DocBrain has gone to the funny farm

DocBrain, not content to write screeds, now has a comic strip. Catch up with the adventures of DocBrain at:

http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/DocBrain/360296

Equipoise in the Middle East

DocBrain had the opportunity to speak with an expert on the Middle East last night. Having lived in the Middle East among various groups, this expert has had the opportunity to learn the details of the struggles from different perspectives. The expert concluded: everyone is equally to blame; there is no solution at this time that would satisfy this equipoise position; any barrier zone would be breached by those wanting to inflict harm to the other side, and in particular, by rockets aimed at Israel which would provoke Israel into violence.

Not being an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, DocBrain has this view:

• While all parties have acted poorly at times, those who are not Israelis look to harming Israel as part of the solution to their problem, while Israelis look to self-defense.
• Israelis are appalled by their own bad conduct (as evidenced by the investigation into war crimes in 1982), while other groups revel in their infliction of harm upon civilians.
• The overall support of anyone opposed to Israel in the typical arab man-on-the-street is grounded in pride and xenophobia. Israel can do nothing in itself to overturn the hostile feelings of its neighbors. Even if every Israeli converted to Islam, they would still be seen as the enemy, as the conversions would not be believed and the underpinning is not just religious but also the insult of Israel being triumphant in prior conflicts.
• The western mind sees atrocities as being at the heart of the anti-Israeli feelings. The citizens of the Middle East are used to atrocities applied against them by their own rulers and by rogue groups living in their midsts, and so an atrocity, by and of itself, has little lasting meaning to them. It is the loss of personal pride in being unable to defeat Israel and the xenophobia of strangers.
• The land, the land. While it sounds nice, it is a red herring. It may be a rallying cry that the extremists use to pump up their supporters, but a red herring it is. Think about it. It is the value of land that is important. If you owned 1000 acres of desert and a developer took 500 acres away from you and built a shopping center that attracted a lot of people, your land would increase in value, much more than the value of the land the developer took. This is the concept that underlies joint venturing, a common practice in real estate development. A map of the Middle East shows that Israel occupies a very tiny piece of land. It is what you do with your land that matters.
• The West Bank and Gaza, now parts of the Palestinian state, are not being optimally developed for the good of its citizens. Political corruption in the PLO, Fatah, and Hamas and the support of their leaders by the populace is not Israel's fault.
• While Muslims, Christians and Jews can all live among each other, Muslims do have a problem with not being in control. If they are not in charge, they will be unhappy.

DocBrain does see that there are good and bad individuals on all sides of the issue and that many innocents are caught in the middle. If people can not get along, what choices are there? If you believe in the healing property of time, then what is the evidence that it is operating in the Middle East? If you believe in the need for Israel to cease to exist and all will be fine, then how can you look at the poverty of the Palestinians and the opulence of the Saudi Princes and see the hand of charity, or at the continuing violence among different Islamic sects?

DocBrain sees the problem in the Middle East as being, as usual, not external but internal. It is due to beliefs. The steadfast concern with these beliefs has prevented the Palestinians from focusing on job 1... moving forward with their lives. And perhaps, it has prevented Israel from considering the final option: relocating all dedicated Israelis to someplace else (perhaps Montana?) and leaving the Middle East to the arabs. Perhaps, in an exchange, we could export all arabs from Europe and North America to the Middle East so they wouldn't have to exist among infidels. Which solution sounds more "ecumenical" to you? More rational? More easily accomplished? So much for equipoise!

War...what is it good for?

Well, since you asked, DocBrain will answer. Every great leader over the centuries has endorsed war as a way of moving their world view of civilization ahead. Many thinkers have also endorsed conflict. Wars succeed when they create or promote something that is separate, superior, and sustainable.

Here is an example of a good war.

The American Revolution created the USA, which, if next to Great Britain, would have never survived, as the proximity would have led to its destruction. Its isolation and independent sustainability led to giving it time to develop. Its superior form of government led to its predominance on the world stage and the eventual American Century. Eventually, our number one enemy, Great Britain, has become our best friend.

Here is an example of a bad war.

Israel is engaged in perpetual warfare against its neighbors, countries and vigilantes. That it is superior to its neighbors is not a matter for debate, as from zero in 1948 it has risen to be a major player on the world's stage in medicine, information technology, basic science, travel, etc. That it is different is also obvious. It is a Jewish state, the only Jewish state on the planet. It is not separate, as its enemies abut on its borders. This lack of a buffer zone is the key factor that limits its sustainability. A buffer zone, large enough to prevent any attack, would be nearly impossible in practicality. Even a relatively large one could be spanned by missles or crossed by suicide bombers. Nonetheless, a buffer zone is the only viable answer to the Middle East conflict that would preserve both sides. The eventual hope would be that, like the USA and GB, one time enemies would become lasting friends.

There is only one more question to be answered: should both sides be preserved? If the answer is yes, then there must be a buffer zone. If the answer is no, then other alternatives are needed, and this gets into the realm of a different type of war: a war to obtain victory over an enemy. In that setting, the enemy must be crushed beyond ability to mount a response now and as far into the future as possible. This is the war of Sun Tsu; the war of Machiavelli; the war of Lincoln; the war of von Clausewitz, the war of Patton. No half way victory. Total annihilation for the enemy; a grovelling, defeated enemy, a subdued, fearful and unarmed populace. A rebuilding of the enemy in our image.

So, war is good. It allows civilization to go forward. It allows civilized, advanced cultures to crush that which is evil. It is both evolutionary in the Darwinian sense and ethically right in the seeking of God sense. That humanity has not evolved to the point where we all can just get along is not a reason not to have wars, but indeed is the reason for them.

War...what is it good for?

Well, since you asked, DocBrain will answer. Every great leader over the centuries has endorsed war as a way of moving their world view of civilization ahead. Many thinkers have also endorsed conflict. Wars succeed when they create or promote something that is separate, superior, and sustainable.

Here is an example of a good war.

The American Revolution created the USA, which, if next to Great Britain, would have never survived, as the proximity would have led to its destruction. Its isolation and independent sustainability led to giving it time to develop. Its superior form of government led to its predominance on the world stage and the eventual American Century. Eventually, our number one enemy, Great Britain, has become our best friend.

Here is an example of a bad war.

Israel is engaged in perpetual warfare against its neighbors, countries and vigilantes. That it is superior to its neighbors is not a matter for debate, as from zero in 1948 it has risen to be a major player on the world's stage in medicine, information technology, basic science, travel, etc. That it is different is also obvious. It is a Jewish state, the only Jewish state on the planet. It is not separate, as its enemies abut on its borders. This lack of a buffer zone is the key factor that limits its sustainability. A buffer zone, large enough to prevent any attack, would be nearly impossible in practicality. Even a relatively large one could be spanned by missles or crossed by suicide bombers. Nonetheless, a buffer zone is the only viable answer to the Middle East conflict that would preserve both sides. The eventual hope would be that, like the USA and GB, one time enemies would become lasting friends.

There is only one more question to be answered: should both sides be preserved? If the answer is yes, then there must be a buffer zone. If the answer is no, then other alternatives are needed, and this gets into the realm of a different type of war: a war to obtain victory over an enemy. In that setting, the enemy must be crushed beyond ability to mount a response now and as far into the future as possible. This is the war of Sun Tsu; the war of Machiavelli; the war of Lincoln; the war of von Clausewitz, the war of Patton. No half way victory. Total annihilation for the enemy; a grovelling, defeated enemy, a subdued, fearful and unarmed populace. A rebuilding of the enemy in our image.

So, war is good. It allows civilization to go forward. It allows civilized, advanced cultures to crush that which is evil. It is both evolutionary in the Darwinian sense and ethically right in the seeking of God sense. That humanity has not evolved to the point where we all can just get along is not a reason not to have wars, but indeed is the reason for them.

I got my rights

Some are defending Hezbollah's right to fight against Israel. As they say in law, anyone can sue anyone for anything. It is the winning that is the hard part. Conflict without a reasonable chance of victory is wasteful.

The world is small. A nuclear missle launched from any point on the globe can reach any other point in a matter of minutes. With that in mind, any war has the potential to go global. We also are living in a flattening world, where civilization becomes melded into a single unit.

Going forward, whether you are liberal or conservative, what do you want your civilization to run more like: US or Sharia law? A legal system that is open to innovation, secular and ethical viewpoints or one that is based upon strict interpretation of law from a single religious perspective. If you are young, you might rail against conservatives for championing a fundamentalist Christian/Catholic approach to law: anti-abortion; anti-gay. But consider this: how much more restrictive would be Sharia law?

So, it all depends upon what future you want to live in: a single religious based world or a multicultural, ethical, humanistic world. You will not have a choice: there will be in the future only one civilization, from aborigine Australia to sophisticated Paris to the economic centers of New York...one civilization...one world view of the future of humanity. Being anti-democracy is by definition being pro-Sharia, as the future will have no middle ground. Fundamentalist Christians exist within a democracy while Sharia law exists within a religious state.

The cycle of violence

When you can't decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, all you can do is decry the violence. Everything has multiple perspectives and yet it is possible to take sides. DocBrain thinks that there is no one person, group, country or organization that is perfect. Perfect, though, is the enemy of the good. This allows people to defend positions that are less good, as no one is perfect.

Israel is not perfect, not by a long shot! But, its imperfection is not a good enough reason for it to be attacked. Most of the complaints against Israel stem from its handling of its response to being attacked. Most justification for the "cycle of violence" position relate to Israel responding to attacks.

How about the "cycle of indifference"? That is what the Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Iranians, Iraqis, and the other Arab Islamic majority countries have displayed towards the suffering of the Palestinians. Do they welcome them into their own countries as citizens? Do they give them charity and aid to build an economy? If so, where is the progress over the past 50 years? No one can tell me that the vast sums of oil money paid to the Middle East Islamic states is not enough to raise the standard of living of the Palestinians to a quality lifestyle.

So, to me, the situation is clear. Violence perpetrated upon the Israelis is wrong. The root cause of the "cycle of violence" is the bigotry against the Israeli government and the Jews.

DocBrain is not opposed to conflict as a way of resolving conflict, as long as it really solves the problem. If Israel is not going to bring the conflict to a close, it should shut down business. If those opposed to Israel can't finish the job, they are just wasting lives in a futile effort. It is not impatience that leads DocBrain to this conclusion. It is concern for human lives in the future and for the evolution of peace over conflict.

By the same token, if the democracies of the world cannot stop fundamental Islam, then they might as well shut down business. DaughterBrain is working so hard to learn US law, and she might as well get started on Sharia law now.

One question: if every Jew in Israel converted to Islam tonight, would the war continue tomorrow?

Now, that's what I'm talking about!

Here is my short list of the bad things in this world: conflict, poverty, suffering, ignorance, negative human environmental impact, boredom, stagnation, laziness, isolation, and apathy. (You could also add the lack of immortality, but what good would life be if all you had to look forward to were the above)

So, where do you want to go? I would suggest that you would want to go to the ideal world where all the bad would go away. So, how do we get there?

Liberals and conservatives have different ideas about the best way to achieve each of these goals, which DocBrain will explore over the coming weeks. What we need, however, is a more rational approach...a way to measure progress and to find the best way to go forward.

Take conflict, for example. And, in particular, military conflict.

Liberals believe that war is evil, that it is good for "absolutely nothing". History would suggest that this approach is wrong. Many wars have been fought over the centuries and civilization has moved ahead. Whether it is innovation of weapons, health care, transportation, or even fossil fuel rationing, indirect good has come from wars. Direct good in the beating back of forces that had led to more bad (see above operational definition of bad) also has occured from wars. Just think of the defeat of Nazi germany.

So, is war good? Maybe. It does clear the air, can move civilization ahead, and settles conflicts. But, war must be waged in a way that allows conflicts to be settled. This means that war must be looked at with the future in mind moreso than the present. The enemy must be won to our viewpoint or crushed beyond retaliation. A "kind war" that allows the enemy to regroup, innovate and develop new tactics and strategies is not forward thinking. War should be ruthless enough that we do not enter into it halfheartedly, and should be continued until the goals are reached. If there are no adversaries, there can be no conflict.

An innovative post

I just listened to an old Noam Chomsky diatribe about innovation and why it is so important not to suppress innovation with laws. I can't believe he actually got paid to spout that crap!

Innovation that serves some higher purpose that is considered "good" is certainly worth supporting. Innovation that promotes "bad" is not necessarily worth supporting.

Those two crazies driving around in DC a few years ago had perfected an innovative way of killing innocent people...shooting thru a tiny hole in the trunk of a car. And who would have thought of locking a bomb around someone's neck and then having it self-detonate? Scott Peterson was also quite innovative in his disposal of his wife's body. I bet you know a lot of stories about bad innovations.

Innovation in an ethical vacuum is as likely to lead in a wrong direction as in a right one.

Some might see good in bad and bad in good. Some might believe that the attempt of scientists to cure cancer is a bad thing, as it would just increase the number of waste producing people on the planet or would somehow subvert natural selection. The Sierra Club might see any non-polluting action that rids us of waste producing and fossil fuel consuming humans as good, and some might say that society is to blame when a person feels so disenfranchised that he would shoot innocent people out of the trunk of a car, but I just see this type of innovation as being wrong. I can do this because I can use ethics to arrive at this conclusion. That ethics might have religious underpinnings does not disturb me.

Here is a phrase: Love thy neighbor. This does not refer to the kind of "neighborly love" we see on Desperate Housewives. This refers to seeing the other person as a person; caring about them; being of help or at least not being an enemy. How in the world can we look at the Middle East and not see the negative emotion towards Israel and Israelis? At what point in time did the Palestinians say, "Come in. Settle here! Be our neighbors and friends! We will make space for you! Boy, did you have it rough in Europe!! Let's share this land! I bet we can find a win-win solution here!" Instead, we have many innovative approaches to animosity and violence. Tossing a cripple off a cruise ship, hijacking airplanes, and suicide bombing are all really cool innovations, aren't they? And look at that crazy wall in Israel!

No, innovation is not good when it serves a bad master.

Reality vs Idealism

DocBrain was visited by a member of the Sierra Club today. The representative was trying to get DocBrain to donate to the Club by pointing out that drilling in Alaska is bad, that oil companies are bad, that nuclear energy is bad, that wind and solar energy are good, and that placing wind turbines in places that might spoil the view of Ted Kennedy is bad.

DocBrain thinks that Kennedy is bad for not walking the walk; that it is the auto manufacturers and not the oil companies who bring us vehicles that run on fossil fuel; and that money given to Alaskan citizens is less likely to wind up in the hands of terrorists. DocBrain thinks wind turbines are cool looking and would love one in his back yard. DaughterBrain has a windmill near her house. DocBrain is jealous! The Sierra Club can put one in my back yard anytime they want (as long as it doesn't violate zoning laws).

DocBrain thinks that the Sierra Club is an organization that has excellent principles, but is impractical, political, and if empowered would act dictatorially to reduce freedom, pleasure comfort, and probably your right to bear children. There is no way that wind or solar power will be sufficient in the near future for our needs. Nuclear fuel remains the one best alternative to fossil fuels in the short term. I find it paradoxical that the Sierra Club believes us to be altruistic and yet is afraid that nuclear waste might become a weapon or be left unprotected.

The failure of the Sierra Club to effectively impact America is due to it's over-the-top political leanings and it's inability to create an atmosphere of enlightened self interest. DocBrain is a tree hugger and will not support the Sierra Club.

Law as a bureaucracy

DocBrain has been helping (in a tiny way) DaughterBrain study for the Bar. DocBrain realizes that many aspects of the law are not based on anything that in any way is liberal or conservative. Many aspects of the law are based on the principle of confounding, without which, anyone could defend himself. In Pennsylvania, you can serve a person by US Mail but not by Fedex. Now, how would anyone figure that one out? Here is how. You use a lawyer or risk getting your case tossed out on a technicality. I would no more travel through a jungle without a guide than the court system without a lawyer. We need lawyers and courts. DocBrain could never be a lawyer as the intricate and bureaucratic regulations would drive him crazy. Just trying to comply with the regulations of managed care is too much!

The liberal legal paradox vs God

1. It is the law.
2. It is right because it is the law.
3. It is the law because it is right.
4. If it were wrong, it wouldn't be the law.
5. Go to 1.

This is the only liberal defense of law. It is the only way a liberal can justify any law. It is why liberals have no way of determining what is a good law from a bad one. They can only use their emotions and biases to create laws and then hide behind the pseudo-rationalism that they believe led them to that law, when, in fact, it was their religious beliefs that led them to the law in the first place. As they are anti-religious, they cannot delve into the nature of their laws without getting into a paradox. At least conservatives are honest enough to use moral codes to justify their legal forays. Here is why.

Here is a law: We should not discriminate against X.
Here is another law: We should not secretly keep Jews in our homes.

Why not? Because it is wrong! Why is it wrong?

At this point, a liberal can only go to 1-5 above without entering a paradox.

If a liberal says it is morally wrong, then you can say, "Morality is a religious concept. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"

If a liberal says it is ethically wrong, then you can say, "Ethics is the philosophical study of morals, so it indirectly reflects religion. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"

If a liberal says it is the popular thing to do, then you can say, "Most people decide in their mind about right and wrong based upon the moral codes in their heads. These codes derrive directly from religious upbringing, so in fact, they are religious in nature and reflect the religious view of the majority. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"

If a liberal says it fits with natural law, then you can say, "What we see is colored by our biases and prejudices. We see in nature only that which our preconceptions and tendencies allows us to see. Furthermore, we apply values to what we see based upon our unique, humanistic perspective. To the extent that this perspective is colored by history, psychology and emotionality, it is based upon our world view which, in fact, is the definition of religion. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"

DocBrain thinks that it is the attempt to understand the ideal, the divine, the God-like, the perfect way, that leads us to good. Good can trump law, but not without acknowedging that good exists. We can try to define good in operational terms, such as relieving suffering, conflict and ignorance, but we still are seeking good. When we seek good, we seek something that is not natural, not entirely animalistic, something that transcends common observation. We are seeking that which is transcedental. God is that which is transcedental. Seeking to go with God is what makes a people great. This fact is missed by those who would remove God from the USA. Without that concept, all is a matter of opinion; all that we have comes at the beneficence of government. We have relinquished part of our contract with the government by conceding that our innate rights do not spring from an unimpeachable source. The liberal belief in separating God from government is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

Liberals get into the confused belief that Christianity claims to own God, so they get caught up in championing other religions over Christianity or Godlessness over God, often in a perverse way. While liberals are to be congratulated in their ecumenical attempts, they should tread lightly on the concept of Godlessness or of removing God from the operations of government or from the public discourse. All of civilization is based upon summum bonum, so without ideals, it will fall apart as a house of cards.

Ethics, Morality and Religion

Can you have ethics without religion? The starting point of most ethical thought can be based upon either what people value or what is natural. What we value is based upon what we are programmed by society to value plus whatever natural instincts tell us to value. In addition, each of us has individual values and uses different heirarchies of values. So, any attempt to create a system of ethics is going to run afoul of some individuals and some societies who will have different values.

Here is an ethical puzzle: Siamese twins share one heart. Both will die unless a surgeon performs an operation. That operation will disconnect one twin from the heart and allow the other to live a long and healthy life. Twin A says "I am not afraid to die. I willingly would do so for my sibling." Twin B says "Kill my twin. I want to live." You are the surgeon. What do you do?

The concept of social science as being devoid of religion is an absurdity, as many, if not most, members of societies have religious thoughts going on inside their heads. It can be argued that animals are not contaminated by religion, although truly without proof (DocBrain's daughter's dog worships her and her husband). Nonetheless, if one assumes no religion among animals, then one could use animal behavior as "natural social science". This would suggest territorial imperitives, racism, survival by tooth and fang (knife, gun and H bomb), might making right, and no need for compassion for the less abled as being part of the course of nature.

Virtue, defined by observation of the physical world as it is, is a limited concept, open to different interpretations. There is little in the natural world to suggest that democracy, compassion for those different from ourselves, freedom, individualism, or use of our intelligence to modify nature are natural.

Ethical naturalism is a hoax. Ethics as a way of codifying what is generally accepted by most people, religions and societies as being good, right, and virtuous, as a sort of meta-religion, is what most of us think about as "ethics".

Ethics, therefore, does not tell us how many virgins will meet us in heaven, whether eating pork is bad or whether Christ died for our sins, but does tell us that we should treat others as they would like to be treated, that malice is not a good thing and that learning is important. These ethical determinations cannot conclusively be reached by observation of the natural world.

DocBrain believes that the underpinning of law is religion, either disguised or openly stated. DocBrain believes that we get into trouble when we use only one religion to determine lawfulness, but do not get into trouble if we use multiple religions to reach a common good. This is why "Blue laws" are bad, but also why separation of God from government is wrong. DocBrain believes that there are good atheists, but only because they slavishly follow traditional behavioral traits. People kill in the name of religion, but rarely in following the word of God. People also kill in the name of evolution. Like the blind men and the elephant, we must look for God in the combined wisdom of all religions. As in the previous post, God probably is more of a creator of than a provident entity, but does act through the continued presence of God's laws always being in effect.

DocBrain believes that it is extremely dangerous to separate God from good, or God from government. DocBrain does not believe that this was the intent of the Constitution of the USA or of the founding fathers. DocBrain believes that doing so clouds the mind, produces moral relativism, and moves us away from our ultimate destiny...understanding of the universe and ability to relieve suffering, ignorance and conflict in the world.

This Post was made with Intelligent Design

Natural selection is the process by which the environment chooses survival. So, unfortunately, cancer may initially respond to chemotherapy, but then a clone of cells will be resistant to the therapy and will regrow and be harder to control the next time. We see similar effects with bacteria and antibiotics with resistant strains spreading across populations. We even see it in politics, where John Edwards, resoundly defeated both within his party and by general vote, has re-emerged as more resistant to losing, but, like the bacteria or the malignant cell, no better for America. In his case, we would have to invoke intelligent design, since it is evident that Edwards has been doing his homework.

Which brings DocBrain to the question of intelligent design. Rational scientists hold theories that may be disproven. Once disproven, they move on to another theory to prove or disprove. When a creationist moves away from a theory, it is called "fall back positions" by those opposed to the idea of creation. So, when there is strong evidence that the world wasn't created in 7 days and creationists move away from that idea, they are still seen as idealogues. Creation cannot be disproved, so say the scientists, so it is not a real testable theory. I wonder if there is some universal "biological gravity", a force, perhaps explainable by physics, that moves organic processes in a specific direction. Imagine a pinball game, where balls come in from the top and bouncing here and there, eventually wind up at the bottom. This is one way of thinking about evolution. It is interesting to DocBrain that physicists are more religiously inclined than biologists. Perhaps it is because physical laws are more than the study of phenomenology.

It is also interesting that those who eschew natural intelligent design are not opposed to human intelligent design aka, genetic engineering, while many who believe in natural intelligent design are opposed to human based intelligent design. I guess it depends on who you see as being intelligent. The designing/cloning/breeding of humans who would be resistant to disease, malignancy and trauma is possible.

DocBrain also wonders where new species come from, especially where a male and a female are needed. If one organism takes a quantum leap to a new species, who or what does it breed with? And if it backbreeds, do the progeny fall half way? If so, there must have been at least one superhuman in the past. And if it is siblings that the superhuman bred with, then I guess we all owe West Virginia an apology.