Visiting Danny Rudolph at Stanford--a Dream

Like I said before, I try to once in a while include something in this blog that gives it a human touch. So here's a dream I had September 29 about Danny Rudolph and Stanford. I think it proves what some deny, that men are able to have complex non-sexual thoughts and feeling about other men:

I was in the big main room of a library on the Stanford University campus. The room was about 25 yds long, 15 yds wide, with a high ceiling, the ceiling was about 30 feet above the ground. The lighting inside the room was dim for some reason, it was a gray light, a light like dawn or dusk. there were big light brown tables on the floor of the room, not alot of bookshelves. At one end there was a second floor without walls, you could see books and people up on this balcony like floor.

Most of the people in the room seemd to be short white clean shaven young men wearing granny glasses with those circular frames around the eye. I was sitting at one of the tables. I began talking to one of the young men sitting at the same table. I boasted to him about how a CBS announcer, said that I was a better soccer player than Brazil's Ronaldinho, who is considered the best player in the world. This was stretching the truth a bit. Actually this radio announcer at a station that used to be affiliated with a station that is now affiliated with CBS, said that Ronaldinho is a more amateurish player than me (I used to have this habit of leaving little speeches on media answering machines, which I guess resulted in some of the media taking an interest in me and my blog and web pages).

Again stretching the truth, I told the young man at my desk, that Danny Rudolph, now Dean of the Stanford Business School, and I were best friends prior to college (actually I did not have many friends who were much closer to me than Danny, and vice versa, this was more true maybe in grade school days than in high school).

Then again some would say that people do not lie when they talk in their dreams so maybe I was getting at some kind of hidden truths in these "stretched" statements.

Then I saw this young clean-shaven white man with straight light brown hair, his hair hanged down over his forehead bang-style, he wore circular-framed granny-glasses and a blue sweater, and a purplish brown suit and tie type jacket over his sweater. He was standing up, I was sitting down, I reached out and shook his hand. I thought he was Danny Rudolph. He looked confused, he did not recognize me. It turned out he was Danny Rudolph's son, not Danny Rudolph.

Then it was time for the people in the main room of this library, to leave the library and walk over to Dasnny Rudolph's house for some kind of event. We were all told to go in a certain direction and follow a guide to Rudolph's house. We all left the library and began walking down this wide road, as wide as a four lane highway, that had very few cars on it, in the direction of Danny Rudolph's house.

The light outdoors was the same as the light in the library, a dim gray light. As I walked in the direction of his house, I was thinking to myself, you are worth nothing before you go to business school, then after you go to business school you are worth millions, this despite the fact that you learn nothing at business school.

The light inside Rudolph's house was the same as the light in the library and the light outdoors, a dim gray light. Inside it looked like a middle class house. I walked down a narrow hallway with a low ceiling, the walls were painted a light yellow color. At the end of the hallway to the left there was an opening that led to a small rectangle shaped area about the size of a closet, this rectangle shaped area led to other rooms that I could not see.

The opening into this rectangle shaped area was partially blocked by a light brown colored couch in a state of disorder with the pillows that went with the couch lying on the couch, not set in the positions in the couch that they are supposed to be set in. there was something charmingly informal and middle-classish I guess, about this disordered couch, stuck in a place where it should not be.

As I was about fifteen feet from this couch, one of the short clean shaven white young men wearing granny glasses approached the couch ahead of me--at the end of the hallway where the couch was on my left, there was an opening to my right, he approached the area where the couch was from the opening to the right of the hallway. He said something to the effect that poetry was a good thing.

In a whiny sickly tone of voice, mocking myself, I said, "I write really good poetry (true?) and I got a 93 on my GMAT (true--I did this in a sleep deprived state after studying only for a couple of hours for the test)". As I got to the corner where there ceased to be a wall to my left in the hallway, where the couch was, someone wearing a dark blue sweater who was hiding at this corner, to my left, grabbed me by the shoulders--he was laughing, and started shaking me.

His grip on my shoulders and the way he shook me, reminded me of Rudolph, it reminded me of the captain-like, intense faux-macho aspect of his personality--and indeed, it was Rudolph! At this point I woke up and the dream ended, but I was sorry that the dream did not continue, I was enjoying it.

Enemies who are Enemies of Enemies, are as Dangerous as simple Enemies

I never cease to be astounded by the simple minded naivete abounding with regards to foreign policy. For example, how is it that so little attention is given to the fact that there are elements who would benefit from or enjoy the spectacle of a nation they dislike, such as say the USA, damaging itself while damaging another "enemy" nation in a war?

The USA's people, it seems, have let their guard down with regards to those who would benefit from us harming ourselves while harming an enemy in a war, due to the simple minded idea that nations face only one threat, never more than one threat, and the idea that the world is composed of two characters the USA the good guy, and then the bad guy the Islamists. This despite the fact that the source of unnecessary, harmful wars can reasonably suspected to be those out to damage both sides involved in such wars.

Often it is in doubt as to who has "won" a war, but usually both sides in a war are harmed by a war they fight with each other. In a sense war as a rule can be expected to harm both sides involved while resulting in not a victory or a loss but a tie. Still the simple-minded persist in quivering in fear of enemies while ignoring enemies who harbor malice for both us and our enemies.

Whereas simple enemies focused on damaging a nation will simply go about attempting to damage the given nation, enemies who want to damage a given nation, say the USA, who also want to damage the given nation's enemies, will attempt to stimulate wars between the target nation and enemies, wars which end up damaging both the target nation and also its enemies.

One would expect that enemies interested in only damaging a given nation, say the USA, would be less powerful than the more powerful enemies interested in damaging not only a given nation such as the USA but also the enemies of the USA. Little powers are more apt to consider one enemy to be enough, while they try to forge friendships with nations other than that one enemy. Still, even though strong powers are more dangerous threats than little powers, a blind eye is turned to the problem of enemies who might be inclined to harm a nation by inducing it to plunge into damaging wars with enemies other than itself.

Nations such as the USA plunge into wars in a kind of emotionalist jingo-istic flag waving delirium. Such nations, would be wise to look before they leaped, and ponder the possibility that an enemy, say enemy X, might wish to plunge them into war with some enemy, say enemy Y, while enemy X keeps itself at peace, strong, and prosperous.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Why I Fear the 'War on Terror"

Because Terror is Not the Only Dangerous Crime
Because Criminal Elements Use Such Wars To Cover Their Crimes

I fear the war on terror because it gets us obsessed with the crime of terrorism, which leaves us vulnerable to crimes that do not fall into the "terrorism" category.

Theft, is a crime that can be non-terroristic. The thief makes no terroristic threats. Then he steals your money. Then he has your money, but still, he is not being a terrorist.

The liar, takes advantage of you by lying to you. He never makes any threats, but still he gets the better of you by lying.

Even the person who murders you, can be a creature that is not a terrorist: meaning, the murderer never threatens you, the murderer just snuffs out your life.

The traitor, can simply betray your country to foreign powers without ever terrorizing you. All of a sudden, your country is under the control of foreign powers, your country is weakened that foreign powers may benefit, but all the while, nobody has been threatened, nobody has been terrorized.

The heretics and the anti-Christs, can do their dirty work without ever terrorizing anyone. All of a sudden, one day you wake up, and what you see and hear in the media and elsewhere is to your surprise all contradictory of the faith; and those who are not heretics or antichrists find it almost impossible to even earn a living--but you can if you are sleepy enough take comfort in the fact that nobody ever terrorized you.

I fear the war on terror, because just as magicians are known to distract the audience so as to secretly perform the trick that astounds the audience, so also, elements connected to the warriors who war on terror, can use the distraction of the war on terror to steal, to lie, to murder, to betray, and to bully.

In the recent war in Lebanon, we saw tanks laying out smokescreens in order to elude the anti-tank rockets. In war, we saw combatants attacking hither so as to distract the enemy's attention from thither. Likewise societies are vulnerable to being distracted by projects such as a "war on terror", while they are undermined in other ways.

It is an old grade-school level trick, that some elements amongst the "warriors on terror" are probably not above committing: distracting society from your own guilt, by accusing others of some crime such as the same crime that you yourself are guilty of.

Any "war on terror", involves terrorism directed against alleged terrorists, terrorism that can be turned against innocents, if necessary using the war on the alleged terrorists as an excuse for the terror directed against innocents.

An obsession with the "terrorist threat" posed by a certain group can be dangerous, because it distracts attention from dangers posed by groups other than the "terrifying" group.

In real life the fact of the matter is, that a society can be undermined, conquered, and enslaved, not just be those who threaten to blow your head off if you do not do something, but also by those who are never perceived as a threat, until one day you wake up to find yourself their slave.

"Terror" is a natural part of law and order:

Rom 13:3-4: For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Those who obsessively fret about "terror" can end up turning society against "terrors" that are good, "terrors" that suppress evils.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Pope Benedict Should Be Careful Re What People Think He is Saying

Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Mat 11:25-26 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

1Co 3:18-20 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Pope Benedict (http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=70993) has aroused wrath in the Muslim world because he used as the centerpiece of his recent address, the philosophy of a medieval Christian King of Constantinople in Turkey Manuel Paleologos (1350-1425), who he quoted as saying that everything new that the Muslim faith has brought to the world is evil. Benedict's address centered on his agreement with the Christian King's contention that forced conversions are ungodly because God is reasonable, and expects men to behave reasonably, and because reasonable men are what is required to convert reasonable unbelievers.

Although Benedict himself did not attack Muslims on the grounds that everything new that the Muslim religion has brought to the world is evil, at the beginning and also at the end of his address, he referenced the medieval Christian King who said this about the Muslims; at the beginning he quoted this king saying this; and throughout his address, Pope Benedict treated this medieval Byzantine King, Paleologos, as an icon of wisdom.

Thus it is not hard to see why Muslims would be offended by Pope Benedict's remarks; and the explanation given by the German government that the Muslims merely misunderstood Pope Benedict is seems insufficient.

If Christian leaders go about lionizing historical Christian figures who condemned the Muslim religion, all the while quoting the condemnations of the Muslim religion made by these historical figures--even if these Christian leaders center their talks not on the condemnations of Islam that issued from these ancient Christian figures but rather on fine points related to the philosophies of these historical Christian anti-Muslim figures--then one would expect Muslims to become offended.

Perhaps the Pope did not intend to be cozy with Muslims.If Pope Benedict had wished to be diplomatic, he could have gotten the same message across by saying something like: I value how truths made known to man in Christianity are also found in Islam and exert positive impacts through being part of Islam, and, with regards to the doctrines found in Islam that are not a part of Christianity, I hope Muslims can come to realize that if all of the thoughts God has regarding the world were to be put into books, the Vatican library itself would not have enough room for all of these books.

Instead Pope Benedict, while attempting to show that a certain reasonableness, and love of reasonableness are an intrinsic part of God's nature, read several paragraphs that could be interpreted as manifesting his opposition to the idea, that most of God's thoughts words and actions are not recorded in human scriptures.

The fact remains, that many persons have sensed while reading Isaiah, and Psalms, and the gospel of St. John, the divine inspiration of at least portions of these books of the Bible. In these Books we read:

Psa 40:5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to usward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

Psa 139:17-18 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The fact we are told that God is hid, means the writers of these scriptures, whom we estimate to be divinely inspired, want us to think of God as being partially hid.

My estimate is that what the world needs now, is for the religious of the world to all come to realize that the scriptures of their religions only present a part of the mind of God, and to proceed to live in peace friendliness and neighborliness like good little professor's kids from tolerant liberal university neighborhoods. My estimate is that in the past the world has plunged into fruitless unnecessary violence because its leaders and people have failed to meditate upon how the mind of God is greater than any book inspired by God. Yet Pope Benedict in his speech, delivers words that many would understandably interpret, as opposed to the idea that the mind of God is greater and larger than human books about God.

Pope Benedict's words give the impression that his doctrine is that God should be considered to be an "authentic mirror" of what we humans believe is true and good. Yet Catholic Orthodox and Protestant Christians throughout the ages, have believed that what a human thinks is good, can actually be be evil and ungodly, and what a human thinks is evil can be godly and good. St. Paul once persecuted Christians, he suddenly became enlightened, and unforgettably received the Holy Spirit only three days after he stopped persecuting the Christians.

If people like St. Paul when they are conscientously persecuting the Christians, remain convinced that God should be considered an "authentic mirror" of what they conceive to be good, then will never stop doing things like persecuting Christians? If God is an "authentic mirror" of what man considers to be good, then one might say God was one thing when St. Paul was persecuting Christians and became another thing when St. Paul stopped persecuting Christians. If God is an "authentic mirror" of what man considers good, than ome could declare that there are a million different Gods.

True, conscience is based on man's estimate regarding what is in the mind of God with regards to a particular human situation, and therefore conscience is worthy of veneration; yet a man could nevertheless act according to his conscience, and at the same time against the will of God.

Pope Benedict seems to conclude that society's disdain for lengthy hard-to-understand specialized university-level philosophical theological argument re the intersection of reason and Christianity, is a source of "great harm" and danger for society. Still I can imagine how men forgetting about joining their Spirit to the Holy Spirit, and forgetting about succeeding in begging God to grant them a little bit of knowledge re what is in God's mind that is not recorded in scriptures, and instead plunging into many hours of argument regarding the fine points of university level theology, could in and of itself harm society and plunge it into danger.

Sometimes men seem to be saying one thing when in fact their intent is to say another thing. Nevertheless, all persons including high Catholic officials, bear an ethical obligation to be concerned with not just what they are trying to say, but also with what they seem to be saying.

It is a step forward for mankind, that the Roman Catholic Pope, used the words of an Eastern Orthodox Byzantine king, as the centerpiece of a speech. Yet I wonder whether he could have chosen words of an Eastern Orthodox leader that were not spoken at the same time that the given leader unleashed a fiery denunciation of Islam. Perhaps the Pope feels that it is time to get tough with Islam, how tough he should be with Islam is his business. The Pope made an interesting point--bringing to mind something even many brilliant persons have not thought of--by bringing to mind how the Muslim scriptures can be split into two groups, one those that seem to echo earlier teachings found in religions that existed before Islam, and two, those that are not found in earlier religions.

***

I suppose what the Pope was trying to say, is that the Muslim world is not concerned enough with regards to what their mental reasoning tells them are the characteristics and will of a good God. The Pope may be extraordinarily perceptive and correct to note that significant numbers of Muslims do not pay enough attention to what their mind tells them are the characteristics of a good God; but the best antidote for this is not to deny that there are hidden thoughts of God, the best remedy is not to deny that man should follow his conscience while realizing that his conscience and God's will are not always the same thing; the best solution is not to single out Muslims for criticism with regards to this fault.

The non-Christian world will succeed in refining its notion of what God's characteristics are and what his will is by understanding that: a) God has thoughts not recorded in even inspired books about God; b) humans compared to God are incredibly stupid; c) what is a right action for the one and only God, can be a wrong action for a human; d) what is a right action for a human can be a wrong action for the one and only God; e) a man should pay heed to a conscience based on sinless reasoning processes; f) conscience and God's will are not necessarily the same thing; g) wisdom consists of understanding that the stupid average human mind's way of looking at things is different from the supremely brilliant and intelligent one and only God's way of looking at things.


It is true that there are Muslims who fail to realize how decisions of conscience based on faulty reasoning processes such as willful ignorance and deliberate intellectual laziness, are not acceptable decisions of conscience; but it is also true that there are Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, theists, deists, folk-religionists, agnostics and atheists who fail to understand this same point. If the idea is to show that consciences based on jealousy, envy, hatred, and arrogance are not acceptable consciences, then why not go ahead and just say that? If the concept is lifted from someone else they can always be credited.

Both Christian and Muslim people realize, that their own human mind, is no equal of God's mind, and so therefore, what their reasoning tells them a good God should be, is different from what the good and perfect God actually is. Such is intrinsic to being a Christian or a Muslim.

In Christendom and also in the Islamic world, there are millions of persons who carry on in their faiths, even though what that which is average in their own mind tells them a good God should be on the one hand, and what scripture and religion and their own mind when in an inspired or especially perceptive state tell them God is, are two different things. To tell these Christians and Muslims that they must make a God out of what that which is average in the human mind says a good God should be, and to tell them to reject the God that scripture and the higher parts of their own mind reveals to them, is like telling them to abandon their faiths.

Christianity and best I can tell Islam also have at their basis, this notion that us humans are foolish, beknighted by our sins, and so therefore what the uninspired human mind thinks of as God's characteristics and God's will, differs from what in reality are God's characteristics and God's will. Many Christians and Muslims understand that the limited human mind's comprehension of what God is, can with time mature and grow more accurate.

***

Pope Benedict represents the Catholic branch of Christendom; but if God is as Pope benedict says an "authentic mirror" of what the human mind in its humdrum state imagines to be God, then why would anyone be a Christian? The God of the Christians, has high behavioral standards, He values self-denial, He punishes sinners. If God is an "authentic mirror" of what the human mind in its humdrum state imagines to be God, then as opposed to being Christian, the common-sensical thing to do would seem to be to believe that the good God, is not the God of the Christians, but rather is a God who lets his devotee do whatever he feels like and unconditionally accepts said devotee.




@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

VP Cheney Seems Flippant Re Possibility of Spending $$$ on Things Other Than Offensive Military Actions

VP Cheney (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/) has gone on the warpath in recent days, attempting to stir up support for the continued US presence in Iraq and the "war on terror in general", trying to get America ready to strike in Iran if need be. Cheney seems to have a better speechwriter than Bush, but still something is missing.

Cheney flatly declared that this "war on terror" cannot be fought on the defensive; but he did not attempt to produce any argument or evidence to show that it cannot be fought on the defensive. When NBC's Russert while interviewing Cheney, continuing the line of thought I had established in an earlier blog post,repeatedly asked Cheney if the 300 billion spent on Iraq could have been better spent elsewhere, Cheney responded by talking about what a great job the country had been doing, talking about how the fact the USA has not been attacked since 911 proves that the money has been well spent.

Thus Cheney continued the recent US govt tradition of declamatory pronouncements unsubstantiated by evidence or argument, ie, 'the only way to fight terror is on the offensive! This is a war that cannot be fought on the defensive! The best way to use the money is to invade and occupy middleastern nations!'

Cheney seems to think that the fact that we have not been attacked since 911, proves that the money that has been spent on the "War on Terror" has been spent on the best spending alternatives available.

Actually, IMHO, the fact that there have been no attacks on the USA since 911, does not prove that the hundreds of billions spent since 911 have been spent on the wisest of possible alternatives.


The mere fact that a nation is attacked, does not indicate that the money that nation spent on security, was spent unwisely; and the mere fact that a nation is not attacked, does mean that it has been spending the money it devotes to its national security wisely.

During the years the USA was not attacked, there were weird things happening like the military paying contractors $10,000 for a toilet seat. Sometimes the weakness of a short-sighted policy does not produce its negative effects for several years.


Cheney stated that two trillion dollars were spent on national security in the ten years prior to 911, but, said Cheney, even then 911 was not prevented. He did not mention that for seven of those ten years the US House and Senate were controlled by Republicans like him.

Cheney himself states that their two trillion dollars of military spending could not even prevent an attack on 911 by Islamic militants using mere boxcutter implements as tools of their terrorists trade. If so, Mr. VP, then how can one be so flippant when it comes to attempting to prove the case that the money that has been and is being spent is being spent on the best of all possible spending alternatives?

The lion's share of the two trillion in pre-911 defense spending that Cheney points out could not stop mere boxcutter-wielders, was spent on offensive weaponry, as opposed to defensive systems, and as opposed to interventions designed to strengthen the national economy while simultaneously depriving would-be terrorists of the financial wherewithal to accomplish their aims.

How then can Cheney be so blythely gung-ho, about continuing the policy of spending on offensive weapons, ignoring defenses, and not even considering the possibility of putting a few hundred billion into crusades such as peacefully establishing energy independence, peacefully establishing
domestic sources of production outside the energy area also so as to balance trade and insure long term health for the national economy?

Cheney says on the one hand that the war on terror cannot be fought using defensive measures. On the other hand he takes pride in listing all the defensive measures the USA has established, measures which in his opinion have been significant effective factors in the prevention of a 911 re-occurrence. How can the "war on terror" be fought only on the offensive, while at the same time the "war on terror"'s big heroes are defensive actions?

Obviously someone in Washington is not doing enough thinking in terms of weighing the cost-benefit of one possible use of money to enhance national security, vs the cost-benefit of other possible uses of money to enhance national security.

Cheney on the one hand says that the fact there has not been another 911 proves the money spent on the "war on terror" has been spent wisely compared to possible alternatives. He also says that the string of 911-like attacks all over the world since 911 shows the enemy is still on his feet fighting. He also says that the "War on Terror" should be fought through offensive military actions. The question is, since the absence of another 911 in the USA combined with the occurrence of 911 type stuff outside the USA points to defensive measures as being more effective than offensive ones, how can Cheney so flippantly dismiss the possibility that the War on Terror funds have been spent on the wrong things now and in the past?


Cheney says that the terrorist enemy that he opposes has gotten fighters into the USA itself. He says we have to figure out what is going on in the minds of these terrorists. What about preventing such terrorists from entering the nation in the first place through the common sense, basic fundamental statecraft called "border security"? Learning how to read the minds of terrorists is supposed to excel border security as a security measure?

Somebody in Washington is blythely and flippantly failing to weigh the cost benefits of various policy options against each other. The fact we are troubled because we suspect that Cheney for example does not even know or care how much it would cost to erect an effective fence or wall around the USA, on the nation's borders, means something is wrong.

National security obviously requires money. The USA economy has lost its ability to produce this money, since it has become a hollow impermanent shell of an economy, running on money borrowed from foreigners by the private and public sectors, and on money on hand through the sale of assets to foreigners, money which then circulates in the US economy from hand to hand, with one borrowed dollar producing twenty dollars in anual GNP for the economy. Such is a castle made of sand.

We should not be left with the nagging feeling that our leaders have not even bothered working out, for example, how much money would have to be used to balance the trade deficit or to produce energy independence, and how the cost benefit of such a use of money compares with the cost benefit of military crusades invading the Muslim homelands.

Money spent by the government does not have to be an either or proposition. It is not as if the choice is, the money is spent on Cheney's Halliburton and if not on something else instead. Taxes could be raised enabling the government to do what it is doing and then some more also. The danger to the state, lies in the hyper-enthusiasm special interest representatives display for spending that benefits their own special interest, to the point where they show something like a salesman's contempt for things that could be bought by the government instead of what they themselves are selling, or in addition to what they are selling.

***

Too much spent on some things, too little spent on other things, money spent on useless or worse than useless goods and services, excessive government budget deficits, insufficient tax revenue, deceitful or foolish boasting about how tax cuts spurred the economy on when actually the increase in money borrowed from foreigners that occurred as a result of the tax cuts (temporarily) spurred the economy on: such is What you get when you have several special interests, each of which: denigrates spending that produces sales for interests other than itself; and pushes for tax cuts in order to render itself popular.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

The Insanity of Valuing Only Intelligence and Numerous Progeny In Humans

The way some people carry on, you can just imagine their ancestors of a few centuries ago, exterminating hundreds of thousands of people gifted in terms of qualities such as sexiness, using this or that excuse, i.e.: "those sexy women are evil witches because they give men boners; those beautiful people are descended from fallen angels".

Qualities that can be considered in evaluating human beings are: voice, personality, appearance, intelligence, sexiness, success in producing large numbers of descendants or progeny.

The fact some creature succeeds in producing more grandchildren than its fellow creatures, does not mean that it excels its fellow creatures in terms of voice personality appearance intelligence sexiness.

As a matter of fact you would expect the group that scores highest in the production of offspring criteria, to be of low intelligence compared to the group that scored highest in the intelligence category, or the group that scored highest in the appearance or personality or sexiness category.

The more you as a judge emphasized the criteria rating how high the person scores in terms of production of large numbers of grandkids, the less you would emphasize qualities such as voice personality appearance intelligence and sexiness.

The reasonable assumption is that the people who are in the group composed of the sexiest people, are equal in personality and intelligence to the people who are average in sexiness. Therefore since sexy + personality excels personality by itself generally speaking, sexiness should be considered a plus, not something to be scorned or persecuted.

Persons united in holy matrimony are able to enjoy the sexiness of their spouses without sinning against God.

The reasonable assumption is, that the sexy are as tough in terms of ability to be a martyr-saint as the people who are not sexy. Thus generally speaking the sexy of average martyr-saint ability excels those who are average in terms of sexiness and also in terms of ability to be a martyr-saint.

In any case obviously the ability and inclination to be a martyr is but one of the components of personality, and but one of the traits that help groups to survive, flourish, and live honorably.

Of course you get situations where person A who is not sexy, has a better personality than person B who is sexy--but generally speaking, the fact remains that it is reasonable to assume that the sexy people and those of average sexiness are equal in terms of personality.

It is sane to value in humans not just intelligence or production of large numbers of progeny--but also voice, personality appearance and sexiness. Those from the group that excels in a given area area X, can reasonably and ethically be assumed--in real life there are real life problems such as misjudgement, demagogic typicalism--to be equal to groups that do not excel in the given area X in terms of standing in areas other than the given area X.

Typicalist demagogues end up attacking those who excel in voice personality appearance intelligence and sexiness, because those who excel are atypical. By way of contrast, the cleverly altruistic philanthropists, promote those who excel in terms of voice personality appearance intelligence and sexiness, because they realize that human beings are able to without sinning, enjoy other human beings who are gifted in terms of qualities such as voice personality appearance intelligence and sexiness.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

President's Policies Don't Seem to Efficiently Accomplish His Anti-terror Goals

The president recently listed on Thursday Sept 7 2006 ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060907-2.html ), re the "War on Terror", his goal, the US actions to date, things that now and in the past have gone wrong with the US anti-terror program, what the "enemy" now and in the past has been doing, and what the US must do in the future.

One gets the impression that the President is convinced that his USA need not be prepared for any threat originating from outside of the Islamic world, as if once the Islamic world is by force democratized and moderat-ized, every boy and girl on earth will thereafter live in perfect peace.

Yet in attempting to dramatize the danger he sees in the form of "radical imperialistic Islamists", the President has compared such "Islamists" to non-Islamic historical bad boys such as Hitler and Stalin.

If Hitler and Stalin were indeed as bad as these "terrorist" Muslims, the reasonable thing for the USA to do would be to gird itself for not just Muslim, brown skinned threats, but also for White, Stalinist, and Nazi type threats.

Yet the President's policy as of now, appears to be to throw all available resources at the current threat he sees from the "Muslim terrorists" and to forget about having resources available in the future to deal with the entire panorama of potential dangers running from Muslim extremists to the Nazi and Stalinist types he compares such Muslim extremists to.

A national economy like the USA economy running on trillions of dollars borrowed by the public and private sectors, borrowed money which circulates from hand to hand in the US economy as a result of which one dollar borrowed from abroad can produce twenty dollars in income for several different persons in the economy, is not an economy which in the future will be able to have the resources on hand needed to handle possible threats to the nation's security.

The President says that we have made all these improvements in domestic security to forestall future re-occurrences of 911 type events. He says that however he is not sure that these improvements if in place would have stopped 911 from happening. At the same time he has not taken active steps to bring the borders of his nation under control. If the President feels that he is not sure that the domestic security improvements he has made would have prevented a 911, then why doesn't he act to secure his nation's borders? Does this make sense?

If the security of the USA is worth all the time and energy and money and blood sweat and tears that the USA has put into its "War on Terror", and we are still not at a point where we can say for sure the improvements would have prevented 911, then how can the USA not put a little time energy and money into securing its borders?

The President talks about how we have put into place all of these spying gadgets and personnel to spy on immigrants into the USA so as to prevent them from committing terrorist acts. Does the President really believe that would-be terrorists would allow themselves to get caught by all of this surveillance? All they have to do is read the President's speeches at the White House website, in order to get an idea of all the surveillance that they are now subject to.

What good is surveillance against a wary terrorist who has slipped in across the border, whose presence in the USA is not even a known fact? What good is airport security, when it comes to preventing attacks on targets that are not as fat and juicy and obvious as airports?



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

They Rattle Sabers as if Strength in a Foreign Power is Always An Evil to be Attacked

Leaders of the western world continue to rattle their sabres against Iran, as they (apparently) tremble with fear at the prospect of the dreaded 1.2 billion Muslims of the world invading the world, waving Korans, administering clitoridectomies, pauperizing or exterminating non-Muslims, declaring that all that happens on earth is God's will.

Why not just, without being rude, teach the Islamic world, that the thoughts of God contained in the Koran represent less than one percent of God's thoughts? Despite whatever might be in the Koran much of the Muslim world no longer practices clitoridectomy. Many millions of Muslims live in or have at one time lived in societies tolerant of reasonable Christian persons. The erroneous doctrine that proclaims that all that happens on earth is God's will, is found not just in the Muslim world but also in the Christian world.

The fact remains, that Ahmadinejad President of Iran, which is in a leadership position in the Muslim world, has been very publicly making conciliatory tolerant religious statements that could reasonably suspected to be heretical contradictions of the Koran.

Aggressive USA leaders rattle their sabers, as if the world situation featured only two powers, "the west" on the one hand and the "Islamic (would be) Caliphate" on the other; as if, since there are only two powers, A and B, on earth, whatever makes the A power weaker makes the other B power stronger and vice versa.

The reality as everyone knows however, is that the world contains more than two powers. It contains, amongst others, the Christendom power, the Islamic power, the Hindu power, the China power, the Russia power, the western europe power, the USA power, the Japan power, the Satanist/Atheist power. Much of the 1.2 billion population Muslim world, is found in relatively poor nations such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia.

Since the world contains many powers, a foreign power becoming strong, could be a good thing for a nation, and a foreign power becoming weak, could be a bad thing for a nation. Yet the saber rattlers, carry on as if of course a foreign power becoming strong is always a bad thing while a foreign power becoming weak is always a good thing. Fact is in the history of man, nations have prospered and grown stronger without lashing out at the growth of power in foreign lands.

The USA is one of the powers in the world. Honorable powers of the world have a legitimate interest in: not being conquered by any one foreign power; not being conquered by a coalition of foreign powers; preventing any one foreign power from becoming so powerful that it enslaves the entire world. Powers of the world are unable to accomplish such legitimate interests, by themselves alone without allies. Thus they choose to ally themselves with foreign powers. But of what use is an alliance with a pathetic, weak foreign power? Thus obviously situations arise wherein a nation finds that a foreign power being strong is in its own self interest.

If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would not stumble into a situation wherein the entire world becomes the USA's enemy--because such leads to the form of defeat wherein a nation is carved up by all the other nations in the world that gang up on it.

If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would through its international relationships peacefully nudge foreign nations into behaviour that as opposed to harming US national security interests, is harmless or beneficial vis a vis US national security interests.

If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would through its international relationships build alliances and friendships with foreign nations thereby turning them into national security partners as opposed to adversaries.

If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would as opposed to becoming obsessed with the "Islamic threat", being aware of the dangers of myopia, work in a peaceful and friendly way to see to it that no foreign nation becomes militarily relatively powerful enough to enslave the entire world.

Not turning the world against you, getting foreign nations to behave harmlessly, making friends of foreign nations, preventing any one nation from subjugating the entire world, these kinds of successes distinguish sane nations from socio-pathic nations. A nation which automatically sees the growth of power in a foreign nation or group as a threat to be violently attacked, is a dysfunctional, socio-pathic nation.

It makes nations angry, it does not win friends and partners, this hubristic attitude that a foreign nation becoming strong, is always a bad thing. How would you feel about some snob who felt that anybody aside from his own self becoming strong was a dangerous misfortune?

Any power that thinks that a foreign power becoming strong is always a bad thing, is a power that is incapable of entering into successful alliances, because successful alliances depend upon strength in the allied-wth partner. Since such powers that fear strength in foreign powers are incapable of forming effective partnerships, it becomes reasonable for the powers of the world to shun them.




@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Senator Blather Complains Re 'Bleeding' Hearts Mis-Spending Their Money

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 2, 2006

Anti-Semites & Christians Divert Funds From Conservative Causes -- Sen. Blather

Hilda Kelly Blather Executive Office Building
Room 667
11:42 P.M. EDT

Senator Blather--Ah's glad t'announce thet Ah suppo't th' vickims of Christianity in juneral an' also specifically th' chosen special varmints th' Jews, on account o' th' fine old Amerikin folks out thar, pity th' liberal warkin' class of th' US of A an' th' fo'eign poor, as a result of which these Amerikin folks of th' US of A, does not buy stuff fum mah campaign corntributo's, an' does not donate money t'mah campaigns, on account o' they use their money t'try t'he'p these warkin' class USA folks an' fo'eigners whom they pity. (Applause.)

Ah's proud t'say, thet, cornservatively speakin', Ah value th' vickims of Christianity an' th' special chosen race th' Jews, on account o' they he'p t'contradick an' corntrol th' pity fo' th' warkin' class an' th' pore thet Christianity he'ps t'perpetuate. (Applause.)

Thar is all these damned liberal Amerikin wawkin' class varmints who haf fine voices, an' fine personalities, an' is right purdy, an' is intellyjunt even though they is slow an' not fine at memo'izin' thin's, an' is sexy. An' then thar is these fo'eign poor who is similar t'these Amerikin warkin' class folks. Varmints havin' hearts thet bleed fo' these warkin' class o' pore folks is a serious liberal nashunal security threat. (Shouts of Blather in 2006.)

Menny fine folks who is vickims of Christianity, sech as liars, murderers, thieves, exto'shuners, alcoholics, homosexuals, atheists, an' chile molesters, haf contributed t'mah political campaigns. Ah respeck an' admire these vickims of Christianity, on account o' they does not like Chrisianity on account o' Christianity corndemns them, dawgone it.
Conservatively speakin', Christianity unfo'tunately incourages th' folks of th' US of A t'have pity on th' warkin' class an' th' pore, as a result of which they use money thet sh'd be used buyin' stuff fum them who corntribute t'mah campaigns, o' better yet used t'donate t'mah political campaigns, on ackivities involvin' havin' a bleedin' heart fo' th' wawkin' class an' th' pore. (Applause combined with flashing of Texas Longhorns Hand Sign.)

Blatherson Steakhouses has corntributed t'mah campaign fo' President an' also t'mah campaigns fo' Senato'. Blather Estates, which prodooces houses thet is sold t'fine old Amerikin folks, corntributed t'mah campaign fo' President. Blather Brothers Clothin' corntributed t'mah campaign fo' Senato'. Blather Fellas Auto Rental corntributed t'mah campaign fo' thirty third degree Mason, as enny fool kin plainly see. Blather Clinic, a fine medical insteetooshun, suppo'ted both mah campaign fo' President an' also mah campaign fo' Senato'. Blatherberg Unyversity, suppo'ted mah campaign fo' Govahno'. An' Bladder Balls, which prodooces balls used in spo'ts, suppo'ted mah campaign fo' President. (Shouts of 'Blather's Got Balls'.)

Tharfo'e as a proud cornservative, Ah muss take issue wif th' fo'ces in society which prodooce pity fo' th' warkin' class an' th' pore, on account o' these folks who ind up wif hearts bleedin' fo' th' warkin' class an' th' pore, spend their money an' time an' inergy on th' warkin' class an' th' pore, instead of buyin' steaks an' houses an' clo'es an' cars an' medical care, an' ejoocayshun an' spo'ts balls fum mah hono'able campaign corntributo's. (Applause.)

Even wo'se, these folks use time inergy an' money thet c'd be corntributed t'mah political campaigns sech as Blather fo' President, on ackivities thet he'p th' warkin' class an' th' pore. (Applause.)

Tharfo'e as a proud cornservative Ah's proud t'suppo't th' special chosen varmints th' Jews, on account o' th' Jews, cornsider th' wawkin' class of th' USA an' th' pore of th' wo'ld t'be merely fo'ms of subhoomin trash. Thus these Jews sarve as an antidote t'th' poison thet is th' pity folks feel fo' th' warkin' class an' th' pore, as a result of which these folks does not buy thin's fum mah respeckable cornservative campaign corntributo's, an' as a result of which these folks does not corntribute t'mah political campaigns. (Standing Ovation.)



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Slate's Kaplan Fails to Prove US Should Spend Big To Promote Mideast Stability and Peace

MSN Slate's Kaplan ( http://www.slate.com/id/2148742/ ) is saying that the US of A, should keep troops in Iraq so as to prevent civil war which could widen into a big mideast war pitting various Muslim mideast nations against each other.

Comical to think that the US of A, controlling little except the "Green Zone" in Baghdad and a few such outpost of the like, where the American troops hunker down in their outposts under mortor barrages, this US of A which has been unable to suppress Sunni guerillas, would be able to suppress Sunni guerrillas and also their civil war opponents the Shi-ites, which is what would have to be done if the US of A were to suppress civil war in Iraq.

Kaplan sez Bush sez terrorism takes place in hotbeds of despair but Bush hasn't poured hundreds of billions into making the poor mideasterners happy. Kaplan's logic is off. The fact someone cites foreign poverty as leading to terrorism, does not mean he at the same time has to be in favor of hundreds of billions of foreign aid for the foreign poor.

Kaplan sez we should keep troops in iraq because of the Iraqi civil war danger, the danger that the Iraqi civil war will expand into a civil war pitting mideast Muslim nations against other mideast Muslim nations. Funny idea this, that a nation facing gigantic problems threatening the very existence, material prosperity, psychological health, and liberty of people in its own nation and in its own world, should get involved in refereeing foreign civil wars, and wars between foreign nations.

In order to force peace on two fighting parties, the USA needs to be able to defeat both parties. How can a USA which is unable to defeat one of two such fighting parties, be expected to defeat both of them?

Kaplan does not show how it would be a superior choice to put resources into suppressing foreign civil wars, compared to other activities such resources could be used for. He simply declares, that we should suppress foreign civil wars and wars between foreign nations, so there.

Kaplan champions the US of A promoting "stability" in the mideast. Sounds like he is merely parroting George Bush Sr. Dubya's dad. The fact Bush Sr. was enthusiastic about promoting stability in the mideast, does not indicate that the USA getting involved putting significant amounts of money into (counterproductive?) attempts to promote stability in the mideast is a good idea, a good expenditure of resources vis a vis other resources.

Bush Sr's attempts to promote stability led to the Bush Jr attempts to promote freedom. Sounds nutty to me, a US of A which has better things to do than dabble in promoting stability or freedom in the mideast, getting involved in a debate as to whether stability or freedom should be promoted in the mideast.

Kaplan says Bush's failure to promote stability will leave us with neither stability nor freedom. This mere assertion does not explain why the USA expending resources attempting to promote stability in the mideast is a wise allocation of limited resources, compared to alternative possibilities for the expenditure of the limited resources.

Bush was promoting the crusade for freedom in the mideast in his recent press conference, he got caught failing to prove that expending resources crusading for freedom in the mideast is the best way to spend those resources, then he shifted into declarations that freedom in the mideast is essential and indispensable to national security, and now Kaplan thinks Kaplan is having the epiphany that Bush is inconsistent because he talks about how important the problem is but does not devote resources commensurate with importance of said problem to said problem.

Then Kaplan by turning around and saying Bush does not devote the resources to the problems because the resources to devote to the problems do not exist, invalidates this epiphany about Bush allegedly weirdly not devoting resources to problems he thinks are big. Fact is there are important problems and the fact we do not have the resources to deal with them does not mean they are not important.

Seems to me that Kaplan picked up a few of the points he made in his essay from blog posts I put up days before he put up his Slate Opinion Piece.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs