My Endorsements

Ok. So I live in Ohio. We have one of the latest primary/caucus events in the nation (its sometime in March). Needless to say, no one around here is following the presidential race. Well, I am, and have always been, for a national caucus day. I know it has its drawbacks--people like Huckabee don't have as much of a chance. Only the big money candidates have a go at winning. And I think that is a setback. But no solution is perfect. A rotational early primary state system would be nice too, but flawed in the sense that its going to result in widely different candidates each election cycle. For example, if Hawaii was the earliest primary state, Kucinich would be more likely to be our nominee. Ok, that would be nice for me, but only about 500 other people would be pleased.
But that is not what I am here to talk about. I want a tiny say in the electoral process too! So why can't I make some endorsements and hope that someone gives someone a second lookover because I mentioned their name? I know, its unlikely. But I figure, its worth a shot.
I've decided to make two endorsements for each party. The first endorsement is my long shot endorsement. This is the person whom I think people should vote for on conscience, to make a statement. Unfortunately, everyone is too cowardice to vote with their heart. Everyone wants to be on the winning team. Which results in our 'lesser-of-two-evils' system. So, taking this into account, I have a second endorsement, of someone who actually has a chance of going on and getting the nomination. So...without further ado:
let's start with the Democrats:
My long shot endorsement is...Dennis Kucinich!
Justification: Alright, I worry about his sanity too. But despite his strange 'interconnected' stuff, he does seem to be right on a lot of issues. His health care plan is non-profit. He actually wants to end the war (unlike the front-runners). "Strength through Peace" is his motto. Damn thats cheesy, but that is politics.
My actual chance endorsement is...John Edwards!
Justification: John Edwards is like Kucinich-lite. Truly, if you look at them on the issues, they fall very close together. I'm sure Edwards and his followers would deny it. I've heard conservatives call Edwards a 'neo-socialist'. And I'm ok with that. Edwards does want to take care of people. He does think its everyone's business--including the government--to do something about the poverty problem in the U.S.A. He is the only front runner that isn't a Centrist. Don't try and tell me otherwise. The only way I can tell the difference between Hilary Clinton and George W. Bush is that one is criticizing Bush and the other isn't. Policy-wise, I see little difference. Its all rhetoric. Obama is honest, as far as I can tell, but he is too centrist for my taste.

Republicans:
My long shot endorsement is...Ron Paul.
Justification: Ok, I disagree with Ron Paul on nearly everything. (His comments on Pakistan were just ridiculous. Yeah, let's just leave a country with nuclear weapons alone. Let's just stop making a big deal about it. What!?) But he is so principled, and he is an extreme form of what Republicans should be. Not this warmongering neo-con crap that is going on, but a party that represents liberty and free market economics. Yes, Republicans should be tough on defense. But pre-emptive military strikers are not the Republicans of yesteryear.
My actual chance endorsement is...John McCain.
Justification: John McCain is an American hero! You can't deny it. He is the kind of Republican that keeps people respecting Republicans. He is pro-war, but he understands the misery of war. He is pro-war on terror, but he is also, and more importantly, pro-morality. Other Republicans just want to rip the testicles of terror suspects, while McCain actually has the guts to stand against them and say "Hold on a minute. Thats ridiculous. We are America." Its fortunate that he is a vet, because otherwise I'm sure he would be a 'treasoner' to the talk radio circuit. And, well, McCain is a centrist, and he is a principled man. So I guess I would vote for him over Hilary, because even though I disagree with him, I trust his judgment--after all, he does have more information in front of him than I do.

So. Good luck on Thursday. If you live in Iowa, please go caucus. You have more power than you know. Vote for whoever you want (please not Hilary!).

What Separates Us from Terrorists

When Mukasey was being 'interrogated' before he was sworn in as Attorney General, the big debate, as we can remember, was why he wouldn't admit waterboarding is torture. Republicans (rightly, in my mind) flat out said "Listen, democrats. If you hate waterboarding so much, let's just pass a bill that outlaws it." Now, Mukasey should have said it was torture. He probably shouldn't have been confirmed for not being willing to do so. If anyone can find any example of someone who HAS been waterboarded who claims it isn't torture, I might begin considering changing my mind. But that fact is, out of several folks, Republicans and Democrats, hawks and doves, everyone who has been waterboarded has said it IS torture. End of story, right?

So now the Democrats actually grew a backbone for once and decided to pass the bill. It passes in the House. Ok, no problem. But now Republican Senators are trying to delay and shoot down the bill!? What the hell is going on!?

Let me just explain something to anyone pro-waterboarding, or against this bill. We are not terrorists. We are fighting terrorists. Why? Because they have no sense of human rights, or freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or habeas corpus.
Don't you understand that when we violate human rights (by waterboarding), freedom of religion (ethnic profiling), freedom of speech (by putting outspoken critics of the government on 'watch lists'), or habeas corpus (Gitmo)---WE ARE NO BETTER THAN TERRORISTS! It becomes a cut throat war--no rules, no Good--only two evil sides fighting against one another.

Some Republicans have shown that winning is more important than the things we are fighting for. Its disgusting. Its UnAmerican. We have shown we could give a shit about democracy--nothing is happening to Musharraf despite the fact that he suspended the Constitution in Pakistan because of politics. We have shown we could give a shit about habeas corpus--"let's double the size of Guantanamo Bay" (Romney). Secret CIA prisons!? Listen--finding loopholes to be able to do what you want with terrorism suspects (Suspects! Not Convicts!) is not American. Or at least its not an American I learned about in school or have read in the constitution.
We are now showing we could give a shit about human rights. Waterboarding! Its clearly torture. And we are doing this to suspects. Do you realize you could be a suspect? I could be a suspect? Anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time could be a suspect. Its ridiculous. Hell, I've read a bin Laden speech in an Alt-newspaper--I'm probably on the 'watch list'.
"But Preston, don't you know waterboarding saves lives?"
At what cost? People in a fascist country are safe too, but they have no rights. No privacy. No freedom. Does waterboarding save lives? I'm not sure. I mean, if I was being waterboarded I'm sure I would say whatever I could to end it. That doesn't mean its the truth. And sure, sometimes it probably is. But let me reiterate two things: 1. I would rather have my human rights. Thats what makes us better than the terrorists. 2. We are torturing suspected terrorists. Not convicted terrorists. Thats ridiculous. Its horrendous.
Even if torturing and invading our privacy keeps us safe, it keeps us safe by costing us the very things that make us a country worth living in. Saving lives by giving up what makes life worth living is not worth it.

Unshakable Beliefs

I've heard people talk before about being pyschologically incapable of not believing in God. I've heard the same from an atheist or two. Or the case of parents refusing to believe their child has done something evil (murder, rape, etc.), in the face of overwhelming evidence.
It truly is a bizarre phenomenon, is it not? A belief which we cannot rationally reject. I've never really completely understood it, as I couldn't analyze a situation in which it had happened to me. But now, I have realized a belief I do have which is unshakable. My belief in karma.
Now its strange--I was raised Catholic--why karma? I'm not sure, it probably has something to do with Catholic guilt. So I don't believe in karma. I don't think that people who commit bad acts necessarily 'get theirs'. Some people live terrible lives and have only luck. Some people live great lives and have only shit happen to them. And sure, in a lot of cases the opposite happens; sometimes evil people do get theirs, and sometimes good people do as well.
But karma just doesn't fit in with my worldview. I don't see it. It doesn't fit in with science, and I'm agnostic, so I can't appeal to some God guiding things along--not to mention karma isn't really consistent with the Christian doctrine (well, they believe in karma, but it comes after death, not before.)
Yet despite my complete acknowledgment and rejection of karma on a rational level, I find myself with unshakable beliefs. When I act in a way I perceive to be immoral, or hurt someone, I find myself having the unshakable feeling of impending doom. Something bad will happen to me. I will be punished. It can be terrible.
I guess this just illustrates the close link between emotions and beliefs. Most philosophers (myself included) are in a constant battle to separate emotions and beliefs--rightly so, as this provides an example of where emotions cause irrational beliefs. In lesser cases, it happens unconsciously. That is why all beliefs ought to be justified, all the way down to self-evident beliefs.

But my question is: What do we do about these unshakable beliefs? Do we fight them? Try our best to ignore them? Embrace them?
I really don't know. I think that all of these could be correct. I mean, take for example, a person who has an unshakable faith in God. Why not embrace it? It gives them piece of mind, hope, hopefully causes them to do good things for others, etc. But it can only truly be a positive thing if this embrace comes with a healthy realization that the belief's unshakability does not equal its truth--as I stated above, some people have the unshakable belief that there is no God. So clearly unshakable beliefs are fallible.
Now as for fighting them, Yes, we should always fight beliefs we believe to be irrational. An irrational belief is one that is unlikely to be true, and a false belief will very rarely help us with anything. (That God example is pretty much the only one I can think of.) But, clearly, if the belief is truly 'unshakable', as we've defined it, fighting it will not be of any use.
So in certain cases it seems that we should try our best to ignore them. Take the person who has the unshakable belief that Their life is meaningless. They probably should ignore that rather than embrace it--otherwise they will probably kill themselves.

But I guess the main thing is that if you truly have an unshakable belief, you ought to use it to your advantage, as in the God example. The problem is that people become dogmatic--they think unshakability equals truth. And this is where fundamentalists come in, from homophobic funeral protesters to Muslim terrorists.

I believe we have an epistemic duty to constantly look for evidence that may challenge or reshape our beliefs, especially the ones that, if false, could do a lot of damage; for example, ethical or political beliefs. This is what motivates me, when I'm having my week long bouts of moral antirealism, to continue researching, to continue asking myself "Well, what if I'm wrong?"
Hopefully this will do me more help than harm.

And, as for my unshakable belief in karma, I despise it, but I try best to use it to my advantage: as a deterrent for acting unethically. All the while, continuing to try and shake it off as irrational.

Defeat by Self-Refutation

The more philosophy I think about/read, the more evidence there seems to be in favor of the following view:
"Every philosophical position is self-refuting." (Which, if true, is itself self-refuting)
I mean, its just bizarre--maybe its just the way I think, but it seems like every original criticism I can come up with against a view is that it is self-refuting.
Verificationism, for example. "All sentences are either true by definition or only true by appeal to possible experience." Self-refuting.
Naturalism...this is too hard to sum up in one brief sentence. wikipedia it. But naturalism is arguably self-refuting, because if evolution is true, our brains were only evolved to survive and reproduce, not necessarily to reason well. Therefore, our theories don't have any probability of being true, only of being conducive to survival. Therefore, naturalism, a theory created by us, has no probability of being true. Self-refutation.

But I have a new one. I was looking into the 'Brights' movement. The Brights are naturalists. A bright is defined as: "A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystic elements." Brights are naturalists. So I'm thinking...am I a Bright? I certainly am a methodological Bright, that is, I don't think science should ever posit mystical entities as solutions or causes of events.
But naturalism originates from skepticism about mystical entities like Gods or spirits. Now I have that skepticism, but I remain utterly agnostic about these entities. Now is naturalism an atheism about these entities? It seems the answer must be 'Yes'--they are the opposite of supernaturalists, who DO believe in the entities. It seems to me the best to withhold judgment on anything of which we have no evidence of. The Brights claim that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Ok, so what is my point?
The Brights are implicitly holding the Universal claim: "All events in the world have natural explanations/causes." But a Universal claim goes beyond naturalism. It is asserting something beyond all possible experience. It is thus, supernatural. Thus, the Brights are self-refuting.
Unless they are just methodological naturalists; in which case, I am a Bright. But so is everyone but evangelicals. That seems to make the movement much less interesting.

WWJD?

Am I allowed to wear a W.W.J.D. bracelet if I'm not Christian? I mean, I don't believe he is our Savior, but his ethical system is amazing. So can I just support that or is that somehow sacreligious?

Aphorisms

If there is one thing I learned from Neitzche, its this aphorism:
1. When you want to make a claim look profound and obviously true without argument (even when its clearly false in any other context), just put it in the form of an aphorism, and people will buy into it.

I guess Wittgenstein also taught me this.

So let me spout off a few aphorisms I developed from the show I went to last night:

1. If you are a true metalhead, when you headbang, you don't nod your head, but shake it back and forth. Why? Because its not metal to say 'yes', and that is what nodding your head is doing. Shake your head back and forth because "No" is much more metal.

2. Watching a local band is like going to Good Will. You will either be pleasantly surprised by finding something awesome, or you will be pleasantly surprised by finding something that is so lame that it is awesome.

3. It isn't 'live music' if there isn't a drummer. Its karaoke by the original artist.

4. 'Disgust for the Weak' is a metal as fuck band name. But the band is not metal as fuck.

5. Being popular with the trendy kids costs you a lot of money. Being popular with indie and scene kids is easier: You just have to say something bad about George Bush.

6. You are only a good live band if every question you ask the crowd is repeated a second time with the preface 'I can't hear you [city or club name]!'

7. When your favorite band goes on at a show and instead of listening and watching them you take pictures of them on your digital camera the WHOLE SET, it pisses me off. So don't do it. One or two pictures, OK. For the memories. I get it. But when you spend the whole set doing it, you clearly don't even like music.

8. Autographs are still stupid. Your favorite band, actor/actress, athelete, whatever--they are just human beings. What do you prove by having them write their name on something?

Dillinger Escape Plan is REALLY good live. And their new CD is great.