funding? Shouldn’t private investors be lining up to provide support if the research are likely to cure all the ills that supporters claim it can? I don’t know enough about the science behind it say know whether embryonic stem cells won’t lead to cures in the future, but it doesn’t make me feel more confident about the prospects when such a big deal is made over government financing.

Read the whole thing.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

The Japanese obsession with all things robotic looks to finally be paying off. Engineers there have built a suit to augment human strength with the apparent goal of making it easier for nerds to pick up chicks. See here.

(Via GeekPress)

Anne Applebaum’s latest column deals with Amnesty International’s recent charges regarding Guantanamo Bay. The organization does seem to have thrown away any semblance of neutrality by comparing the detention center to the gulags. I can understand a group having political disagreements with the current administration, but they are damaging their credibility with their current behavior. And the charges practically guarantee that the administration is going to go on the defensive on the issue, while making it easier for them to dismiss the criticism as “political”.

Read Applebaum’s column here.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

Finally! Someone has taken it upon himself to defend the Empire against the ridiculous propaganda of George Lucas. The world can finally see the Rebellion for what it really is: just a confederacy of spoiled princesses and common criminals. See here.

Hayes also manages to touch on a issue that a friend and I were discussing recently. Why is it that shooting lightning out of your fingers is evil while using Jedi mind tricks isn’t. While frying someone with your fingertips is really quite rude, it is hardly any worse than chopping someone’s limbs off with a lightsaber. Subverting someone’s free will is quite a violation. Having that kind of power over people would be more corrupting than the lightning (even though the lightning is pretty cool).

Search your feelings … you know it to be true.

George Bush is not an intellectual. It is probably for the best that he is not.

Here’s why.

(Via Ektopos)

“I can resist everything except temptation.”
Lady Windermere’s Fan

(From Oscar Wilde’s Wit and Wisdom)

Here is an amusing collection of rules NOT to follow when sending email. Keep them in mind as you navigate around the Internets

(Via Lifehacker)

Ronald Bailey asks some difficult questions about government administered pharmaceutical treatments for criminials in a recent article in Reason. I think that if it becomes possible to significantly reduce violent behavior by giving prisoners drugs, the American people will have no reservations about making the practice standard policy. If we will routinely drug our own children to modify their behavior, why would we hesitate to drug criminals?

I am an agnostic. I suppose for most practical purposes I am an atheist, but I haven’t turned away from theism enough to be comfortable with that label. The primary reason that I am not a theist is the argument from evil (or “Argument from EVIL!” if you want to be more dramatic about it). The gist of the argument is that it makes no sense to suppose that an all-powerful, all-loving, all-good god would allow the evil in this world to exist. But my purpose at the moment is not to present a complete account of the argument. Instead, I simply want to discuss something which has made me a bit uncomfortable with it for a while.

I can’t deny the intuitive force of the argument since it is what ultimately led me away from theism. It is very powerful, but the bulk of its force comes from its emotional appeal. It is a rational argument, but you ultimately find yourself being swayed by your emotions rather than reason. As an illustration, a famous version of the argument dealing with gratuitous evil uses as an example the suffering of a young deer. The fawn is badly burned in a forest fire and lingers several days before dying. This example packs quite a punch. But does the argument have as much force if one doesn’t appeal to the suffering of Bambi to make the point?

I don’t think it does. Just imagine the argument except with an iguana or some other less cuddly animal. The effectiveness of the argument is, at least to a degree, dependent upon the listener’s non-rational response to it. Now I don’t think this invalidates the argument (otherwise I would be a theist), but it does make me a little less comfortable with my reaction to it.

Another insightful post from the Maverick Philosopher. While I’m quite the novice when it comes to philosophy of the mind, I have had similar questions about Searle’s approach to consciousness. I agree with him about the irreducibility of the first person perspective, but I’m not sure how he reconciles that with the third person perspective of scientific naturalism. Perhaps I’ll have a better grasp of it once I’ve completed his last book “Mind: A Brief Introduction“. (It’s taking me longer to finish it than it really should).